Thursday, December 17, 2015
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Require women to also sign up for selective service
It is only fair that if women can be in combat units all women must register for selective service upon turning the age of 18. Men must deal with many penalties for failing to register, from fines up to 250,000 dollars and jail time, to being blocked from federal student financial aid, federal jobs, and job training programs.
To sign petition
To sign petition
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Brave man takes out female terrorist
“Harmless” Female Terrorist Tries Stabbing Innocent Man… Instantly Gets 100mph Justice
Wilmot Proviso November 24, 2015 at 7:43am
A female Palestinian terrorist tried killing Israeli pedestrians in one of the latest knife attacks in the beleaguered country. However, a driver quickly came to the rescue, running over the woman with his car.
And, while it didn’t quite happen at 100 miles per hour, it certainly must have felt that way for the victim, as justice was swiftly delivered.
The incident, one of a series of such attacks, happened on Sunday in the West Bank town of Samaria. At about 9:15 a.m., a Palestinian woman began attacking Israelis with a knife in Brigade Square, according to WND.
The damage could have been much worse had it not been for a hero named Gershon Mesika. Mesika, the former head of an Israeli settlement group called the Samaria Regional Council, was driving nearby when he caught sight of the woman conducting the attack. In an instant, he knew what he had to do.
“I heard someone shout ‘terrorist’ and run toward a girl from Har Bracha, wielding a knife,” Mesika said in an interview with Army Radio. “I made a quick decision: I veered to the right and slammed into her.”
“A soldier then came and finished it,” Mesika added.
The terrorist was initially described as in serious condition, but was later pronounced dead.
The attacks have taken a toll on the Israeli population. According to the Times of Israel, an 18-year-old Israeli was killed on Monday. Another Israeli was also killed in a knife attack on the same day the Samaria attack took place.
The attacks have even taken the life of Americans — Ezra Schwartz, an 18-year-old from Boston, was killed Nov. 19, and Richard Lakin, a 76-year-old peace activist died Oct. 27 from wounds suffered in a bus attack in Jerusalem on Oct. 13.
These are the “harmless” widows that President Barack Obama says we shouldn’t be afraid of. If Obama and American liberals think that we can judge threats by gender, they have another thing coming.
Source
Not just Obama but Bill O'Reilly too. O'Reilly said he wouldn't allow muslim men into the country but he would allow women and children. Like most western castrati Obama and O'Reilly underestimate women at the expense of everyone else. Also Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also said he will only allow muslim women and children into Canada. Canada is finished,stick a fork in it. The United States on the other hand may stand a chance with a lot of American Governors stating they won't allow them into their respective states. Obama is threatening to withhold federal funds if these governors do not agree with him. Let's see what happens. Stay tuned.
Wilmot Proviso November 24, 2015 at 7:43am
A female Palestinian terrorist tried killing Israeli pedestrians in one of the latest knife attacks in the beleaguered country. However, a driver quickly came to the rescue, running over the woman with his car.
And, while it didn’t quite happen at 100 miles per hour, it certainly must have felt that way for the victim, as justice was swiftly delivered.
The incident, one of a series of such attacks, happened on Sunday in the West Bank town of Samaria. At about 9:15 a.m., a Palestinian woman began attacking Israelis with a knife in Brigade Square, according to WND.
The damage could have been much worse had it not been for a hero named Gershon Mesika. Mesika, the former head of an Israeli settlement group called the Samaria Regional Council, was driving nearby when he caught sight of the woman conducting the attack. In an instant, he knew what he had to do.
“I heard someone shout ‘terrorist’ and run toward a girl from Har Bracha, wielding a knife,” Mesika said in an interview with Army Radio. “I made a quick decision: I veered to the right and slammed into her.”
“A soldier then came and finished it,” Mesika added.
The terrorist was initially described as in serious condition, but was later pronounced dead.
The attacks have taken a toll on the Israeli population. According to the Times of Israel, an 18-year-old Israeli was killed on Monday. Another Israeli was also killed in a knife attack on the same day the Samaria attack took place.
The attacks have even taken the life of Americans — Ezra Schwartz, an 18-year-old from Boston, was killed Nov. 19, and Richard Lakin, a 76-year-old peace activist died Oct. 27 from wounds suffered in a bus attack in Jerusalem on Oct. 13.
These are the “harmless” widows that President Barack Obama says we shouldn’t be afraid of. If Obama and American liberals think that we can judge threats by gender, they have another thing coming.
Source
Not just Obama but Bill O'Reilly too. O'Reilly said he wouldn't allow muslim men into the country but he would allow women and children. Like most western castrati Obama and O'Reilly underestimate women at the expense of everyone else. Also Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also said he will only allow muslim women and children into Canada. Canada is finished,stick a fork in it. The United States on the other hand may stand a chance with a lot of American Governors stating they won't allow them into their respective states. Obama is threatening to withhold federal funds if these governors do not agree with him. Let's see what happens. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Catherine Lhamon: the woman behind "Dear Colleague"
Glenn Reynolds: The unilateral war on college men
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 11:01 a.m. EDT September 30, 2015
An assistant secretary of education thinks she can rewrite rape law by writing a letter.
It appears to many — including me — as if the Obama administration is engaged in a war on college men. Using debunked statistics, the president, the vice president and various other political officials have falsely claimed that there’s an epidemic of rape on college campuses, even though campus rape is, in fact, falling, just as off-campus rape is. (And, in fact, rape is less common on campus than off).
And, ever since the Department of Education issued a ”Dear Colleague" letter to universities in 2011, in essence ordering them to adopt new and draconian campus “sexual assault” rules that treat accusations as presumptively true and force the accused — almost always men — to prove their innocence, sometimes even very strong evidence of innocence is ignored.
Spearheading this effort has been Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon, who has characterized the letter as binding on colleges and universities even though it is not a law, was not adopted as a formal or informal rule making after notice and comment under any law, and appears to have very little to do with the federal anti-discrimination law Title IX, which says only that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
Title IX was supposed to force colleges to admit women to programs formerly reserved for men. The law says nothing about sexual assault, sexual harassment, or the duty of universities to investigate criminal behavior on their own instead of referring crimes to law enforcement. But through a period of interpretation and reinterpretation, that simple statutory language has produced reams of federal paperwork that, in effect, turn a simple academic non-discrimination rule into a rape law that lacks the due process protections and evidentiary standards of actual rape law.
Now it appears that Congress has noticed. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., crashed a Senate hearing last week to grill Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education Amy McIntosh about past statements by Lhamon that purported to establish the “guidance” letter as binding law. How could this be binding, asked Sen. Alexander, when it’s simply a letter issued without any of the procedures required for administrative rule making?
McIntosh didn’t offer much of an answer, and that’s because there isn’t one. As some, including Ari Cohn, have argued for a while, the Department of Education is acting unlawfully here.
A law, to be binding, must pass both houses of Congress and be presented to the president's desk, where it must either pass into law or be vetoed and then overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house. Because this procedure, which the framers of our Constitution designed in order to make lawmaking difficult, turns out to make it difficult to pass laws, we also allow administrative agencies to issue regulations that are binding as law. But those regulations can be issued only after a draft is published and the public has a chance to comment, via either formal or informal rule making.
A mere letter from a bureaucrat, which is all the “Dear Colleague” letter is, has no binding authority. At most, it suggests that the bureaucrats might be willing to go to court to try to convince a judge that their interpretation of the statute is correct.
So why did colleges roll over? Law blogger Scott Greenfield suggests that it’s because the colleges are also warring against college men: “After all, why should a college risk the loss of its lifeblood (federal money) for the sake of protecting a few guys, particularly when the colleges pretty much agree with Lhamon’s progressive ideals?”
Greenfield notes that once Columbia University was sued by a male student claiming that his Title IX rights were violated because of the university’s response to a false accusation, it changed its mind and decided that Title IX didn’t create much in the way of student rights after all. Greenfield concludes: “Regardless of whether one embraces the policy choice embodied in Lhamon’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letters or not, there is no doubt but that it was imposed without lawful authority and adopted by schools who chose to sacrifice one segment of their student population to appease another segment. This is not the law. This is not what Title IX mandates. And they know it, even if you don’t.”
Greenfield is right. It’s nice that members of Congress are taking notice. But male college students and their parents, as well as alumni and trustees — and those women noticing that there’s a shortage of college-educated men all of a sudden — need to ask why there’s a war on college men, and why colleges, seemingly, are on the other side.
Source
There is no other way of saying it. This bitch needs to go to prison. She has deliberately fucked up men's lives. She needs to pay. The best way of doing that is to contact your Representative and Senators and tell them to send Lhamon to prison.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Jameis Winston goes after his accusers
n Orlando law firm representing Jameis Winston and FSU administrators are protesting CNN's decision to air the film "The Hunting Ground" Sunday.
"We are writing to formally caution CNN that the portions of the film 'The Hunting Ground' pertaining to Mr. Winston are false and defamatory to Mr. Winston," Gray Robinson attorney John A. Boudet wrote in a letter to CNN on behalf of the Tampa Bay Bucs starting quarterback. "We urge CNN to reconsider the reckless decision to proceed with the broadcast of this deeply flawed documentary in the face of overwhelming evidence that the film's producers consciously and intentionally failed to adhere to any accepted journalist standards."
The film, which earned positive reviews at the Sundance Film Festival and screened at theaters throughout the country, focuses on sexual violence on college campuses and is set to air at 8 p.m.
While stressing Florida State does not tolerate rape, President John Thrasher wrote in a statement the film "contains major distortions and glaring omissions to support its simplistic narrative that colleges and universities are to blame for our national sexual assault crisis."
Winston's attorney and FSU both cite an email from film producer Amy Herdy to one of Winston rape accuser Erica Kinsman's attorneys that states, "We don't operate the same way as journalists -- this film project very much is in the corner of advocacy for the victims, so there would be no need to get the perpetrator's side." Another email stated the filmmakers planned to "ambush" Winston with cameras after he declined to be interviewed for the film. The emails were obtained during ongoing litigation involving FSU, Winston and Kinsman.
Then you are propagandists and yellow journalists. Bitch,if you think that faggot and you are immune from legal action guess again.
Harvard professors also questioned the accuracy of another incident highlighted in the film and asked CNN not to air it.
Film director Kirby Dick and producer Amy Ziering have promoted themselves as advocates working on behalf of victims of sexual assault on college campuses. They defended the accuracy of their film during interviews and updates posted on the film's twitter account.
"The facts make them look bad, so they don't want people to see the film on @CNN. We'll let viewers judge Sunday," one Tweet attributed to Ziering read.
CNN has not issued a statement in response to the protests.
John Clune, one of Kinsman's attorneys, released a statement that read, "Mr. Winston is apparently in the midst of another PR battle this week due to the release of The Hunting Ground on Sunday. When your lawyers' letters written on Friday are somehow getting printed in the media on Saturday, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what’s going on. His latest attack is an attempt to revive his lawyers' media themes and, as expected, shows no understanding of rape trauma and misrepresents the actual evidence.
"More importantly, Mr. Winston should get used to the rape allegations against him because film or no film, they aren’t going away."
Winston, a former FSU star quarterback and current Bucs starter, is the only person accused of raping a student named in the movie.
Winston was never charged with a crime after an investigation by state attorney Willie Meggs, who noted delays and unusual actions taken by the Tallahassee police were factors in his decision.
An FSU hearing found there was not enough evidence to deem Winston responsible for violations of the school's code of conduct.
The letter from Winston's attorney to CNN closes by stating, "CNN may have persuaded itself that Mr. Winston's status as a public figure insulates your company from a libel judgment. If CNN decides to proceed with this broadcast, we will perhaps have the opportunity to test that legal proposition in a court of law."
Source
Jameis Winston should definitely sue not only the producers and anyone else who were part of creating this film but his accusers as well. You should sue everyone of them into the poor house and make sure they can never find work,have a decent place to live or any good life whatsoever. They are misandrists,they are evil.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Attention men of Missouri
Perhaps Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) shouldn't be shooting her mouth off. There were men who voted for her too but she doesn't give a fuck about them. Don't come off with some mangina/white knight bullshit about this being a "joke". No male senator would have made the same comments about women. If he did these same mangina/white knights would be storming the castle. McCaskill's re-election won't happen until 2019. But why wait? I say we contact McCaskill (click on opinion of legislation)and tell her we are not amused by her video. If you are a resident or are legally able to vote in Missouri vote for her Republican challenger. We don't need this misandrist in office.
UPDATE: Senator McCaskill has laughed off the video as a joke. Tell her you don't think it is a joke. If a male senator had said the same thing about women McCaskill would be leading the charge to make him apologize. If you have already emailed her then please do so again and demand that she apologize to the men of Missouri and America.
Tea Party embraces the men's rights movement
Is This National Tragedy Being Caused by Radical Feminism?
Feminists have been quoted for years as saying, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” The male bashing has become prevalent, even normal, in our society.
Because of this, because of the hassle and frustration that feminism heaps upon men for being men, more and more men are now starting to avoid marriage.
Can you really blame them? Feminists need to ask themselves, “If someone abused me for just being who I am, would I want to spend time with them much less live with them?”
Now, mind you, I’m not talking about men being abusive (and the whole feminist argument that all sex is rape is ludicrous. If that were true, feminists wouldn’t have sex, heterosexual or homosexual). I’m not talking about men being cruel. I’m talking about men being men. You know, in general, more focused on accomplishment and making things happen in the physical world (as opposed to the relationship world) than women (this is not to say women don’t get things done or that women are less valuable than men. Just different, that’s all.).
So, men are avoiding marriage and, in essence, saying, “Okay, feminists, if you think you can handle it all yourself, if you want to figure out how to get pregnant without a man’s involvement in any way (good luck with that), if you want to take care of those children without a father’s involvement or influence, if you want to be the sole income provider in your household, if you want to truly be autonomous of men, you got it. Because I’ll go where I am valued for being who I am.”
Frankly, it’s a tragedy for our society. Our children need fathers just like they need mothers. Our women need husbands just like men need their wives.
This gender segregation being foisted upon us by the feminists will stop one way or the other: either because people wake up and appreciate the differences in gender and each other or because that culture of foolishness will die off because it can’t reproduce without both genders.
Source
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Dave Futrelle has his followers dox MRA and his family
Most of you are aware of the current feminist bitch fit being pitched by David Futrelle. He started out by threatening the director of an upcoming documentary on the Men’s Human Rights Movement. Paul Elam and I wrote a response article calling out these threats. David fired back with an article calling Paul and myself liars.
On the heels of that article, David wrote a third article making good on the threats from his first article. Paul then wrote a solo article calling David out for following through with the threats that David says he didn’t make.
During all this a new Twitter account was created, quite reasonably assumed to be one of David Futrelle’s cult followers. This Twitter account contained my name and an image of my family.
There were five tweets posted by this account. The first gave out my home address and home phone number. Another tweet mentioned my daughter by name. Still another tweet demanded that I apologize to David for lying about him or more of my family’s private information would be leaked to the public.
I waited until now to inform you all of this, that is, until I could get home and see to my family’s safety and security. All of my family and friends will be notified via this article as to what has occurred. AVFM family and friends, say hello to my blood kin and non AVFM friends.
Since I live in a state with more guns than people, where a side arm is as common as a cell phone and where it is legal for 10yr olds to hunt with high powered rifles and without adult supervision, I’d say my family is now safer than the president.
At this time I would like to take a moment to thank all of you who have supported me through this. Believe it or not there were several feminists who hate my guts who condemned this doxxing of my family and worked to get the offending account shut down. A special thank you goes out to them as well.
I watched an old movie once, the name of which I cannot recall, about the civil war. One scene in that movie showed two soldiers, one Confederate and one Union, who happened upon each other while out alone. One soldier had some tobacco while the other had coffee. They shared each with the other. Nothing much was said. Then they turned and went their separate ways. It was a display of humanity in the middle of dehumanizing hell. That’s kind of the way I feel about those feminists sticking up for my family. Thank you all again.
Now, there was one person who has remain eerily silent about all this. That person is David Futrelle. Seems odd since all of this doxxing was done to avenge him. There is not a peep from Futrelle about this on his site or on social media anywhere that I could find. As a parent I know my kid is up to no good when she is quiet. Wonder if the same goes for adults (assuming the word applies)?
Futrelle has spent years painting a threat narrative around the MHRM. He does so by twisting statements made by MHRAs to fit his narrative. He takes articles calling out feminists for their bigotry and violence and uses them to convince his followers that we hate women. He uses articles expressing the idea that men should be able to defend themselves from a violent attack by a woman as examples that we want the unprovoked beating of women to be made legal. He takes articles calling out kangaroo courts on college campuses as evidence that we want the rape of women to be legal. He takes our comments about mass shootings, for example, ‘this is what happens when society ignores men’s mental health and when society chooses to ignore the pain and suffering of men’ and uses them as examples to convince his readers that we want to see women killed.
David isn’t dumb. He is a very smart liar. He leads his audience up to the edge and encourages them to drink the cool-aid. Drink it they do. He uses them to pad his pockets by working them into a fearful frenzy with hyperbole, half truths and outright lies.
It is a strategy that won’t play forever.
David once had a lot of sway with the MSM. That influence appears to be waning. The ABC 20/20 debacle was the turning point. Researchers at that ‘news’ organization used Futrelle as their only source and ran with it. Only to be made out to be fools, when the truth came to light. As a result of this most Main Stream Media publications shy away from Futrelle like he had fresh track marks.
So far, all of his efforts to mount a media attack on Cassie Jaye have resulted in one, impotent hit piece from a low level publication.
David Futrelle’s once strong connections to the MSM were never a real threat to us. In fact it was the reverse. Every time the MSM posted a hit piece on the MHRM, more and more men and women wanting to see the “den of misogyny” would stop by this and other websites to take a look. Many of them figured out that the MSM had lied to them and became supporters. Futrelle has actually been a big help to the MHRM.
But times have changed. The MSM attacks on AVFM have dropped. Now many formerly hostile outlets are publishing articles making the same arguments that MHRA’s have been making for years. Sensing an end to the feminist narrative and thus the end of his gravy train of cult followers, David has dialed up the fear mongering to create even more hysteria in order to keep the dollars, pounds, francs, deutschmarks and rubles flowing in.
I call his followers ‘cult members’ because that is exactly what they are. They are no different than a religious cult. They believe their prophet without question. As history shows us, cults usually become more violent and more dangerous as they near their end. That is what is happening now. For years Futrelle has been little more than nuisance and most often a source of amusement. That has now changed.
A close friend of mine recently commented that terrorists are stupid. I replied that the ones who strap bombs to their chests are stupid. But the leader is smart. He fills the minds of fools with his rhetoric and sends them off on suicide missions for his cause while he sits safely at home.
Now Futrelle sits safely behind his computer with what he thinks is complete deniability while his followers place innocent people including children in harm’s way for his cause. Futrelle doesn’t command these people like a terrorist mastermind. He just lights the fuse and lets the rest happen. He has remained silent about what happened to my family. He has pretended like it didn’t happen. He thinks he has deniability. He doesn’t.
Right now every single MHRA, their family and friends are in danger. The cultists believe what David has told them. They believe that if we are successful, then women will be enslaved, raped and slaughtered en mass.
Yes, they actually believe that shit.
I recently witnessed a conversation between two feminists stating that Cassie Jaye put herself in mortal danger by sitting in the same room with Paul Elam. They talked about how, in the trailer for her documentary, she was sitting on a couch close to Paul with her legs under her and her shoes off. They talked about how dangerous that was and how she should have been ready to run at a moment’s notice.
While these are the same people who condemned the person who doxxed me, I was shocked at the fact they actually believe that Paul is a monster. I thought it was all just rhetoric designed to poison the well. I was wrong.
This level of indoctrination and hysteria can only lead the most extreme followers of Futrelle to believe that any and all action is justified and collateral damage is acceptable. How do I know this? This sort of thing has played out in history many times before and has always followed the same pattern. Plus, unlike David’s fictitious threat narratives that he applies to the MHRM, we now have an example of Futrelle’s followers endangering the lives of innocent people to serve Futrelle’s interests. Remember that this little prick who doxxed my family didn’t demand that I apologize to feminism. He demanded that I apologize to Futrelle.
And on that note, here is the apology that was demanded under threat of releasing more private information.
David as I said earlier, you have created a completely unwarranted climate of fear around the MHRM for the sole purpose of padding your pockets and to destroy a movement that triggers your misogynistic need to appease women rather than treat them as fully capable adults. What has resulted, as was inevitable, is that one of your cult members has drunk the cool-aid and now feels that any action against MHRAs is justifiable including endangering the safety and well-being of innocent people such as my family. I hold you personally responsible for this occurring.
I consider the doxxing of my wife and daughter and the doxxing of me to be two separate issues. The doxxing of me has done one thing and one thing only. It’s has royally pissed me off. You think Paul Elam has been a thorn in your side? Ha! Paul is the guru of FTSU but I’m a junkyard dog with no owner and no collar. He, as a public figure of the MHRM, has a reputation to think about. I don’t.
Didn’t anyone ever tell you that you shouldn’t piss off a redheaded country boy from the backwoods of Tennessee? I promise you David that for the rest of your life there will be nights you cry yourself to sleep in anger and frustration over me. I’m simply going to keep doing what I’ve been doing; but I’m going to do more of it and do it better. I’m going to destroy the ideology of feminism. I’m going to burn it to the ground. I’m going make chili out of the ashes; then shit all over on Andea D’workins fucking grave. All the while making sure that you are aware of it all.
There is the apology that little snake wanted for you – Futrelle. I hope you like it.
Source
Dave has advertisers on his site. Let's ask them if they wish to be associated with someone like Futrelle who knowing puts innocent human lives in danger. Let's ask them if that is the image they wished to be associated with. Dave Futrelle's website
On the heels of that article, David wrote a third article making good on the threats from his first article. Paul then wrote a solo article calling David out for following through with the threats that David says he didn’t make.
During all this a new Twitter account was created, quite reasonably assumed to be one of David Futrelle’s cult followers. This Twitter account contained my name and an image of my family.
There were five tweets posted by this account. The first gave out my home address and home phone number. Another tweet mentioned my daughter by name. Still another tweet demanded that I apologize to David for lying about him or more of my family’s private information would be leaked to the public.
I waited until now to inform you all of this, that is, until I could get home and see to my family’s safety and security. All of my family and friends will be notified via this article as to what has occurred. AVFM family and friends, say hello to my blood kin and non AVFM friends.
Since I live in a state with more guns than people, where a side arm is as common as a cell phone and where it is legal for 10yr olds to hunt with high powered rifles and without adult supervision, I’d say my family is now safer than the president.
At this time I would like to take a moment to thank all of you who have supported me through this. Believe it or not there were several feminists who hate my guts who condemned this doxxing of my family and worked to get the offending account shut down. A special thank you goes out to them as well.
I watched an old movie once, the name of which I cannot recall, about the civil war. One scene in that movie showed two soldiers, one Confederate and one Union, who happened upon each other while out alone. One soldier had some tobacco while the other had coffee. They shared each with the other. Nothing much was said. Then they turned and went their separate ways. It was a display of humanity in the middle of dehumanizing hell. That’s kind of the way I feel about those feminists sticking up for my family. Thank you all again.
Now, there was one person who has remain eerily silent about all this. That person is David Futrelle. Seems odd since all of this doxxing was done to avenge him. There is not a peep from Futrelle about this on his site or on social media anywhere that I could find. As a parent I know my kid is up to no good when she is quiet. Wonder if the same goes for adults (assuming the word applies)?
Futrelle has spent years painting a threat narrative around the MHRM. He does so by twisting statements made by MHRAs to fit his narrative. He takes articles calling out feminists for their bigotry and violence and uses them to convince his followers that we hate women. He uses articles expressing the idea that men should be able to defend themselves from a violent attack by a woman as examples that we want the unprovoked beating of women to be made legal. He takes articles calling out kangaroo courts on college campuses as evidence that we want the rape of women to be legal. He takes our comments about mass shootings, for example, ‘this is what happens when society ignores men’s mental health and when society chooses to ignore the pain and suffering of men’ and uses them as examples to convince his readers that we want to see women killed.
David isn’t dumb. He is a very smart liar. He leads his audience up to the edge and encourages them to drink the cool-aid. Drink it they do. He uses them to pad his pockets by working them into a fearful frenzy with hyperbole, half truths and outright lies.
It is a strategy that won’t play forever.
David once had a lot of sway with the MSM. That influence appears to be waning. The ABC 20/20 debacle was the turning point. Researchers at that ‘news’ organization used Futrelle as their only source and ran with it. Only to be made out to be fools, when the truth came to light. As a result of this most Main Stream Media publications shy away from Futrelle like he had fresh track marks.
So far, all of his efforts to mount a media attack on Cassie Jaye have resulted in one, impotent hit piece from a low level publication.
David Futrelle’s once strong connections to the MSM were never a real threat to us. In fact it was the reverse. Every time the MSM posted a hit piece on the MHRM, more and more men and women wanting to see the “den of misogyny” would stop by this and other websites to take a look. Many of them figured out that the MSM had lied to them and became supporters. Futrelle has actually been a big help to the MHRM.
But times have changed. The MSM attacks on AVFM have dropped. Now many formerly hostile outlets are publishing articles making the same arguments that MHRA’s have been making for years. Sensing an end to the feminist narrative and thus the end of his gravy train of cult followers, David has dialed up the fear mongering to create even more hysteria in order to keep the dollars, pounds, francs, deutschmarks and rubles flowing in.
I call his followers ‘cult members’ because that is exactly what they are. They are no different than a religious cult. They believe their prophet without question. As history shows us, cults usually become more violent and more dangerous as they near their end. That is what is happening now. For years Futrelle has been little more than nuisance and most often a source of amusement. That has now changed.
A close friend of mine recently commented that terrorists are stupid. I replied that the ones who strap bombs to their chests are stupid. But the leader is smart. He fills the minds of fools with his rhetoric and sends them off on suicide missions for his cause while he sits safely at home.
Now Futrelle sits safely behind his computer with what he thinks is complete deniability while his followers place innocent people including children in harm’s way for his cause. Futrelle doesn’t command these people like a terrorist mastermind. He just lights the fuse and lets the rest happen. He has remained silent about what happened to my family. He has pretended like it didn’t happen. He thinks he has deniability. He doesn’t.
Right now every single MHRA, their family and friends are in danger. The cultists believe what David has told them. They believe that if we are successful, then women will be enslaved, raped and slaughtered en mass.
Yes, they actually believe that shit.
I recently witnessed a conversation between two feminists stating that Cassie Jaye put herself in mortal danger by sitting in the same room with Paul Elam. They talked about how, in the trailer for her documentary, she was sitting on a couch close to Paul with her legs under her and her shoes off. They talked about how dangerous that was and how she should have been ready to run at a moment’s notice.
While these are the same people who condemned the person who doxxed me, I was shocked at the fact they actually believe that Paul is a monster. I thought it was all just rhetoric designed to poison the well. I was wrong.
This level of indoctrination and hysteria can only lead the most extreme followers of Futrelle to believe that any and all action is justified and collateral damage is acceptable. How do I know this? This sort of thing has played out in history many times before and has always followed the same pattern. Plus, unlike David’s fictitious threat narratives that he applies to the MHRM, we now have an example of Futrelle’s followers endangering the lives of innocent people to serve Futrelle’s interests. Remember that this little prick who doxxed my family didn’t demand that I apologize to feminism. He demanded that I apologize to Futrelle.
And on that note, here is the apology that was demanded under threat of releasing more private information.
David as I said earlier, you have created a completely unwarranted climate of fear around the MHRM for the sole purpose of padding your pockets and to destroy a movement that triggers your misogynistic need to appease women rather than treat them as fully capable adults. What has resulted, as was inevitable, is that one of your cult members has drunk the cool-aid and now feels that any action against MHRAs is justifiable including endangering the safety and well-being of innocent people such as my family. I hold you personally responsible for this occurring.
I consider the doxxing of my wife and daughter and the doxxing of me to be two separate issues. The doxxing of me has done one thing and one thing only. It’s has royally pissed me off. You think Paul Elam has been a thorn in your side? Ha! Paul is the guru of FTSU but I’m a junkyard dog with no owner and no collar. He, as a public figure of the MHRM, has a reputation to think about. I don’t.
Didn’t anyone ever tell you that you shouldn’t piss off a redheaded country boy from the backwoods of Tennessee? I promise you David that for the rest of your life there will be nights you cry yourself to sleep in anger and frustration over me. I’m simply going to keep doing what I’ve been doing; but I’m going to do more of it and do it better. I’m going to destroy the ideology of feminism. I’m going to burn it to the ground. I’m going make chili out of the ashes; then shit all over on Andea D’workins fucking grave. All the while making sure that you are aware of it all.
There is the apology that little snake wanted for you – Futrelle. I hope you like it.
Source
Dave has advertisers on his site. Let's ask them if they wish to be associated with someone like Futrelle who knowing puts innocent human lives in danger. Let's ask them if that is the image they wished to be associated with. Dave Futrelle's website
Friday, October 30, 2015
Dave Futrelle threatens filmmaker
Jack Barnes of A Voice For Men wrote an interesting piece on Dave Futile ganging up on Cassie Jaye,implying that bad things would happen to her if she wrote a fair piece about MRA's. You can read about Futile's threat here,just look for the red arrow on the right. Futile looks like he has a few skeletons in his closet and I'm guessing they are dead hookers. Dave looks like the type to go on a hooker killing spree and he just may try to add Cassie to his collection. Here is the video Dave Futile is scared of.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Dave Futile is at it again
I don't always pay attention to Dave Futile because I have better things to do. Besides debating a feminist is like debating a monkey: nobody is impressed when you prevail because they are both morons and everyone knows it. But I could not let this go, especially when it concerns a documentary on the men's rights movement and it's not a hit piece but actual journalism. You can read Dave's hit piece here. Here a couple of things that I want to bring up:
But I knew you had a good reputation as a filmmaker, and heard good things from several feminists who knew you better than I did. So I held my tongue and tried my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, even when you posted clips from your film that portrayed AVFMers as heroic underdogs rather than the misogynists and malicious harassers that they really are.
Translation: You have betrayed the sisterhood and you will be dealt with in no uncertain terms.
Futile is bitching about the filmmaker taking money from us and bitching about taking money from a bias source when he himself is a bias source and a lying asshole.
On to the next one:
One thing I have learned in five years of watching, and writing about, and dealing with, the Men’s Rights movement, is that if Paul Elam is happy about something, that thing is almost certainly terrible.
I'm not a big Paul Elam fan but I'll take him over you any day. When Futile is upset I'm a very happy man and so are a lot of other MRA's so let keep pissing off Dave Futile.
But I knew you had a good reputation as a filmmaker, and heard good things from several feminists who knew you better than I did. So I held my tongue and tried my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, even when you posted clips from your film that portrayed AVFMers as heroic underdogs rather than the misogynists and malicious harassers that they really are.
Translation: You have betrayed the sisterhood and you will be dealt with in no uncertain terms.
Futile is bitching about the filmmaker taking money from us and bitching about taking money from a bias source when he himself is a bias source and a lying asshole.
On to the next one:
One thing I have learned in five years of watching, and writing about, and dealing with, the Men’s Rights movement, is that if Paul Elam is happy about something, that thing is almost certainly terrible.
I'm not a big Paul Elam fan but I'll take him over you any day. When Futile is upset I'm a very happy man and so are a lot of other MRA's so let keep pissing off Dave Futile.
Monday, October 26, 2015
This is what a feminazi is like
I'm debating this feminazi here. Look at the anonymous comment toward the bottom and the comments from Pat Vet. Men,this is the enemy. This is what we are up against. Let that sink in real good. The cavalier attitude toward castration is very disturbing.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Glenn Reynolds: The unilateral war on college men
Glenn Reynolds: The unilateral war on college men
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 11:01 a.m. EDT September 30, 2015
An assistant secretary of education thinks she can rewrite rape law by writing a letter.
It appears to many — including me — as if the Obama administration is engaged in a war on college men. Using debunked statistics, the president, the vice president and various other political officials have falsely claimed that there’s an epidemic of rape on college campuses, even though campus rape is, in fact, falling, just as off-campus rape is. (And, in fact, rape is less common on campus than off).
And, ever since the Department of Education issued a ”Dear Colleague" letter to universities in 2011, in essence ordering them to adopt new and draconian campus “sexual assault” rules that treat accusations as presumptively true and force the accused — almost always men — to prove their innocence, sometimes even very strong evidence of innocence is ignored.
Spearheading this effort has been Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon, who has characterized the letter as binding on colleges and universities even though it is not a law, was not adopted as a formal or informal rule making after notice and comment under any law, and appears to have very little to do with the federal anti-discrimination law Title IX, which says only that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
Title IX was supposed to force colleges to admit women to programs formerly reserved for men. The law says nothing about sexual assault, sexual harassment, or the duty of universities to investigate criminal behavior on their own instead of referring crimes to law enforcement. But through a period of interpretation and reinterpretation, that simple statutory language has produced reams of federal paperwork that, in effect, turn a simple academic non-discrimination rule into a rape law that lacks the due process protections and evidentiary standards of actual rape law.
Now it appears that Congress has noticed. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., crashed a Senate hearing last week to grill Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education Amy McIntosh about past statements by Lhamon that purported to establish the “guidance” letter as binding law. How could this be binding, asked Sen. Alexander, when it’s simply a letter issued without any of the procedures required for administrative rule making?
McIntosh didn’t offer much of an answer, and that’s because there isn’t one. As some, including Ari Cohn, have argued for a while, the Department of Education is acting unlawfully here.
A law, to be binding, must pass both houses of Congress and be presented to the president's desk, where it must either pass into law or be vetoed and then overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house. Because this procedure, which the framers of our Constitution designed in order to make lawmaking difficult, turns out to make it difficult to pass laws, we also allow administrative agencies to issue regulations that are binding as law. But those regulations can be issued only after a draft is published and the public has a chance to comment, via either formal or informal rule making.
A mere letter from a bureaucrat, which is all the “Dear Colleague” letter is, has no binding authority. At most, it suggests that the bureaucrats might be willing to go to court to try to convince a judge that their interpretation of the statute is correct.
So why did colleges roll over? Law blogger Scott Greenfield suggests that it’s because the colleges are also warring against college men: “After all, why should a college risk the loss of its lifeblood (federal money) for the sake of protecting a few guys, particularly when the colleges pretty much agree with Lhamon’s progressive ideals?”
Greenfield notes that once Columbia University was sued by a male student claiming that his Title IX rights were violated because of the university’s response to a false accusation, it changed its mind and decided that Title IX didn’t create much in the way of student rights after all. Greenfield concludes: “Regardless of whether one embraces the policy choice embodied in Lhamon’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letters or not, there is no doubt but that it was imposed without lawful authority and adopted by schools who chose to sacrifice one segment of their student population to appease another segment. This is not the law. This is not what Title IX mandates. And they know it, even if you don’t.”
Greenfield is right. It’s nice that members of Congress are taking notice. But male college students and their parents, as well as alumni and trustees — and those women noticing that there’s a shortage of college-educated men all of a sudden — need to ask why there’s a war on college men, and why colleges, seemingly, are on the other side.
Source
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 11:01 a.m. EDT September 30, 2015
An assistant secretary of education thinks she can rewrite rape law by writing a letter.
It appears to many — including me — as if the Obama administration is engaged in a war on college men. Using debunked statistics, the president, the vice president and various other political officials have falsely claimed that there’s an epidemic of rape on college campuses, even though campus rape is, in fact, falling, just as off-campus rape is. (And, in fact, rape is less common on campus than off).
And, ever since the Department of Education issued a ”Dear Colleague" letter to universities in 2011, in essence ordering them to adopt new and draconian campus “sexual assault” rules that treat accusations as presumptively true and force the accused — almost always men — to prove their innocence, sometimes even very strong evidence of innocence is ignored.
Spearheading this effort has been Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon, who has characterized the letter as binding on colleges and universities even though it is not a law, was not adopted as a formal or informal rule making after notice and comment under any law, and appears to have very little to do with the federal anti-discrimination law Title IX, which says only that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
Title IX was supposed to force colleges to admit women to programs formerly reserved for men. The law says nothing about sexual assault, sexual harassment, or the duty of universities to investigate criminal behavior on their own instead of referring crimes to law enforcement. But through a period of interpretation and reinterpretation, that simple statutory language has produced reams of federal paperwork that, in effect, turn a simple academic non-discrimination rule into a rape law that lacks the due process protections and evidentiary standards of actual rape law.
Now it appears that Congress has noticed. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., crashed a Senate hearing last week to grill Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education Amy McIntosh about past statements by Lhamon that purported to establish the “guidance” letter as binding law. How could this be binding, asked Sen. Alexander, when it’s simply a letter issued without any of the procedures required for administrative rule making?
McIntosh didn’t offer much of an answer, and that’s because there isn’t one. As some, including Ari Cohn, have argued for a while, the Department of Education is acting unlawfully here.
A law, to be binding, must pass both houses of Congress and be presented to the president's desk, where it must either pass into law or be vetoed and then overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house. Because this procedure, which the framers of our Constitution designed in order to make lawmaking difficult, turns out to make it difficult to pass laws, we also allow administrative agencies to issue regulations that are binding as law. But those regulations can be issued only after a draft is published and the public has a chance to comment, via either formal or informal rule making.
A mere letter from a bureaucrat, which is all the “Dear Colleague” letter is, has no binding authority. At most, it suggests that the bureaucrats might be willing to go to court to try to convince a judge that their interpretation of the statute is correct.
So why did colleges roll over? Law blogger Scott Greenfield suggests that it’s because the colleges are also warring against college men: “After all, why should a college risk the loss of its lifeblood (federal money) for the sake of protecting a few guys, particularly when the colleges pretty much agree with Lhamon’s progressive ideals?”
Greenfield notes that once Columbia University was sued by a male student claiming that his Title IX rights were violated because of the university’s response to a false accusation, it changed its mind and decided that Title IX didn’t create much in the way of student rights after all. Greenfield concludes: “Regardless of whether one embraces the policy choice embodied in Lhamon’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letters or not, there is no doubt but that it was imposed without lawful authority and adopted by schools who chose to sacrifice one segment of their student population to appease another segment. This is not the law. This is not what Title IX mandates. And they know it, even if you don’t.”
Greenfield is right. It’s nice that members of Congress are taking notice. But male college students and their parents, as well as alumni and trustees — and those women noticing that there’s a shortage of college-educated men all of a sudden — need to ask why there’s a war on college men, and why colleges, seemingly, are on the other side.
Source
Brave young man stands up to institutionalized misandry
Why I don’t need consent lessons
By George Lawlor, Senior Tab reporter on 14th October
They're full of people pointing out the obvious, thinking they've saved the world
Ah, the special feeling you get when logging into Facebook and find someone thinks you’re cool enough to invite to their event. Is it a house party? Is it a social? All the possibilities race through your mind. Then it hits you. You tap the red notification and find you’ve been summoned to this year’s “I Heart Consent Training Sessions”. Your crushing disappointment quickly melts away and is overcome by anger.
Let me explain, I love consent. Of course people should only interact with mutual agreement, but I still found this invitation loathsome. Like any self-respecting individual would, I found this to be a massive, painful, bitchy slap in the face. To be invited to such a waste of time was the biggest insult I’ve received in a good few years. It implies I have an insufficient understanding of what does and does not constitute consent and that’s incredibly hurtful. I can’t stress that enough.
I feel as if I’m taking the “wrong” side here, but someone has to say it – I don’t have to be taught to not be a rapist. That much comes naturally to me, as I am sure it does to the overwhelming majority of people you and I know. Brand me a bigot, a misogynist, a rape apologist, I don’t care. I stand by that.
I already know what is and what isn’t consent. I also know about those more nuanced situations where consent isn’t immediately obvious as any decent, empathetic human being does. Yes means yes, no means no. It’s really that simple. You’d think Russell Group university students would get that much, but apparently the consent teachers don’t have as high a regard for their peers as I do.
I’m not denying there have been tragic cases of rape and abuse on campuses in the past, but do you really think the kind of people who lacks empathy, respect and human decency to the point where they’d violate someone’s body is really going to turn up to a consent lesson on a university campus? They won’t. The only people who’ll turn up will be people who (surprise, surprise) already know when it’s okay to shag someone. No new information will be taught or learned. It will just be an echo chamber of people pointing out the obvious and others nodding along, thinking the whole time thinking that they’ve saved the world.
I want to call the people leading the charge behind these classes admirable, I want to call them heroic, but I’m afraid they’re not. There are countless other more useful things they could be doing with their time. They could be making a difference by actually going out and campaigning, volunteering and caring for other people. Instead they selfishly make themselves feel better by indulging in the delusion that all that’s needed to save the vulnerable from foul predators is to point out the blindingly obvious.
Self-appointed teachers of consent: get off your fucking high horse. I don’t need your help to understand basic human interaction. Secondly, go and do something. Real people need your help and they deserve better than you. Next time you consider inviting me or anyone else to another bullshit event like this, have a little respect for the intelligence and decency of your peers. You might find that’s a more effective solution than accusing them of being vile rapists-in-waiting who can only be taught otherwise by a smug, righteous, self-congratulatory intervention.
Source
By George Lawlor, Senior Tab reporter on 14th October
They're full of people pointing out the obvious, thinking they've saved the world
Ah, the special feeling you get when logging into Facebook and find someone thinks you’re cool enough to invite to their event. Is it a house party? Is it a social? All the possibilities race through your mind. Then it hits you. You tap the red notification and find you’ve been summoned to this year’s “I Heart Consent Training Sessions”. Your crushing disappointment quickly melts away and is overcome by anger.
Let me explain, I love consent. Of course people should only interact with mutual agreement, but I still found this invitation loathsome. Like any self-respecting individual would, I found this to be a massive, painful, bitchy slap in the face. To be invited to such a waste of time was the biggest insult I’ve received in a good few years. It implies I have an insufficient understanding of what does and does not constitute consent and that’s incredibly hurtful. I can’t stress that enough.
I feel as if I’m taking the “wrong” side here, but someone has to say it – I don’t have to be taught to not be a rapist. That much comes naturally to me, as I am sure it does to the overwhelming majority of people you and I know. Brand me a bigot, a misogynist, a rape apologist, I don’t care. I stand by that.
I already know what is and what isn’t consent. I also know about those more nuanced situations where consent isn’t immediately obvious as any decent, empathetic human being does. Yes means yes, no means no. It’s really that simple. You’d think Russell Group university students would get that much, but apparently the consent teachers don’t have as high a regard for their peers as I do.
I’m not denying there have been tragic cases of rape and abuse on campuses in the past, but do you really think the kind of people who lacks empathy, respect and human decency to the point where they’d violate someone’s body is really going to turn up to a consent lesson on a university campus? They won’t. The only people who’ll turn up will be people who (surprise, surprise) already know when it’s okay to shag someone. No new information will be taught or learned. It will just be an echo chamber of people pointing out the obvious and others nodding along, thinking the whole time thinking that they’ve saved the world.
I want to call the people leading the charge behind these classes admirable, I want to call them heroic, but I’m afraid they’re not. There are countless other more useful things they could be doing with their time. They could be making a difference by actually going out and campaigning, volunteering and caring for other people. Instead they selfishly make themselves feel better by indulging in the delusion that all that’s needed to save the vulnerable from foul predators is to point out the blindingly obvious.
Self-appointed teachers of consent: get off your fucking high horse. I don’t need your help to understand basic human interaction. Secondly, go and do something. Real people need your help and they deserve better than you. Next time you consider inviting me or anyone else to another bullshit event like this, have a little respect for the intelligence and decency of your peers. You might find that’s a more effective solution than accusing them of being vile rapists-in-waiting who can only be taught otherwise by a smug, righteous, self-congratulatory intervention.
Source
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Attorney General Loretta Lynch ignores male victims of domestic violence
From SAVE Services:
For Domestic Violence Awareness Month, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch delivered remarks about domestic violence at a Justice Department event.
As one can see from the transcript, here. AG Lynch repeatedly refers to female victims, but doesn't mention male victims once.
We at SAVE know that male domestic violence victims do exist, and it's important that our national leaders take time to acknowledge them so that they receive critical resources and attention.
Please contact the Department of Justice and share your concerns: (202) 353-1555 or Contact us
We also invite you to review the new VAWA provisions, referenced by AG Lynch, to make them inclusive of all victims:click here
All the best,
Gina Lauterio, Esq., Policy Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
For Domestic Violence Awareness Month, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch delivered remarks about domestic violence at a Justice Department event.
As one can see from the transcript, here. AG Lynch repeatedly refers to female victims, but doesn't mention male victims once.
We at SAVE know that male domestic violence victims do exist, and it's important that our national leaders take time to acknowledge them so that they receive critical resources and attention.
Please contact the Department of Justice and share your concerns: (202) 353-1555 or Contact us
We also invite you to review the new VAWA provisions, referenced by AG Lynch, to make them inclusive of all victims:click here
All the best,
Gina Lauterio, Esq., Policy Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Monday, September 28, 2015
Thank you Senator Lamar Alexander
Let's thank Senator Alexander for standing up to the Department of Education and for standing up to the abuses of the Civil Rights division of the Department of Education. His contact info is here.
UN Women want to censor the internet
In a report released yesterday, entitled “Cyber Violence Against Women And Girls: A Global Wake-up Call,” UN Women, the group behind last year’s risible “He for She” campaign, called on governments to use their “licensing prerogative” to ensure that “telecoms and search engines” are only “allowed to connect with the public” if they “supervise content and its dissemination.”
In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public.
So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women.
Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday.
According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.”
Unable to prove that they are the victims of a wave of “misogynistic hate” – no bomb threat against a feminist critic of video games has ever been deemed credible and there are serious doubts about threats supposedly levelled at transsexual activist Brianna Wu – feminists are trying to redefine violence and harassment to include disobliging tweets and criticisms of their work.
In other words: someone said “you suck” to Anita Sarkeesian and now we have to censor the internet. Who could have predicted such a thing? It’s worth noting, by the way, that if Sarkeesian’s definition is correct, Donald Trump is the world’s greatest victim of “cyber-violence.” Someone should let him know.
Sarkeesian’s comments were echoed by former video game developer, feminist activist and professional victim Zoe Quinn, who told the United Nations: “There are individuals on YouTube who have made a living off of [sic] abusing Anita and I.” Quinn does not name any specific YouTubers, and we are left guessing as to who these mysterious “abusers” really are.
Hmm. Quinn makes more than $3,000 a month on donation site Patreon as she travels around the world talking about her “harassment” story. If anyone is turning a profit from alleged “online abuse,” it’s not the YouTubers.
The message from the UN seems to be: “cyber-violence” against women, at least according to their invited guests, is somehow equivalent to getting thumped, or bullied, or abused in real life, and it’s worth clamping down on basic free speech provisions to insulate these delicate first-world feminist wallflowers from the consequences of their own purposefully provocative statements.
The UN ignores the fact that both of their high-profile invitees are professional wind-up merchants who have capitalised on a media environment in which it has become acceptable to say almost anything about “straight white males” and which women, no matter how preposterous their opinions, can get column inches for saying they’ve been “threatened.” (No journalist will ever check their claims.)
Sarkeesian and Quinn are perhaps the finest living examples of what I call quantum superstate feminism, whose figureheads are at once aggressor and victim; trolling, provoking and ridiculing their ideological opponents while at the same time crying foul when their provocative language is returned in kind.
Somehow, I doubt women in actual peril outside Europe and the US will have much time for this self-regarding baloney.
The UN report itself contains a number of bizarre attempts to equate critical tweets on the internet with physical violence. “A cyber-touch is recognised as equally as harmful as a physical touch” says the report. In their press release, UN Women claim that “cyber violence … places a premium on emotional bandwidth.”
It doesn’t tell us what “emotional bandwidth” means, so we are left to guess. It sounds like “emotional quotient,” which girls say their boyfriends are lacking despite their higher IQs. Nonetheless, the concept of “emotional bandwidth” raises interesting questions. Is it a crime when Netflix starts buffering during a romantic comedy?
Inventing nebulous terms is a speciality of the UN. It allows them to “take action” (that is: issue reports no one reads) on something that doesn’t exist, which disguises their impotence when dealing with real human rights abuses. Needless to say, not everyone agrees that “cyber-violence” and “emotional bandwidth” are urgent humanitarian issues.
Tyler isn’t alone. As the Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey points out, the UN’s grand plan to censor the web fights against the rising tide of cultural libertarianism. If UN Women think they have civil society on their side, they are mistaken. Everyone from academics and Hollywood actors to gamers and reddit users are sick of mendacious, sinister and profoundly anti-intellectual attempts to attack free expression with bizarre concepts like “cyber-violence” and “safe spaces.”
Even Dewey, a critic of unfettered free speech on the web, thinks the UN’s recommendations are “several steps too revolutionary.”
The UN report’s ham-fisted attempt to equate unwelcome words with violence isn’t its only problem. Its explicit focus on women is never justified, and runs contrary to the data. Research from the Pew Centre has found that “men and women are equally likely overall to have experienced “severe” [online] harassment.” (The research also found that women are twice as likely to be upset by online harassment, but that’s a separate question.) Yet the U.N. group appears to think women’s online harassment merits a special focus. Why?
The UN report’s explanation of the causes of “online cyber violence” echoes the tired language of 1990s moral panics, and in some cases even relies on outdated research from the same period. It blames the “mainstreaming of violence against women” on “popular music, movies, the gaming industry, and the general portrayal of women in popular culture.”
As an enterprising redditor has discovered, the UN’s source is an article from 2000, describing the theories of former Army psychologist Lt. Colonel David Grossman, which accuses Nintendo of manufacturing “equipment for satanic video games.” In the aftermath of the Columbine school shootings, Grossman appeared on TV alongside the evangelical moral crusader Jack Thompson, where he supported Thompson’s argument that video games “trained” school shooters.
The report also has a strange preoccupation with pornography, which it accuses of causing “aggressive behavioural tendencies” as well as “increased interest in coercing their partners into unwanted sex acts.” Their citation is a link to “Stop Porn Culture,” a campaign group chaired by the militantly sex-negative and widely criticised feminist Gail Dines.
Other citations in the report are dead links to old blog posts. One has to wonder if the UN expected anyone to fact-check it at all. Given that most of their “reports” are boondoggles, I suspect they’re surprised by all the attention.
You’d think UN Women would have more pressing concerns than porn, video games, and “cyber violence.” After all, Saudi Arabia, a country with a real violence against women problem, was recently selected to chair a key human rights panel elsewhere in the sprawling UN ecosystem. But ethical priorities don’t seem to be the UN’s strong suit.
It can be pointless and pedantic to play what some of us call “Oppression Olympics,” but in this case the discrepancy between this UN group’s complaints and the real suffering of women is too great to ignore. In a world afflicted by female genital mutilation, forced marriages and acid attacks on girls whose only crime is wanting an education, the UN has chosen to focus on the professional whinging of privileged and mendacious western activists.
The UN has always been a joke, but in this case, by providing a platform for such ludicrously entitled windbags, they have provided us all with the punchline themselves.
Source
The UN is a very dirty joke as far as I'm concerned and it is a major obscenity as well. Let's just defund this worthless organization and disband it too. It just sucks in American tax dollars and contributes nothing but its own excrement. It's time to just say good bye and good riddance to the UN. Write your Representative and Senators and tell them to defund and disband the UN.
In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public.
So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women.
Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday.
According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.”
Unable to prove that they are the victims of a wave of “misogynistic hate” – no bomb threat against a feminist critic of video games has ever been deemed credible and there are serious doubts about threats supposedly levelled at transsexual activist Brianna Wu – feminists are trying to redefine violence and harassment to include disobliging tweets and criticisms of their work.
In other words: someone said “you suck” to Anita Sarkeesian and now we have to censor the internet. Who could have predicted such a thing? It’s worth noting, by the way, that if Sarkeesian’s definition is correct, Donald Trump is the world’s greatest victim of “cyber-violence.” Someone should let him know.
Sarkeesian’s comments were echoed by former video game developer, feminist activist and professional victim Zoe Quinn, who told the United Nations: “There are individuals on YouTube who have made a living off of [sic] abusing Anita and I.” Quinn does not name any specific YouTubers, and we are left guessing as to who these mysterious “abusers” really are.
Hmm. Quinn makes more than $3,000 a month on donation site Patreon as she travels around the world talking about her “harassment” story. If anyone is turning a profit from alleged “online abuse,” it’s not the YouTubers.
The message from the UN seems to be: “cyber-violence” against women, at least according to their invited guests, is somehow equivalent to getting thumped, or bullied, or abused in real life, and it’s worth clamping down on basic free speech provisions to insulate these delicate first-world feminist wallflowers from the consequences of their own purposefully provocative statements.
The UN ignores the fact that both of their high-profile invitees are professional wind-up merchants who have capitalised on a media environment in which it has become acceptable to say almost anything about “straight white males” and which women, no matter how preposterous their opinions, can get column inches for saying they’ve been “threatened.” (No journalist will ever check their claims.)
Sarkeesian and Quinn are perhaps the finest living examples of what I call quantum superstate feminism, whose figureheads are at once aggressor and victim; trolling, provoking and ridiculing their ideological opponents while at the same time crying foul when their provocative language is returned in kind.
Somehow, I doubt women in actual peril outside Europe and the US will have much time for this self-regarding baloney.
The UN report itself contains a number of bizarre attempts to equate critical tweets on the internet with physical violence. “A cyber-touch is recognised as equally as harmful as a physical touch” says the report. In their press release, UN Women claim that “cyber violence … places a premium on emotional bandwidth.”
It doesn’t tell us what “emotional bandwidth” means, so we are left to guess. It sounds like “emotional quotient,” which girls say their boyfriends are lacking despite their higher IQs. Nonetheless, the concept of “emotional bandwidth” raises interesting questions. Is it a crime when Netflix starts buffering during a romantic comedy?
Inventing nebulous terms is a speciality of the UN. It allows them to “take action” (that is: issue reports no one reads) on something that doesn’t exist, which disguises their impotence when dealing with real human rights abuses. Needless to say, not everyone agrees that “cyber-violence” and “emotional bandwidth” are urgent humanitarian issues.
Tyler isn’t alone. As the Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey points out, the UN’s grand plan to censor the web fights against the rising tide of cultural libertarianism. If UN Women think they have civil society on their side, they are mistaken. Everyone from academics and Hollywood actors to gamers and reddit users are sick of mendacious, sinister and profoundly anti-intellectual attempts to attack free expression with bizarre concepts like “cyber-violence” and “safe spaces.”
Even Dewey, a critic of unfettered free speech on the web, thinks the UN’s recommendations are “several steps too revolutionary.”
The UN report’s ham-fisted attempt to equate unwelcome words with violence isn’t its only problem. Its explicit focus on women is never justified, and runs contrary to the data. Research from the Pew Centre has found that “men and women are equally likely overall to have experienced “severe” [online] harassment.” (The research also found that women are twice as likely to be upset by online harassment, but that’s a separate question.) Yet the U.N. group appears to think women’s online harassment merits a special focus. Why?
The UN report’s explanation of the causes of “online cyber violence” echoes the tired language of 1990s moral panics, and in some cases even relies on outdated research from the same period. It blames the “mainstreaming of violence against women” on “popular music, movies, the gaming industry, and the general portrayal of women in popular culture.”
As an enterprising redditor has discovered, the UN’s source is an article from 2000, describing the theories of former Army psychologist Lt. Colonel David Grossman, which accuses Nintendo of manufacturing “equipment for satanic video games.” In the aftermath of the Columbine school shootings, Grossman appeared on TV alongside the evangelical moral crusader Jack Thompson, where he supported Thompson’s argument that video games “trained” school shooters.
The report also has a strange preoccupation with pornography, which it accuses of causing “aggressive behavioural tendencies” as well as “increased interest in coercing their partners into unwanted sex acts.” Their citation is a link to “Stop Porn Culture,” a campaign group chaired by the militantly sex-negative and widely criticised feminist Gail Dines.
Other citations in the report are dead links to old blog posts. One has to wonder if the UN expected anyone to fact-check it at all. Given that most of their “reports” are boondoggles, I suspect they’re surprised by all the attention.
You’d think UN Women would have more pressing concerns than porn, video games, and “cyber violence.” After all, Saudi Arabia, a country with a real violence against women problem, was recently selected to chair a key human rights panel elsewhere in the sprawling UN ecosystem. But ethical priorities don’t seem to be the UN’s strong suit.
It can be pointless and pedantic to play what some of us call “Oppression Olympics,” but in this case the discrepancy between this UN group’s complaints and the real suffering of women is too great to ignore. In a world afflicted by female genital mutilation, forced marriages and acid attacks on girls whose only crime is wanting an education, the UN has chosen to focus on the professional whinging of privileged and mendacious western activists.
The UN has always been a joke, but in this case, by providing a platform for such ludicrously entitled windbags, they have provided us all with the punchline themselves.
Source
The UN is a very dirty joke as far as I'm concerned and it is a major obscenity as well. Let's just defund this worthless organization and disband it too. It just sucks in American tax dollars and contributes nothing but its own excrement. It's time to just say good bye and good riddance to the UN. Write your Representative and Senators and tell them to defund and disband the UN.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Support H.R. 3403 the Safe Campus Act
From SAVE Services:
The time has come.
Thanks to your hard work, a strong due process bill has been introduced to address campus sexual assault. SAVE formally endorses it, and we need your help to get it passed.
The bill is called the Safe Campus Act (H.R. 3403) and was introduced last week by Reps. Matt Salmon, Kay Granger, and Pete Sessions. The bill can be read here.
The bill will pass off most investigations to the police and restore many vital due process protections on campus, such as the right to a lawyer and to cross-examine.
Please contact your legislators today and tell them to co-sponsor the bill.
To reach your representatives, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, or find your U.S. Representative here.
The time has come.
Thanks to your hard work, a strong due process bill has been introduced to address campus sexual assault. SAVE formally endorses it, and we need your help to get it passed.
The bill is called the Safe Campus Act (H.R. 3403) and was introduced last week by Reps. Matt Salmon, Kay Granger, and Pete Sessions. The bill can be read here.
The bill will pass off most investigations to the police and restore many vital due process protections on campus, such as the right to a lawyer and to cross-examine.
Please contact your legislators today and tell them to co-sponsor the bill.
To reach your representatives, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, or find your U.S. Representative here.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Hockey player is blackmailed but doesn't care.
Hockey player Jaromir Jagr, who currently plays for the NHL’s Florida Panthers, has gotten himself involved in a sex scandal. But the reason it’s gone viral is that the 43-year-old simply does not care.
Jagr slept with an 18-year-old model, who took a selfie as he lay asleep in a bed.
Then she attempted to blackmail the hockey legend with the photo, saying that if he didn’t pay her $2,000, she would email it to the media.
His response, according to Yahoo!, was classic:
“I don’t care,” he said. “Do whatever.”
So, she sent the photo to media sources, who promptly published it.
It must be noted that Jagr is a single guy, so it doesn’t quite make sense why the model, purportedly named Kateřina Provazníková, would attempt to blackmail him with a post-coitus selfie.
However, the case thickens.
While Jagr may be unattached, the model is not. She is dating another hockey player, Domink Rudl.
While, Rudl has yet to respond, Jagr took to Instagram to comment on the matter.
Here is a translation, which was performed by a Reddit user:
“And here we have another photo from my privacy, except here nobody wanted to get paid for it, despite how good it is.”
“Maybe they couldn’t find out what her name is.”
“I forgot it too.”
“Who doesn’t know what this is about? Good.”
Provazníková has yet to comment on the matter.
Source
This is awesome. I love this guy's response. That "fuck you,bitch I don't care what you do" attitude is refreshing. In a age where we are bombarded by pussies that apologize for everything male it is good to see a man come back with an attitude I would have taken. I wonder if he is a regular reader of this blog. It wouldn't surprise me if he is.
Jagr slept with an 18-year-old model, who took a selfie as he lay asleep in a bed.
Then she attempted to blackmail the hockey legend with the photo, saying that if he didn’t pay her $2,000, she would email it to the media.
His response, according to Yahoo!, was classic:
“I don’t care,” he said. “Do whatever.”
So, she sent the photo to media sources, who promptly published it.
It must be noted that Jagr is a single guy, so it doesn’t quite make sense why the model, purportedly named Kateřina Provazníková, would attempt to blackmail him with a post-coitus selfie.
However, the case thickens.
While Jagr may be unattached, the model is not. She is dating another hockey player, Domink Rudl.
While, Rudl has yet to respond, Jagr took to Instagram to comment on the matter.
Here is a translation, which was performed by a Reddit user:
“And here we have another photo from my privacy, except here nobody wanted to get paid for it, despite how good it is.”
“Maybe they couldn’t find out what her name is.”
“I forgot it too.”
“Who doesn’t know what this is about? Good.”
Provazníková has yet to comment on the matter.
Source
This is awesome. I love this guy's response. That "fuck you,bitch I don't care what you do" attitude is refreshing. In a age where we are bombarded by pussies that apologize for everything male it is good to see a man come back with an attitude I would have taken. I wonder if he is a regular reader of this blog. It wouldn't surprise me if he is.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Tell Congressman Jared Polis to use correct stats in "he said/she said" cases
From SAVE Services:
Thank you for telling U.S. Representative Jared Polis on Monday that it's wrong to expel innocence students.
As you may recall, Rep. Polis stated that a student should be expelled if there is only a 20% chance he is guilty.
He has since apologized! click here
In his apology, however, he states that 1 in 5 female students in the class of 2019 will be assaulted or raped. Perhaps Polis likes the number "20%," but we know this number has been debunked: click here
We want you to contact Rep. Polis again and tell him that he needs to look at facts before advocating for sexual assault policy changes. To do otherwise is dangerous and unprofessional.
Call: (202) 225-2161
Email: click here
Thank you for telling U.S. Representative Jared Polis on Monday that it's wrong to expel innocence students.
As you may recall, Rep. Polis stated that a student should be expelled if there is only a 20% chance he is guilty.
He has since apologized! click here
In his apology, however, he states that 1 in 5 female students in the class of 2019 will be assaulted or raped. Perhaps Polis likes the number "20%," but we know this number has been debunked: click here
We want you to contact Rep. Polis again and tell him that he needs to look at facts before advocating for sexual assault policy changes. To do otherwise is dangerous and unprofessional.
Call: (202) 225-2161
Email: click here
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Congressman Jerod Polis apologizes for his misandric remarks
I misspoke
During a subcommittee hearing last week about sexual assault on college campuses, I committed a major gaffe during the back-and-forth exchange with a witness who was advocating for removing the authority of colleges to adjudicate sexual assault cases that happen on their campuses. My words did not convey my beliefs nor the policies I now or have ever supported
During that exchange I went too far by implying that I support expelling innocent students from college campuses, which is something neither I nor other advocates of justice for survivors of sexual assault support. That is not what I meant to say and I apologize for my poor choice of words.
Sexual assault on college campuses is a serious issue — one that shouldn't be whittled down to errant sound bites. For the incoming class of 2019 that arrived at college campuses earlier this month, nearly one in five female students will be assaulted or raped by the time she graduates .
Nor should this be seen strictly as a gender issue. Men also experience sexual assault and they face the same types of trauma as female survivors.
To most people who don't know much about this issue, it makes sense to solely adjudicate these cases in our criminal justice system, just like we do other crimes. The witness mentioned above who I was questioning was arguing for just such an approach.
However, this is a deeply dangerous idea that demonstrates a cursory and superficial understanding of the issue. Ask any sexual assault advocate and they'll tell you the same thing.
There are very important reasons why colleges and universities currently have jurisdiction over assaults that occur on their campuses, and why the process is separate from the criminal justice system. In my effort to defend this practice, I went too far, and I regret that my remarks have detracted from the substance of this debate and have reflected poorly on the good work being done by college offices across the country that investigate these cases, including two in my own backyard in Colorado (University of Colorado at Boulder and Colorado State University).
Decades of research and case histories show how woefully inadequate the criminal justice system can be for survivors of sexual assault. For starters, rape survivors are unlikely to report cases to police, citing things like not thinking it's important enough, not wanting others to know, not having proof, fearing retaliation, and being uncertain about whether what happened constitutes assault . According to a recent Department of Justice study, only 20 percent of campus sexual assault survivors report the assault to police .
Secondly, our criminal justice system moves slowly. Campus assault cases are designed to move efficiently so that survivors, as a basic matter of campus safety and to prevent additional trauma, don't have to cross paths with their assailant on campus for an extended period of time.
Third, colleges have a unique obligation to adjudicate these cases because of a landmark federal civil rights law, Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in any federally-funded educational institution. Sexual violence on college campuses creates a hostile learning environment, particularly for women, and is therefore a violation of civil rights. It's essential that colleges uphold the right of every student to a safe learning environment and colleges are uniquely equipped to provide that through accommodations that local police simply can't offer. For instance, helping a student switch classes or move dorms so she or he doesn't have to interact with their assailant on a daily basis are critical to survivors' ability to complete their education.
This is precisely why the Department of Education four years ago stepped in and required schools to use a "preponderance of evidence" standard to remove alleged assailants from campus, meaning the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the student is guilty of the assault.
This requirement doesn't discourage survivors from also pursuing criminal complains if they wish, but it allows schools to take more timely action against individuals who the evidence shows are guilty, so that assailants are not allowed to remain on campus and reoffend while their cases slowly make their way through criminal courts (if they ever do — only half of all sexual assault cases that are investigated by police are prosecuted ).
Our criminal courts weren't designed to decide who can safely be in the same classroom with your kids or mine; they were designed to set a high bar for depriving someone of their liberty and imprisoning them. In my comments last week I was attempting to make this point, though I went too far in making it. I regret that my gaffe is now being used by some to advocate for a dangerous and myopic policy that would make our college campuses less safe.
For those of us also concerned with the rights of the accused, dragging their name through the newspaper as an accused rapist through a criminal justice process will haunt them forever, even if they are found not guilty. So too, it damages the survivor of sexual assault even more to have their name and crimes against them in public, especially because a popular defense strategy is to attack the victim.
Yes, balancing the needs for campus safety and due process is not easy. But the answer is not simply to tell schools to wash their hands of all responsibility on the issue and refer every student to a court system in which justice is elusive (for every 100 rape cases reported, only three rapists will ever serve a day in prison ).
Instead, we should be working together toward the same goal: college campuses where survivors feel empowered to come forward and where administrators have the resources they need to handle these cases promptly, fairly and equitably.
click here
This is big. This is a gay, liberal Democrat apologizing to us for what he said. Usually it is a heterosexual conservative Republican that goes through the wringer. No more. We won't stand for it. We are tired of the misandry and now we know we've made at least one Democrat see the light. Way to go. Good work all.
During a subcommittee hearing last week about sexual assault on college campuses, I committed a major gaffe during the back-and-forth exchange with a witness who was advocating for removing the authority of colleges to adjudicate sexual assault cases that happen on their campuses. My words did not convey my beliefs nor the policies I now or have ever supported
During that exchange I went too far by implying that I support expelling innocent students from college campuses, which is something neither I nor other advocates of justice for survivors of sexual assault support. That is not what I meant to say and I apologize for my poor choice of words.
Sexual assault on college campuses is a serious issue — one that shouldn't be whittled down to errant sound bites. For the incoming class of 2019 that arrived at college campuses earlier this month, nearly one in five female students will be assaulted or raped by the time she graduates .
Nor should this be seen strictly as a gender issue. Men also experience sexual assault and they face the same types of trauma as female survivors.
To most people who don't know much about this issue, it makes sense to solely adjudicate these cases in our criminal justice system, just like we do other crimes. The witness mentioned above who I was questioning was arguing for just such an approach.
However, this is a deeply dangerous idea that demonstrates a cursory and superficial understanding of the issue. Ask any sexual assault advocate and they'll tell you the same thing.
There are very important reasons why colleges and universities currently have jurisdiction over assaults that occur on their campuses, and why the process is separate from the criminal justice system. In my effort to defend this practice, I went too far, and I regret that my remarks have detracted from the substance of this debate and have reflected poorly on the good work being done by college offices across the country that investigate these cases, including two in my own backyard in Colorado (University of Colorado at Boulder and Colorado State University).
Decades of research and case histories show how woefully inadequate the criminal justice system can be for survivors of sexual assault. For starters, rape survivors are unlikely to report cases to police, citing things like not thinking it's important enough, not wanting others to know, not having proof, fearing retaliation, and being uncertain about whether what happened constitutes assault . According to a recent Department of Justice study, only 20 percent of campus sexual assault survivors report the assault to police .
Secondly, our criminal justice system moves slowly. Campus assault cases are designed to move efficiently so that survivors, as a basic matter of campus safety and to prevent additional trauma, don't have to cross paths with their assailant on campus for an extended period of time.
Third, colleges have a unique obligation to adjudicate these cases because of a landmark federal civil rights law, Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in any federally-funded educational institution. Sexual violence on college campuses creates a hostile learning environment, particularly for women, and is therefore a violation of civil rights. It's essential that colleges uphold the right of every student to a safe learning environment and colleges are uniquely equipped to provide that through accommodations that local police simply can't offer. For instance, helping a student switch classes or move dorms so she or he doesn't have to interact with their assailant on a daily basis are critical to survivors' ability to complete their education.
This is precisely why the Department of Education four years ago stepped in and required schools to use a "preponderance of evidence" standard to remove alleged assailants from campus, meaning the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the student is guilty of the assault.
This requirement doesn't discourage survivors from also pursuing criminal complains if they wish, but it allows schools to take more timely action against individuals who the evidence shows are guilty, so that assailants are not allowed to remain on campus and reoffend while their cases slowly make their way through criminal courts (if they ever do — only half of all sexual assault cases that are investigated by police are prosecuted ).
Our criminal courts weren't designed to decide who can safely be in the same classroom with your kids or mine; they were designed to set a high bar for depriving someone of their liberty and imprisoning them. In my comments last week I was attempting to make this point, though I went too far in making it. I regret that my gaffe is now being used by some to advocate for a dangerous and myopic policy that would make our college campuses less safe.
For those of us also concerned with the rights of the accused, dragging their name through the newspaper as an accused rapist through a criminal justice process will haunt them forever, even if they are found not guilty. So too, it damages the survivor of sexual assault even more to have their name and crimes against them in public, especially because a popular defense strategy is to attack the victim.
Yes, balancing the needs for campus safety and due process is not easy. But the answer is not simply to tell schools to wash their hands of all responsibility on the issue and refer every student to a court system in which justice is elusive (for every 100 rape cases reported, only three rapists will ever serve a day in prison ).
Instead, we should be working together toward the same goal: college campuses where survivors feel empowered to come forward and where administrators have the resources they need to handle these cases promptly, fairly and equitably.
click here
This is big. This is a gay, liberal Democrat apologizing to us for what he said. Usually it is a heterosexual conservative Republican that goes through the wringer. No more. We won't stand for it. We are tired of the misandry and now we know we've made at least one Democrat see the light. Way to go. Good work all.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Tell Congressman Polis to apologize for his misandric remarks
Speaking of Congressman Jared Polis-D-Colorado. SAVE Services is taking him to task for his comments:
U.S. Rep. Jared Polis is 100% wrong. In a House hearing on campus sexual assault last week, Polis stated that a student should be expelled if there is a 20% chance he is guilty. Polis also stated that the standard used should be lower than "preponderance of the evidence."
Polis added, "If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people."
Tell Rep. Polis (CO-2) that expelling innocent students is unacceptable advice, and wrongful accusations are damaging. Our representatives should instead be advocating for more due process in the campus kangaroo courts.
Call: (202) 225-2161
Email: click here
Tell a Congressman that student rights matter.
U.S. Rep. Jared Polis is 100% wrong. In a House hearing on campus sexual assault last week, Polis stated that a student should be expelled if there is a 20% chance he is guilty. Polis also stated that the standard used should be lower than "preponderance of the evidence."
Polis added, "If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people."
Tell Rep. Polis (CO-2) that expelling innocent students is unacceptable advice, and wrongful accusations are damaging. Our representatives should instead be advocating for more due process in the campus kangaroo courts.
Call: (202) 225-2161
Email: click here
Tell a Congressman that student rights matter.
Gay Congressman persecutes hetero college men
Congressman Jared Polis
Colorado Congressman Jared Polis-D made a comment about throwing innocent college and university men out with those they deemed "guilty". Polis has no problem persecuting innocent college and university men yet if someone acts against homosexuals then he screams like the raging queen that he is. If he doesn't give a fuck about college and university men then fuck him and his faggot buddies too. This is what I am referring to: click here. If you are a constituent of Congressman Polis then let him know that you disapprove of his stance on false rape accusations. If he can't support falsely accused heterosexual men then we cannot/do not support members of LGBT community until Polis rescinds his anti-hetero stance.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Only black female lives matter
Have you wondered WHY it's a BLACK Female's face on the "Black Lives Matter" posters ?
What is there to like about Black Women ?
Screwed if I know!
When they SAY "Black Lives Matter", they REALLY mean "Black WOMEN Matter", nothing more..
They have been riding on the coat tails of the white majority via endless and ever increasing "benefits". They have been singled out for obvious sexist and biased "education" with paid for programs, so they can attend some obviously useless college or university to study their own level of insecurity, their very own level of "VICTIMHOOD"..
On top of all that, black men and boys have been completely and entirely ignored and downtrodden, just to ensure those black privileged princesses can apply ever greater damage to their already negative image.
Such is the Black Female, that they now can use their free, "white" taxpayer paid subsidised education and use it to murder and riot against the very people that have supported and paid for their extravagant existence.
That's gratitude for you. Typical female..
One can understand why black guys avoid those toxic, malignant deviates like they are infected with some deadly plague. They obviously are effected by something as they continually demonstrate what level of toxic, disgusting and vile creatures they really are. They are sexist, racist bigots. Generating a list of benefits black women already receive, would begin with expletives, while running out of room as the list grows ever larger. of ever increasing size.
One would run out of expletives describing their unconscionable behaviour. Talk about taking everything for granted.
Now they are out to KILL the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg.
What level of moronity do these Black females live in ?
Exclusive: Law Enforcement Agencies On Alert For ‘Black Lives Matter’ Attacks On 9/11Law enforcement agencies are on high alert this week due to violent threats coming from the Black Lives Matter movement.
According to several Be On Look Out (BOLO) alerts sent from several law enforcement agencies and exclusively obtained by The Daily Caller, some members of the “#blacklivesmatter and #fyf911 are calling for the murder of more police officers on a site called blog radio.”
One caller on the show says, “When those mother f**kers are by themselves, that’s when when we should start f***ing them up. Like they do us, when a bunch of them ni**ers takin’ one of us out, that’s how we should roll up.” That caller goes on, “Cause we already roll up in gangs anyway. There should be six or seven black mother f**ckers, see that white person, and then lynch their ass. Let’s turn the tables.”
One BOLO says, “The narrator known as ‘King Noble’ on Facebook states: ‘It’s open season on killing whites and police officers and probably killing cops period. It’s open season. Picking them off. Today we live in a time when the white man will be picked off,” he goes on to claim “the predators are now the prey.’”
The BOLOs states further that the “#fyf911 (Fuk Yo Flag)” website calls for burning the American flag on 9/11 and “and physically breaking free of the imperialist, colonialist, and racist empires.”
Additionally, according to the BOLO’s description of the website, the plan also includes burning Confederate flags, police uniforms, and “ALL representations of organized evil and oppressive nations.”
The website says, “We also will be raising the Liberation flag and building on a new nation for the people. This is an INTERNATIONAL movement and a day of unity, progressive action, and liberation. To all OPPRESSIVE AND ORGANIZED EVIL after #FYF911 the people will not be bound to you any longer!”
The BOLOs also warns officers about a particular radio show. “A secondary organizer of the movement known as “Sunshine” has also indicated the same acts of violence (lynching and hanging) against white people and cops on her talk show radio, ‘Sunshine’s F***ing Opinion Radio Show.’”
Another BOLO shows a picture associated with the #FYF911 movement and “depicts a police officer hanging from a tree and Uncle Sam in a military uniform with a branch of the tree up his posterior end.”
The BOLO concludes, “states should heighten security measures to protect against possible protests and violence. Law enforcement and military personnel should be extremely vigilant and take extra safety precautions on 9/11.”
Source
Thursday, August 13, 2015
On second thought
I was watching Hannity on 8-13-15 in which Sean Hannity interviewed Donald Trump. Gender issues came up and Trump said that he takes a lot of advice on women's issues from his daughter,who sounds pro-feminist. Also he said there are positive things about Planned Parenthood. Those right there are two red flags with me. If he takes advice about women's issues from his daughter chances are he will be hostile to the Men's Rights Movement. this is a game changer. Where does Trump stand on Men's Issues? Let's ask him on his facebook page how he feels about Men's Issues. He is leading in the polls right now so we should know where he stands on gender issues so let's ask him.
Monday, August 10, 2015
Sign the petition to bar Megyn Kelly from future presidential debates
Megyn Kelly characterizes the Presidential selection process as "fun", dismissing the millions of Americans that find it much more serious. We deserve better than Megyn Kelly. Below, please find a list of reasons we believe Megyn Kelly should be barred from all future debates:
1.Megyn Kelly had a clear agenda: attack Donald Trump. Even if she “attacked equally”, we’re not looking for a hatchet-man; we’re looking for a moderator to thoroughly, and fairly, vet the Presidential candidates.
2.With over 90 million Americans out of the labor force, they are more concerned with their future than whether or not someone engaged in name calling.
3.She tenaciously covered (to the point of voyeuristic obsession) Mr. Trumps past rather than his vision for the future.
4.Megyn Kelly's feeling, however valid, should come second to the interest of our Nation.
5.She focused on candidates personally, rather than politically.
6.Megyn Kelly failed to cover many things more relevant to a Presidential candidate. For example, Marco Rubio’s gang of eight bill, Jeb Bush’s fascination with common core and feckless immigration policy, Rand Paul’s specific position on constitutional issues, Ted Cruz's track record of telling the truth on everything he's ever done, politically, Ben Carson's honest, calm and collected "outsider" approach (mixed with his questionable second amendment stance), etc.
Ultimately, neither she nor Fox News lived up the "fair and balanced" standard: were it not for closing statements, the American people may have viewed an entire debate without understanding a single issue for which the candidates stand.
While her disdain for Mr. Trump was evident, this petition is a call for truly fair and balanced coverage of all candidates. Therefore, and as evidenced by her clear bias and poor performance, Megyn Kelly should be barred from hosting or moderating all future Republican Presidential debates.
To sign the petition
1.Megyn Kelly had a clear agenda: attack Donald Trump. Even if she “attacked equally”, we’re not looking for a hatchet-man; we’re looking for a moderator to thoroughly, and fairly, vet the Presidential candidates.
2.With over 90 million Americans out of the labor force, they are more concerned with their future than whether or not someone engaged in name calling.
3.She tenaciously covered (to the point of voyeuristic obsession) Mr. Trumps past rather than his vision for the future.
4.Megyn Kelly's feeling, however valid, should come second to the interest of our Nation.
5.She focused on candidates personally, rather than politically.
6.Megyn Kelly failed to cover many things more relevant to a Presidential candidate. For example, Marco Rubio’s gang of eight bill, Jeb Bush’s fascination with common core and feckless immigration policy, Rand Paul’s specific position on constitutional issues, Ted Cruz's track record of telling the truth on everything he's ever done, politically, Ben Carson's honest, calm and collected "outsider" approach (mixed with his questionable second amendment stance), etc.
Ultimately, neither she nor Fox News lived up the "fair and balanced" standard: were it not for closing statements, the American people may have viewed an entire debate without understanding a single issue for which the candidates stand.
While her disdain for Mr. Trump was evident, this petition is a call for truly fair and balanced coverage of all candidates. Therefore, and as evidenced by her clear bias and poor performance, Megyn Kelly should be barred from hosting or moderating all future Republican Presidential debates.
To sign the petition
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Petition Utah to reform DV laws
It is an automatic 5 year sentence in a Federal Penitentiary for a person to possess a firearm while they have a protective order in place against them. A significant number of respondents (disproportionately men) have had their rights under the U.S. Constitution's 1st and 2nd Amendments trampled on by "protective orders" that have been in place for 5 years, 10 years, or even longer. The vast majority of states allow for an automatic cut-off after a year or 3 years. Utah's law unconstitutionally allows protective orders to continue INDEFINITELY. Should a Petitioner believe s/he still needs a protective order beyond 1 or even 3 years, they should be required to apply to the court for a new protective order (before or after the EXPIRATION of the original protective order). This is the ONLY way to be fair to the Respondent.
The Respondent can suffer the loss of his/her firearm for the 1-3 years due to his/her actions towards the Petitioner. However, indefinitely preventing a Respondent from being able to defend him/herself or work in a field of choice which requires a firearm is entirely unconstitutional.
The undersigned agree and wish that you would take action to make a positive change in this matter at once. Thank you.
To sign the petition
The Respondent can suffer the loss of his/her firearm for the 1-3 years due to his/her actions towards the Petitioner. However, indefinitely preventing a Respondent from being able to defend him/herself or work in a field of choice which requires a firearm is entirely unconstitutional.
The undersigned agree and wish that you would take action to make a positive change in this matter at once. Thank you.
To sign the petition
Saturday, August 8, 2015
On the Donald
I'm starting to like Trump. I like his brash "up your ass attitude" because he reminds me of yours truly. I especially like how he took Megyn Kelly to task about her bias against him. I,too am getting tired of this feminist politically correct bullshit attitude which implies that all women must be treated like regal queens. Kelly got bent out of shape over it along with Carly Fiorina. Okay,Carly how about the workers at Hewitt Packard that lost their jobs and paychecks over you. The same time they got reduced paychecks you were getting pay raises. I'm sure Fiorina has no problem with the MALE workers that were screwed over by her decisions. Fiorina thinks she is a business woman. Ha,she is a business liability. If she is elected she will be a national liability next to Obama. This has caused little pussywhipped assholes like Erick Erickson to get bent out of shape thus Erickson disinvites Trump to a RedState speaking event. That is a stupid move because now a lot of people will probably cancel their trip because they probably wanted to go to see Trump but if he's not there they'll thinking why bother. Fiorina and Kelly have to figure out whether they are big girls and can take it or they are little girls who have to succumb to male authority. Erickson has to figure out whether his wife is a big girl and can take a little criticism. If she is a little girl then she should be under male authority. If she is a little girl that makes Erickson a pedophile.
Friday, July 31, 2015
Vladek Filler stood up to persecution and won
NCFM Heroes, Vladek Filler and Tatyana Roberts, extraordinary people
May 24, 2015
By NCFM
vladek fillerHeroes are hard to find. Vladek Filler and his sister Tatyana are two of them. They believe, that here, in the United States of America, the word “justice” means something, and they risked everything to prove it. Their epic journey also shows “innocent until proven guilty “is a sham.
Roughly, eight years ago, Ligia Filler, Vladek’s unhinged mother of their two children, feared losing custody of their children. To gain advantage in their divorce case, she began making unsupported allegations of child abuse, sexual molestation, even spousal rape.
Nevertheless, there were sustainable reports Ligia abused the children, threatened to harm Vladek, and even threatened to murder police officers. One incident report revealed, “Ms. Filler chanted about ‘cutting up’ the defendant [Vladek] while laughing and crying hysterically, swearing and kicking a door.”
Child welfare workers conducted and extensive investigation. Accordingly, not only did Vladek gain custody of their two sons, they were allowed to move to Atlanta where all three now live. The family court judge said,
“[Ligia Filler] accused Mr. Filler of molesting the children. That allegation was false and known to be false. She has shown a capacity to manufacture claims…”
Hancock County Assistant District Mary Kellett knew of Ligia’s disreputable reputation, Vladek gaining custody of the children, and even the Family Court Judge’s finding that Ligia lied and made false claims. Yet Kellett, seemingly obsessed with Vladek’s’ downfall, mercilessly pursued him.
Since then, and through several trials, Kellett suppressed evidence that supported Vladek’s claims, and misrepresented and fabricated information against him. In one trial, Kellett convinced the court to disallow Vladek an opportunity to discredit Ligia or introduce information about their contentious divorce, key aspects of Vladek’s defense. Kellett then told the uninformed jury there was no evidence to prove a contentious divorce existed! She, like Ligia, blatantly lied. Everyone involved knew it except the jurors, including the judge and Vladek’s flabbergasted attorney who immediately moved for a mistrial.
Moreover, “During her initial closing argument, ADA Kellett told the jury, ‘there has been no evidence presented to you as the jury that would suggest that a sexual act hadn’t occurred…’” In the absence of evidence, Kellett attempted to shift the burden of proof to Vladek. Such behavior and disregard for evidence, law, constitutional protections and fundamental fairness, stem from a societal shift from rights of the accused to victim rights; plus, feminist judicial re-engineering, which promotes the idea that allegations by women trump factual evidence to the contrary.
Vladek Filler
Except, Vladek and Tatyana forgot to give up…
Kellett was but one of four female attorneys wielding feminist jurisprudence like a bloody man-hating sword, who in concert perverted Vladek’s innocence and the evenhanded administration of law, including a Maine Supreme Court Justice.
Vladek, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAFE) and the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) filed complaints against Kellett with the State Board of Overseers. A Voice For Men and other groups later joined the fight to free Vladek and jail Kellett.
The Board of Overseers found Kellett responsible for gross misconduct and recommended suspension from the practice of law. Trial was by Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice Ellen Gorman. The Maine Attorney General’s Office under Attorney General Janet Mills (Co-founder of Maine’s Women’s Lobby) represented Kellett. The Assistant Attorney General representing Kellett and Counsel for the Bar agreed that Kellett would admit to violating bar rules thereby negating a full-blown public hearing.
Kellett apologized, “I want to acknowledge that I made errors in the prosecution of the Filler case. I regret the harm that my errors caused.” Justice Gorman suspended her for 30 days, and then suspended the suspension.
Inexplicably, absent any explanation, Justice Gorman found that Kellett “did not intentionally attempt to violate Bar Rules or Vladek’s rights.” Yet, Justice Gorman’s findings clearly show an opposite fact pattern. Kellett’s “mistakes” had to be deliberate. Either that, or ten-year prosecutor Kellett was incompetent and married to idea that all woman alleging sexual assault, no matter how crazy and unreliable, are the victim, even if it means sending innocent men, the true victims, to prison. It appears Justice Gorman gave Kellett another get out of jail free card to help protect her Bar card; and, perhaps, to shut the lid on an overflow of judicial dirty laundry. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pf0nZRn3B8)
That same video reports an involved attorney saying, “it’s the first mistake she’s [Kellett] made in a career prosecuting more than 10,000 criminal cases. The same, or another attorney, which is not clear, said, “[D]uring the ten-plus years that she’s worked as a prosecutor she’s been a faithful and dedicated public servant.” Nonetheless, a random sampling of Kellett’s 10,000 cases will show more “mistakes” [sic]. In fact, enough reason exists to believe such mistakes may show a pattern of inexcusable prosecutorial misconduct resulting in wrongful convictions and the destruction of more innocent men. If making such “mistakes” is what makes a faithful and dedicated public servant, we need a serious rewrite of the job description…
Throughout Vladek’s persecution, District Attorney Carletta M. Bassano, did nothing to prevent Kellett’s pummeling of Vladek, in fact, she had to have insisted on it. Vladek’s ordeal revealed Bassano’s office swept up a dozen of so other men whose situations were similar to Vladek’s, which could only happen under the watchful eyes of boss Bassano. Even after Kellett’s suspended suspension, Bassano’s office continued Vladek’s persecution eking out a misdemeanor conviction.
Vladek appealed. Superior Court Justice Robert Murray, also the presiding judge at Filler’s second trial, vacated the conviction thereby clearing Vladek of all charges, including those he suffered before the misdemeanor conviction. Consequently, Vladek has no criminal record, as it was before Kellett and Bassano.
He won! Vladek caused the first trial of a corrupt Assistant District Attorney in Maine and took feminist jurisprudence to the woodshed for some serious schooling. He even brought down DA Bassano who chose not to run for reelection. Vladek successfully used the law to reveal the truth, serve up justice and change how a criminal justice system did business. Incredible.
To our knowledge, Kellett never missed a day’s pay from the day the Board of Overseers recommended suspension to the day Justice Gorman mocked her own court by suspending Kellett’s suspension. Kellett went unpunished and is reportedly now in private practice.
Year after year local media stories painted Vladek a serial abusing monster. Even video tapes of Vladek’s ex-wife raging at police and making murder threats did not cause the press to question the validity of her allegations, one irrational episode after another made good press, but bad reporting.
On May 15, 2015, Bill Trotter, Reporter for the Bangor Daily News, wrote a summary article, “Assault conviction vacated for former Maine man acquitted of raping wife.” Instead, why not something like, “Vladek Filler free after Hancock District Attorney’s office ten-year campaign of horrific persecution over false accusation of deranged wife;” which puts the guilt where it belongs, on the prosecutor and false accuser. Unfortunately, the press pretty much parrots the all-men-bad and all-women-good ideological drivel, which was glaringly obvious during Vladek’s persecution, and implied in Trotter’s title above, “man acquitted of raping…”
Trotter wrote, “But his legal battles are not over. Filler, 45, is suing more than a dozen people in federal court over the matter, most of whom are prosecutors or police officers who were directly or indirectly involved in the criminal case against him.” It will be hard for Trotter and other reporters not to report on those cases, except perhaps if they favor Vladek.
Vladek’s epic journey is no less arduous than the millions of immigrants who risk life and limb coming to America for freedom, opportunity, and above all perhaps, justice. His story is the story of determination, a commitment — a demand — that prosecutorial tyranny, surrender to the honest administration of the criminal justice process and fundamental constitutional protections.
Elitist feminist driven judicial tyranny intentionally destroys tens of thousands of American males every year, most of whom lack the strength, support, resources, and determination to survive the system. Gaining significant control of the judicial system was a huge victory for elitist feminism and a tragic loss for humankind.
Vladek and Tatyana rose above it, battered, bruised, and victorious, true heroes they will forever stand. Unfortunately, their saga firmly establishes guilty until proven innocent applies. Kellett, Ligia and maybe even Bassano belong in prison, and might be if they had penises. We trust Vladek’s federal lawsuit will be the ruination of the true bad actors.
NCFM played a small part in this saga, through which, I became privileged to befriend some of the best people on the planet.
Harry Crouch
President, NCFM
Source
As did the Men's Rights Blog. We too have been on this since beginning and we've seen a lot of courage from Vladek Filler and Tatyana Roberts endured a hell that lasted for years. The prosecutors office is a powerful one. One that must be used only for genuine criminal cases. When it is perverted for political or personal gain it is a tool of persecution and oppression. Kellet escapes justice but perhaps poetic justice will visit Kellet real soon. Vladek Filler has demonstrated that you don't have to sit back and accept oppression. That you can fight back and for that we congratulated him.
May 24, 2015
By NCFM
vladek fillerHeroes are hard to find. Vladek Filler and his sister Tatyana are two of them. They believe, that here, in the United States of America, the word “justice” means something, and they risked everything to prove it. Their epic journey also shows “innocent until proven guilty “is a sham.
Roughly, eight years ago, Ligia Filler, Vladek’s unhinged mother of their two children, feared losing custody of their children. To gain advantage in their divorce case, she began making unsupported allegations of child abuse, sexual molestation, even spousal rape.
Nevertheless, there were sustainable reports Ligia abused the children, threatened to harm Vladek, and even threatened to murder police officers. One incident report revealed, “Ms. Filler chanted about ‘cutting up’ the defendant [Vladek] while laughing and crying hysterically, swearing and kicking a door.”
Child welfare workers conducted and extensive investigation. Accordingly, not only did Vladek gain custody of their two sons, they were allowed to move to Atlanta where all three now live. The family court judge said,
“[Ligia Filler] accused Mr. Filler of molesting the children. That allegation was false and known to be false. She has shown a capacity to manufacture claims…”
Hancock County Assistant District Mary Kellett knew of Ligia’s disreputable reputation, Vladek gaining custody of the children, and even the Family Court Judge’s finding that Ligia lied and made false claims. Yet Kellett, seemingly obsessed with Vladek’s’ downfall, mercilessly pursued him.
Since then, and through several trials, Kellett suppressed evidence that supported Vladek’s claims, and misrepresented and fabricated information against him. In one trial, Kellett convinced the court to disallow Vladek an opportunity to discredit Ligia or introduce information about their contentious divorce, key aspects of Vladek’s defense. Kellett then told the uninformed jury there was no evidence to prove a contentious divorce existed! She, like Ligia, blatantly lied. Everyone involved knew it except the jurors, including the judge and Vladek’s flabbergasted attorney who immediately moved for a mistrial.
Moreover, “During her initial closing argument, ADA Kellett told the jury, ‘there has been no evidence presented to you as the jury that would suggest that a sexual act hadn’t occurred…’” In the absence of evidence, Kellett attempted to shift the burden of proof to Vladek. Such behavior and disregard for evidence, law, constitutional protections and fundamental fairness, stem from a societal shift from rights of the accused to victim rights; plus, feminist judicial re-engineering, which promotes the idea that allegations by women trump factual evidence to the contrary.
Vladek Filler
Except, Vladek and Tatyana forgot to give up…
Kellett was but one of four female attorneys wielding feminist jurisprudence like a bloody man-hating sword, who in concert perverted Vladek’s innocence and the evenhanded administration of law, including a Maine Supreme Court Justice.
Vladek, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAFE) and the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) filed complaints against Kellett with the State Board of Overseers. A Voice For Men and other groups later joined the fight to free Vladek and jail Kellett.
The Board of Overseers found Kellett responsible for gross misconduct and recommended suspension from the practice of law. Trial was by Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice Ellen Gorman. The Maine Attorney General’s Office under Attorney General Janet Mills (Co-founder of Maine’s Women’s Lobby) represented Kellett. The Assistant Attorney General representing Kellett and Counsel for the Bar agreed that Kellett would admit to violating bar rules thereby negating a full-blown public hearing.
Kellett apologized, “I want to acknowledge that I made errors in the prosecution of the Filler case. I regret the harm that my errors caused.” Justice Gorman suspended her for 30 days, and then suspended the suspension.
Inexplicably, absent any explanation, Justice Gorman found that Kellett “did not intentionally attempt to violate Bar Rules or Vladek’s rights.” Yet, Justice Gorman’s findings clearly show an opposite fact pattern. Kellett’s “mistakes” had to be deliberate. Either that, or ten-year prosecutor Kellett was incompetent and married to idea that all woman alleging sexual assault, no matter how crazy and unreliable, are the victim, even if it means sending innocent men, the true victims, to prison. It appears Justice Gorman gave Kellett another get out of jail free card to help protect her Bar card; and, perhaps, to shut the lid on an overflow of judicial dirty laundry. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pf0nZRn3B8)
That same video reports an involved attorney saying, “it’s the first mistake she’s [Kellett] made in a career prosecuting more than 10,000 criminal cases. The same, or another attorney, which is not clear, said, “[D]uring the ten-plus years that she’s worked as a prosecutor she’s been a faithful and dedicated public servant.” Nonetheless, a random sampling of Kellett’s 10,000 cases will show more “mistakes” [sic]. In fact, enough reason exists to believe such mistakes may show a pattern of inexcusable prosecutorial misconduct resulting in wrongful convictions and the destruction of more innocent men. If making such “mistakes” is what makes a faithful and dedicated public servant, we need a serious rewrite of the job description…
Throughout Vladek’s persecution, District Attorney Carletta M. Bassano, did nothing to prevent Kellett’s pummeling of Vladek, in fact, she had to have insisted on it. Vladek’s ordeal revealed Bassano’s office swept up a dozen of so other men whose situations were similar to Vladek’s, which could only happen under the watchful eyes of boss Bassano. Even after Kellett’s suspended suspension, Bassano’s office continued Vladek’s persecution eking out a misdemeanor conviction.
Vladek appealed. Superior Court Justice Robert Murray, also the presiding judge at Filler’s second trial, vacated the conviction thereby clearing Vladek of all charges, including those he suffered before the misdemeanor conviction. Consequently, Vladek has no criminal record, as it was before Kellett and Bassano.
He won! Vladek caused the first trial of a corrupt Assistant District Attorney in Maine and took feminist jurisprudence to the woodshed for some serious schooling. He even brought down DA Bassano who chose not to run for reelection. Vladek successfully used the law to reveal the truth, serve up justice and change how a criminal justice system did business. Incredible.
To our knowledge, Kellett never missed a day’s pay from the day the Board of Overseers recommended suspension to the day Justice Gorman mocked her own court by suspending Kellett’s suspension. Kellett went unpunished and is reportedly now in private practice.
Year after year local media stories painted Vladek a serial abusing monster. Even video tapes of Vladek’s ex-wife raging at police and making murder threats did not cause the press to question the validity of her allegations, one irrational episode after another made good press, but bad reporting.
On May 15, 2015, Bill Trotter, Reporter for the Bangor Daily News, wrote a summary article, “Assault conviction vacated for former Maine man acquitted of raping wife.” Instead, why not something like, “Vladek Filler free after Hancock District Attorney’s office ten-year campaign of horrific persecution over false accusation of deranged wife;” which puts the guilt where it belongs, on the prosecutor and false accuser. Unfortunately, the press pretty much parrots the all-men-bad and all-women-good ideological drivel, which was glaringly obvious during Vladek’s persecution, and implied in Trotter’s title above, “man acquitted of raping…”
Trotter wrote, “But his legal battles are not over. Filler, 45, is suing more than a dozen people in federal court over the matter, most of whom are prosecutors or police officers who were directly or indirectly involved in the criminal case against him.” It will be hard for Trotter and other reporters not to report on those cases, except perhaps if they favor Vladek.
Vladek’s epic journey is no less arduous than the millions of immigrants who risk life and limb coming to America for freedom, opportunity, and above all perhaps, justice. His story is the story of determination, a commitment — a demand — that prosecutorial tyranny, surrender to the honest administration of the criminal justice process and fundamental constitutional protections.
Elitist feminist driven judicial tyranny intentionally destroys tens of thousands of American males every year, most of whom lack the strength, support, resources, and determination to survive the system. Gaining significant control of the judicial system was a huge victory for elitist feminism and a tragic loss for humankind.
Vladek and Tatyana rose above it, battered, bruised, and victorious, true heroes they will forever stand. Unfortunately, their saga firmly establishes guilty until proven innocent applies. Kellett, Ligia and maybe even Bassano belong in prison, and might be if they had penises. We trust Vladek’s federal lawsuit will be the ruination of the true bad actors.
NCFM played a small part in this saga, through which, I became privileged to befriend some of the best people on the planet.
Harry Crouch
President, NCFM
Source
As did the Men's Rights Blog. We too have been on this since beginning and we've seen a lot of courage from Vladek Filler and Tatyana Roberts endured a hell that lasted for years. The prosecutors office is a powerful one. One that must be used only for genuine criminal cases. When it is perverted for political or personal gain it is a tool of persecution and oppression. Kellet escapes justice but perhaps poetic justice will visit Kellet real soon. Vladek Filler has demonstrated that you don't have to sit back and accept oppression. That you can fight back and for that we congratulated him.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Join with the NCFM in fighting CASA
There is a misandric draconian bill,the Campus Accountability and Safety Act or CASA for short,S.590. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee are going to hold hearing to discuss CASA. The panel that will testify at this hearing does not include those favorable to men's rights,especially due process rights. We need to make our voices heard. For more information go the National Coalition For Men website.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
There is nothing pretty about chick music
Sometimes music is not pretty. A good example would be Fifth Harmony. If you subtract the ones that look like bad examples of drag queens and are fat then you probably are down to one girl,if that many. We're guessing it's a girl we're not really sure. As for the rest we speak to them in an language they can understand: moooo.
On John Russel Houser
This past week there was the Lafayette theater shooter John Russel Houser who shot up a theater full of people before turning the gun on himself. I've read some of the things he wrote and one of the things I've concluded is that this is a man who had enough. Perhaps shooting up a theater causing 11 victims-2 dead and 9 wounded was not the best way to get your frustrations out and hoping to get some sympathy. The one thing Houser wrote made me understand him better and that is:
If you are male, fight until the end, and enjoy it.People are good at what they enjoy, and your Maker would want it that way.
Source
Regular readers of this blog know that there is a war on men in the United States and the rest of the anglosphere. When women can murder men with impunity then yes there is a war on men. When men can be dragged into court on flimsy charges by any woman then there is a war on men. Now you have men responding some in drastic fashion. With cause there is effect or for every action there is a equal reaction. People who haven't caught onto this concept are in for a rude awaking time and time again.
If you are male, fight until the end, and enjoy it.People are good at what they enjoy, and your Maker would want it that way.
Source
Regular readers of this blog know that there is a war on men in the United States and the rest of the anglosphere. When women can murder men with impunity then yes there is a war on men. When men can be dragged into court on flimsy charges by any woman then there is a war on men. Now you have men responding some in drastic fashion. With cause there is effect or for every action there is a equal reaction. People who haven't caught onto this concept are in for a rude awaking time and time again.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Senator McConnell says gender is not an issue in the 2016 election
McConnell: 'Gender card' alone not enough for Clinton
Associated Press
By BRUCE SCHREINER
SHEPHERDSVILLE, Ky. (AP) — The Senate's top Republican said Monday the "gender card alone" won't be enough to propel Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton to the White House.
"I don't think arguing 'vote for me because I'm a woman' is enough," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said while sizing up next year's presidential race during a speech in his home state of Kentucky. "You may recall my election last year. The gender card alone is not enough."
In 2014, McConnell's Democratic challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes, claimed the longtime Republican incumbent was insensitive on gender issues such as pay equity. McConnell trounced Grimes in the election, capitalizing on President Barack Obama's deep unpopularity in Kentucky.
McConnell said Monday there are millions of Americans who want a woman as president.
"The question is, a woman president to do what?" he said. "And I think inevitably, Hillary Clinton's campaign will be four more years of the last eight."
McConnell said Clinton, his former Senate colleague, is smart and capable but added there's "not a dime's worth of difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in terms of policy." He said he expects she will be the Democratic nominee.
"She's going to run straight left, just like the president did," McConnell said. "And their gamble is that the country is farther left than it used to be."
He called it a flawed strategy that the Republican presidential nominee can exploit.
"I think our nominee ought to say something like this: 'She's right, if you're happy with the last eight years, she's your candidate. But if you think America can do better by taking a different path, I'm your choice,'" McConnell said.
While McConnell discussed next year's presidential race during a speech in which he condemned Obama's record on an array of domestic and foreign policy issues, the senator was silent on this year's pivotal race for governor in his home state.
Later, McConnell told reporters the lack of comments about this year's top-of-the-ticket election in Kentucky wasn't a slight toward GOP nominee Matt Bevin, his one-time rival. Bevin, a Louisville businessman, last year tried but failed to wrest away McConnell's Senate seat in a bruising Republican primary.
"I certainly am enthusiastically supporting the nominee of our party," McConnell said. "I think we have an excellent chance of winning."
Bevin faces Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway in November.
Current Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear is in his second term and can't serve again because of term limits
Asked why he didn't talk more about Bevin, McConnell said his speech was focused largely on national issues and his new job as the Senate's top leader.
Source
Senator McConnell is taking a brave stance by sticking his neck out like this so let's reward him for having the courage to do so. I think it is great to see one of our elected officials stand up to feminist bullies. I'm going to contact him and thank him for taking a pro-male stance. If you believe the same as I do then I invite you to write to Senator McConnell as well.
Associated Press
By BRUCE SCHREINER
SHEPHERDSVILLE, Ky. (AP) — The Senate's top Republican said Monday the "gender card alone" won't be enough to propel Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton to the White House.
"I don't think arguing 'vote for me because I'm a woman' is enough," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said while sizing up next year's presidential race during a speech in his home state of Kentucky. "You may recall my election last year. The gender card alone is not enough."
In 2014, McConnell's Democratic challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes, claimed the longtime Republican incumbent was insensitive on gender issues such as pay equity. McConnell trounced Grimes in the election, capitalizing on President Barack Obama's deep unpopularity in Kentucky.
McConnell said Monday there are millions of Americans who want a woman as president.
"The question is, a woman president to do what?" he said. "And I think inevitably, Hillary Clinton's campaign will be four more years of the last eight."
McConnell said Clinton, his former Senate colleague, is smart and capable but added there's "not a dime's worth of difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in terms of policy." He said he expects she will be the Democratic nominee.
"She's going to run straight left, just like the president did," McConnell said. "And their gamble is that the country is farther left than it used to be."
He called it a flawed strategy that the Republican presidential nominee can exploit.
"I think our nominee ought to say something like this: 'She's right, if you're happy with the last eight years, she's your candidate. But if you think America can do better by taking a different path, I'm your choice,'" McConnell said.
While McConnell discussed next year's presidential race during a speech in which he condemned Obama's record on an array of domestic and foreign policy issues, the senator was silent on this year's pivotal race for governor in his home state.
Later, McConnell told reporters the lack of comments about this year's top-of-the-ticket election in Kentucky wasn't a slight toward GOP nominee Matt Bevin, his one-time rival. Bevin, a Louisville businessman, last year tried but failed to wrest away McConnell's Senate seat in a bruising Republican primary.
"I certainly am enthusiastically supporting the nominee of our party," McConnell said. "I think we have an excellent chance of winning."
Bevin faces Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway in November.
Current Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear is in his second term and can't serve again because of term limits
Asked why he didn't talk more about Bevin, McConnell said his speech was focused largely on national issues and his new job as the Senate's top leader.
Source
Senator McConnell is taking a brave stance by sticking his neck out like this so let's reward him for having the courage to do so. I think it is great to see one of our elected officials stand up to feminist bullies. I'm going to contact him and thank him for taking a pro-male stance. If you believe the same as I do then I invite you to write to Senator McConnell as well.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Urge the Victorian government to take male victims of domestic violence seriously
Domestic violence is a growing epidemic that affects everyone. Within Victoria there are no supports specifically catered for men/fathers who are the victims of domestic violence. We ask the government to provide funding to an organization that is capable of serving these men/fathers and children that are fleeing violent partners and their specific needs.
The Government of Victoria have provided $100,000 for animals fleeing domestic violence but next to nothing for men/fathers and their children fleeing family violence.
To sign the petition
The Government of Victoria have provided $100,000 for animals fleeing domestic violence but next to nothing for men/fathers and their children fleeing family violence.
To sign the petition
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Canada:misandric hellhole
A Canadian man, Gregory Elliott, faces six months in jail for having a disagreement with feminists on Twitter. He has been charged with criminal harassment.
The case involves two feminists (originally it was three) who claim they were harassed in 2012 by Elliott on Twitter. They are currently in court in Toronto. One of the complainants, Stephanie Guthrie, met with Elliott three years ago to interview him about working for her organization "Women in TO politics." But according to The Toronto Star, Guthrie was "creeped out" by the man and said he was "really intense" and so she decided not to hire him.
Court documents show that the two remained cordial through e-mail correspondence after their meeting and also continued their casual relationship via social media for almost 10 months. But things took a turn when Guthrie went after an online video game that allowed players to virtually punch the face of a feminist blogger. She joined other feminists who made it clear they wanted to publicly shame the game's creator. Guthrie had written on Twitter: “I want his hatred on the Internet to impact his real-life experience."
Seeing this message, Elliott reacted creating the hashtag #FascistFeminists and attacked their viewpoints, without once being threatening or violent. Yet, he was arrested in November of 2012, fired from his job, and now faces jail time.
In court this last week, Guthrie rolled her eyes during cross-examination by Elliott's attorney who asked about her "left-leaning politics." He then asked, "Why would you roll your eyes at a trial where my client faces serious charges of criminal harassment?" She said she didn't see the relevancy of such a question.
Source
Tell the Univeristy of Minnesota to abandon anti-male draconian practice
From SAVE Services:
The University of Minnesota President, Eric Kaler, is attempting to enact an affirmative consent policy at the school. Members of the University's Board of Regents asked him to hold off until they could review such a serious change at their next meeting. Now, the President is getting pressured into enacting the policy by media, even though affirmative consent would result in draconian and overbroad definitions of sexual assault crimes. Such definitions would require the school to call innocent students 'criminals'.Please contact President Kaler now and tell him to NOT pass an affirmative consent policy, and to instead stick with state definitions of crimes.
Call: (612) 626-1616
Or Email: upres@umn.edu
This is a good sign. They are proceeding with caution. 15-20 years ago they would be enthusiastic about a pro-feminist policy change. Hell they would be shouting it on top of roofs so that everyone could hear that they take women's complaints seriously and they didn't care if the complaints were genuine or not they just went with them. Gushing all over themselves about how sensitive they are to women's concerns. Today that is not the case. Today they are proceeding with caution and rightfully so. We are no longer sitting back and taking it. We are no longer sitting on the sidelines wondering when the misandry would end because as long as we did nothing nothing would change. We finally got fed up and decided to push back and that is when things got turned around. Men's Rights Activism works don't let anyone tell you it doesn't.
The University of Minnesota President, Eric Kaler, is attempting to enact an affirmative consent policy at the school. Members of the University's Board of Regents asked him to hold off until they could review such a serious change at their next meeting. Now, the President is getting pressured into enacting the policy by media, even though affirmative consent would result in draconian and overbroad definitions of sexual assault crimes. Such definitions would require the school to call innocent students 'criminals'.Please contact President Kaler now and tell him to NOT pass an affirmative consent policy, and to instead stick with state definitions of crimes.
Call: (612) 626-1616
Or Email: upres@umn.edu
This is a good sign. They are proceeding with caution. 15-20 years ago they would be enthusiastic about a pro-feminist policy change. Hell they would be shouting it on top of roofs so that everyone could hear that they take women's complaints seriously and they didn't care if the complaints were genuine or not they just went with them. Gushing all over themselves about how sensitive they are to women's concerns. Today that is not the case. Today they are proceeding with caution and rightfully so. We are no longer sitting back and taking it. We are no longer sitting on the sidelines wondering when the misandry would end because as long as we did nothing nothing would change. We finally got fed up and decided to push back and that is when things got turned around. Men's Rights Activism works don't let anyone tell you it doesn't.
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Junkie cop
Little Miss Dangerous has resigned.
Disgraced NYPD cop Stacey Staniland quit the force just one day after she was arrested last week — the third time she was collared in eight months, police sources said Wednesday.
Staniland was nabbed most recently July 1 after she rammed her motorcycle into two cars in the West New Brighton section of Staten Island, cops said.
Wearing a helmet that read “Little Miss Dangerous,” the troubled cop was turning her Honda CBR600RR from Davis Avenue onto Henderson Avenue just after 11 a.m.
She allegedly spun out and smashed into the vehicles at a red light, sources said.
But police made a shocking discovery as she sifted through her purse to pull out ID when they spotted needles, a silver spoon and drug residue, sources said.
She resigned on July 2, a day after the arrest, police sources said. She was suspended three times, once for each arrest.
The not-so-Finest’s first run-in with the law was in December 2014 while she was working at the 122nd Precinct in New Dorp.
She was busted for allegedly breaking into the home of her boyfriend’s mother in Elm Park, where she swiped jewelry, sources said.
She was arrested again in May while her criminal case was still open when police discovered she was doped up on duty at a police facility in Brooklyn, cops said.
Staniland was charged with possession of a hypodermic instrument and criminal possession of a controlled substance in that case, police said.
She still faces charges for possession of a hypodermic instrument and criminal possession of a controlled substance from her latest arrest, according to police.
Staniland earned $94,153 in 2014.
Source
Disgraced NYPD cop Stacey Staniland quit the force just one day after she was arrested last week — the third time she was collared in eight months, police sources said Wednesday.
Staniland was nabbed most recently July 1 after she rammed her motorcycle into two cars in the West New Brighton section of Staten Island, cops said.
Wearing a helmet that read “Little Miss Dangerous,” the troubled cop was turning her Honda CBR600RR from Davis Avenue onto Henderson Avenue just after 11 a.m.
She allegedly spun out and smashed into the vehicles at a red light, sources said.
But police made a shocking discovery as she sifted through her purse to pull out ID when they spotted needles, a silver spoon and drug residue, sources said.
She resigned on July 2, a day after the arrest, police sources said. She was suspended three times, once for each arrest.
The not-so-Finest’s first run-in with the law was in December 2014 while she was working at the 122nd Precinct in New Dorp.
She was busted for allegedly breaking into the home of her boyfriend’s mother in Elm Park, where she swiped jewelry, sources said.
She was arrested again in May while her criminal case was still open when police discovered she was doped up on duty at a police facility in Brooklyn, cops said.
Staniland was charged with possession of a hypodermic instrument and criminal possession of a controlled substance in that case, police said.
She still faces charges for possession of a hypodermic instrument and criminal possession of a controlled substance from her latest arrest, according to police.
Staniland earned $94,153 in 2014.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)