From A Voice For Men:
It’s on by Paul Elam
This is probably the most important article I have ever written, and it addresses what I believe is the greatest challenge the M(H)RM has faced so far.
Victor Zen just brought us an important bit of news that I have also known about for several hours, and about which I am already getting emails. Facebook has just bowed to public pressure from feminists to start policing its pages and removing what is ostensibly called hate speech and the glorification of violence toward women.
Please don’t make the mistake of believing that this is the real agenda.
Let’s dispense with the basics first. As Zen has already pointed out, the sexism that Facebook has agreed to root out is that which is identified and defined by ideological feminists only. No MHRA perspective on the subject, or any other perspective for that matter, is relevant. Consequently the hundreds and maybe thousands of male bashing pages on the social network giant will remain, and only those pages identified as a problem by moderators “trained” by feminist ideologues will be targeted.
Unfortunately, that is not near the worst of the news.
What is happening, and it is going to happen more swiftly than you can imagine, is that just as we have seen in academia, in the military, in many workplaces and more recently in the secular community, feminists are using whatever tools are at their disposal to ensure that their narrative is the only one allowed.
To put it more bluntly, feminist ideologues are co-opting Facebook, and they will root out any and all opposition to their worldview. That will include, at some point, the AVFM Facebook page and its nearly 3,500 fans (2,000 of which have come in the past two months).
How important this is? In a word, very.
Facebook accounts for roughly 10-13% of our traffic on most days, and with a rapidly growing fan base that promises to represent a continually increasing number of actual visitors to the site.
To be honest, this does not mean that the loss of our Facebook fan page would result in a complete loss of traffic from Facebook. Many individuals post our articles on their pages, so that resultant traffic does not come directly from the fan page. But that is a minor detail when you consider the actual agenda here and its potential for harm to our community.
The machinations of these ideologues do not begin or end with Facebook. Still, as a battle ground in the ever increasing conflict between radical feminists and their opposition, it is of massive importance.
Have you ever known an ideologue to be satisfied with a victory? Where do you imagine, if they are successful at eliminating men’s rights discussion from Facebook, they will go next? Reddit? YouTube? How about Google?
Do you think they are above trying to have men’s rights websites de-listed from Google search returns? Why don’t you ask them at Norton Symantec or O2, who have already blocked nearly ALL men’s rights related websites?
If you believe that these ideologues would not seek to wipe out all opposition to their worldview from the internet, then you likely believe that the current campaign on Facebook is to simply address sexism and sexual violence against women. You will probably believe that till the day you come here and find an error message instead of a website.
This is not the somewhat comical antics of the SPLC. It is not the even more comedic histrionics of the University of Toronto Student Union. This is actually a well-planned agenda that that could ultimately deal very harsh blows to the Men’s Human Rights Movement just as it is beginning to emerge.
And we need to do something about it.
With that in mind, I am respectfully calling on all men’s organizations, father’s rights groups, men’s issues bloggers, secular organizations and anyone else concerned with free speech and evidence based solutions to social problems to take a stand on this issue and to demand that Facebook make a public commitment to the free speech of men’s rights organizations.
Facebook should also include a non-feminist anti-sexist perspective to be given equal weight when evaluating what is and is not hate speech as well as what constitutes the glorification or condoning of violence against women.
Facebook should also make a public commitment to take precisely the same measures against online misandry that they take against alleged misogyny. That commitment should include addressing the promotion of violence against men. And they should follow through with this commitment in a verifiable and measurable way. At AVFM we support free speech for all, but if it is to be abridged in any way, that abridgment should not be driven by sexism.
We are entering very, very dangerous times. Ideological feminists are witnessing the deconstruction and debunking of their theories. They are watching a once stagnant and ineffectual men’s rights movement start to gain momentum. The hegemony they have enjoyed for 50 years is under direct and long overdue attack.
They are not just going to let it happen.
So far, we have witnessed only bumbling attempts to paint us as a hate movement. Most of their efforts have simply blown up in their face. We have had more than our share of good laughs, and have been thrilled to see their hateful, disingenuous efforts result only in more growth for us.
It has been enjoyable, but it has also had the potential to make us soft. We can hardly afford that.
From this day forward, we need a directed and organized response to this problem. As we are just initiating this response, there is but a few details available now on what our efforts will be, but I will share them with you and advise you as more information becomes available.
One, I will be conducting outreach to NCFM, of which I am a member, and other similar organizations to initiate a coordinated response, and more importantly to make contact with other mainstream entities about this problem. If there ever was a time to think “the enemy of my enemy” this is it.
AVFM will establish monitoring of Facebook, to see what kinds of pages are deleted and for what reasons under the new Facebook guidelines.
This is also as good a time as any, though I wish it were under better circumstances, to announce that thanks to your donations to AVFM we have finally been able to hire Editor-in-Chief John Hembling (JTO) into a salaried position for AVFM. He is scheduled to start working for us full time on June 1, and not a day too soon. I am sure his dedicated efforts on this important matter will be invaluable.
While it is obvious that nowhere near all our plans are set, or even envisioned at this early stage of the game, it is just as clear that this is going to be a fight. It is also where you will be able to see, in clear public view, which “men’s organizations” will take a stand when it absolutely counts, or whether they have feet of clay.
Finally, as always, we have to ask you to make the real difference. When we initiate email campaigns, which we surely will, please participate, regardless of where you live. Post this article to your Facebook page and other social media. If you are on Facebook, this article is also posted right here. Come and leave a comment encouraging others to take action. If you have not “liked” our page, please do so. If you are not on Facebook, please join, and then see the previous two sentences.
Go to the Facebook page about these events now and make your opinion known, respectfully, firmly and briefly. Be prepared to give some of your time and effort more than once. More than ten times.
Dig in, folks. This is going to be a long one. If you want a men’s movement, YOU are going to have to fight for it.
Source:click here
Sounds great to me,I went to the facebook page and left my two cents. If you don't want women's groups dictating what you can see on facebook today,tomarrow they will dictate the entire net. Sound good to you? To me it sucks and I'm going to do everything I can to fight it.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Celebrate and promote false allegations awareness month
From SAVE Services:
As you make your summer plans, consider attending SAVE's annual conference in Washington, DC. on June 21 and 22.
Join us as we celebrate the progress we have made over the last year. For instance...
Think back to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) re-authorization. Do you remember the controversy? For the first time ever, there was real discussion about it's shortfalls.
Together, we did that. Our voices were heard. Now, that's something to celebrate! Attend the conference, learn what other progress we've made, and learn what we expect to celebrate next year.
Register: click here
More info: click here
Get your tickets today - Prices go up on Saturday!
See you soon,
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
and this:
June is False Allegations Awareness Month, and this year's theme is "Hold False-Accusers Accountable." We have put together a list of activities to help you educate others on false allegations of abuse. First, educate yourself with our hand-out "False Allegations by the Numbers." Then ask your local newspaper or radio station to cover the issue.
False allegations resource page.
Don't forget to post on our Facebook page for Falsely Accused, to let us know what activities you've done.
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
As you make your summer plans, consider attending SAVE's annual conference in Washington, DC. on June 21 and 22.
Join us as we celebrate the progress we have made over the last year. For instance...
Think back to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) re-authorization. Do you remember the controversy? For the first time ever, there was real discussion about it's shortfalls.
Together, we did that. Our voices were heard. Now, that's something to celebrate! Attend the conference, learn what other progress we've made, and learn what we expect to celebrate next year.
Register: click here
More info: click here
Get your tickets today - Prices go up on Saturday!
See you soon,
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
and this:
June is False Allegations Awareness Month, and this year's theme is "Hold False-Accusers Accountable." We have put together a list of activities to help you educate others on false allegations of abuse. First, educate yourself with our hand-out "False Allegations by the Numbers." Then ask your local newspaper or radio station to cover the issue.
False allegations resource page.
Don't forget to post on our Facebook page for Falsely Accused, to let us know what activities you've done.
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Tell the Camden Center to cancel Radfem 2013
From a Voice For Men:
Open Letter: Radfem 2013 at the Camden Centre by MRA London
What follows is an open letter and enquiry under the UK Freedom of Information Act to the Camden Centre Events Manager, on behalf of MRA London, concerning Radfem 2013 which is to be held at the Camden Centre in London.
The only contact information we currently have for the Camden Centre is this:
Contact the Camden Centre
We have been unable to reach them using the phone (no answer).
We will publish updates to this when we have them. Stay tuned.
May 29th, 2013.
Dear Camden Centre Events Manager,
THIS IS AN OPEN LETTER AND ENQUIRY UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000
On the 8th and 9th of June, 2013, the Camden Centre will be hosting the annual conference of Radfem, a pro-violence group whose members have a documented history of advocating harm to male infants, gendercide of half the human race, not to mention, hate toward transgender women.
The event is restricted to female attendees only.
I am writing to you on behalf of MRA London, therefore, to enquire under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the following information from you:
1. On what grounds did the Camden Centre conclude that this event, which specifically excludes people on the grounds of sex, does not breach the UK Equality Act 2010?
2. How was this decision reached, and who made it?
3. Why did the Camden Centre not require the organisers to observe the Equality Act?
With regard to the exclusionary nature of the event, the official Radfem event website states the following:
“We welcome radical feminists and those women who want to learn more about radical feminism. It is women-only because we believe that we need to organise autonomously in order to fight for our freedom from patriarchy.” [1]
Last year, the Conway Hall convention centre rejected Radfem’s 2012 booking citing the UK equality law. The London Irish Centre, the original planned venue for 2013, also rejected Radfem’s booking earlier this year. While it can be argued that certain services and events may be applicable only to one sex, the official Radfem 2013 website also states:
“We are revolutionaries, fighting for social change, and overthrowing current patriarchal systems. … Radical feminism goes to the heart of female oppression by naming male domination and violence as being responsible for women’s subordination. … Gender only exists for the benefit of men, as a class, at the expense of women, as a class.” [2]
I do not consider myself an “oppressor” and regard the implication that I am responsible for violence, domination and subordination because I was born male as egregiously offensive and a denial of my humanity. Certainly, I have never benefited at the expense of women, either as a class or individually. I, therefore, do not accept that Radfem is a legitimate female-only event because the ideology espoused by its members affects me directly and personally, along with all males, not to mention every mother of a son. These are questions for everybody, not just one sex.
I have previously attended pro-female events, such as the Women of the World Festival in 2013, which did not seek to exclude males. In fact, I found certain aspects of the experience extremely rewarding and established positive contacts with groups representing female interests. MRA London has an inclusive membership, also, and we not discriminate based on sex or gender. I put it to you, therefore, that there is no legitimate reason why Radfem should be allowed to do so. Furthermore, as a public entity that is meant to serve all members of the community, the Camden Centre should not be facilitating any agenda of ideological exclusion.
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the “No Delegation” clause of the Public Sector Equality Duty [3], in connection with third question of my enquiry under the Freedom of Information Act. The Camden Centre, as a facility provided by Camden Council, had a duty to ensure that the event organisers complied with the law. You could have, for example, required Radfem to open the attendance criteria to all human beings. Why was the Public Sector Equality Duty not observed in this case?
I look forward to receiving your reply.
Yours faithfully
Andy Thomas
MRA LONDON
References
1. http://radfem2013.moonfruit.com/#/about/
2. http://radfem2013.moonfruit.com/#/about/
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85019/equality-duty.pdf
Source:click here
Contact the Camden Center:click here
This is what I like to see. Good Ole' fashion activism. I just sent an email letting the Camden Center know that I wasn't too keen on their letting Radfem use their center. I let them know that Radfem is akin to nazism and would they let racist groups use their center? I pointed out that Radfem is a hate movement and that they should cancel their booking. There's no reason why you can't do the same.
Open Letter: Radfem 2013 at the Camden Centre by MRA London
What follows is an open letter and enquiry under the UK Freedom of Information Act to the Camden Centre Events Manager, on behalf of MRA London, concerning Radfem 2013 which is to be held at the Camden Centre in London.
The only contact information we currently have for the Camden Centre is this:
Contact the Camden Centre
We have been unable to reach them using the phone (no answer).
We will publish updates to this when we have them. Stay tuned.
May 29th, 2013.
Dear Camden Centre Events Manager,
THIS IS AN OPEN LETTER AND ENQUIRY UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000
On the 8th and 9th of June, 2013, the Camden Centre will be hosting the annual conference of Radfem, a pro-violence group whose members have a documented history of advocating harm to male infants, gendercide of half the human race, not to mention, hate toward transgender women.
The event is restricted to female attendees only.
I am writing to you on behalf of MRA London, therefore, to enquire under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the following information from you:
1. On what grounds did the Camden Centre conclude that this event, which specifically excludes people on the grounds of sex, does not breach the UK Equality Act 2010?
2. How was this decision reached, and who made it?
3. Why did the Camden Centre not require the organisers to observe the Equality Act?
With regard to the exclusionary nature of the event, the official Radfem event website states the following:
“We welcome radical feminists and those women who want to learn more about radical feminism. It is women-only because we believe that we need to organise autonomously in order to fight for our freedom from patriarchy.” [1]
Last year, the Conway Hall convention centre rejected Radfem’s 2012 booking citing the UK equality law. The London Irish Centre, the original planned venue for 2013, also rejected Radfem’s booking earlier this year. While it can be argued that certain services and events may be applicable only to one sex, the official Radfem 2013 website also states:
“We are revolutionaries, fighting for social change, and overthrowing current patriarchal systems. … Radical feminism goes to the heart of female oppression by naming male domination and violence as being responsible for women’s subordination. … Gender only exists for the benefit of men, as a class, at the expense of women, as a class.” [2]
I do not consider myself an “oppressor” and regard the implication that I am responsible for violence, domination and subordination because I was born male as egregiously offensive and a denial of my humanity. Certainly, I have never benefited at the expense of women, either as a class or individually. I, therefore, do not accept that Radfem is a legitimate female-only event because the ideology espoused by its members affects me directly and personally, along with all males, not to mention every mother of a son. These are questions for everybody, not just one sex.
I have previously attended pro-female events, such as the Women of the World Festival in 2013, which did not seek to exclude males. In fact, I found certain aspects of the experience extremely rewarding and established positive contacts with groups representing female interests. MRA London has an inclusive membership, also, and we not discriminate based on sex or gender. I put it to you, therefore, that there is no legitimate reason why Radfem should be allowed to do so. Furthermore, as a public entity that is meant to serve all members of the community, the Camden Centre should not be facilitating any agenda of ideological exclusion.
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the “No Delegation” clause of the Public Sector Equality Duty [3], in connection with third question of my enquiry under the Freedom of Information Act. The Camden Centre, as a facility provided by Camden Council, had a duty to ensure that the event organisers complied with the law. You could have, for example, required Radfem to open the attendance criteria to all human beings. Why was the Public Sector Equality Duty not observed in this case?
I look forward to receiving your reply.
Yours faithfully
Andy Thomas
MRA LONDON
References
1. http://radfem2013.moonfruit.com/#/about/
2. http://radfem2013.moonfruit.com/#/about/
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85019/equality-duty.pdf
Source:click here
Contact the Camden Center:click here
This is what I like to see. Good Ole' fashion activism. I just sent an email letting the Camden Center know that I wasn't too keen on their letting Radfem use their center. I let them know that Radfem is akin to nazism and would they let racist groups use their center? I pointed out that Radfem is a hate movement and that they should cancel their booking. There's no reason why you can't do the same.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Pete Santilli has the right to say what he did about Hillary
Emily's List is having a shit fit when Pete Santilli said what he did about Hillary Clinton,whom as Secretary Of State has killed several men by her derelection of duty. Pete Santilli has every right to say what he did. It is his first amendment right. Hillary needs to be accountable with due process. Besides where was Emily's List when this infamous episode of The Talk was broadcasted. Which is the last video. Hillary was a woman in a powerful position that got men killed. Katerine Kieu Becker's husband harmed no one yet he was physically sexually mutilated yet what Santilli had done was use words with no actions. He didn't pick up a weapon and harm Hillary unlike what Katherine Kieu Becker did to her husband. I guess to feminists unpleasant words from a man are worse than aggrevated battery from a woman.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
What wasn't published on the Spearhead
I wrote the following on the Spearhead but it wasn't published so I'll publish it here:
What are men doing to change their situation? Sitting in front of the TV watching sports solves nothing just like bitching on a message board does nothing. Political activism is where it's at. Political activism is what got 22 U.S. Senators to oppose VAWA. One of those who voted against VAWA used to support it (Senator Orinn Hatch R-Utah). We can either cry about our burden or do something to change it. I've seen a lot of campaigns where statists were defeated: SOPA and CISPA to name a couple. Conservative groups got Congress to investigate the IRS. There is no reason we can't do the same but we must act together. It is that simple. You critisize the white knights and manginas for being silent about female atrocities but if you are not an activist then you are no better than those you critisize. I don't want to hear "it can't be done" or "the illuminati won't allow it" that is defeatist crap. That is something your enemies will tell you so you don't oppose them. Are you going to listen to them? I'm not. It's real simple: do something about it or shut up.
Auntie Pheminizm said the same thing previously but I wasn't aware of his post when I wrote this. He is saying the same thing I am and I know political activism works. It works it you care enough to change your situation.
What are men doing to change their situation? Sitting in front of the TV watching sports solves nothing just like bitching on a message board does nothing. Political activism is where it's at. Political activism is what got 22 U.S. Senators to oppose VAWA. One of those who voted against VAWA used to support it (Senator Orinn Hatch R-Utah). We can either cry about our burden or do something to change it. I've seen a lot of campaigns where statists were defeated: SOPA and CISPA to name a couple. Conservative groups got Congress to investigate the IRS. There is no reason we can't do the same but we must act together. It is that simple. You critisize the white knights and manginas for being silent about female atrocities but if you are not an activist then you are no better than those you critisize. I don't want to hear "it can't be done" or "the illuminati won't allow it" that is defeatist crap. That is something your enemies will tell you so you don't oppose them. Are you going to listen to them? I'm not. It's real simple: do something about it or shut up.
Auntie Pheminizm said the same thing previously but I wasn't aware of his post when I wrote this. He is saying the same thing I am and I know political activism works. It works it you care enough to change your situation.
Monday, May 27, 2013
An open invitation to Dave Futrelle
Dave Futrelle I throw down the guantlet. Apparently female violence is invisible to Futrelle and his ilk. So I post the following:
Casey Anthony and the suffragettes:click here
Jodi Arias:click here
Mary N. Kellett:click here Corrupt prosecutor
Lorena Bobbitt:click here
Cathy Brennan:click here and here,here and here
Female misandrist tries to kill men:click here
Refute these buddy boy.
Casey Anthony and the suffragettes:click here
Jodi Arias:click here
Mary N. Kellett:click here Corrupt prosecutor
Lorena Bobbitt:click here
Cathy Brennan:click here and here,here and here
Female misandrist tries to kill men:click here
Refute these buddy boy.
Evil men and good women
Feminists claim that men are evil. Now that I think about maybe we are evil. Maybe we are the wretched gender they say we are. Maybe women are the morally superior gender after all. I mean look at the following photos of evil men and compare them to the holiness of womanhood.
Whoa. Those guys are evil and scary. Now let's look at the holiness of women.
Andrea Yates
Jodi Arias
Lorena Bobbitt
We all know that men are warmongers and women are the peaceful gender. I mean just look at the following photos.
I guess we are an evil gender that needs fixing. Perhaps we should just turn over everything to women so they can hand us this glorious future:
Whoa. Those guys are evil and scary. Now let's look at the holiness of women.
We all know that men are warmongers and women are the peaceful gender. I mean just look at the following photos.
I guess we are an evil gender that needs fixing. Perhaps we should just turn over everything to women so they can hand us this glorious future:
Sunday, May 26, 2013
My thoughts on A Voice For Men
greg
I believe that Jodi Arias should receive the same sentence that I would if I had committed this crime. I believe in equality. I am a Feminist.
Then you sir favor female supremacy because that is what feminism is. Read about it here and here.
Of course I don't expect Stacey Harvey uh er Paul Elam to say anything even though Harvey's/Elam's/whoever is running that place's post follows Greg's. Is Elam still an MRA? That is the question being asked throughout the manosphere.
Which brings up something that I've suspected but never blogged about. Regular readers of A Voice For Men remember when Paul Elam was rushed to the hospital because of a smoking related illness. It was after that that A Voice For Men started changing things and started to become more female friendly. My theroy is that Elam didn't survive his hospital stay,that he is no longer with us. My theory is that a female,Stacey Harvey is running A Voice For Men now. A Voice For Men is now gay and female friendly,gays and females are traditional enemies of the men's movement and now they're here to help us? Forgive my skeptism but that don't wash. The question remains: did they join us or infiltrate us? It was after the hospital visit that Register Her went to hell. I remember Dean Esmay saying to discontiue it (this is why I don't like moderates) which was a bad idea and before my banning I told Esmay and the others that abandonding Register Her was a bad idea,that's the problem with this movement: too many hippies and not enough punk rockers/thrash metalers. One pet peeve I had is when JTO called a feminist a "naughty little doggie". That statement is way too effeminine for my comfort and might have told us more about JTO than he may have realized. Elam/Harvey have banned all the real activists with the exception of Ray Blumhorst. They keep moderates posting there but I look at moderates as Neville Chamberlains. Yes,I know there is an article on A Voice For Men from Glen Poole from Fathers 4 Justice and I guess when questions come up you better get some real activists for men on your side and Fathers 4 Justice fits that bill. Like I said,I'm not the only one asking these questions.
I believe that Jodi Arias should receive the same sentence that I would if I had committed this crime. I believe in equality. I am a Feminist.
Then you sir favor female supremacy because that is what feminism is. Read about it here and here.
Of course I don't expect Stacey Harvey uh er Paul Elam to say anything even though Harvey's/Elam's/whoever is running that place's post follows Greg's. Is Elam still an MRA? That is the question being asked throughout the manosphere.
Which brings up something that I've suspected but never blogged about. Regular readers of A Voice For Men remember when Paul Elam was rushed to the hospital because of a smoking related illness. It was after that that A Voice For Men started changing things and started to become more female friendly. My theroy is that Elam didn't survive his hospital stay,that he is no longer with us. My theory is that a female,Stacey Harvey is running A Voice For Men now. A Voice For Men is now gay and female friendly,gays and females are traditional enemies of the men's movement and now they're here to help us? Forgive my skeptism but that don't wash. The question remains: did they join us or infiltrate us? It was after the hospital visit that Register Her went to hell. I remember Dean Esmay saying to discontiue it (this is why I don't like moderates) which was a bad idea and before my banning I told Esmay and the others that abandonding Register Her was a bad idea,that's the problem with this movement: too many hippies and not enough punk rockers/thrash metalers. One pet peeve I had is when JTO called a feminist a "naughty little doggie". That statement is way too effeminine for my comfort and might have told us more about JTO than he may have realized. Elam/Harvey have banned all the real activists with the exception of Ray Blumhorst. They keep moderates posting there but I look at moderates as Neville Chamberlains. Yes,I know there is an article on A Voice For Men from Glen Poole from Fathers 4 Justice and I guess when questions come up you better get some real activists for men on your side and Fathers 4 Justice fits that bill. Like I said,I'm not the only one asking these questions.
The tee shirt queen
Jodi Arias: turning murder into T-shirt sales
Jodi Arias butchers her boyfriend, then becomes DV advocate while awaiting possible death sentence.
Jodi Arias is very busy these days designing T-shirts that have the word “survivor” written on them and is making it well known that 100% of the proceeds from these sales will go to Domestic Violence organizations. Jodi Arias is also now a convicted first degree murderess and death qualified convict after she slashed her boyfriend Travis Alexander’s throat from ear to ear, stabbed him 29 times, and shot him in the face.
Her defense was one clearly designed by feminists who cry “domestic violence” whenever women kill, not just to get murderesses a pass, but so their organizations can continue to get more and more VAWA money.
Voilà , we give you Jodi Arias, a poor victim of domestic violence who was just defending herself.
As her T-shirt campaign suggests, Jodi is a victim and survivor of abuse and even despite her conviction, she seems content in continuing this narrative. On May 21 of 2013, Jodi had the opportunity to have her life spared in the Death Penalty phase of her trial where she gave a 19 minute appeal to jurors on why she should live. In this appeal, Jodi asked jurors to let her live so that she could continue to sell her survivor T-shirts (which she held up for the world to see) and drive money to Domestic Violence organizations.
If you find this amazing, consider that four sentences before that, Jodi told jurors that she is “still amazed that she was capable of such violence.”
When I watched this video, especially at the end where Jodi pimped out her survivor T-shirt, I envisioned millions of feminist around the world standing up and cheering for who I imagine will be their poster girl for decades to come.
Arias will be their newest, bestest reason why governments around the world should revamp the judicial system to make sure that when a woman says she is a victim of domestic violence, even a murderous butcher of a woman with no evidence that she was ever harmed, that her word alone should be taken as gold.
Jodi is the future poster child for why every man on the planet should be put into prison, neutralizing them so that women and girls can prosper. In fact, I do believe that feminists right now are developing a media campaign where Jodi Arias and her blood stained T-shirts will be used to agitate the growing base of people who believe that men and boys are natural abusers, and that women are victims even when they murder people during psychotic rages.
I also believe that the Jodi Arias saga will renew calls from feminist leaders to ramp up talks with government officials around the world that women’s rights are still under seige. To be honest, I know that Paul Elam stated that he believed Jodi Arias had a chance to be acquitted and walk out of the court room a free woman. I believed this as well because we have a long history of evidence from the courts that allow women to do unspeakable things, blame it on men, and then walk on whatever they were charged with.
Jodi’s defense team used Alyce Laviolette’s ”expert” opinion to prove that Jodi being a victim and survivor of abuse from both Travis Alexander (the dead guy) and her father, made her a killer. But what Alyce didn’t say is that Jodi mentioned in court that she suffered abuse from her Mother as well. That conveniently got left out of Ms. LaViolette’s testimony.
In her world, Ms. LaViolette has read the feminist manifesto that teaches the notion that only men beat women. It should also be noted that she made short work of blaming Travis for the fact that he is dead. I suppose she missed the victim blaming course in college.
Does anyone want to bet that Alyce LaViolette is a customer of Jodi Arias and bought one of her survivor T-Shirts? How long do you think it will be before we see women and white knights all over the world wearing these T-shirts in the name of feminism? And who wants to bet that the domestic violence industry will gladly rake in the money from these sales so they can continue to manufacture more drones that wear the hat of lobbyist? It should also be noted that Alyce LaViolette has a book out and there is little doubt in my mind that sales of her book skyrocketed because of the Jodi Arias murder trial.
If you are new to A Voice For Men, I wrote an article on this website about the Domestic Violence Industry that I believe every man and woman who has a male in their family should read.
So where is this teachable moment?
Jodi Arias’ Survivor T-Shirt Campaign Proves Domestic Violence Experts Are Insane And Unhealthy To Society
I want to make it very clear, I do believe that Jodi Arias is a victim, and it does relate to Domestic Violence, but not as a victim of violence. Professional feminists have done just a great job of conning Law Enforcement, Judges, Politicians, and a the general public into believing that “Domestic Violence,” one automatically means male on female violence.
So certain of this are we that even a psycho killer can hawk T-shirts without raising too many eyebrows.
All women have taught that they can do anything they want as a victim. They have been told, in effect, that they can harm people and then put out their hand begging for help, and expect it to be delivered.
It is much like using “best interest of the child” in order to push 85% of fathers to the outer margins of their children’s lives. Like “there is no excuse to hit a woman,” it is a statement designed to prevent an agenda, any agenda, can be pursued without interference. And, if you do attempt to rebut, you are immediately labeled as a person who wants to do harm to women and/or children.
I believe that Jodi Arias was thinking along those lines when she planned Travis Alexander’s death, knowing that she could use this claim, even after her first lies were uncovered, because she has seen many women successfully use violence as a tactical tool.
In short, feminist driven Domestic Violence theory led Jodi Arias into a false sense of security when she assumed that by using the violence card everyone in the courtroom would be so aghast that this gorgeous woman was a victim of horrible sexual and physical abuse that they would then let her walk out of court a free and famous woman that could make hundreds of millions of dollars selling her story and survivor T-Shirts.
Signs that Jodi Arias is an Insane Feminist and Unhealthy
Protecting The Real Victims Of Jodi Arias
Travis Alexander and his entire family are the true victims in this case despite many attempts by feminist Domestic Violence experts to make Jodi Arias a poster child for why women kill. Let’s hope someone with more knowledge of the Son of Sam laws finds some way to prevent these organizations from benefiting from Travis Alexander’s death and the need for Jodi Arias to capitalize on her survivor T-Shirt campaign.
A Voice For Men extends condolences to the surviving family of Travis Alexander and we want them to know that our organization is fighting people like Alyce LaViolette — and the professional radical feminists who were very much prepared to help Jodi Arias go free so that they could use Travis’ murder to drive their agenda. If any of the family members read this article and want to contact us, we are open 24 hrs a day to talk.
In an effort to help get the message out about misguided feminist governance and domestic violence laws, and to bring attention to Travis Alexander and his family, we hope that you will extensively share this article on sites like Facebook, Google+, Twitter, and other networks. Additionally, using the comment system below, our goal is to gain 400 comments focusing on your thoughts of Jodi Arias, her murder conviction, and decision to sell domestic violence survivor T-shirts as a Woman who killed her boyfriend.
Source:click here
The Men's Rights Blog also extends its sympathies to the family of Travis Alexander for their loss. Not only for the loss of Travis but the loss of the justice that was denied to them by jurors who were too stupid to see thorough Arias' lies or too cowardly to do the right thing and sentence her to death. The lead sissy,William Kervokos,who demonstrated his moral cowardice by not doing the right thing. May he be a pariah,not just in his community but all over the world. He and the other jurors who sided with him may they also be pariahs along with their families. May they suffer in shame and may they be ostrisized from their community. They are white knights/manginas and may white knights/manginas be shunned and ostrisized worldwide.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Arias jury is made up of dumbfucks
PHOENIX (AP) — They were 12 ordinary citizens who didn't oppose the death penalty. But unlike spectators outside the courthouse who followed the case like a daytime soap opera and jumped to demand Jodi Arias' execution, the jurors faced a decision that was wrenching and real, with implications that could haunt them forever.
In an interview Friday, jury foreman William Zervakos provided a glimpse into the private deliberations, describing four women and eight men who struggled with the question: How heinous of a killing deserves a similar fate?
"The system we think is flawed in that sense because this was not a case of a Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson," Zervakos told The Associated Press.
"It was a brutal no-win situation. ... I think that's kind of unfair," the 69-year-old added. "We're not lawyers. We can't interpret the law. We're mere mortals. And I will tell you I've never felt more mere as a mortal than I felt for the last five months."
Zervakos said the most difficult time of the entire trial was hearing directly from victim Travis Alexander's family as his brother and sister tearfully explained how his killing has shattered their lives.
"There was no sound in that jury room for a long time after that because you hurt so bad for these people," he said. "But that wasn't evidence. That's what made it so hard. ... This wasn't about them. This was a decision whether we're going to tell somebody they were going to be put to death or spend the rest of their life in prison."
Zervakos described a deliberations room full of tears and spinning moral compasses as each juror struggled to come to grips with their own beliefs about what factors — including Arias' young age at the time of the killing and her lack of criminal history — should cause them to show mercy and spare her life.
"You've got Travis Alexander's family devastated, that he was killed, that he was brutally killed. You've got Jodi Arias' family sitting in there, both families sitting and seeing these humiliating images and listening to unbelievably lurid private details of their lives, and you've got a woman whose life is over, too," Zervakos said. "I mean, who's winning in this situation? And we were stuck in the middle."
Zervakos declined to discuss his thoughts or those of other jurors on whether Arias should have been sentenced to death or life. But he said he was torn between her two personas: a killer and an average young woman struggling through life.
"You heard (prosecutor Juan) Martinez say she was only 27. ... She's old enough that she should have known better," Zervakos said. "I didn't look at it that way. I'm looking at 27 years of an absolutely normal everyday young woman that was living a life that was perfectly normal. Then something changed the trajectory of her life after meeting Travis Alexander, and it spiraled downhill from there."
The same jury on May 8 convicted Arias of first-degree murder in Alexander's killing, but couldn't reach a decision Thursday after about 13 hours of deliberations on whether she should live or die.
Judge Sherry Stephens was forced to declare a mistrial of the penalty phase and dismissed the panel.
A conference with the judge and attorneys is set for June 20 to determine how both sides want to proceed. In the interim, Stephens set a July 18 retrial date.
The mistrial set the stage for a whole new proceeding to determine whether the 32-year-old former waitress should get a life sentence or the death penalty for murdering Alexander five years ago.
Arias stabbed and slashed him nearly 30 times, slit his throat slit and shot him in the forehead. Prosecutors said she attacked Alexander in a jealous rage after he wanted to end their relationship and planned a trip to Mexico with another woman. Arias contends it was self-defense.
Prosecutors now have the option to take the death penalty off the table and avoid a new penalty phase. The judge would then determine whether to sentence Arias to spend her entire life behind bars, or give her life with the possibility of release after 25 years. Given Arias could not afford her own defense, taxpayers footed the bill for court-appointed attorneys at a cost so far of nearly $1.7 million, a price tag that will only balloon if the case moves forward.
Should the state decide to seek death again, jury selection alone could take months, given the difficulty of seating an impartial panel in a case that has attracted global attention and become daily cable TV and tabloid fodder with tales of sex, lies and violence, said jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius.
"Will it be impossible? No. Will it be tough? Absolutely," she said.
Dimitrius noted that jury selection in the widely publicized trial of infamous serial killer Richard Ramirez, known as the "Night Stalker," who is on death row in California, took six months as attorneys weeded through more than 2,000 prospective jurors.
If Arias faces a new penalty phase, her murder conviction would stand, leaving the new panel tasked only with sentencing her. However, the proceedings could drag on for several more months as the new jury reviews evidence and witness testimony.
If the second jury cannot reach a unanimous decision, the judge would then sentence Arias to one of the life-in-prison options. The judge cannot sentence Arias to death.
Source:click here
This asshole Zervokos should be castrated or at least punched in the face for delication of duty. In this case jury duty. Fucking wuss.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Boycott Kia for their misandric commercial
Kia Motors seems to think they will sell more cars to women if their ads include a little female-on-male abuse. In the following ad they've made the woman a human-looking robot. We think it's offensive, whether she's a robot or not.
Please contact Kia Motors today. Use whichever link is the most convenient.
Tell them you won't be buying any of their cars as long as they try to sell them with "humorous violence."
•Kia Motors: click here
•Kia on Facebook: click here
•Kia on Twitter: click here
On behalf of every victim of violence, thank you.
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Brown University stands up to rape lies
Lies, Damn Lies, and Rape Statistics
April 26, 2013 4:00 pm
Ryan Fleming
Brown is in the midst of a pandemic. All across America, colleges are cesspools of forcible sex crimes, including rape, which make the college campus one of the most dangerous places for women. According to many activists and politicians, one in every four women will experience rape or attempted rape in their college career.
The problem is so severe that the federal government has intervened with the “Safe Campuses for Women” subsection in the Violence Against Women Act of 1993. Brown itself has set up a 24-hour support line and has a full-time staff member dedicated to sexual assault prevention, along with numerous programs in Health Services. Popular campus events such as Consent Day and the recent One Billion Rising are dedicated to tackling the issue.
Brown Daily Herald opinions columnist Cara Newlon recently wrote in her piece “Don’t Rape” that despite the fact that one in four coeds are victims of rape or attempted rape, and that one in 12 male students commit these crimes, people are not talking about the subject enough.
So why is no one talking about this widespread issue? One reason is that it is not widespread. The campus rape pandemic seems to be a theory based upon poor survey methodology and repeated lies.
The Slutwalkers’ objectives are praiseworthy. Their statistics aren’t. ?
Newlon and numerous other activists make the bold claim that one in every four college women is a victim of rape or attempted rape. This number is astonishing and no doubt eyebrow-raising. To put it in perspective, in the nation’s most violent city (Detroit), the total violent crime rate was 2.1 percent in 2012. That figure includes murder, rape, assault, and robbery. If the one in four figure shouted at feminist rallies is correct, the nation is willingly sending its daughters to places with a violent crime rate several times that of the most dangerous city in the country.
The number seems even more dubious when compared to statistics put forth annually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Bureau interviews a random sampling of nearly 150,000 Americans about their criminal victimization, and in 2009 and 2010 they determined that the occurrence of rape of women was 0.23 percent and 0.21 percent, respectively.
So with the figure in mind, it is prudent to see where the one in four statistic comes from. In 1985, Ms. magazine published a study by Mary Koss in which she surveyed over 3,000 college females nationwide asking them ten questions about sexual violence. When determining whether the female was a victim of rape, Koss did not explicitly ask if she had been raped; rather, Koss used her own criteria. From her survey, she determined that 15.4 percent had been raped and 12.1 percent had been victims of attempted rape.
However, the survey came with a curious caveat: when directly asked if they had been raped, only 27 percent of the women whom Koss had determined were victims of rape answered in the affirmative. So of the highly publicized (and already exaggerated) one- in-four statistic, 73 percent of those women did not even believe they were raped, and an astonishing 35 percent had intercourse with the alleged rapist again.
The discrepancy arose from a question that asked, “have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?.” While Koss determined that this was qualified as rape, the overwhelming majority of victims did not agree.
When held up to such scrutiny, Koss’s survey holds as much water as a sieve. If one looks at the actual numbers for sexual assault on college campuses, her results seem almost laughable.
Thanks to the Clery Act, universities in America make public all reported campus crimes. This allows anyone to look at every instance of reported crimes on the campus and, in particular, all incidents of sexual violence. I decided to take a look at the reported violent sexual crimes for Brown, and fortunately for women but perhaps disappointing for feminists, the result came nowhere near Koss’s figures. For the past three years, the average number of reported forcible sex offenses (which range from groping of private parts to penetration) was 8.66. The number varied from as low as seven to as high as 10. With an estimated 3,141 female undergraduates, 0.28 percent are victims of reported sexual violence each year. This is inconsistent with the one in four statistic, but on par with the national average.
I wondered if Brown was unique in avoiding the campus rape pandemic, and perhaps Consent Day and SlutWalk had managed to temper our desire to rape on College Hill, so I consulted statistics for Providence College and the University of Rhode Island. Their respective three-year averages were 0.08 percent and 0.18 percent. It seems that nowhere in Rhode Island are women raped as often as feminists maintain. So what is the problem with the myth of the campus rape pandemic? Even if women aren’t being violated as often as stated, what is the harm in raising awareness? Women are told they are going into college with aone in four chance of being raped, which is no doubt extremely terrifying. It makes the adjustment to college scarier than it needs to be, and it makes women fearful of any guy’s intentions. These absurd statistics make every man a potential rapist.
More dangerous, though, is that when these statistics came out, they frightened elected officials into giving universities vast authority in handling rape cases, thanks to Title IX and other documents like the recent “Dear Colleague” letter. This unreasonable amount of power bestowed on universities led to situations like the 2006 William McCormick case, in which Brown knowingly expelled a student for a rape that he did not commit.
Situations like that are unacceptable, and it is even more lamentable when they come about from perpetuated myths that people continue to shout at rallies without ever looking into the facts. So from now on, the “one in four” chant should be abandoned and replaced with the more appropriate, albeit less catchy, 1 in 400.
Source:click here
April 26, 2013 4:00 pm
Ryan Fleming
Brown is in the midst of a pandemic. All across America, colleges are cesspools of forcible sex crimes, including rape, which make the college campus one of the most dangerous places for women. According to many activists and politicians, one in every four women will experience rape or attempted rape in their college career.
The problem is so severe that the federal government has intervened with the “Safe Campuses for Women” subsection in the Violence Against Women Act of 1993. Brown itself has set up a 24-hour support line and has a full-time staff member dedicated to sexual assault prevention, along with numerous programs in Health Services. Popular campus events such as Consent Day and the recent One Billion Rising are dedicated to tackling the issue.
Brown Daily Herald opinions columnist Cara Newlon recently wrote in her piece “Don’t Rape” that despite the fact that one in four coeds are victims of rape or attempted rape, and that one in 12 male students commit these crimes, people are not talking about the subject enough.
So why is no one talking about this widespread issue? One reason is that it is not widespread. The campus rape pandemic seems to be a theory based upon poor survey methodology and repeated lies.
The Slutwalkers’ objectives are praiseworthy. Their statistics aren’t. ?
Newlon and numerous other activists make the bold claim that one in every four college women is a victim of rape or attempted rape. This number is astonishing and no doubt eyebrow-raising. To put it in perspective, in the nation’s most violent city (Detroit), the total violent crime rate was 2.1 percent in 2012. That figure includes murder, rape, assault, and robbery. If the one in four figure shouted at feminist rallies is correct, the nation is willingly sending its daughters to places with a violent crime rate several times that of the most dangerous city in the country.
The number seems even more dubious when compared to statistics put forth annually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Bureau interviews a random sampling of nearly 150,000 Americans about their criminal victimization, and in 2009 and 2010 they determined that the occurrence of rape of women was 0.23 percent and 0.21 percent, respectively.
So with the figure in mind, it is prudent to see where the one in four statistic comes from. In 1985, Ms. magazine published a study by Mary Koss in which she surveyed over 3,000 college females nationwide asking them ten questions about sexual violence. When determining whether the female was a victim of rape, Koss did not explicitly ask if she had been raped; rather, Koss used her own criteria. From her survey, she determined that 15.4 percent had been raped and 12.1 percent had been victims of attempted rape.
However, the survey came with a curious caveat: when directly asked if they had been raped, only 27 percent of the women whom Koss had determined were victims of rape answered in the affirmative. So of the highly publicized (and already exaggerated) one- in-four statistic, 73 percent of those women did not even believe they were raped, and an astonishing 35 percent had intercourse with the alleged rapist again.
The discrepancy arose from a question that asked, “have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?.” While Koss determined that this was qualified as rape, the overwhelming majority of victims did not agree.
When held up to such scrutiny, Koss’s survey holds as much water as a sieve. If one looks at the actual numbers for sexual assault on college campuses, her results seem almost laughable.
Thanks to the Clery Act, universities in America make public all reported campus crimes. This allows anyone to look at every instance of reported crimes on the campus and, in particular, all incidents of sexual violence. I decided to take a look at the reported violent sexual crimes for Brown, and fortunately for women but perhaps disappointing for feminists, the result came nowhere near Koss’s figures. For the past three years, the average number of reported forcible sex offenses (which range from groping of private parts to penetration) was 8.66. The number varied from as low as seven to as high as 10. With an estimated 3,141 female undergraduates, 0.28 percent are victims of reported sexual violence each year. This is inconsistent with the one in four statistic, but on par with the national average.
I wondered if Brown was unique in avoiding the campus rape pandemic, and perhaps Consent Day and SlutWalk had managed to temper our desire to rape on College Hill, so I consulted statistics for Providence College and the University of Rhode Island. Their respective three-year averages were 0.08 percent and 0.18 percent. It seems that nowhere in Rhode Island are women raped as often as feminists maintain. So what is the problem with the myth of the campus rape pandemic? Even if women aren’t being violated as often as stated, what is the harm in raising awareness? Women are told they are going into college with aone in four chance of being raped, which is no doubt extremely terrifying. It makes the adjustment to college scarier than it needs to be, and it makes women fearful of any guy’s intentions. These absurd statistics make every man a potential rapist.
More dangerous, though, is that when these statistics came out, they frightened elected officials into giving universities vast authority in handling rape cases, thanks to Title IX and other documents like the recent “Dear Colleague” letter. This unreasonable amount of power bestowed on universities led to situations like the 2006 William McCormick case, in which Brown knowingly expelled a student for a rape that he did not commit.
Situations like that are unacceptable, and it is even more lamentable when they come about from perpetuated myths that people continue to shout at rallies without ever looking into the facts. So from now on, the “one in four” chant should be abandoned and replaced with the more appropriate, albeit less catchy, 1 in 400.
Source:click here
Thursday, May 16, 2013
On changes
There aren't going to be any. In fact I would love to double the activism and quarter the misandry. Those are the only changes I see worth being made. Let the questions begin.
Masc,there are women who read this blog. Shouldn't you take their sensetivities into consideration?
No,they came to my board,my area I didn't go to theirs. I'm not toning a fucking thing down for anyone. The problem is that some "MRA's?" tone it down,diluting the message and the message is dismissed. I'm not going to let that happen. Too many times guys get sweet talked by women into toning down the message until it is no longer effective. Irlandes warned us of this and he is right. I've seen the problem and I don't want to be part of it.
If changes were beneficial to the movement would you make them?
Yes,I would. I think that Register Her at A Voice For Men is a great idea and I would like it to be activated and updated. It was a very powerful tool against the feminists and they feared it. If I ran A Voice for Men it would up,running and kept up to date.
Where is the movement right now?
We're at a crossroads. We've come a long way and we need to use what works. I've always found that political activism works. If you help pass laws that benefit you and help defeat those that hurt you you live a lot better. That is what the feminists did. There is no reason we can't do the same.
what's a hinderance to men?
Rugged individualism especially the individual part. We need to work as a team or we will be defeated. That is the way it is.
Masc,there are women who read this blog. Shouldn't you take their sensetivities into consideration?
No,they came to my board,my area I didn't go to theirs. I'm not toning a fucking thing down for anyone. The problem is that some "MRA's?" tone it down,diluting the message and the message is dismissed. I'm not going to let that happen. Too many times guys get sweet talked by women into toning down the message until it is no longer effective. Irlandes warned us of this and he is right. I've seen the problem and I don't want to be part of it.
If changes were beneficial to the movement would you make them?
Yes,I would. I think that Register Her at A Voice For Men is a great idea and I would like it to be activated and updated. It was a very powerful tool against the feminists and they feared it. If I ran A Voice for Men it would up,running and kept up to date.
Where is the movement right now?
We're at a crossroads. We've come a long way and we need to use what works. I've always found that political activism works. If you help pass laws that benefit you and help defeat those that hurt you you live a lot better. That is what the feminists did. There is no reason we can't do the same.
what's a hinderance to men?
Rugged individualism especially the individual part. We need to work as a team or we will be defeated. That is the way it is.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Dismal turnout for runoff elections
My California correspondant weighs in with the following:
SENATE ELECTION: Norma Torres beats Paul Leon for Inland seat
BY JIM MILLER |
SACRAMENTO BUREAU |
May 14, 2013; 08:26 PM |
SACRAMENTO – Assemblywoman Norma Torres defeated Ontario Mayor Paul Leon in Tuesday’s special election to fill a vacancy in the state Senate seat that extends from Pomona to San Bernardino. In another vote with anemic turnout, Torres, D-Pomona, opened a significant lead over Leon, a Republican, shortly after polls closed. With all precincts reporting, she had 59.4 percent of the vote to Leon’s 40.6 percent.
Torres will serve out the almost 19 months remaining on the term of former state Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod. The Chino Democrat resigned her 32nd Senate District seat in January to go to Congress. Torres will run for re-election in the redrawn 20th Senate District. That seat is similar to the 32nd, but includes Chino and excludes all but about one-third of San Bernardino.
Torres and Leon were the top finishers in a six-candidate special primary election in March. The Pomona Democrat was the strong favorite leading up to the special election in the 32nd, where Democrats have a 23-percentage point advantage and historically have won handily. Besides the district’s strong Democratic leanings, Torres outraised Leon by more than two-to-one. She also benefited from more than $472,000 in spending by independent groups since January.
Torres, who was a bilingual emergency dispatcher before her election to the Assembly in 2008, received 44 percent of the vote in March. She won all but one of the precincts in the 32nd’s Pomona portion and two-thirds of the precincts in the district’s San Bernardino County portion. Leon is a longtime local elected official and received 26.4 percent of the votes in March. He received the most votes in about a quarter of the district’s precincts.
A little more than 9 percent of voters participated in the March 12 special primary election. Torres topped four Democrats, including San Bernardino Auditor-Controller Larry Walker, who finished a distant third behind Leon.
As of late Tuesday evening, turnout stood at about 9.7 percent.
Torres’ win means Democrats will have 28 seats in the Senate upon her swearing-in, one shy of what they held in December but one more than the two-thirds majority needed to pass tax measures, place initiatives on the ballot, and take other actions without Republican votes. There is another Senate special election next week. There likely will be another vacancy soon, though, with state Sen. Curren Price, D-Los Angeles, the favorite to win next week’s runoff for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council.
The election is good news for Torres but it means San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties will have to pay for at least one, and possibly two, more special elections to fill her Assembly seat. The Democratic-leaning 52nd Assembly District includes Pomona, Ontario and Chino.
Source:here
In case you forgot or this is the first time you're learning of this click here and it will make sense. Under 10% turnout. That says something.
SENATE ELECTION: Norma Torres beats Paul Leon for Inland seat
BY JIM MILLER |
SACRAMENTO BUREAU |
May 14, 2013; 08:26 PM |
SACRAMENTO – Assemblywoman Norma Torres defeated Ontario Mayor Paul Leon in Tuesday’s special election to fill a vacancy in the state Senate seat that extends from Pomona to San Bernardino. In another vote with anemic turnout, Torres, D-Pomona, opened a significant lead over Leon, a Republican, shortly after polls closed. With all precincts reporting, she had 59.4 percent of the vote to Leon’s 40.6 percent.
Torres will serve out the almost 19 months remaining on the term of former state Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod. The Chino Democrat resigned her 32nd Senate District seat in January to go to Congress. Torres will run for re-election in the redrawn 20th Senate District. That seat is similar to the 32nd, but includes Chino and excludes all but about one-third of San Bernardino.
Torres and Leon were the top finishers in a six-candidate special primary election in March. The Pomona Democrat was the strong favorite leading up to the special election in the 32nd, where Democrats have a 23-percentage point advantage and historically have won handily. Besides the district’s strong Democratic leanings, Torres outraised Leon by more than two-to-one. She also benefited from more than $472,000 in spending by independent groups since January.
Torres, who was a bilingual emergency dispatcher before her election to the Assembly in 2008, received 44 percent of the vote in March. She won all but one of the precincts in the 32nd’s Pomona portion and two-thirds of the precincts in the district’s San Bernardino County portion. Leon is a longtime local elected official and received 26.4 percent of the votes in March. He received the most votes in about a quarter of the district’s precincts.
A little more than 9 percent of voters participated in the March 12 special primary election. Torres topped four Democrats, including San Bernardino Auditor-Controller Larry Walker, who finished a distant third behind Leon.
As of late Tuesday evening, turnout stood at about 9.7 percent.
Torres’ win means Democrats will have 28 seats in the Senate upon her swearing-in, one shy of what they held in December but one more than the two-thirds majority needed to pass tax measures, place initiatives on the ballot, and take other actions without Republican votes. There is another Senate special election next week. There likely will be another vacancy soon, though, with state Sen. Curren Price, D-Los Angeles, the favorite to win next week’s runoff for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council.
The election is good news for Torres but it means San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties will have to pay for at least one, and possibly two, more special elections to fill her Assembly seat. The Democratic-leaning 52nd Assembly District includes Pomona, Ontario and Chino.
Source:here
In case you forgot or this is the first time you're learning of this click here and it will make sense. Under 10% turnout. That says something.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
From and about a voice for men
OneHundredPercentCotton in reply to Kimski
You are talking to the wrong person here. As a women I felt obligated to enlist and serve my country – it was my country that betrayed me, not the other way around.
I would take up arms and serve again today to spare my sons from having to.
Source:here
How did your country betray you? I would have loved to respond to this comment but Paul Elam banned me. Why did he ban me? Because of this. I guess what I said was too much for Stacey Harvey uh em I mean Paul Elam.
Nightwing1029 in reply to justicehead
As someone else who is out near LA, I will only slightly agree that is the case.
They work together. However, in my dealings with Police/Sheriffs agencies, I do know that MOST of them do their best to get the job done right.
I ran this one past my California correspondant and he told me that the LA County Sheriff's are very corrupt and they plot revenge when they lose cases. He told me there are criminal gangs inside the Sheriff's department,that they are no better than the outlaw gangs.
justicehead
I’m hoping that the Shivers case, and the fact that a celebrity is involved, will finally force the public to see prosecutors more clearly. When it is fully known what prosecutors were getting away with under Delgadillo, Trutanich, and Cooley, there might be some progress
I heard Gil Garcetti was a lot worse for men.
Who's running A Voice For Men? I mean the place goes through changes every few days,like a woman accesorizing her outfits and they now use the word "misogynist" that left me wondering what is up and a lot of other MRA's are wondering the same thing. It used to be a place where men could vent about women but now that there are women in charge at A Voice For Men that is now verbottten. Going after Kellett and other misandrists is great but tell us the real deal. Reister Her has not been updated,Brian Banks accuser is not on it and that was a very powerful tool against feminists. The activism is dying off. What's the real deal,avfm,what's the real deal? A lot of us would like to know.
You are talking to the wrong person here. As a women I felt obligated to enlist and serve my country – it was my country that betrayed me, not the other way around.
I would take up arms and serve again today to spare my sons from having to.
Source:here
How did your country betray you? I would have loved to respond to this comment but Paul Elam banned me. Why did he ban me? Because of this. I guess what I said was too much for Stacey Harvey uh em I mean Paul Elam.
Nightwing1029 in reply to justicehead
As someone else who is out near LA, I will only slightly agree that is the case.
They work together. However, in my dealings with Police/Sheriffs agencies, I do know that MOST of them do their best to get the job done right.
I ran this one past my California correspondant and he told me that the LA County Sheriff's are very corrupt and they plot revenge when they lose cases. He told me there are criminal gangs inside the Sheriff's department,that they are no better than the outlaw gangs.
justicehead
I’m hoping that the Shivers case, and the fact that a celebrity is involved, will finally force the public to see prosecutors more clearly. When it is fully known what prosecutors were getting away with under Delgadillo, Trutanich, and Cooley, there might be some progress
I heard Gil Garcetti was a lot worse for men.
Who's running A Voice For Men? I mean the place goes through changes every few days,like a woman accesorizing her outfits and they now use the word "misogynist" that left me wondering what is up and a lot of other MRA's are wondering the same thing. It used to be a place where men could vent about women but now that there are women in charge at A Voice For Men that is now verbottten. Going after Kellett and other misandrists is great but tell us the real deal. Reister Her has not been updated,Brian Banks accuser is not on it and that was a very powerful tool against feminists. The activism is dying off. What's the real deal,avfm,what's the real deal? A lot of us would like to know.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
The Kellett case goes to the Maine Supreme Judical Court
In 2011, SAVE filed a 9-page ethics complaint with the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar alleging numerous instances of prosecutor misconduct by Hancock County prosecutor Mary N. Kellett.
Now, the state ethics board has issued a report concluding that Kellett did, in fact, engage in multiple counts of prosecutorial misconduct arising from the 2009 assault trial of Vladek Filler.
The ethical violations include ignoring a court order, misleading members of a jury, evidence suppression, and indulging in "conduct unworthy of an attorney."
The report petitions the Maine Supreme Judicial Board to impose "appropriate disciplinary sanction" on assistant district attorney Kellett. We agree, and we bet you do too.
For Vladek, and for every person falsely accused, please call the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Tell them that you want to make sure that justice is done with Kellett.
•Maine Supreme Judicial Court •(207) 822-4146
Let's do our part to restore prosecutor integrity.
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Save Services complaint against Mary N. Kellett
Vladek Filler's website which details the injustice he endured
Donate to SAVE Services
Now, the state ethics board has issued a report concluding that Kellett did, in fact, engage in multiple counts of prosecutorial misconduct arising from the 2009 assault trial of Vladek Filler.
The ethical violations include ignoring a court order, misleading members of a jury, evidence suppression, and indulging in "conduct unworthy of an attorney."
The report petitions the Maine Supreme Judicial Board to impose "appropriate disciplinary sanction" on assistant district attorney Kellett. We agree, and we bet you do too.
For Vladek, and for every person falsely accused, please call the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Tell them that you want to make sure that justice is done with Kellett.
•Maine Supreme Judicial Court •(207) 822-4146
Let's do our part to restore prosecutor integrity.
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Save Services complaint against Mary N. Kellett
Vladek Filler's website which details the injustice he endured
Donate to SAVE Services
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)