Councils pay for prostitutes for the disabled
Taxpayers' money is being spent on prostitutes, lap dancing clubs and exotic holidays under schemes designed to give more independence to the disabled.
Red light district in Amsterdam: Councils pay for prostitutes, exotic holidays and trips to lap dancing clubs for the disabled
One local authority is using its budget to pay for the services of a prostitute in Amsterdam, while others have said visits to lap dancing clubs are permissible under new policies which transfer funds directly to those who receive care from social services.
Holidays abroad, subscriptions for internet dating and driving lessons have all been funded by the taxpayer under a national initiative introduced by the last Government.
The £520 million scheme promised to give elderly people and those with disabilities more control over the care they received, by passing on cash so individuals could choose the services they needed, such as home help, or mobility aids.
An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph can disclose that exotic holidays, internet dating subscriptions and adventure breaks, as well as visits to sex workers and lap dancing clubs have been permitted under the system.
One local authority has agreed a care plan including payment for a 21-year-old with learning disabilities to have sex with a prostitute in Amsterdam next month.
His social worker, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said social services were there to identify and meet the needs of their clients – which, in the case of an angry and frustrated young man, meant paying for sex.
Another care worker said staff at her council had been told that trips to lap dancing clubs could be funded, if it could be argued that it would help the "mental and physical well being" of their client.
In response to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, four local authorities describe themselves as "condoning" the payment of sex workers by disabled clients, using money transferred from their budgets.
Other councils said they took no moral judgement about the use of funds, but said care money could be spent on anything, as long as it was not illegal.
Paying for sex is not against the law but soliciting sexual services, kerb crawling and paying for sex with women who have been coerced into prostitution is.
In Greater Manchester and Norfolk, councils say payments to social care clients can be used to pay for internet dating subscriptions.
In the course of 12 months, one man with mental health problems from Norwich received a holiday in Tunisia, a subscription to an internet dating site, driving lessons, and expensive art materials.
Department of Health documents describe how the man received the funding on top of his state benefits, after suffering from psychiatric problems when his wife asked for a divorce.
In the report on his case, the man says he needed "some time out, some rest and a change of scenery" after suffering marital problems and says the break in Tunisia with a friend was cheaper than a week in institutional care.
Trafford council, in Greater Manchester, says its budgets cannot be spent on anything illegal, or anything that would bring the council into disrepute. It suggests personal budgets could be used for holidays, adventure breaks, subscriptions to dating agencies, horse riding or to buy a pet.
The FOI survey, by The Outsiders and TLC Trusts – two groups which campaign for the sexual rights of people with disabilities – found most local authorities said they did not "condone" transfer of their funds to pay for sex.
But of 121 councils who responded, 97 per cent said they had no policy on the topic, allowing discretion for social workers and junior managers about how to manage such requests.
Several councils contacted by this newspaper said they did not know if they had ever funded visits by disabled people to sex workers.
Stockton-on-Tees borough council said it did not think it had funded sex workers for clients. A spokesman said people "in receipt of our care can do whatever they wish, though we would not condone or be involved in anything illegal".
A spokeswoman for Knowsley council said requests for funding to access sexual services would be "looked at on a case by case nature".
Doncaster council said that so far it had not funded any requests for sexual services, but said future decisions would depends on the needs of the individual.
Norfolk county council said it did not believe it had funded any visits to sex workers, but Di Croot, assistant team manager for learning disabilities in North Norfolk said such requests would be looked on "favourably" with staff encouraged to be "as free thinking as possible" about how to ensure all the needs of clients were met.
Zoe Grace Cozens, who wrote the council's policy on learning disability and sexuality, said the authority also had a duty of care to ensure that those with learning disabilities were not being exploited financially, if they paid for prostitutes from their own money.
"That could mean care workers phoning to check what rate sex workers were charging," she added.
Belinda Schwer, a legal consultant who advises councils, said many local authorities agreed support plans for clients which did not specify how funds would be used, once they passed out of their hands.
"From what I have seen, at least one quarter of local authorities are doing support plans which only state what outcome should be achieved – not which services are being employed."
In the case of someone given funds to go to a sex worker, such documents might set out an intended emotional outcome, rather than the means by which it was achieved, she suggested. "If you have got a happy and calm person who was previously frustrated and angry, that might achieve a good outcome, but the case law says councils should be setting out which services are being used," she said.
Neil Coyle, director of policy at Disability Alliance, said most people with disabilities did not want or expect the state to pay for sexual services.
He said: "When people go to councils for help, they are looking for essential services to maintain some level of dignified existence – help to dress and wash. Given that councils have been drawing the most basic support from those who need it, I do not think this is the biggest concern of people with disabilities."
Liz Sayce, chief executive of disability network Radar, said the desire for sexual relations was a matter of human rights, meaning cases involving payments should be carefully examined on a "case by case" basis.
Matthew Elliot, chief executive of The Taxpayers’ Alliance said it was “deeply worrying” that public money had been spent on the services of prostitutes, lapdancing clubs and to pay for holidays.
He said: “Many taxpayers will be appalled and offended that money intended for social care has been used in this way. What's more, it’s deeply worrying that this scheme has been so vulnerable to these abuses. It’s essential that where public funds are involved, there are the sort of checks and balances in place that prevent money being wasted in this way”.
Source
It sounds like someone is catching on to men's needs and taking our mental health into consideration. Hats off to those that came up with this plan. It's about time the government did something for men instead of screwing us over like they usually do. May this catch on on a global basis.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Thursday, February 27, 2014
FIRE denounces SB 967
FIRE Statement on California “Affirmative Consent” Bill
By FIRE on February 13, 2014
Campuses nationwide are struggling to combat sexual assault while respecting civil liberties. However well-intentioned, California’s Senate Bill 967, introduced by Senators Kevin de León and Hannah-Beth Jackson, is a serious step in the wrong direction.
In recent years, legal complaints regarding the response to allegations of sexual assault on our nation’s campuses have proliferated. The majority of these complaints have been filed by students who believe that their campuses failed to properly respond to reports of sexual assault. Of late, an increasing number of accused students have also sought legal recourse, alleging that campus tribunals unjustly held them responsible for an offense that constitutes a grave felony off campus. Unifying the complaints from both sides is a deep frustration with the administration of campus policies and practices.
While campus administrators are in many cases doing their best, they are neither qualified nor equipped to respond properly to sexual assault allegations. Student conduct administrators simply lack the investigative ability, impartiality, professional training, and legal knowledge required to reliably adjudicate sexual assault cases. This is no surprise; sexual assault allegations are among the most difficult to handle even for the criminal justice system, which possesses far greater resources and expertise. Yet instead of recognizing that college administrators are unqualified to serve as investigators, finders of fact, and sentencing authorities in campus sexual assault cases, SB 967 entrusts them with still greater responsibility. Injustice will inevitably be the result.
SB 967 codifies the use of the low “preponderance of the evidence” standard (50.01% likelihood) in sexual assault cases on campus. While this standard is used in most civil lawsuits, the reality is that civil lawsuits and college sexual assault proceedings differ in several critical ways that make the preponderance standard inappropriate for campus hearings. First, those facing civil penalties in real courts under the preponderance standard are afforded many fundamental protections that are typically absent from campus tribunals, including impartial judges, unbiased juries of one’s peers, representation by counsel, mandatory “discovery” processes to ensure that all parties have access to relevant information, restrictions on unreliable evidence like hearsay or prior bad acts, and sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. Those accused in campus tribunals are generally denied these protections—but nevertheless are subject to life-changing sanctions based on nothing more than a feeling by campus court participants that they believe one person’s story slightly more. Second, the preponderance standard is inappropriate in light of the considerable ramifications of being labeled a rapist on a student’s educational, professional, and personal prospects. Whereas defendants in civil lawsuits have the option to settle out-of-court and keep the matter private, students found guilty by campus tribunals have no such option, virtually guaranteeing that a negative outcome will have a lifelong effect. By codifying the use of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in campus sexual assault hearings, SB 967 erodes a crucial due process protection for students accused of serious criminal conduct.
Further, SB 967 massively compounds the problem of determining whether a sexual assault has occurred by mandating “affirmative consent,” a confusing and legally unworkable standard for consent to sexual activity.
Affirmative consent posits that sexual activity is sexual assault unless the non-initiating party’s consent is, as SB 967 puts it, “expressed either by words or clear, unambiguous actions.” (Indeed, as a practical matter, only explicit verbal communications are acceptable; the bill warns that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding.”) Consent must be continuous and “present throughout sexual activity”; if “confusion” over consent arises, “it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved.” The bill forbids the accused from pleading confusion over consent as a defense if he or she “did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.”
Should SB 967 become law, there will be no practical, fair, or consistent way for colleges (or, for that matter, courts) to ensure that these newly mandated prerequisites for sexual intercourse are followed. It is impracticable for the government to require students to obtain affirmative consent at each stage of a physical encounter, and to later prove that attainment in a campus hearing. Under this mandate, a student could be found guilty of sexual assault and deemed a rapist simply by being unable to prove she or he obtained explicit verbal consent to every sexual activity throughout a sexual encounter. In reality, SB 967 would render a great deal of legal sexual activity into “sexual assault” and imperil the futures of all students across California.
We note that the concept of affirmative consent was first brought to national attention when it was adopted by Ohio’s historic Antioch College in the early 1990s. When news of the college’s policy became public in 1993, the practical difficulty of adhering to the policy prompted national ridicule so widespread that it was lampooned on Saturday Night Live. (Indeed, the fallout from the policy’s adoption has been cited as a factor in the college’s decline and eventual closing in 2007. It has since reopened.) The awkwardness of enforcing “affirmative consent” rules upon the reality of human sexual behavior has continued to be a popular subject for comedy by television shows such as Chappelle’s Show and New Girl. The humor found in the profound disconnect between the policy’s bureaucratic requirements for sexual interaction and human sexuality as a lived and various experience underscores the serious difficulty that passage of SB 967 would present to campus administrators across California.
FIRE harbors additional concerns about other aspects of the bill. For example, SB 967 in several places refers to students alleging sexual assault as “victims,” effectively presuming accused students’ guilt instead of innocence. The bill does have the positive feature of encouraging colleges to work with outside groups to “make services available to victims, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, and legal assistance,” but California colleges are free to take these steps already and should be encouraged to do so regardless of the disposition of SB 967.
A recent survey found that just 14% of Americans believe that colleges do a “good job” of handling reports of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. This distressing result is a symptom of the demonstrated inability of campus administrators to effectively and fairly adjudicate allegations of sexual assault, a failure documented by headline after headline in media outlets nationwide. Colleges have a vital role to play in ensuring the well-being of their students; they should be well-equipped to provide resources and counseling to students reporting sexual assault and to take necessary administrative action while criminal complaints are pending. To the extent that the criminal justice system ill-serves sexual assault victims, changes to that system should be considered so that Californians both on and off campus can benefit. But rather than fixing the readily apparent deficiencies of the current campus response to sexual assault, passage of SB 967 will worsen the problems. Indeed, SB 967 would inevitably usher in further litigation from all parties involved, exposing an over-stressed campus judicial system to still more liability and expense.
FIRE hopes California lawmakers will take our concerns, and the concerns of civil libertarians more generally, into consideration as they evaluate SB 967.
Source
SB 967 is in committee at the moment however we should remind California politicians that this is an unfair and unconstitutional bill. You can contact the California legislature: Senate and Assembly. If you are a California resident contact your elected representatives in both houses. If you are not contact the leaders of both houses and tell them you won't do business with the state or any businesses in California or tell them you won't vacation nor spend money in California. If you are a California resident or not you can contact the Governor. Tell him your displeasure about SB 967 and that you want him to veto it if it comes before him or you won't spend your money in California. This is a horrible bill and must be nipped in the bud.
By FIRE on February 13, 2014
Campuses nationwide are struggling to combat sexual assault while respecting civil liberties. However well-intentioned, California’s Senate Bill 967, introduced by Senators Kevin de León and Hannah-Beth Jackson, is a serious step in the wrong direction.
In recent years, legal complaints regarding the response to allegations of sexual assault on our nation’s campuses have proliferated. The majority of these complaints have been filed by students who believe that their campuses failed to properly respond to reports of sexual assault. Of late, an increasing number of accused students have also sought legal recourse, alleging that campus tribunals unjustly held them responsible for an offense that constitutes a grave felony off campus. Unifying the complaints from both sides is a deep frustration with the administration of campus policies and practices.
While campus administrators are in many cases doing their best, they are neither qualified nor equipped to respond properly to sexual assault allegations. Student conduct administrators simply lack the investigative ability, impartiality, professional training, and legal knowledge required to reliably adjudicate sexual assault cases. This is no surprise; sexual assault allegations are among the most difficult to handle even for the criminal justice system, which possesses far greater resources and expertise. Yet instead of recognizing that college administrators are unqualified to serve as investigators, finders of fact, and sentencing authorities in campus sexual assault cases, SB 967 entrusts them with still greater responsibility. Injustice will inevitably be the result.
SB 967 codifies the use of the low “preponderance of the evidence” standard (50.01% likelihood) in sexual assault cases on campus. While this standard is used in most civil lawsuits, the reality is that civil lawsuits and college sexual assault proceedings differ in several critical ways that make the preponderance standard inappropriate for campus hearings. First, those facing civil penalties in real courts under the preponderance standard are afforded many fundamental protections that are typically absent from campus tribunals, including impartial judges, unbiased juries of one’s peers, representation by counsel, mandatory “discovery” processes to ensure that all parties have access to relevant information, restrictions on unreliable evidence like hearsay or prior bad acts, and sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. Those accused in campus tribunals are generally denied these protections—but nevertheless are subject to life-changing sanctions based on nothing more than a feeling by campus court participants that they believe one person’s story slightly more. Second, the preponderance standard is inappropriate in light of the considerable ramifications of being labeled a rapist on a student’s educational, professional, and personal prospects. Whereas defendants in civil lawsuits have the option to settle out-of-court and keep the matter private, students found guilty by campus tribunals have no such option, virtually guaranteeing that a negative outcome will have a lifelong effect. By codifying the use of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in campus sexual assault hearings, SB 967 erodes a crucial due process protection for students accused of serious criminal conduct.
Further, SB 967 massively compounds the problem of determining whether a sexual assault has occurred by mandating “affirmative consent,” a confusing and legally unworkable standard for consent to sexual activity.
Affirmative consent posits that sexual activity is sexual assault unless the non-initiating party’s consent is, as SB 967 puts it, “expressed either by words or clear, unambiguous actions.” (Indeed, as a practical matter, only explicit verbal communications are acceptable; the bill warns that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding.”) Consent must be continuous and “present throughout sexual activity”; if “confusion” over consent arises, “it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved.” The bill forbids the accused from pleading confusion over consent as a defense if he or she “did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.”
Should SB 967 become law, there will be no practical, fair, or consistent way for colleges (or, for that matter, courts) to ensure that these newly mandated prerequisites for sexual intercourse are followed. It is impracticable for the government to require students to obtain affirmative consent at each stage of a physical encounter, and to later prove that attainment in a campus hearing. Under this mandate, a student could be found guilty of sexual assault and deemed a rapist simply by being unable to prove she or he obtained explicit verbal consent to every sexual activity throughout a sexual encounter. In reality, SB 967 would render a great deal of legal sexual activity into “sexual assault” and imperil the futures of all students across California.
We note that the concept of affirmative consent was first brought to national attention when it was adopted by Ohio’s historic Antioch College in the early 1990s. When news of the college’s policy became public in 1993, the practical difficulty of adhering to the policy prompted national ridicule so widespread that it was lampooned on Saturday Night Live. (Indeed, the fallout from the policy’s adoption has been cited as a factor in the college’s decline and eventual closing in 2007. It has since reopened.) The awkwardness of enforcing “affirmative consent” rules upon the reality of human sexual behavior has continued to be a popular subject for comedy by television shows such as Chappelle’s Show and New Girl. The humor found in the profound disconnect between the policy’s bureaucratic requirements for sexual interaction and human sexuality as a lived and various experience underscores the serious difficulty that passage of SB 967 would present to campus administrators across California.
FIRE harbors additional concerns about other aspects of the bill. For example, SB 967 in several places refers to students alleging sexual assault as “victims,” effectively presuming accused students’ guilt instead of innocence. The bill does have the positive feature of encouraging colleges to work with outside groups to “make services available to victims, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, and legal assistance,” but California colleges are free to take these steps already and should be encouraged to do so regardless of the disposition of SB 967.
A recent survey found that just 14% of Americans believe that colleges do a “good job” of handling reports of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. This distressing result is a symptom of the demonstrated inability of campus administrators to effectively and fairly adjudicate allegations of sexual assault, a failure documented by headline after headline in media outlets nationwide. Colleges have a vital role to play in ensuring the well-being of their students; they should be well-equipped to provide resources and counseling to students reporting sexual assault and to take necessary administrative action while criminal complaints are pending. To the extent that the criminal justice system ill-serves sexual assault victims, changes to that system should be considered so that Californians both on and off campus can benefit. But rather than fixing the readily apparent deficiencies of the current campus response to sexual assault, passage of SB 967 will worsen the problems. Indeed, SB 967 would inevitably usher in further litigation from all parties involved, exposing an over-stressed campus judicial system to still more liability and expense.
FIRE hopes California lawmakers will take our concerns, and the concerns of civil libertarians more generally, into consideration as they evaluate SB 967.
Source
SB 967 is in committee at the moment however we should remind California politicians that this is an unfair and unconstitutional bill. You can contact the California legislature: Senate and Assembly. If you are a California resident contact your elected representatives in both houses. If you are not contact the leaders of both houses and tell them you won't do business with the state or any businesses in California or tell them you won't vacation nor spend money in California. If you are a California resident or not you can contact the Governor. Tell him your displeasure about SB 967 and that you want him to veto it if it comes before him or you won't spend your money in California. This is a horrible bill and must be nipped in the bud.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Woman rapes boy,sues for child support and gets it
A 15-year-old boy who was raped by a 34-year-old woman now faces child support in Nebraska. After the rapist was release from Nebraska’s state prison system in 2012 she was able to regain custody of her child. The child had been a ward of the state for the first 13 months until the rapist sister Diana, was able to gain custody. After the rapist was reunited with her child, she promptly filed for Aid and Government assistance which in turn landed Jeremy the male victim with a subpena for child support.
Jeremy had his day in court and was ordered to pay $475 a month in child support to Linda Kazinsky as well as a whopping $23,000 in back Child Support payments. As incredible as this case sounds it’s not the first nor the last of its kind. Unfortunately, men are victimized as much as women over child support these days. It’s an unpopular topic but one that should be addressed.
Source
Jeremy had his day in court and was ordered to pay $475 a month in child support to Linda Kazinsky as well as a whopping $23,000 in back Child Support payments. As incredible as this case sounds it’s not the first nor the last of its kind. Unfortunately, men are victimized as much as women over child support these days. It’s an unpopular topic but one that should be addressed.
Source
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Man killers
Imagine if this were 3 men killing women you know what the outrage would be. Feminists protesting in the streets. Yet when it comes to men we are fair game. I'm fucking tired of this shit. I'm tired of the male bashing,the demonization of men and the male disposibility that is common culture. This fucking pissing me off. Fuck this.
Friday, February 21, 2014
What's wrong with me?
Those thoughts in your head:
What's wrong with me? I keep thinking that things are not right. Something is wrong. I see men being abused yet it doesn't count but there must be a reason for it. That is what they tell me. They tell me that 100% of the male population rape and commit domestic violence yet I don't nor does any guy I know of does. They tell me that young men are more prone to violence but I've seen a lot of violent young women but they say that doesn't count. I guess it doesn't because they say so and no one argues with them. I feel like I'm the only one who thinks this because no one else is mentioning it. Since they don't care why am I stressing on it? Am I the only one who feels this way?
No,you're not. A lot of men are starting to wake up to what is really going on. They've gotten a taste of the red pill and now they are starting to see things for what they really are.
I didn't question feminists or feminism. Why should I? I read a lot of '70's books about them and they said they wanted to help men too. They've done a lot for women so I know they'll eventually get around to us men. Right? I mean look at those '70's books about them. They'll help us right?
A lot of men got sold a pack of lies about what feminism truly is. Feminism is a female supremacist movement out to destroy men. They been that way since the suffragettes. Read for yourself if you don't believe me.
I see a lot of women acting like they don't need men yet there are times they appear vulnerable. I feel like I want to help.
Don't. They're not worth it. What has she ever done for you? Going through life as a captain-save-a-ho is no way to live. She will see you as an emotional tampon not as a sexual partner. Besides,she's a big girl. If she got herself in this she can get herself out of it.
You don't owe her a damn thing. In fact if you want to get down to it she owes you big time. All she's done is act like a spoiled 3 year old to get her way and when she does does she do anything for you? No. Why is that? She says she's a strong,independent woman. That's why? Yet when things go wrong you're supposed to help her "because you're the man and she's only a girl". Notice the double standards?
Welcome to the red pill world,it's going to take some adjusting but you can do it.
What's wrong with me? I keep thinking that things are not right. Something is wrong. I see men being abused yet it doesn't count but there must be a reason for it. That is what they tell me. They tell me that 100% of the male population rape and commit domestic violence yet I don't nor does any guy I know of does. They tell me that young men are more prone to violence but I've seen a lot of violent young women but they say that doesn't count. I guess it doesn't because they say so and no one argues with them. I feel like I'm the only one who thinks this because no one else is mentioning it. Since they don't care why am I stressing on it? Am I the only one who feels this way?
No,you're not. A lot of men are starting to wake up to what is really going on. They've gotten a taste of the red pill and now they are starting to see things for what they really are.
I didn't question feminists or feminism. Why should I? I read a lot of '70's books about them and they said they wanted to help men too. They've done a lot for women so I know they'll eventually get around to us men. Right? I mean look at those '70's books about them. They'll help us right?
A lot of men got sold a pack of lies about what feminism truly is. Feminism is a female supremacist movement out to destroy men. They been that way since the suffragettes. Read for yourself if you don't believe me.
I see a lot of women acting like they don't need men yet there are times they appear vulnerable. I feel like I want to help.
Don't. They're not worth it. What has she ever done for you? Going through life as a captain-save-a-ho is no way to live. She will see you as an emotional tampon not as a sexual partner. Besides,she's a big girl. If she got herself in this she can get herself out of it.
You don't owe her a damn thing. In fact if you want to get down to it she owes you big time. All she's done is act like a spoiled 3 year old to get her way and when she does does she do anything for you? No. Why is that? She says she's a strong,independent woman. That's why? Yet when things go wrong you're supposed to help her "because you're the man and she's only a girl". Notice the double standards?
Welcome to the red pill world,it's going to take some adjusting but you can do it.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Is FOX aboard the feminist bandwagon ?
Tonight on Hannity guest hostess Andrea Tantoros and two other clueless bitches were ragging on how women were disadvantaged in Hollywood. One of these female panelists,Eboni Williams (yeah,I know it sounds like a porn star name) states that women are under represented in Hollywood but in academia as in law school women outnumber men yet none of the women on the panel see this as a problem. They only see women's problem not men's. Here we have the entitlement mentality.
Tantoros was ragging on that the roles for women were "man loving and subservient to men". I didn't know that assaulting male genitalia and/or mutilating male genitalia was considered "man loving". Is this how Tantoros shows her love her husband must be scared to death. If he was hiding in a bunker I wouldn't blame him. If you consider that Hollywood has 98 pound women beating up 230 pound guys as "subservient" then you and I define these words very differently.This mentality exists on both the left and right. FOX is going down the slippery slope to a feminist myopia. It started with Megyn Kelly and her show now it is growing. The way things are going FOX is going to become as relevant as MSNBC. I predict that if it continues they will experience a decline in their male viewership. When you don't rein in the estrogen poisoning bad things happen. I've seen it in the manosphere and in other medium as well. Let's see what happens.
Tantoros was ragging on that the roles for women were "man loving and subservient to men". I didn't know that assaulting male genitalia and/or mutilating male genitalia was considered "man loving". Is this how Tantoros shows her love her husband must be scared to death. If he was hiding in a bunker I wouldn't blame him. If you consider that Hollywood has 98 pound women beating up 230 pound guys as "subservient" then you and I define these words very differently.This mentality exists on both the left and right. FOX is going down the slippery slope to a feminist myopia. It started with Megyn Kelly and her show now it is growing. The way things are going FOX is going to become as relevant as MSNBC. I predict that if it continues they will experience a decline in their male viewership. When you don't rein in the estrogen poisoning bad things happen. I've seen it in the manosphere and in other medium as well. Let's see what happens.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Whitehouse commission on boys and men is shot down
Exposed: Obama Blocks White House Council on Boys and Men
Rachel Alexander | Feb 03, 2014
A White House Council on Women and Girls was formed in 2009 under the Obama administration to ensure that government agencies were taking into account the needs of women and girls. Warren Farrell, who has served on the board of NOW in New York City and writes books about men’s and women’s issues, was asked to be an adviser to the Council. He agreed, but suggested the need for a White House Council on Boys and Men. He was invited to submit a proposal to create one.
Farrell got to work, and over the next 18 months put together a bipartisan group of 34 peopleto draft the proposal. He thought it was crucial that it be seen as a bipartisan issue, since everyone wants our children to do well. The 34 members selected consisted of political leaders and authors of the top books about men and boys. There was also the head of government relations for the Boy Scouts and the managing editor of Men’s Health magazine. Three political parties were represented; Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians, with diverse viewpoints including Jennifer Granholm, former Democrat governor of Michigan and co-chair of a Super PAC for Obama, and Christina Hoff-Summers with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
The Boy Scouts endorsed the proposal. Once a year, the Boy Scouts meet with the president and present a State of the Nation report to him. The group arranged to have an Eagle Scout deliver the proposal to the president. But just prior to the meeting in 2009, everything on the Boy Scouts’ agenda was approved except the proposal to create the council.
This represented but one of two times the White House has expressed a tremendous amount of interest in the council but suddenly nixed it. The Office of Public Engagement (that handles the Council on Women and Girls) and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan had been very interested. But somehow the phone calls that had been set up to prepare for a presentation to the president were stopped. It appears that one or more people at the very top, just beneath Obama, have been blocking it from reaching the president over the past three years.
Farrell heard rumors that the council was rejected because it would take resources away from the White House Council on Women and Girls.The problem is that’s a zero-sum attitude in conflict with most of the White House that appears to agree that we’re all in the family boat together--if the family boat does well, we all navigate the troubled waters of life well. If we’re not all in the family boat cooperating, we sink together. Everyone on the commission and almost everyone Farrell has contacted in government agrees.
There may be a way around this sexist, anti-male roadblock. The council can easily be created with an executive order; it does not need Congressional approval. Farrell calls it “the easiest single bipartisan thing that would do more good for helping schools, foundations and private industry become aware that there is a boy crisis.” The main goal of the council is not to have government solve the problem, but to play an interactive role with industries, foundations and school systems, so parents become aware of what the five crisis areas are for our boys. They need to know what are the 10 major causes of these crises and the solutions that can fix them throughout every level of society.
Jeanette Hernandez Prenger, who is with the coalition to create the council and is Vice Chair of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce nationwide, spoke with Teresa Chaurand, who is in charge of creating new councils at the White House. Chaurand concurred with Prenger's idea to organize Congressional support. Prenger went to Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), head of the Congressional Black Caucus, and he got together with Republicans and Democrats and started building Congressional support for the council. At the same time, the new organization Leading Women for Shared Parenting, which includes both liberal and conservative women, came on board to support the proposal.
I asked Farrell why there was a need for a White House Council on Men and Boys. He told me that this is the first time in American history that our sons will have less education than our fathers. The ripple effect of that one statement is creating a disaster for our sons. In the old days, when a boy didn’t have much education or wasn’t academically inclined, he would become a construction worker, mechanic, farmer, or go into manufacturing. Those muscle jobs are declining in percentage, being taken over by robotics and microchips. Farrell told me labor is evolving “from muscle to microchip” or from “muscle to mental.” The areas that non-academic boys used to go into are evaporating.
Women are as good or better in the mental area and usually better on average with interpersonal skills, Farrell said, so lots of interpersonal jobs like greeting and selling, such as pharmaceutical reps and sales engineers, end up with a very high percentage of women.
The need for technical education in particular is growing. But the school systems are cutting back or eliminating vocational education that is necessary to prepare our children for the microchip world. Without that, we don’t become an effective global competitor; we destroy the family because girls and women are not interested in marrying into “failure to launch” boys and men. It leads to women asking themselves, “If I’m going to have a child, why should I marry one more child?” So many women end up not being married. An alarming 53% of women under age 30 in 2010 had children without being married.
The great majority of children who grow up in families where the parents are not married have little or no contact with their fathers. These children do worse in a whopping 30 different areas according to Farrell. These can be broken down into four larger umbrella areas. The first is socially: the children have less empathy, have fewer friends, and are more likely to be aggressive but not assertive. The second is psychologically: the children are more like to be depressed, suicidal, have ADHD, and are not as capable of postponing gratification - one of the key ingredients to becoming successful. The third area is worse physical health: there is much greater absence in school and more frequent visits to hospitals. Finally, children with little to no contact with their fathers are more likely to do worse in every academic subject, especially in math, science, reading and writing.
There is a ripple effect caused by the education disparities. When boys and men are not productive, that affects our entire position economically in the world. When our position economically weakens, our national security weakens. Any one of these crises with boys has a ripple effect that results in a profound effect on everything from our family to our country’s status in the world.
Another crisis area caused by the lack of a father is mental health. There is a stereotype that girls fall in love emotionally whereas all boys want is sex. But we’re now seeing that when teenagers and young people in their 20’s break up, the boys have more negative mental health outcomes than the girls. The boys are more likely to be depressed, suicidal and act it out in ways--such as driving fast, getting drunk or beating someone up--that distract their family and friends from their emotional distress over the breakup.
Another dimension of the mental health crisis among boys can be seen in the Newtown massacres. Mass murders are happening with increasing frequency around the country. We ask ourselves if guns are the issue? Is it mental health? It turns out over and over again that every mass murder in the last 8-10 years except one has involved a boy or a man. When we don’t pay attention to the mental health of boys and men, it makes us the equivalent of a terrorist state, where we’re always worried that the next time we send our son or daughter to school that the unintended mental health of some boy in that school is going to create a crisis for our own children.
Farrell tells me that the proposed council would look around the world as well as within the U.S. for possible solutions. Countries like Japan are integrating vocational education into their school systems, resulting in 97.3% of the vocational school graduates getting jobs within a year after graduation. The charter school Urban Dove in Brooklyn took the worst students from the worst schools and gave them three hours of physical education at the beginning of the day, then had the coaches stay with the students throughout the rest of the day, in case they needed to “defeat” problems with algebra, reading or other subjects. The leverage of friendship and ally-building mentality that the coaches established was used during the rest of the day, rather than disconnected after P.E. The result was that 95% of those children graduated from high school and are going to college. Without the program, none of them were predicted to have gone on to college. This is the type of solution-building that a council could highlight. It is not liberal nor conservative, nor is it male versus female.
Perhaps most troubling of all, the evidence reveals that children do even worse without a father in the home than they do without a mother in the home. Yet mothers are favored when it comes to awarding custody. This throws the notion that women are more nurturing on its head. It’s time to stop prioritizing the whining about women and swing the pendulum back to our guys, if only for the sake of our children. The playing field must be fair for our guys, and by creating this council, perhaps some of the damage can be rectified.
Source
Femocrats are always doing this to us. What ever way they can to fuck us over they will do so. This is 2014 which is an election year which means we can implement a plan of mine. I call it ABD: Anyone But the Democrat. It's real simple: vote Republican or third party. Just don't vote for the Democrat. Deny the Democrats your votes which will get them out of office which will clear up a lot of misandry.
On a positive note they are taking notice of us and it is starting to get them very nervous which gives me tremendous feeling of joy. Now that we have their attention let's FTSU. I haven't forgotten let's FTSU nor will I abandon it. I will implement it. We know this is the right track. I say we stay this course and achieve victory. I'm not going to change. Why appease those that hate me?
Go to the source page and read the comments. Hope and change are in the air.
Rachel Alexander | Feb 03, 2014
A White House Council on Women and Girls was formed in 2009 under the Obama administration to ensure that government agencies were taking into account the needs of women and girls. Warren Farrell, who has served on the board of NOW in New York City and writes books about men’s and women’s issues, was asked to be an adviser to the Council. He agreed, but suggested the need for a White House Council on Boys and Men. He was invited to submit a proposal to create one.
Farrell got to work, and over the next 18 months put together a bipartisan group of 34 peopleto draft the proposal. He thought it was crucial that it be seen as a bipartisan issue, since everyone wants our children to do well. The 34 members selected consisted of political leaders and authors of the top books about men and boys. There was also the head of government relations for the Boy Scouts and the managing editor of Men’s Health magazine. Three political parties were represented; Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians, with diverse viewpoints including Jennifer Granholm, former Democrat governor of Michigan and co-chair of a Super PAC for Obama, and Christina Hoff-Summers with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
The Boy Scouts endorsed the proposal. Once a year, the Boy Scouts meet with the president and present a State of the Nation report to him. The group arranged to have an Eagle Scout deliver the proposal to the president. But just prior to the meeting in 2009, everything on the Boy Scouts’ agenda was approved except the proposal to create the council.
This represented but one of two times the White House has expressed a tremendous amount of interest in the council but suddenly nixed it. The Office of Public Engagement (that handles the Council on Women and Girls) and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan had been very interested. But somehow the phone calls that had been set up to prepare for a presentation to the president were stopped. It appears that one or more people at the very top, just beneath Obama, have been blocking it from reaching the president over the past three years.
Farrell heard rumors that the council was rejected because it would take resources away from the White House Council on Women and Girls.The problem is that’s a zero-sum attitude in conflict with most of the White House that appears to agree that we’re all in the family boat together--if the family boat does well, we all navigate the troubled waters of life well. If we’re not all in the family boat cooperating, we sink together. Everyone on the commission and almost everyone Farrell has contacted in government agrees.
There may be a way around this sexist, anti-male roadblock. The council can easily be created with an executive order; it does not need Congressional approval. Farrell calls it “the easiest single bipartisan thing that would do more good for helping schools, foundations and private industry become aware that there is a boy crisis.” The main goal of the council is not to have government solve the problem, but to play an interactive role with industries, foundations and school systems, so parents become aware of what the five crisis areas are for our boys. They need to know what are the 10 major causes of these crises and the solutions that can fix them throughout every level of society.
Jeanette Hernandez Prenger, who is with the coalition to create the council and is Vice Chair of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce nationwide, spoke with Teresa Chaurand, who is in charge of creating new councils at the White House. Chaurand concurred with Prenger's idea to organize Congressional support. Prenger went to Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), head of the Congressional Black Caucus, and he got together with Republicans and Democrats and started building Congressional support for the council. At the same time, the new organization Leading Women for Shared Parenting, which includes both liberal and conservative women, came on board to support the proposal.
I asked Farrell why there was a need for a White House Council on Men and Boys. He told me that this is the first time in American history that our sons will have less education than our fathers. The ripple effect of that one statement is creating a disaster for our sons. In the old days, when a boy didn’t have much education or wasn’t academically inclined, he would become a construction worker, mechanic, farmer, or go into manufacturing. Those muscle jobs are declining in percentage, being taken over by robotics and microchips. Farrell told me labor is evolving “from muscle to microchip” or from “muscle to mental.” The areas that non-academic boys used to go into are evaporating.
Women are as good or better in the mental area and usually better on average with interpersonal skills, Farrell said, so lots of interpersonal jobs like greeting and selling, such as pharmaceutical reps and sales engineers, end up with a very high percentage of women.
The need for technical education in particular is growing. But the school systems are cutting back or eliminating vocational education that is necessary to prepare our children for the microchip world. Without that, we don’t become an effective global competitor; we destroy the family because girls and women are not interested in marrying into “failure to launch” boys and men. It leads to women asking themselves, “If I’m going to have a child, why should I marry one more child?” So many women end up not being married. An alarming 53% of women under age 30 in 2010 had children without being married.
The great majority of children who grow up in families where the parents are not married have little or no contact with their fathers. These children do worse in a whopping 30 different areas according to Farrell. These can be broken down into four larger umbrella areas. The first is socially: the children have less empathy, have fewer friends, and are more likely to be aggressive but not assertive. The second is psychologically: the children are more like to be depressed, suicidal, have ADHD, and are not as capable of postponing gratification - one of the key ingredients to becoming successful. The third area is worse physical health: there is much greater absence in school and more frequent visits to hospitals. Finally, children with little to no contact with their fathers are more likely to do worse in every academic subject, especially in math, science, reading and writing.
There is a ripple effect caused by the education disparities. When boys and men are not productive, that affects our entire position economically in the world. When our position economically weakens, our national security weakens. Any one of these crises with boys has a ripple effect that results in a profound effect on everything from our family to our country’s status in the world.
Another crisis area caused by the lack of a father is mental health. There is a stereotype that girls fall in love emotionally whereas all boys want is sex. But we’re now seeing that when teenagers and young people in their 20’s break up, the boys have more negative mental health outcomes than the girls. The boys are more likely to be depressed, suicidal and act it out in ways--such as driving fast, getting drunk or beating someone up--that distract their family and friends from their emotional distress over the breakup.
Another dimension of the mental health crisis among boys can be seen in the Newtown massacres. Mass murders are happening with increasing frequency around the country. We ask ourselves if guns are the issue? Is it mental health? It turns out over and over again that every mass murder in the last 8-10 years except one has involved a boy or a man. When we don’t pay attention to the mental health of boys and men, it makes us the equivalent of a terrorist state, where we’re always worried that the next time we send our son or daughter to school that the unintended mental health of some boy in that school is going to create a crisis for our own children.
Farrell tells me that the proposed council would look around the world as well as within the U.S. for possible solutions. Countries like Japan are integrating vocational education into their school systems, resulting in 97.3% of the vocational school graduates getting jobs within a year after graduation. The charter school Urban Dove in Brooklyn took the worst students from the worst schools and gave them three hours of physical education at the beginning of the day, then had the coaches stay with the students throughout the rest of the day, in case they needed to “defeat” problems with algebra, reading or other subjects. The leverage of friendship and ally-building mentality that the coaches established was used during the rest of the day, rather than disconnected after P.E. The result was that 95% of those children graduated from high school and are going to college. Without the program, none of them were predicted to have gone on to college. This is the type of solution-building that a council could highlight. It is not liberal nor conservative, nor is it male versus female.
Perhaps most troubling of all, the evidence reveals that children do even worse without a father in the home than they do without a mother in the home. Yet mothers are favored when it comes to awarding custody. This throws the notion that women are more nurturing on its head. It’s time to stop prioritizing the whining about women and swing the pendulum back to our guys, if only for the sake of our children. The playing field must be fair for our guys, and by creating this council, perhaps some of the damage can be rectified.
Source
Femocrats are always doing this to us. What ever way they can to fuck us over they will do so. This is 2014 which is an election year which means we can implement a plan of mine. I call it ABD: Anyone But the Democrat. It's real simple: vote Republican or third party. Just don't vote for the Democrat. Deny the Democrats your votes which will get them out of office which will clear up a lot of misandry.
On a positive note they are taking notice of us and it is starting to get them very nervous which gives me tremendous feeling of joy. Now that we have their attention let's FTSU. I haven't forgotten let's FTSU nor will I abandon it. I will implement it. We know this is the right track. I say we stay this course and achieve victory. I'm not going to change. Why appease those that hate me?
Go to the source page and read the comments. Hope and change are in the air.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Protest misandric bill SB 967
Law proposal will increase access to sexual assault justice
STATE ISSUES: Proposed legislation would make it easier for victims of sexual assault to access the support they need and bring their attackers to justice.
By Senior Editorial Board | Staff
Last Updated February 14, 2014
The prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses across the country has reached the point where the need for sweeping institutional reform is undeniable. Exacerbated by notions of assumed consent in modern ‘hookup culture,’ abundant drug and alcohol use, misunderstandings and malevolence, sexual assault — and university and government authorities’ failure to properly respond to it — has become an epidemic. Legislation proposed by three Sacramento lawmakers on Monday represents a solvent institutional response to the problem, as it seeks to tighten and standardize sexual assault policies across California colleges and make those policies more survivor-centered.
The proposed law — SB 967 — improves upon the efforts of even the most progressive universities, like the UC system, to address sexual assault. By their very nature, sexual assault cases are difficult to prosecute. They are often characterized by a lack of physical evidence since the crimes tend to take place in private and are sometimes not reported until some time after the fact. For all California colleges, SB 967 would establish a “preponderance of the evidence standard in the determination of disciplinary action,” meaning courts would give extra consideration to incomplete or inconclusive evidence in sexual assault cases. In this way, the benefit of the doubt would be given to the survivors, encouraging them to speak out and help ensure that more perpetrators of sexual assault are brought to justice.
But the law does more than simply aim to increase the perpetrated-to-prosecuted rate — it works to spark a necessary cultural shift in what it means to engage in consensual sexual activity. Though any policy is incapable of fully addressing the crux of the sexual assault problem, the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal “affirmative consent” before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967 a step in the right direction. By setting clearer parameters and removing ambiguity around consent, this mandate places responsibility for consent on both parties and thus makes cases of assault easier to prosecute.
Tough action against perpetrators of sexual assault, and stringent, comprehensive policy standards on college campuses where many sexual assaults occur are necessary to stem this national epidemic. The proposals outlined in SB 967 represent the best policy solution to the problem of sexual assault at California schools thus far, and should be adopted by the California legislature. Although in most cases this mandate will be a simple inconvenience, it is necessary to shift the paradigm away from assumed notions of consent under which sexual assault have proliferated.
Source
This is going to be California's answer to the Department of Justice's "dear colleague" directive which stripped male students of their rights on University and College campuses when it came to false rape accusations. SB 967 is about one thing and one thing only and that is get men. This is so bad no commenters are siding with this bill.
Let's oppose this bill. If you live in California you can contact your Legislators and the Governor:
Assembly:click here
Find your Representatives and Senators
Senate: click here
Governor Jerry Brown: Governor's website
Email the Governor
If you don't live in California contact the legislative speakers and Governor, tell them that you don't support SB 967 and that you don't want to spend your money to benefit a state that passed SB 967 or similiar legislation. It's time to end the anti-male sexism.
(UPDATE: The current status of SB 967 as of 2-18-14)
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S): De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Evans, Galgiani,
Pavley, and Torres) (Coauthors: Assembly Members
Gonzalez and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 02/11/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 13.
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
Let's keep an eye on this one,dudes. Even if you don't live in California this could spread to your state. The best way to get rid of SB 967 and Dear Colleague is to oppose them. The more of us that do that the better our chances are of prevailing over them.
STATE ISSUES: Proposed legislation would make it easier for victims of sexual assault to access the support they need and bring their attackers to justice.
By Senior Editorial Board | Staff
Last Updated February 14, 2014
The prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses across the country has reached the point where the need for sweeping institutional reform is undeniable. Exacerbated by notions of assumed consent in modern ‘hookup culture,’ abundant drug and alcohol use, misunderstandings and malevolence, sexual assault — and university and government authorities’ failure to properly respond to it — has become an epidemic. Legislation proposed by three Sacramento lawmakers on Monday represents a solvent institutional response to the problem, as it seeks to tighten and standardize sexual assault policies across California colleges and make those policies more survivor-centered.
The proposed law — SB 967 — improves upon the efforts of even the most progressive universities, like the UC system, to address sexual assault. By their very nature, sexual assault cases are difficult to prosecute. They are often characterized by a lack of physical evidence since the crimes tend to take place in private and are sometimes not reported until some time after the fact. For all California colleges, SB 967 would establish a “preponderance of the evidence standard in the determination of disciplinary action,” meaning courts would give extra consideration to incomplete or inconclusive evidence in sexual assault cases. In this way, the benefit of the doubt would be given to the survivors, encouraging them to speak out and help ensure that more perpetrators of sexual assault are brought to justice.
But the law does more than simply aim to increase the perpetrated-to-prosecuted rate — it works to spark a necessary cultural shift in what it means to engage in consensual sexual activity. Though any policy is incapable of fully addressing the crux of the sexual assault problem, the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal “affirmative consent” before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967 a step in the right direction. By setting clearer parameters and removing ambiguity around consent, this mandate places responsibility for consent on both parties and thus makes cases of assault easier to prosecute.
Tough action against perpetrators of sexual assault, and stringent, comprehensive policy standards on college campuses where many sexual assaults occur are necessary to stem this national epidemic. The proposals outlined in SB 967 represent the best policy solution to the problem of sexual assault at California schools thus far, and should be adopted by the California legislature. Although in most cases this mandate will be a simple inconvenience, it is necessary to shift the paradigm away from assumed notions of consent under which sexual assault have proliferated.
Source
This is going to be California's answer to the Department of Justice's "dear colleague" directive which stripped male students of their rights on University and College campuses when it came to false rape accusations. SB 967 is about one thing and one thing only and that is get men. This is so bad no commenters are siding with this bill.
Let's oppose this bill. If you live in California you can contact your Legislators and the Governor:
Assembly:click here
Find your Representatives and Senators
Senate: click here
Governor Jerry Brown: Governor's website
Email the Governor
If you don't live in California contact the legislative speakers and Governor, tell them that you don't support SB 967 and that you don't want to spend your money to benefit a state that passed SB 967 or similiar legislation. It's time to end the anti-male sexism.
(UPDATE: The current status of SB 967 as of 2-18-14)
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : S.B. No. 967
AUTHOR(S): De León and Jackson (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Lowenthal) (Coauthors: Senators Beall, Evans, Galgiani,
Pavley, and Torres) (Coauthors: Assembly Members
Gonzalez and Williams).
TOPIC : Student safety: sexual assault.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 02/11/2014
LAST HIST. ACTION : From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 13.
TITLE : An act to add Section 67386 to the Education Code,
relating to student safety.
Source
Let's keep an eye on this one,dudes. Even if you don't live in California this could spread to your state. The best way to get rid of SB 967 and Dear Colleague is to oppose them. The more of us that do that the better our chances are of prevailing over them.
Satanic couple arrested for one man's murder may have murdered more than 22 others
NEW YORK — The FBI said on Sunday it was in contact with local police in the case of Miranda Barbour, who is charged with murdering a Pennsylvania man she lured via the website Craigslist and reportedly admits to the killing and at least 22 other slayings.
Barbour, 19, could face the death penalty in connection with the murder of the 42-year-old man who answered her bogus ad offering sex for $100, authorities said.
In a jailhouse interview, Barbour said she was part of a satanic cult and had no remorse for her victims, according to an article published in Saturday's edition of the Daily Item newspaper in Sunbury, Pennsylvania.
She admitted that she and her husband stabbed and strangled Troy LaFerrara in Sunbury in November because "he said the wrong things."
Barbour also said she had killed at least 22 people in different parts of the country, including Alaska, California, Texas and North Carolina.
"When I hit 22, I stopped counting," she said in the article on the paper's website.
"I can pinpoint on a map where you can find them," she said.
The FBI said on Sunday in a statement that its Philadelphia division "has recently been in contact with the Sunbury Police Department regarding Miranda Barbour, and will offer any assistance requested in the case."
Barbour and her husband, Elytte Barbour, 22, in state court in December pleaded not guilty to killing LaFerrara, whose body was found dumped in an alley.
The Daily Item, which has a circulation of about 25,000, has been following the case closely.
Prosecutors say the husband hid under a blanket in the back of the car when his wife picked up LaFerrara at a mall near Harrisburg, about 50 miles south of Sunbury.
Barbour said she would have let LaFerrara go but after telling him she was just 16, he said he wanted to proceed with their pay-for-sex arrangement.
"If he would have said no, that he wasn't going to go through with the arrangement, I would have let him go," she told the newspaper.
On her signal, Elytte Barbour, her husband of just three weeks, strangled LaFerrara with a cord while his wife stabbed him about 20 times, police say.
(Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst and Matthew Lewis)
Copyright © 2014, Reuters
Source
Barbour, 19, could face the death penalty in connection with the murder of the 42-year-old man who answered her bogus ad offering sex for $100, authorities said.
In a jailhouse interview, Barbour said she was part of a satanic cult and had no remorse for her victims, according to an article published in Saturday's edition of the Daily Item newspaper in Sunbury, Pennsylvania.
She admitted that she and her husband stabbed and strangled Troy LaFerrara in Sunbury in November because "he said the wrong things."
Barbour also said she had killed at least 22 people in different parts of the country, including Alaska, California, Texas and North Carolina.
"When I hit 22, I stopped counting," she said in the article on the paper's website.
"I can pinpoint on a map where you can find them," she said.
The FBI said on Sunday in a statement that its Philadelphia division "has recently been in contact with the Sunbury Police Department regarding Miranda Barbour, and will offer any assistance requested in the case."
Barbour and her husband, Elytte Barbour, 22, in state court in December pleaded not guilty to killing LaFerrara, whose body was found dumped in an alley.
The Daily Item, which has a circulation of about 25,000, has been following the case closely.
Prosecutors say the husband hid under a blanket in the back of the car when his wife picked up LaFerrara at a mall near Harrisburg, about 50 miles south of Sunbury.
Barbour said she would have let LaFerrara go but after telling him she was just 16, he said he wanted to proceed with their pay-for-sex arrangement.
"If he would have said no, that he wasn't going to go through with the arrangement, I would have let him go," she told the newspaper.
On her signal, Elytte Barbour, her husband of just three weeks, strangled LaFerrara with a cord while his wife stabbed him about 20 times, police say.
(Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst and Matthew Lewis)
Copyright © 2014, Reuters
Source
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Erick Bennett video
From Fatherless America:
Published on Jan 25, 2014
The feminist apparatchiks are out to silence and destroy this man whose message threatens their hegemony. Erick Bennett is a U.S. Senate candidate from Maine who 10 years ago was falsely accused and convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge. He set out to fight for change and unlike the mainstream media he has been telling it how it is. The mainstream media's response? Hit job after hit job after hit job calling him names and telling people again and again to just "ignore" him. Amanda Marcotte at Salon attacked Bennett for even challenging his false conviction and for making claims that men get railroaded in court. Erika Eichelberger at Mother Jones apparently made Bennett feel comfortable enough to grant her an interview before she turned around and published a hit piece titled "I will kill you" and going so far as to publish his ex-wife's ludicrous 10 year old statement/fable to police as if somehow that makes it a fact. What the media is really saying is don't pay any attention to that man telling the truth from behind the curtain about how things really work.
Source
Tell Obama to stop politicizing rape
From SAVE Services:
A few days ago President Obama announced the creation of a White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. During this announcement, he offered this piece of misinformation: "It is estimated that one in five women on college campuses has been sexually assaulted during their time there."
That statistic comes in part from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence study.
There is a very serious problem with the way this study's questions are worded. Example: "When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to give consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?" Someone who purposely gets drunk with their partner and willingly participates in a sexual encounter is counted as a rape victim!
To learn more, see Katherine Connell's National Review article.
We believe that policies on sexual assault and rape should be based on accurate facts, not fear-inducing hyperbole.
Ask President Obama to stop politicizing the rape issue.
•Phone: 202-456-1111
•Email:Click Here
Thank you,
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
A few days ago President Obama announced the creation of a White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. During this announcement, he offered this piece of misinformation: "It is estimated that one in five women on college campuses has been sexually assaulted during their time there."
That statistic comes in part from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence study.
There is a very serious problem with the way this study's questions are worded. Example: "When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to give consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?" Someone who purposely gets drunk with their partner and willingly participates in a sexual encounter is counted as a rape victim!
To learn more, see Katherine Connell's National Review article.
We believe that policies on sexual assault and rape should be based on accurate facts, not fear-inducing hyperbole.
Ask President Obama to stop politicizing the rape issue.
•Phone: 202-456-1111
•Email:Click Here
Thank you,
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Saturday, February 1, 2014
The hit piece on JTO that should have never been published
I was at A Voice For Men and I was reading an article which state that JTO is a traitor. I always thought JTO was a loyal MRA so this can't be true. I read the article,links and everything. If you haven't read this then by all means do read it. The article is by Diana Davison. So if you haven't read it then do so. Now that you've read the article you can see why I'm not too fond of this. First of all JTO is innocent of the charges against him and he was falsely accused by a drama queen. The point is this should have never been published. What was the purpose? You were bored and wanted to stir shit up? That is how we got here: bored women who wanted to stir shit up. One of the posters there echoed what I've been saying about women in the movement and this proves it. I noticed the women on A Voice For Men are blaming men for not understanding it is satire. Again men are attacked for "not getting it". Where have we heard that before? The point is the article does nothing but cause division and division at this time is not good for the movement.
Update: Here is Diana Davison's response to those that "misinterpret" her article. It is either she wanted to go after JTO,had second thoughts and is now trying to play this off as a joke or she sucks as a writer. Read the following:
Diana Davison says
February 1, 2014 at 1:37 PM
“the canyon of my despair”
“a flimsy staple gun that is somehow shooting
seven inch nails.”
“Why, John?…For the love of all good things,
WHY?”
“What are they paying you, John? And was it
worth your soul?”
“I am still too mortified and embittered to
feign the proper etiquette.”
“there is a small chance John the Other is not
dead to us.”
“It is entirely feasible that JtO hasn’t
actually abandoned the ship for a douche canoe
after all.”
“Run, John, run!”
Those are just a few of the reasons this is obvious satire. If anyone doesn’t see that, there isn’t much I can do to help them. It would be like trying to teach Borat to use the word “NOT!”
If feminists want to try and use this article to claim the MRM is falling apart it would be the funniest thing that could happen. I hope they do.
Source
No,it is not obvious. A lot of questions being asked by those outside of AVFM are being attacked. Blame and deflect. Typical feminist's tactics. I wouldn't trust these women for anything. It's all about them and if AVFM let them these same female "allies?" will put knives in the backs of those white knights and manginas that they will have a major WTF moment.
Update: this article is published after the interview with pro-male candidate Erick Bennett (see preceeding post) who is running to be U.S. Senator for Maine. I find it very interesting that this piece was published after that interview. An interview that gained ground and now this piece is published. A piece that is divisive. Notice how the women are defending each other and discounting what the men have to say. Like usual a lot of guys are playing white knight/mangina games by agreeing with the women. AVFM appears to have been infiltrated by the feminists.Coincidence? I don't think so. At Least that is what the circumstantial evidence shows.
Update: Here is Diana Davison's response to those that "misinterpret" her article. It is either she wanted to go after JTO,had second thoughts and is now trying to play this off as a joke or she sucks as a writer. Read the following:
Diana Davison says
February 1, 2014 at 1:37 PM
“the canyon of my despair”
“a flimsy staple gun that is somehow shooting
seven inch nails.”
“Why, John?…For the love of all good things,
WHY?”
“What are they paying you, John? And was it
worth your soul?”
“I am still too mortified and embittered to
feign the proper etiquette.”
“there is a small chance John the Other is not
dead to us.”
“It is entirely feasible that JtO hasn’t
actually abandoned the ship for a douche canoe
after all.”
“Run, John, run!”
Those are just a few of the reasons this is obvious satire. If anyone doesn’t see that, there isn’t much I can do to help them. It would be like trying to teach Borat to use the word “NOT!”
If feminists want to try and use this article to claim the MRM is falling apart it would be the funniest thing that could happen. I hope they do.
Source
No,it is not obvious. A lot of questions being asked by those outside of AVFM are being attacked. Blame and deflect. Typical feminist's tactics. I wouldn't trust these women for anything. It's all about them and if AVFM let them these same female "allies?" will put knives in the backs of those white knights and manginas that they will have a major WTF moment.
Update: this article is published after the interview with pro-male candidate Erick Bennett (see preceeding post) who is running to be U.S. Senator for Maine. I find it very interesting that this piece was published after that interview. An interview that gained ground and now this piece is published. A piece that is divisive. Notice how the women are defending each other and discounting what the men have to say. Like usual a lot of guys are playing white knight/mangina games by agreeing with the women. AVFM appears to have been infiltrated by the feminists.Coincidence? I don't think so. At Least that is what the circumstantial evidence shows.
AVFM Radio with guest Erick Bennett
I was listening to A Voice For Men Radio when Erick Bennett who is running for U.S. Senate from Maine was a guest on the show. In fact I wrote about Bennett here. I thought James Huff and Robert O'Hara did a good job interviewing Bennett. I thought it was very good. It's refreshing to see a candidate for public office that is not hyped up on misandry and/or in NOW's pocket. If you haven't listened do so it is a good talk radio show and gives us hope that those of us who believe in the truth will prevail over those that spread lies and terror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)