If the parents have agreed upon child support payments without going to court, (and signed a contract agreeing on the amount) and CP decides to take the NCP to court, can the NCP be ordered to pay back support if the court doesn't find the previous payments to be enough?
did they file this document w/ the court?
Was there ever a court date for divorce and cs payments talked about then?
Yes, and I'd be willign to bet htta even with the contract the judge will go back to the date the divorce papers where filed and order Child support from that date. Furthermore there is a good chance that they will not consider the money already paid as child support because it did not go through the state. Bottom line the ncp could find themselves in a position of having to pay the CS TWICE.
The thing you have got to understand about CS is that the state makes money off the federal government for collecting it. The more a state collects the more "incentives" they recieve from the feds. These incentive payments, a result of Bill Clintons Welfare reform, have become SO profitable for the states that they have began funding their budgets with this money. This means there is greater and greater pressure for judges to order CS more often and in larger amounts/ This also explains why most states have begun vicious campaigns aimed at goig after parents that owe CS.
All that said my advice is to find teh best lawyer you can, get educated about how the system works, and get ready for a fight.
Best of luck
I have not read the responses so forgive me if I am redundant...
Whatever you signed is NOT LEGAL if a JUDGE does not sign off on it...
So, SOL...
It should seem simple enough that when two people agree... The problem is is that the STATE assumes parental control in a divorce. In fact, per THEM (not me), ignorance is not an excuse nor anything else. Once you enter the separation/divorce phase, your rights as a USA Citizen are tossed out the proverbial window because you have had a child and the "state" says that they know better than you, the parent.
Again, I did not state the above. The STATE and now, Federal Government says this...
Not right. Not fair. Just the way it is.
So, what can you do about it? Rebel and don't play by their rules. You personally won't win, but you will be helping others over time. Now, if we could get millions to stop playing by their rules, we could stop these atrocities in less than 6 months and probably within 3 months. Will others do it? No way. It's been tried over and over. However...I am still working on this and think that an internet TV show will force the groups to work together because we will provide a TV forum for the individual groups to espouse the viewpoints and news. I hope to have this up and running by the end of the year. Six months later and we have the viewership? We will have the ability to consolidate the groups, force the rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting with PEACEFUL civil disobedience.
Well, that's my plan anyhoo.
Anyone got a better idea?
Eric
[email protected]
>I am still
>working on this and think that an internet TV show will force
>the groups to work together
Fathers groups won't cooperate by being forced into "working together". All that will do is further fragment the groups (if that's even possible).
Who do you propose to be the Grand Poobah Leader of this coalition, Eric? Let me guess- YOU? Or are you willing to take a back seat and let some other group or person who you may not like "run the show"?
How about Maury Beaulier- would you accept him or would you have a problem with that? Oh that's right- you've called him "queer", "gay", a "faggot", and a "feminazi". You've called him a "traitor" and so many other names I can't even recall them all. But day in and day out, Maury is here helping people with real advice backed with a law degree, and he does it for free. In contrast you've done .....errrr......ummmmm.....???
Gotta love the timing, though- I noticed the admin just posted a message about Maury contributing 2 new articles to the site. Now there's an example of someone who's actually DOING something instead of TALKING about doing something.
Frankly, in the last 5 years I've personally seen you do almost nothing constructive. We've been hearing about your vaporware TV show forever, and it's always "just around the corner". Stop pimping it already. If it ever happens, tell us about it, otherwise you're wasting our time.
Ahhh Brent... I just love the oozles out of you, too....
:O
Me?
Fathers' Integrity & Rights Movement (FIRM)
FIRM's News & Journal
FIRM's NCP Advocate
FIRM's Equality in Parenting Radio Show in conjunction with Men's News Daily Who was on that show? Dr. Stephen Baskerville, Glenn Sacks, Dianna Thompson, Carnell Smith ("Mr." //www.PaternityFraud.com), Joe Manthey, Thomas Lessman, Chairman of the Million Dads March, Dr. Dale Harapat, Dan Curry, Bob Parks, others and yours truly, me.
FIRM (me) was the first president of the New England states at //www.ChildrensJustice.org
FIRM's owner (me) was the FIRST Fathers 4 Justice co-ordinator for the entire USA.
FIRM (me) spoke for the State of Maine as a Million Dads March volunteer on television.
FIRM (me) has written articles that have been published and re-produced world wide in regards to NCP's rights and the rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting (ESP).
Before FIRM, I wrote the first "list." That list is still being re-produced by others all over the internet and News Groups.
FIRM's Seminars (a pre-runner of things to come...including FIRM's TV)
And, the list goes on and on and on...
You?
Bitch and moan about others...
Heck! You can't even come up with an alternative solution to get us organized and get that rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting (ESP)!
When you have something to offer other than critcism, twisting the truth, out right lying and etc., get back to me...ok? Thanks! :)
I think that you are getting the picture... If not, then you are truly what I think you are...
Wishing you all the best (facetiously stated),
Eric
P.S.: Maury is incompetent. I have taught him more about law in the last few years that it has become funny. I have caught this "attorney" making too many mistakes and blatant pronouncements of legal advice that is not only ostensibly wrong, but recklessly stated. In fact, I have reported the dudess to his own state bar.
I honestly don't ever recall calling him a homosexual. We do know this and it is his quote: "I am proud of my accomplishments...(in regards to homosexual superiority as opposed to equality-kinda like what the militant feminists do).
His lists and articles today? Nothing new. The same points are all over the internet and definitely at most fathers/NCP/DV/C4M and etc. sites. However, at the sites that I mention, it is not sugar coated to reflect his personal bias. In fact, his articles are almost verbatim (in some points) that Dr. Reena Summers has stated in her series to help out those in need while in the process of a divorce as was posted for years on FIRM. Well...I guess we now know where he got the information from...don't we?
Normally, I don't have to create articles or post my writings. Why? Because others have done a much better job and with great research than I have the time to do. I'd rather give them credit and post them in their entirety as opposed to paraphrasing others...
Just my thoughts... ;)
>Before FIRM, I wrote the first "list." That list is still
>being re-produced by others all over the internet and News
>Groups.
Lol, right. You wrote it all, and everyone else is just claiming to have written it themselves. In fact, "Tom" wrote what's known as "The List", not you. Nice try at grabbing the credit, though.
How many articles here or on DivorceNet or DivorceSource have you written?
>FIRM's Seminars (a pre-runner of things to come...including
>FIRM's TV)
Yes, and those went over like a screendoor on a submarine. You hosted one pprogram (supposedly) and no one showed up from what I heard.
>And, the list goes on and on and on...
Your list of baloney goes on and on.
>You?
You mean what have I done? Oh gee, I dunno, written a couple of hundred of the FAQs here, at least a hundred of the regular articles, plus from time to time I do things like programming the new version of the [a href=/exchange/]Hospitality Exchange ver. 2.0[/a] (now using PHP and mySQL). And I took part in the recent redesign of the site. I do a lot of other stuff too, but I don't toot my horn it about day and night like some people.
>Heck! You can't even come up with an alternative solution to
>get us organized and get that rebuttable presumption of equal
>shared parenting (ESP)!
Not my forte, but you're such a whiz-bang guy I can't wait to hear your Master Plan. Will it involve your $20 Universal Life Ministries "Degree" you use to claim you're a "Reverend" or some of your "Magical Anti-Feminazi Piglet Killing Swords" as you've been so enamored of in the past? Or did you find that kind of raving let people know a little too much about you?
>When you have something to offer other than critcism, twisting
>the truth, out right lying and etc., get back to me...ok?
Thanks, but I don't take direction from transient visitors like you. Until I do, I'll comment on what I want, when I want, and in whatever manner I want. Print this out if you think it will help you remember this key point about your place in the food chain.
>I think that you are getting the picture... If not, then you
>are truly what I think you are...
Oooh, let me guess- if I don't agree with your nutlike ravings and hate-speech, I must be a . . . (wait for it) . . . . a FEMINAZI! Lol, how did I guess? lolololol
>Wishing you all the best (facetiously stated),
Better luck next time, and thanks for playing.
>P.S.: Maury is incompetent. I have taught him more about law
>in the last few years that it has become funny. I have caught
>this "attorney" making too many mistakes and blatant
>pronouncements of legal advice that is not only ostensibly
>wrong, but recklessly stated. In fact, I have reported the
>dudess to his own state bar.
>
>I honestly don't ever recall calling him a homosexual.
I do, many many many times. And so do lots of other people, like the ones that had you kicked off of Dadsdivorce and Divorcesource.
>We do know this and it is his quote: "I am proud of my
>accomplishments...(in regards to homosexual superiority as
>opposed to equality-kinda like what the militant feminists
>do).
Lol, you're just jealous because he has an actual Law Degree. And your rather blatant hatred of gays is getting very tiresome. Why don't you take your hatred and bigotry somewhere else, like the KKK site or your buddies in the White Power movement (remember them, Eric? Want to deny you were willingly affiliated with them?)
>bias. In fact, his articles are almost verbatim (in some
>points) that Dr. Reena Summers has stated in her series to
>help out those in need while in the process of a divorce as
>was posted for years on FIRM. Well...I guess we now know
>where he got the information from...don't we?
Lol, Maury copied his info from the FIRM site? LOLOL, give me a break. That's like Vincent van Gogh copying from the Tumble Tots. Please, don't even try to claim this. No one is going to buy your amazing "story" of Maury copying from you.
>Normally, I don't have to create articles or post my writings.
Yeah, umm, we've noticed. (Except when you're saying that "killing judges" would be a "good thing" or that feminists should be "put to death". Oh, and of course your wonderfully clever writings about toilet paper, magical swords, laws regarding the toilet seat position, and other fascinating topics. Remember posting all that crap Eric? I remember it and so do lots of other people too.)
> Why? Because others have done a much better job and with
>great research than I have the time to do.
That's probably the first factual thing you've said this year.
>Just my thoughts... ;)
All I can say it that you're mercifully free from the ravages of intelligence.
Present your proof, Brent. Present it in it's entirety.
Otherwise, you are no better than the people we fight for our God given rights for the rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting (ESP) that use this tid bit of advice from the best at deceit:
"...In her brilliant exposé, Who Stole Feminism?, Christina Hoff Sommers documents the many fabrications of gender feminism. Indeed, the entire ideological foundation of feminism rests on what columnist Wendy McElroy calls the "Great Lie" -- the wrong-headed notion that women are the eternal victims of male-dominated culture.
The feminist Great Lie echoes the infamous passage from Mein Kampf that says, "The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed....The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one."
The effect of the Nazi accusations was to convince the German public and the world at large that Jews were not part of humanity, and thus not deserving of fundamental human rights.
Once the dehumanization and demoralization of the Jews was complete, the stage was set for the horrors that were to commence in 1939.
So what does the future hold for the male species?
Carey Roberts"
Carey's complete article with imbedded hyperlinks for sources and references can be found here: //www.FIRMncp.com
Eric
>Present your proof, Brent. Present it in it's entirety.
Lol, you poor little victim. Stop whining and do your own homework.
Every word I wrote is true, and you know it. If anyone has any doubts all they have to do is go to Divorcesource or Dadsdivorce and ask about you.
- You said that "killing judges" would be a "good thing". Do you deny that?
- You said that gays and feminazis should be "put to death". Do you deny that?
- You voluntarily affiliated with a goofball named "Jay" who was a bible-thumping bigot and who espoused White Supremacist views and goals. You supported him and his views. Do you deny that?
- You used to sign your posts with several lines of crap anout your "Magical Anti-Feminazi Piglet Sword", used to "behead feminazis". Do you deny that?
- You billed yourself as a "Reverend", even signing your posts that way, because you bought a $20 divinity diploma from the Universal Life Ministries "church". You claimed to be a "man of god" and stated that you were "doing god's work". Do you deny any of that?
You know every word is true, Eric. And I'm sure that there are a number of people who would be more than glad to confirm that.
>Otherwise, you are no better than the people we fight for our
>God given rights
You mean I'm no better than YOU and the things that YOU do? Say it isn't so, lolololol!
Yes, I deny and am still calling you a liar...just as shown in Carey Roberts article.
You have heard others repeat lies. You have heard others take things that I have stated out of context. You yourself, are guilty of these things.
Just how can one defend himself from lies? One can not.
So, show your proof or admit your true agenda either by refusal to do so or by adding more lies.
Can I provide the proof? You bet. I don't need to do the research.
For example:
(From one of my worse detractors)
Posted By: Gecko (ip132.10.dial-acs02.lebnor0.iinet.com)
Date: Friday, 12 March 2004, at 3:01 p.m.
In Response To: Yup, that's it (cinnamon)
"---> I am not defending Eric, but I have to be fair and say that his statement about "threatening to kill judges" WAS in fact, taken out of context. I took the time to read his entire post and the thread and he was NOT advocating this."
You try Brent, but the only truth that anyone can really say about me is that I advocate equality as reflected in my constant push for the rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting (ESP).
Now (no pun intended), go run off and do something constructive for a change...
Here's an idea since you are so computer savvy:
Help us solve the bandwidth problem for FIRM's TV. We are trying to use the SETI principle by utilizing others computers for bandwidth and processing speed in order for 1,000's to view FIRM's TV at the same time live and also be able to look at the archives.
We have FIRM's NCP Advocate (a written news program) already taken care of.
We have self-help information already taken care of.
We have FIRM's Seminars (a success or we would not be trying to do FIRM's TV) under control.
Once FIRM's TV becomes reality, we will be opening up FIRM for membership again. Until then, all we are doing is keeping the inquiries to join us and will let them know when we are ready to push and change the laws for all countries, all over the world, to incorporate the Rebbutable Presumption of Equal Shared Parenting (ESP) as their custody/child support model into their federal or equivalent laws as found in the UPREPA (abolition of custody) proposal:
http://www.childrensjustice.org/
% Revision 1.1, 18 July 2005 %
Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act
The following represents "model legislation" proposed to the 50 States of the United States of America, along with federal oversight requirements (following the main body of the proposed legislation) similar to that proposed, passed and enacted under the UCCJA - Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
PROPOSED UNIFORM STATE STATUTORY LANGUAGE
ACTIONS ABOLISHED - CHILD CUSTODY - EXCEPTIONS - INHERENT RIGHTS OF CHILD
Legislative Declaration
101. Legislative Declaration The remedies provided by law on or before enactment of this legislation, for the enforcement of actions based upon issues of custody of children after dissolution of marriage or legal separation, or in the case of unmarried birth of children, have been subjected to grave abuses, caused extreme annoyance, embarrassment, humiliation, and devastating psychological, emotional, mental and pecuniary damage to many persons wholly innocent and free of any wrongdoing who were merely the victims of circumstances, and have been exercised by unscrupulous persons for their unjust enrichment, vengeance or other venal purpose contrary to the interests of the child, and have furnished vehicles for the commission or attempted commission of crimes against children and parents and in many cases have resulted in the perpetuation of frauds.
It is, therefore, hereby declared as the public policy of the state that the best interests of the people of the state, and especially the minor children of the state, will be served by the abolition thereof, except in the below defined and proven circumstances.
Consequently, in the public interest, the necessity for the enactment of this Act is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination.
Definition and interpretation of terms
102. Definition and interpretation of terms. As used in this act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term:
(a) "Parent" shall mean the natural, biological parent of a child, or the duly adoptive parent of a child pursuant to this state's adoption statutes, but shall not be construed to mean a foster parent as defined in the statutes of this state, or a parent whose parental rights have been terminated pursuant to statute.
(b) "Child" shall mean the natural, biological child of a parent, or the duly adopted child of a parent pursuant to this state's adoption statute, but shall not be construed to mean the child of a parent whose parental rights have been terminated pursuant to statute.
(c) "Inherent rights" shall mean the natural, fundamental, inalienable right of the child to a full relationship with each parent, and the natural, fundamental, inalienable right of the parent to a full relationship with the child, which may be abridged only in the case of the existence of certain exceptions as more fully set forth in this Act.
(d) The "inherent relationship" shall mean the natural, fundamental, inalienable child-parent relationship, providing the child approximately equal access to each parent.
Acts Of The Legislature
103. Rights of children to parental contact. The general assembly hereby finds and declares that children are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among them the natural, fundamental and inalienable right to a full and complete, inherent relationship with and full access to both its parents both during marriage and following dissolution of marriage or separation, and at all times for children born out of wedlock. This right of the child extends to essentially equal access to each parent to enjoy the love, affection, attention and contact between the child and each parent, and this right of the child shall not be abridged by the courts of this state, nor by any other agency or division of the state, nor by a parent of the child or any other person, except in the circumstances as described in section 109.
104. Custody of the child abolished. Except as provided for in section 109, separate custody of the child by one parent is hereby abolished. A child shall continue to enjoy its inherent rights in and to its parents, and each parent shall continue to enjoy its inherent parental rights in and to its child, and, as provided by law, each parent shall continue to exercise its parental responsibilities and obligations to its child, subsequent to dissolution of marriage or separation, and at all times in the case of a child born out of wedlock, subject to the provisions of this Act.
105. Civil causes for custody of children abolished. All civil causes of action for custody of children, whether at law or in equity for separate custody of the child between parents or between a parent and another party claiming a right to bring such action, and whether as part of a proceeding for dissolution of marriage as provided for in statute, or as part of a post-decree action, or as an independent action by a person other than a child's parent or by the state or any agency thereof, are hereby abolished, except as provided for in [Insert statute on child dependency from juvenile law].
106. Effect on existing orders for custody and parenting time. Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, all judgments, decrees, and orders, whether interlocutory or final in character, awarding custody of the child to one parent as against the other, or to a person not a parent, wherein the judgment, decree or order was based on a lesser standard of proof than is called for in section 109, and all claims or causes of action for sole or joint custody, whether such claim or cause of action arose within or without this state but which affects the rights of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and absolutely void.
107. Rights of children in non-intact families. The general assembly hereby declares that children whose parents are dissolving or have dissolved their marriage or are separated, and children born out of wedlock, have certain inalienable rights in the determination of their continued relationship with each parent, including the right to have such determinations based upon the inherent right of the child to its inherent relationship with, and the care, companionship, control and nurture of the child by, each parent.
108. Best Interests of child. The general assembly finds and declares that it is in the best interest of all parties and all children to encourage frequent and continuing contact between each parent and the minor children of the marriage after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage, and that it is in the best interest of children born to an unmarried mother to have frequent and continuing contact with both parents. In order to effectuate this goal, the general assembly urges parents to share the rights and responsibilities of childrearing and to encourage the love, affection, and contact between the children and the parents. The General Assembly hereby finds and declares that separation of a child from a parent after divorce or unmarried birth can and likely will endanger the child's physical health and significantly impair the child's emotional development.
109. Exceptions. The fundamental child-parent relationship, the inherent relationship, may be altered or abridged by operation of law solely in the following circumstances. The standard of proof of a claim of abuse or neglect by a parent shall be beyond a reasonable doubt as established by conviction for a criminal offense, and there shall be an absolute presumption of innocence absent such degree of proof.
(1) Death of both parents. In the event neither parent of a child is living, custody of a child may vest with the legal custodian of the child, pursuant to [cite state-specific Statute on non-parental custody requirements], or the state, pursuant to [cite state-specific Statute on juvenile dependency].
(2) Abuse or neglect of the child. In the event a parent has been proven to have abused the child under [Insert state-specific cite on physical and sexual abuse of children] or neglected the child under [Insert state-specific cite on neglect of children], and has been convicted under said statutes, the court may enter an order for custody of the child solely to the other parent, subject to the provisions of this Act; or, in the event both parents have been proven to have abused or neglected the child, and have been convicted under either of said statutes, the court may enter an order for custody of the child as provided for in [Insert cite of non-parental custody award criteria], subject to the provisions of this Act. If the court enters an order for custody of the child pursuant to this subsection, the court shall enter an order for parenting time to either or both parents, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child is unable to tolerate contact with that parent. The provision for parenting time entered pursuant to this subsection shall be in conformance with section 111.
(3) False allegations. False allegations of abuse or neglect in a dissolution of marriage proceeding or proceeding to determine a child's relationship with a parent shall operate as an absolute bar to a parent's right to make decisions regarding the child's upbringing, including but not limited to the child's education, religious training and medical treatment. For the purpose of this Act, a "false allegation" is one that is either known to be false or one that a reasonable person should have known is false. By way of example but not enumeration, a finding by state child protective services that the alleged abuse was "not substantiated", or any disposition under a lower standard of evidence (such as "unfounded", or "closed without investigation"), or failure to report the alleged abuse contemporaneously with the act alleged to the police and/or child protective services shall be deemed conclusive evidence of the falsity of the claim so made. A parent so barred shall nonetheless be entitled to reasonable parenting time not inconsistent with protecting the child from further false abuse or neglect allegations, the terms of which shall be defined with specificity by the court along with procedures to prevent further false reports under section 109. A second false allegation as defined herein, notwithstanding the court's protective procedures, by the same parent, shall operate to permanently bar parenting time of the child so involved by that parent in addition to the previous penalties imposed.
(4) Imprisonment of a Parent. Imprisonment of a parent for offenses not related to child neglect or abuse shall operate to suspend that individual's parental rights and responsibilities during the time of such imprisonment, with all rights and responsibilities being restored under this Act at the time of their release from confinement.
110. Rights of persons whose parental rights are terminated. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a parent whose parental rights have been previously terminated may bring action to restore those rights, if termination of parental rights was based on a lesser standard of proof than is called for in this Act.
111. Implementation of protective measures. Upon a finding by a court of competent jurisdiction that protective measures are required to insure the safety of the children while in the care, custody or control of one or both parents, the court shall enter upon the record of such proceedings the complete findings of fact and conclusions of law which gave rise to the implementation of such protective measures. Such protective measures may include supervision of parenting time. Such measures shall be designed in the most minimally invasive manner to provide the protections deemed necessary. Any order for protective measures shall, in addition, set forth in detail the conditions which shall be deemed proof of rehabilitation of the parent, or a time certain for the cessation of the protective measures without further proceedings, or both. Notice by the parent subject to protective measures of that parent's satisfaction of the conditions of the order for cessation of protective measures, accompanied by motion for the cessation of said measures, shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of the satisfaction of the conditions precedent for the cessation of protective measures.
112. Parenting Plans. (1) All litigants in a dissolution of marriage or post-decree proceeding involving children shall submit a proposed parenting plan for the minor children. Said plan shall set forth with specificity the educational and religious upbringing of the children involved, along with a specific schedule during which each child shall be resident with each parent. All such plans shall include comprehensive alternate dispute resolution procedures in the event of conflicts. The court shall admit and enforce any parenting plan agreed to by the parties unless it finds that the plan submitted is unjust or unconscionable on its face at the time it is submitted. A submitted plan may be accepted or rejected only in total. If the parties to such a proceeding are unable to agree upon the terms of such a parenting plan, the parenting plan set forth in subsection(2) of this section shall be imposed by the court until such time as an alternative plan is agreed to and accepted by the court.
(2) The following parenting plan, as set forth in this subsection (2), shall be ordered by the court in the event the parties are unable to agree upon a parenting plan.
(a) The children shall alternate residence with each parent on each calendar Wednesday at 6:00 PM, except during one four week period during the summer school break when each parent shall have residence for one uninterrupted two-week period for the purpose of summer vacation.
(b) If multiple children are involved in the dispute all children shall rotate with each parent such that all related children are present in each household at the same time.
(c) Neither parent shall hinder, infringe upon or prevent reasonable private telephonic or other communication between the children and parent not currently the resident parent.
(d) Neither parent may move beyond the school district boundaries in which the children reside at the initiation of proceedings so as to cause the child's school district to change without written agreement of the other parent, nor may either parent withdraw the children from the school district of their current attendance without permission of the other parent in writing.
(e) Each parent shall be solely responsible for all expenses and costs of the children while they are in their respective care, including clothing, food, shelter, education, child care and elective activities.
(f) Neither parent shall, without the prior consent of the other parent, schedule elective activities during the parenting time of the other parent that would infringe upon that parent's access to or time with the child.
(g) Extraordinary medical and other expenses, which are not of a discretionary nature, shall be apportioned in equal amounts to both parents, and such amounts, if unpaid, shall constitute a judgment for said amounts against a parent. It shall be an absolute defense to such an assessment that (1) the expense was voluntary or discretionary in nature (including but not limited to cosmetic procedures, trips, enrichment activities or the like), (2) the expense was required by medical necessity but was not an emergency requiring immediate action to protect life or health and the other parent was not notified and consulted, or was not a full partner to the decision to undertake the expense, or, if consultation was attempted but agreement was not reached, the dispute was not subjected to the resolution procedures in the parenting plan. No part of this clause shall operate to inhibit the immediate provision of necessary emergency medical care.
(h) Routine medical and related expenses (e.g. dental cleanings, etc.) shall be equally apportioned to each parent. Neither parent shall undertake any such expense or activity without full consultation with and agreement by the other parent.
(i) Each parent shall be responsible for physically retrieving the children from the other or their activities at said time of exchange, and all costs occasioned by the nonperformance or late arrival of a parent for pickup shall be taxed to the non-performer as a money judgment.
(j) All parental responsibility shall terminate upon each child reaching the age of 18 years, with any further parental responsibility or expense being at the discretion of each parent. Neither parent shall be obligated to incur post-secondary educational expense on behalf of the child.
(k) Dispute resolution.
(I) Disputes arising from the attempted implementation of this plan shall be submitted to an arbitrator named by the court.
(II) The arbitrator is permitted to tax equally to the parties the costs of arbitration at a rate not to exceed $100 per hour.
(III) Both parties shall submit their positions to the arbitrator in written form, along with all supporting evidence for their position, and the arbitrator shall render a decision within a reasonable amount of time, which shall not exceed five business days.
(IV) The arbitrator's decision shall set forth in detail the findings of fact that are used to reach the decision rendered, citing the provided evidence, along with the decision itself.
(V) If either party disagrees with the arbitrator's decision they may commencelegal proceedings for further relief by motion to the court.
(VI) The court may require by way of injunction or other order that either party or both parties comply with an arbitration decision pending judicial review.
113. Move-aways. Except by agreement of the parties, neither parent may move the child's physical residence from the school district where the child resided at the time of the initial filing for dissolution, nor may either parent withdraw the child or children from their school of habitual attendance without the written consent of the other parent. The following rules shall govern all such requests and attempts:
(a) For children more than six months of age, the situs and residence shall be deemed to be their habitual residence in the six months preceding the filing of the dissolution or parenting action. For children under six months old, their residence shall be determined as the habitual residence of the mother in the six months preceding the filing of the action.
(b) No act or move by a parent and/or children immediately preceding the filing of a petition shall operate to establish their habitual residence.
(c) A parent who moves his or her personal residence without the child or children involved shall be presumed to have abandoned equal custody and parenting of the child so involved, except that if such move is caused or necessitated, directly or indirectly, by:
(I) any action, order, finding or judgment of a court; or,
(II) any action of a police agency; or,
(III) any other official action including but not limited to acts of official oppression
against or adverse to the interests of that parent pursuant to an allegation of abuse or neglect or domestic violence, or any other alleged crime, which has not been proven as set forth in Section 109 above, then that parent shall not be presumed to have abandoned his or her right to equal custody and parenting time of the child nor any other rights set forth in this Article.
A parent who has moved his or her personal residence not under duress, force, coercion, cause or necessity as set forth in this subsection (c):
(IV) Shall be assessed all costs of implementing his or her parenting time with the child.
(V) Shall be assessed child support pursuant to state statute should that parent fail to exercise substantially equal shared parenting. Such child support shall not include the direct expense of implementing his or her parenting time subsequent to the move.
(VI) Shall not impede the ordinary educational and extracurricular activities of the child or children so involved.
(d) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Section, a parent shall be deemed to have moved his or her residence if that parent substantially abandons his or her previous address, registers to vote in another state or locale, registers a motor vehicle in another state, obtains an occupational license in another state, or becomes domiciled under the provisions of state law in a foreign state.
(e) A parent shall not be deemed to have violated the provisions of this section if that parent moves his or her residence within the school district boundaries of the children's habitual residence and provides at least 7 days prior written notice to the other parent of both his or her intent to do so and the moving parent's new address.
(f) A parent who attempts to violate the provisions of this section, whereby that parent removes or attempts to remove the children from their habitual residential locale, shall be subject to indictment and trial for the crime of parental abduction under [Insert state statute for parental abduction].
(g) A parent who previously had been non-resident in the child's and other parent's habitual domicile may restore their parental rights and responsibilities by moving his or her personal residence within the school district boundary of the child or children so involved. A parent intending this act must notify the other parent in writing at least 30 days prior to effectuating such a move.
(h) A parent who is the resident parent of the child, where the other parent has voluntarily abandoned shared residency and shared parenting, may move on an unrestricted basis with the children provided that:
(I) The move will not substantially increase the difficulty in exercising parenting time by the other parent, AND
(II) They have not been served notice under subsection (g) that the other parent intends to return to the area where the residential parent currently resides.
114. No disparagement; controlling law. The rights and responsibilities enumerated herein shall operate only to the benefit of biological or adoptive parents, and shall not inure to the benefit of any other party. Any legislation or judgment within this state, to the extent that it operates to diminish, impair or infringe upon any of the rights and responsibilities enumerated herein, shall be null and void and of no further force or effect.
115. Notification required. The general assembly directs that a pamphlet describing the rights and responsibilities for both parents and children, as set forth in this Act, be produced and distributed along with each application for a marriage license, as well as for public distribution by the office that distributes marriage license applications on request by any person in the state. This pamphlet shall include the rights and responsibilities set forth in this legislation, as well as the acts that constitute abuse or neglect of a child within the state and the criminal penalties therefor. Updates to the standards for abuse and neglect prosecutions and their penalties, must be published, with conspicuous notice in the major daily newspapers and other media when significant statutory revisions are made.
116. Prevailing law; conflict of laws. Any provision of law in conflict with any term or provision of this Act shall be null and void and of no further force or effect. In any determination wherein the provisions of law conflict with or contravene any term or provision of this Act, the requirements of this Act shall prevail.
Federal Oversight and Implementation of UPREPA Among The Several States
CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION:
The remedies provided by law on or before enactment of this legislation, for the enforcement of actions based upon issues of custody of children after dissolution of marriage or legal separation, or in the case of unmarried birth of children, have been subjected to grave abuses, caused extreme annoyance, embarrassment, humiliation, and devastating psychological, emotional, mental and pecuniary damage to many persons wholly innocent and free of any wrongdoing who were merely the victims of circumstances, and have been exercised by unscrupulous persons for their unjust enrichment, vengeance or other venal purpose contrary to the interests of the child, and have furnished vehicles for the commission or attempted commission of crimes against children and parents and in many cases have resulted in the perpetuation of frauds.
It is, therefore, hereby declared as the public policy of the United States that the best interests of the people of the several states, and especially the minor children of the several states, will be served by the abolition of custody thereof, except in the defined and proven circumstances set forth in the Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act hereby proposed to the several states.
Consequently, in the public interest, it is the determination of the Congress of the United States of America that the following shall be the policy and the Act of the United States upon passage of the Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act into law by each of the several states without regard to the universality of the adoption of said Act.
PROVISIONS:
That the several states are to be presented the model legislation entitled Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act, otherwise to be known and recognized as "UPREPA", as set forth hereinabove.
That the continued receipt of Title IV-D, TANF, and all other federal funds intended and designated for promotion, welfare, and assistance to families and children whether by virtue of grant, matching funds, or direct expenditure of the United States government within the individual states shall be conditioned upon the passage of UPREPA so proffered.
That states may modify the form but not substance of UPREPA so as to conform to the statutory requirements of that state not in conflict with the terms and provisions of UPREPA.
IMPLEMENTATION:
The Attorney General shall be charged with the responsibility of reviewing modified UPREPA language that the states proffer to the Federal Government prior to passage to certify its functional equivalency to the model UPREPA legislation.
The Attorney General's decision, legal reasoning, all work product, correspondence and memoranda related to review of conformance to UPREPA shall be published in the Federal Register.
The Attorney General shall certify to the Congress of the United States, under penalty of perjury, and not later than ninety days prior to the introduction of each year's federal budget, the list of states which are in full compliance with the requirements of this legislation and of states which are not in full compliance therewith.
State funding under the Federal Budget of the United States intended and designated for promotion, welfare, and assistance to families and children shall be reduced on a pro-ratable basis for non-compliant states based on the following schedule:
From the date of passage of this Act until ninety days prior to the first introduction of the federal budget shall be deemed a grace period, wherein no penalties shall apply.
For the next budget cycle following passage of this Act, ten percent (10%) of funds shall be withheld from non-compliant states.
For the second and each successive year in which a state is not in compliance, the percentage of deduction shall be doubled, such that in the second year 20% shall be withheld, the third 40%, the fourth 80% and the fifth and all subsequent years 100%.
A state that was formerly listed as compliant but is later found to be non-compliant shall begin its deduction schedule at twice the starting deduction, or twenty percent (20%).
Funds withheld from non-compliant states shall be distributed to compliant states as directed by the Congress of the United States on a pro rata basis based on the individual state's percentage of population among the states then in compliance solely for the purpose of promoting the welfare of families and children in those states.
A state which cures its earlier violation of the UPREPA statutory requirements may not retroactively recover funds previously withheld, and allocations and withholdings, once made by the Congress, shall remain in full force and effect and may not be altered, amended or remediated by prospective or retrospective legislation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCJ Home | Download plain text version
Oh my goodness. Poooooooooor little Eric. You can cut and paste all the crap you want, but it won't erase your past. Nice try at muddying the waters, though. Too bad it didn't work.
>Yes, I deny and am still calling you a liar...
So...you never got any kind of certificate from Universal Life Ministries that said you were a "reverend"? Really?? You claimed you did. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Are you saying that you *never* claimed to be a "Reverend", and you *never* signed your posts that way? Are you sure? Think carefully, Eric. (I know that's hard for you.)
>You have heard others repeat lies. You have heard others take
>things that I have stated out of context. You yourself, are
>guilty of these things.
Sorry Eric, but I've seen your rantings with my own eyes. Do you deny that you used to sign your posts on Divorcesource with a tagline about "Anti-Feminazi Piglet Swords" or something to that effect? Hmmm? Are you actually going to deny that?
>Just how can one defend himself from lies? One can not.
Lol, your problem is that you can't defend yourself from the TRUTH.
>So, show your proof or admit your true agenda either by
>refusal to do so or by adding more lies.
Like I said before, do your own homework. Prove what I say is untrue, Eric. Are you actually denying the stuff about the "Piglet Sword" and denying that you hate gays? After the stuff you and your little buddy "Jay" used to spout off about, can you really deny that? Your credibility is shot, pal.
>Can I provide the proof? You bet. I don't need to do the
>research.
Lol, why don't we ask Captain Jim about these other things? Afraid you might not fare so well? Hmmm?
Since you're willing to use Captain Jim as a character reference, why don't I invite her to come over here and tell us ALL of her opinions about you and your past actions. Would that be okay with you? (Don't answer, I'm going to do it regardless of what you "agree to it" or not.)
Perhaps we could ask Maury what he thinks of you and FIRM? He's seen your posts for years, so his opinion should be well-grounded, don't you think?
And as for your penchant for cutting and pasting tons and tons of irrelevant crap into your messages to help confuse the issue, that won't help you a bit here. Try and focus Eric, and answer the questions if you dare.
Yes, I deny and am still calling you a liar...just as shown in Carey Roberts article.
How convenient...how cute...how you keep changing the context of your questions and therefore, rhetorical conclusion(s).
I have never denied that I am an ordained minister from ULC. It was originally posted as a joke-even though, the federal government recognizes me as an ordained minister. Once I saw the reactions from those that detract from ESP to promote their ideas of sole custody such as Captain Jim, I use it occasionally because it is a truth that they can not deny (what with the federal government and every state that I know of recognizing the ULC and their ordained ministers as legally sanctioned ministers) and it bugs them...just like you who apparently has no respect for the founding fathers of this country and other people that believe in God. Besides, you are still lying. I paid $5 bucks, not $20... And, if you have been following me as closely as you imply, you would know this...
Speaking of Captain Jim, ask her (glad to see that you recognize her for what she is) how she posts in multiple names to deceive others and how she likes to post porn on a family rated site...
Speaking of my "signature line" on a known militant feminist site such as Divorce Source, just what is so menancing and threatening to you about the following that is obviously stated in jest that you extrapolate and twist as you do most things that you fear and do not understand into me advocating killing?
"For those that don't know... ;)
Eric is the (original) hater and slayer of man hating feminazi pigs!
Off with their freak'n heads!
CEO of Eric's Magical Anti-feminazi piglet Sword (Still under 3 million dollars and selling like hotcakes!) (patent pending) (copy righted) (Sheath, Magical Sword Polish and honing stone, extra) (Free shipping and handling)
CEO of Toilet Paper & Toilet Seats (TP, up, over & down. TS, up. It's the law. Eric's law...)
Now (no pun intended) let's hear back from my feminazi pig admirers how I am a "killer," "hate ALL women," am a "kook," and truly believe the above beheading and TP stuff that I post in fun... C'mon...you can surely say something denigrating... Show us your stuff! ROFLMAO @ you PIGS!"
So, go ahead, since you a losing this detraction of yours from really helpful stuff for others, call in your goon squad that gang up on others with lies that you promote about me. It certainly won't be the first time, nor the last.
Yeah...go ahead and make SPARC a circus as you do elsewhere with your repeated lies.
Hopefully, Waylon will read this thread as requested by me and put a stop to your outright lies, twisting of the truth and taking things out of context to disparage someone that feels that children have the RIGHT to be parented by BOTH parents as equally as possible, promotes equality and the Constitution as an instrument written in stone and is not a "living document" that can change with the whims of a few that don't have morals nor religion such as you, Brent.
Eric
P.S.:
Is your problem that you really believe that I can sell a make believe sword for $3,000,000?
Is your problem that you picture me as the CEO of your toilet whenever you have the urge?
Here's another suggestion: Grow up.
>How convenient...how cute...how you keep changing the context
>of your questions and therefore, rhetorical conclusion(s).
Not at all, just trying to get you to admit the truth for a change.
>I have never denied that I am an ordained minister from ULC.
No, but it took 5 posts before you would admit it. And now people know what a joke you are. Do you know how insulting it is to REAL ministers and pastors to have someone like you pretending to have religious credentials?
If you're a ordained minister, where's your church, Eric? Where and when was the last time you gave a sermon? I'm dying to know, lol.
>It was originally posted as a joke-even though, the federal
>government recognizes me as an ordained minister.
And you claimed to be doing "god's work", using your $5 certificate to "legitimize" your claim. LOL!!!
And no, you weren't posting it as a joke, you really wanted people to think you had some actual religious background...which you don't.
>(what with the federal government and every state that I know
>of recognizing the ULC and their ordained ministers as legally
>sanctioned ministers)
Oh, so now the Federal Government is your buddy since they "recognize" your "religious" affiliation. Weren't you the one claiming that the government was the "main problem" in divorce and custody where men are concerned? But now they're okay, since they turn a blind eye towards your bogus credentials. The ULC is a joke, and NO ONE takes them seriously....except you.
>apparently has no respect for the founding fathers of this
>country and other people that believe in God.
Lol, yeah, whatever. I have respect for this country, but not fakers like you who inhabit it.
>And, if you
>have been following me as closely as you imply, you would know
>this...
No, I never said I "follow you closely". What I said was that I've seen your hateful disruptive rantings for years now. Following you closely would be a waste of valuable time. The fact is Eric, you have NO credibility at all. None.
Wanna tell us why the Indiana CRC got rid of you, or is that just another story too?
>Speaking of Captain Jim, ask her (glad to see that you
>recognize her for what she is) how she posts in multiple names
>to deceive others and how she likes to post porn on a family
>rated site...
Oh yeah, and YOU'VE never ever posted under another name, right? Give me a break, you had so many names on Divorcesource that people needed an Excel spreadsheet to keep track of them.
>Speaking of my "signature line" on a known militant feminist
>site such as Divorce Source, just what is so menancing and
>threatening to you about the following that is obviously
>stated in jest that you extrapolate and twist as you do most
>things that you fear and do not understand into me advocating
>killing?
>
>Eric is the (original) hater and slayer of man hating
>feminazi pigs!
Oh yeah, what could be offensive about that? Do you think that kind of dumbass ranting does the father's movement any good at all? No, it makes real father advocates look like whackos.
>Off with their freak'n heads!
Again, is this stuff the mark of a credible, rational person?
>
>CEO of Eric's Magical Anti-feminazi piglet Sword (Still under
>3 million dollars and selling like hotcakes!) (patent pending)
>(copy righted) (Sheath, Magical Sword Polish and honing stone,
>extra) (Free shipping and handling)
Wow, so clever. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously? With intelligent commentary like that, I just can't understand why SPARC, ACFC, and other groups aren't begging to affiliate with you.
>CEO of Toilet Paper & Toilet Seats (TP, up, over & down. TS,
>up. It's the law. Eric's law...)
See above. Do you think that this is the kind of thing that reputable father's groups want on their masthead? Aren't father's issues a little more important than your toilet paper fetish?
>
>Now (no pun intended) let's hear back from my feminazi pig
>admirers how I am a "killer," "hate ALL women," am a "kook,"
>and truly believe the above beheading and TP stuff that I post
>in fun... C'mon...you can surely say something denigrating...
> Show us your stuff! ROFLMAO @ you PIGS!"
Yeah, this'll make 'em wanna join you. Fer sure.
>So, go ahead, since you a losing this detraction of yours from
>really helpful stuff for others, call in your goon squad that
>gang up on others with lies that you promote about me. It
>certainly won't be the first time, nor the last.
Sorry, I don't have goon squad, and certainly wouldn't need one to put you to bed. I have asked Captain Jim to verify some of what I recall with regards to your behavior. I'm sure you won't have a problem with that because you cited her as a character reference earlier. Let's see what she has to say, shall we?
>
>Yeah...go ahead and make SPARC a circus as you do elsewhere
>with your repeated lies.
SPARC has avoided becoming a circus because we don't encourage you to post here. This isn't your personal "free for all" zone, Eric. Try to pull the same disruptive crap here as you've done on Divorcesource and Dadsdivorce and see what happens. I told you before, you're welcome to post here, participate in the discussions, etc etc, but SPARC isn't going to be your toilet bowl. Got that?
>Hopefully, Waylon will read this thread as requested by me and
>put a stop to your outright lies, twisting of the truth and
Lol, this may come as a BIG SHOCK to you, but I don't think Waylon is a huge fan of yours either. He's a very fair-minded guy but make no mistake- he's not interested in having you spout any of your classic crap here either.
Now, because of your comment I'm guessing you've probably emailed him asking him to spank me or reprimand me. Unless the world has started spinning backwards that just ain't gonna happen.
I haven't heard from him yet, but I doubt you'll get the reaction you want. You seem to forget that he knows you, and that your prior stated opinions of him haven't been forgotten. He has a looooooooooooong memory.
He and I disagree on some things but I doubt he'll be sympathetic to you on this.
>taking things out of context to disparage someone that feels
>that children have the RIGHT to be parented by BOTH parents as
>equally as possible, promotes equality and the Constitution as
>an instrument written in stone and is not a "living document"
>that can change with the whims of a few that don't have morals
>nor religion such as you, Brent.
Blah, blah, blah, Eric. You're raving again. Time to up your meds?
Word your questions with truth and not lies, Brent.
Word your responses with truth and not lies, Brent.
All you have done is twisted what I have said.
You kinda remind me of this:
Angry Harry's Blog
by Angry Harry
30 Reasons Why Feminists Really Are 'Feminazis'
Nope. AH has not yet written Part III of his explanation of how it is that multi-cellular organisms and multi-peopled organisations are so amazingly similar.
He has been far too busy!
And he keeps being distracted from writing it.
And one major recent distraction was caused by an email from T who wanted to know why anti-feminists keep insisting that feminism and Nazism are very similar.
Well. The reason is this.
The Nazis were around well before the heavy-duty violence and the gas chambers. And for quite some time they operated in a manner that paralleled in many ways the more recent activities of feminists.
Furthermore, feminist and Nazi ideology have a lot in common.
AH very occasionally receives an email saying that it is outrageous to compare feminism with Nazism - because it somehow trivialises the terrible experiences of the Jews in the Germany of the 1930s.
But making the comparison does not do this at all.
It does the opposite.
It brings to the attention of people the kind of forces that gave rise to Nazism and, as far as men are concerned - particularly the white ones - it makes them understand a little better the horribleness of discrimination and demonisation.
Furthermore, most Jewish groups do not actually highlight the holocaust in order to gain everybody's sympathy.
They do it so that people can LEARN!
They do it so that people can see if something heinous is creeping up on us.
Anyway.
Here are 30 similarities between feminism and 'early' Nazism.
Feminism and Nazism have both ...
discriminated against individuals on the basis of their genetic code.
promoted the view that the targeted group was inferior genetically and behaviourally, e.g. see AH's Men Bear a Striking Resemblance to Slugs.
promoted propaganda that led to the targeted group being labeled as 'parasites', e.g. see AH's Steven Jones - A Parasite?
promoted propaganda that led to the targeted group being constantly ridiculed e.g. see Incredible Shrinking Y by Maureen Dowd
promoted propaganda that led to the targeted group being laughed at even when mutilated e.g. Bobbit jokes.
demonised the target group by labeling them as perverts and sexual criminals, e.g. see Put Up or Shut Up by Wendy McElroy
sought to break the target group away from their families e.g. see The Federal Bureau of Marriage? by Professor Stephen Baskerville.
promoted the view that the targeted group was responsible for most of the major ills in society.
disseminated lies and disinformation about the targeted group in order to further promote their own ideology, e.g. see Msinformation by Professor Christina Hoff Sommers.
disseminated lies and disinformation about historical matters, e.g. see AH's Did Women Really Want To Go Out To Work?
used intimidation, threats and coercion to prevent their opponents from speaking out e.g. see AH's Feminists are nasty things .
promoted the lie that the privileged group consisted of innocent 'victims' of the targeted group e.g. "women have been oppressed throughout history."
demanded special privileges in the workplace for members of the privileged group e.g. preferential job placements for women.
discriminated against the targeted group in educational matters and in the workplace e.g. see AH's Well Done the Girls?
perverted the justice system so that members of the targeted group were easily discriminated against in the law e.g. in family courts.
arranged matters so that accusers from the privileged group could be shielded by anonymity in the courtroom e.g. in sex-assault cases.
arranged matters so that defendants from the targeted group had to 'prove' their innocence e.g. in sex-assault and domestic violence cases.
arranged matters so that members of the privileged group could capriciously define what, legally, was to be deemed 'a crime', e.g. where nowadays the 'feelings' of women rather than the behaviours of men are the determinants of what constitutes 'a crime' e.g. see The Real Goal Of Feminism by Antonia Feitz - 18 min.
arranged matters so that members of the privileged group could capriciously define how the law was to view certain matters e.g. a fetus inside a woman can now be deemed by her - at her whim - to be a worthless piece of tissue or a prospective baby - with all the ramifications of this - regardless of how the father might feel about it all e.g. see AH's Rant Against the Child Support Agency . (Also sexual harassment etc.)
arranged matters so that the law punished members of the targeted group more severely than members of the privileged group for the very same crime e.g. in domestic violence and murder cases.
arranged matters so that members of the targeted group were made responsible for the choices and behaviours of members of the privileged group e.g. in paternity fraud cases where duped fathers still have to pay child support.
arranged matters so that members of the privileged group who harmed, or even murdered, members of the targeted group were shown undue leniency - and were often actually applauded for their actions, e.g. see Killer given domestic violence award and AH's Loose Women .
arranged matters so that the law punished members of the targeted group severely for even trivial offences - e.g. domestic violence, sexual harassment.
arranged matters so that members of the privileged group earned a right to the property of members of the targeted group for no other reason than that they were members of the privileged group e.g. alimony, child custody.
arranged matters so that certain speech or attitudes directed against the privileged group were criminalised e.g. biased 'hate speech' laws.
demanded subservience to the prevailing ideology and to the government.
effectively controlled the mainstream media and the academic institutions and arranged for them to present a dishonest and dishonourable point of view in support of their ideology.
consistently highlighted and exaggerated the achievements and the suffering of the privileged group while downplaying the achievements and the suffering of the targeted group e.g. see Human Rights are not for Men by Melanie Phillips.
ran government-funded educational courses in universities (e.g. Women's Studies, Title IX) and in schools to promote the privileged group at the expense of the targeted group.
persisted in a long term campaign of hatred toward the targeted group, e.g. "Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle." "Men think about sex every 15 seconds." etc. Also see AH's Permanent Menstrual Tension .
Bar the heavy violence and the gas chambers - which came towards the end of the Nazis hold on power - feminism and early Nazism are surely very similar indeed!
>Word your questions with truth and not lies, Brent.
You have a tough time with the unadulterated truth, don't ya, Eric? You like your sanitized version to be the one that gets heard. Too bad. You can't shut me up, intimidate me, or get me removed. That must really get your panties in a bunch, huh? lol
>Word your responses with truth and not lies, Brent.
I doubt you could even define the word "truth", Eric. It's just not in you, is it?
>All you have done is twisted what I have said.
All I've done is brought your long history of hateful and disruptive behavior to people's attention. Everyone told you to "shut up and stop acting like an ass", they TOLD you that your raving and hateful actions would come back to haunt you....and it has. Imagine that.
http://dadsdivorce.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16508
And pasting a bunch of crap in here ISN'T going to prevent me from saying what I intend to say. Go ahead, Eric- cut and paste alllllll you want. If it gets too crapulent it'll just be removed.
All it shows is that you're desperately trying to derail this thread and draw attention away from the fact that you have no credibility, no standing, and no chance of ever being taken seriously. You won't admit or take responsibility for your past actions, so don't expect a whole lot of sympathy from me.
I watched you pretty much destroy the Divorcesource forums with your 100+ posts a day full of ranting and hateful crap. That's NOT going to happen here, believe me.
You can't pretend that you never said these things, nor can you pretend that you're being taken out of context. Face it, the only thing you can do is to serve as a bad example.
Your hatred for and of me has clouded your ability to think rationally.
Anybody can see that you will say anything to denigrate me.
Anybody can see that you are lying.
Anybody can see that if you really had something on me, you would publish it.
You don't.
I have no credibility?
LOL
Feminist myths and tricks frequently used to disrupt true discussion or debate
The following information arose from and existed in the cut-and-thrust of the Newsgroups environment.
Phil wrote:
We are grateful to Steve Reynolds who originally made the post below and
http://www.socmen.org/main.htm (socmen.org) which maintains a link to the post.
Note the link given now needs updating since Google took over Deja.com .
Feminist myths and tricks frequently used to disrupt discussion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:50:55 GMT
[Posted in alt.mens-rights and soc.men]
The purpose of this FAQ is to briefly _identify_ prominent Feminist myths and tricks that are frequently used to disrupt good discussions, and by doing so, to give alt.mens-rights the tools to move onto better discussion; to _focus_ instead of just endlessly defending against the same old anti-male slander.
The purpose is not to argue or to prove anything to anybody. If you're interested in more substantive material, I suggest starting with the WWW
page (Not affiliated with this FAQ or with me):
http://www.vix.com/men/index.html
After some myths I include concise rebuttals and/or pointers to further information. Don't be misled: this is not an effort to fully explore and rebut the Feminist nonsense in question. It is a short _reminder_ of what's wrong with that particular Feminist lie, nothing more.
Feminist generally follow up this FAQ with attacks, regardless that it's not directed to them nor intended to substantively prove anything. To them, everything is a move in their "men bad, women good" game. They don't want us to identify and name their lies. And that's a good reason to do it.
I urge you not allow these myths to derail discussion of other issues, even other related issues. If they have not got a clue yet, you can bet they won't get a clue from anything you say. Instead, I suggest simply cutting-and-pasting from this file, as some have done.
The myths below have had more than a fair hearing - they have had billions of hearings, here and almost everywhere else on the planet. We in alt.mens-rights have heard and debunked these myths literally hundreds of times. I strongly suggest we refuse to re-discuss them endlessly. These little snippets of Feminist hatred have had their chance already. You don't owe them another one.
I feel that any self-respecting people after having addressed the myths _once_ should not have tolerated them any further. We don't need to be complicit in our own defamation.
Myth: Men (or white males) have it great. Men are well provided-for by society.
False. On _this_ planet, men are second class citizens in many ways.
This is the most cancerous myth of all and those who proselytize it are quite beyond civilized discussion.
Trick: The preponderance of male legislators (male columnists, etc.)
demonstrates male power.
False and sexist. This is known as "The Frontman Fallacy": looking at
what _sex_ influential people are instead of looking at _what they actually
do_. Most legislators, male and female, show favoritism to women's interests.
Female circumcision is committed almost entirely by women, yet no-one
says female circumcision demonstrates female power.
Trick: Social institutions not specifically dedicated to women are therefore specifically dedicated to men. "Males have _everything_ else in their favor."
False. It seems that for every issue, Feminists claim that all _other_ issues except the one in question are working in men's favor, and never acknowledge that they say this about every issue!
Trick: Well, in the past and in faraway places, males had it so good and women were treated horribly.
Not credible. This trick conveniently places the assertion far enough away that you can't easily check it, but where the Feminist propaganda machine can still churn out horror stories to fit its agenda.
Myth: Domestic violence is committed primarily by men against women.
False. National studies, such as Steinmetz, such as Straus & Gelles, and
such as McNeely, have repeatedly shown the rates men->women and women->men to be almost exactly equal. See
http://www.vix.com/pub/men/domestic-index.html
Myth: We have to admit domestic violence _is_ committed by women, but
it's just because they were abused, so it's still the man's fault.
False again! Researchers such as Coromae Mann have concluded "I would
not define these women as battered women, I would say they are battering
women".
Myth: The single largest cause of injury to a woman in the U.S. is domestic violence.
False. And considering the millions of injuries in the US from other sources, numerically ridiculous.
Myth: Women earn $0.XX per man's $1.00 for the same work. (The $0.XX claimed varies wildly)
False. This myth refuses to take into account important considerations such as actual hours worked (!), training, job commitment, etc.
Myth: Men control more money than women.
False. Men work for and earn more money, but women control more than 65% of US personal wealth, and spend 4 consumer dollars for every consumer
dollar that men spend.
Myth: Women's standard of living falls after divorce while men's rises.
False. This myth is based on an "advocacy" study by Lenore Weitzmann that has been long debunked, for use of unrepresentative samples, misleading arithmetic, insistence on counting payments from the ex-husband to the ex-wife as if he still possessed the money, and so forth. Weitzmann openly broke the American Sociological Association's Code Of Ethics but has yet to be disciplined for it.
Trick: "Feminist" and "woman" are interchangeable terms. The opposite of
"Feminists" is "men". Feminist interests and women's interests are interchangeable terms.
False and absurd. Our opinion of all women could never be so low.
Trick: I'm a male and I agree with the Feminists that [particular
Feminist lie]
Not impressed. You're far from the first man to sell out their own. You may believe that as what you call a "male" you're in the perfect position to backstab men's rights, but we've heard it all before.
Myth: Choice for men is about men trying to evade parental responsibilities.
False and sexist. In the US, choice for men would give men only the rights women have had since Roe v Wade, nothing more. It would not let the man compel the woman to abort. See http://www.nas.com/c4m/
Trick: People who oppose Feminists are "threatened by strong women"
It is manipulative and arrogant to imply that the only flaw feminists could possibly have is to be "too strong".
Trick: Feminists just want equality. Feminism is about people.
The anti-male nature of Feminists is so obvious, so huge, so outrageous, that to discuss this myth would only dignify it undeservedly. And we've all noticed that purveyors of this trick don't object when the "Why should Feminism do anything for men" trick is used.
Trick: Why should Feminism do anything for men? Why don't men form their own groups instead of demanding that Feminism behave itself?
We do, and obviously we lack the political clout of Feminism. But given Feminism's constant use of appeal to pity, it is enormously hypocritical to now say "Who cares about you, we got ours!" And we've all noticed that purveyors of this trick don't object when the "Feminism is about people" trick is used.
Myth: Differences in the skills and behaviour of men and women are all caused by socialisation. Thus in principle all women can do most jobs as well as all men.
There is an enormous middle ground between biological determinism and cultural determinism. Both extremes are ridiculous. We should not accept the socialization-causes-it-all theory as "the alternative" to biological determinism.
Trick: Women have it worse because violence against women is increasing
at a faster rate than violence against men.
This is the Fallacy of Confounding the Derivative with the Function. Men have it much worse, as evinced by the two major U.S. Department of Justice crime measures. The actual victimization rates for women are still much lower than those of men.
Trick: You can't criticize Feminism because no statement you make is true of _all_ Feminists.
This trick tries to block discussion by making it impossible to express your thought. The writer simply specifies that by "Feminism", he means mainstream Feminism, misandry. Another approach is to qualify the term: "Gender Feminism", "Biofeminism", or "Radical Feminism". And if Feminism really was so random, by the same token you wouldn't be able say anything positive about it.
Trick: Well _I_ don't approve of [some particular Feminist evil]. Only some rare radical Feminists do. Maybe.
If you genuinely don't, then we weren't criticizing _you_. But generally the statement is part of the old good cop / bad cop routine. Do you eve actually criticize the misandrists? Ever advance new arguments against Feminist policies or actions? Ever spread the word about the latest Feminist outrage? Or do you just tell _us_ to stop holding Feminism
accountable?
Trick: There is no Feminist agenda. I must have been away when the agenda was handed out
That tactic has become a favorite one to deflect criticism about the activities being conducted on their behalf. Movements don't exist without agendas, nor can they be effective without a fairly high degree of uniformity among their supporters.
Trick: I don't speak for Feminism, just for myself. I'm not accountable for Feminism. Feminism is not accountable for me.
Fair enough if it came from a real non-Feminist. But if you have argued in defense or support of Feminism, you have shown your colors and we won't forget it for your convenience. It's also fair to hold Feminism accountable for you if other Feminists refrain from significantly criticizing you.
Trick: You're a misogynist!
Misogyny has a precise meaning: Hatred of women _as a class_. Those who use
the term irresponsibly are both unfairly pretending there's much more misogyny than there really is and also demonizing people. If someone calls you a misogynist just because you are in conflict with an individual woman or you don't support special priveleges for women, they owe you a huge
apology. (But good luck getting it)
Trick: No man can know how awful childbirth is.
False. We have wives, sisters, mothers, female friends, and so forth, and we have a pretty good idea of what is and is not involved. We're not about to be bluffed into giving more sympathy than is merited or bullied into playing dumb.
Trick: You're just as bad as the feminists. They hate men, you hate feminists.
Come off it. Anyone who can't see the difference between hating a birth-group (men) and hating a hate-group back (feminists) needs to pull their head out.
Trick: Anyone who opposes Feminism is a reactionary who wants to go
"back to the past". Feminism is "progress".
Anti-feminists are not neccessarily traditionalists. The author is a proud anti-feminist and is not a traditionalist. And not everyone agrees that Feminism is "progress". On the contrary, most here think Feminism has been a disaster.
Trick: Why is SO IMPORTANT to you to argue about [some particular gende issue]?
You should be asking this of Feminists, not of Antifeminists. The Feminists invented the "Which sex has it worse?" issue with all its variations and invented countless lies about it. It was only when the lies were thrown in our face over and over that we realized we had to defend men. Why attack Antifeminists for defending men, and say nothing to Feminists for attacking men in the first place?
Trick: Men are responsible for wars. This justifies many sorts of manbashing, including the all-male draft.
You mean, men _are sent_ to war. Surely sending a birth group to their deaths does not justify further discrimination against that group.
Trick: You're not a woman so you could never understand.
And when's the last time you told a female Feminist she could never hope to understand because she's not a man? And so the only people who can comment on gender issues are people who have had sex change operations?
Suggested answers for more general tactics, so that you don't have to
knock yourself out phrasing a new answer every time they use the old tactic:
Suggested response to obvious Feminist lies:
Thank you for demonstrating once again that Feminists will say anything and listen to nothing.
Suggested response to Feminist backpedalling:
As usual, the Feminist response to being caught at something stinky is to simply crank out more lies and disingenuity.
Suggested response to Feminists disputing common sense:
Thank you for another example of how Feminists need to destroy common sense.
Suggested response when Feminists indicate they just don't care about fairness:
Thank you for demonstrating once again the moral bankruptcy of Feminism.
Suggested response when a Feminist relates suspicious anecdotal "evidence":
"On the Internet, no-one knows your tales are lies" - or so you Feminists seem to think.
If you wish to claim that these myths are in fact true, you're too late.
You've had your hearing and you convinced me and others that purveyors of these myths will never be honest or reasonable.
I wish to thank those who have commented constructively on this FAQ.
---
Steve Reynolds
"Feminism is to female as racism is to race."
http://www.mens-network.org/femimyths.html
Pardon me while I delete the 99.5% of your post that was pasted in junk.
>Your hatred for and of me has clouded your ability to think
>rationally.
If that were true, what would that say about you? You're just a loveable, misunderstood guy and I'm off my rocker? I don't think so, Eric.
>Anybody can see that you will say anything to denigrate me.
I don't have to say anything, I just have to point to what you've done. And if what you've done is good, honest, and laudable how could it possibly denigrate you?
If my referring to your behavior makes you look bad, who the hell is to blame for that, Eric? It's not like I directed your actions or behavior for the last several years.
>Anybody can see that you are lying.
Well, why don't we just let people decide for themselves? I think you've left enough of a history so that the question of who and what you are is pretty easily answered.
Really, Eric, do you think I dislike you because everything you do is so wonderful and makes so much sense?
No, it's because you're the Poster Boy for groups like NOW, who love to promote the idea that father advocates are raving, frothing, fruitcakes who should be regarded with equal parts amusement and revulsion.
I believe that you really, truly do want to help fathers. It's your methods that have led me to my opinion of you. You're the kind of guy that would fix a Ming vase with a sledghammer.
>Anybody can see that if you really had something on me, you
>would publish it.
"Have something" on you? Please, you don't rank that high on the scale. That'd be like "having something" on the guy that begs for nickels at the freeway on-ramp. You're just not that important. You're like Madanna- completely irrelevant except as a subject for gossip.
It's not a question of having anything on you, it's your whole act, your schtick. It's just, I dunno, hollow. Tired. You've beat that dead horse for so long it's turned into ketchup. You need to get some new sound bites or something.
>I have no credibility?
That's correct, Eric, you have no credibility with any reputable parenting or father's organization on the net. Not one.
>Feminist myths and tricks frequently used to disrupt true
>discussion or debate
This was the 99.5% irrelevant junk that was removed. You have nothing to say, but you got a library of articles you can cut and paste from. Whoopee.
Next time maybe you could try to come up with some actual thoughts. That'd be refreshing.
I have to give you credit where credit is due.... You do exactly what Hitler would do...
Mein Kampf extract
Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):
All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ...
>I have to give you credit where credit is due.... You do
>exactly what Hitler would do...
LOL!! When all else fails, compare 'em to Hitler, right? hahahah
If you think the old "You're like Hitler!" argument is going to impress anyone here, you're even dumber than I thought. lolololol
Why am I not surprised that you would cite something from "Mein Kampf"? You had lots of chances to make a cogent argument, to put forth your points, and the best you can do is quote from Adolph Hitler? Is Hitler a hero of yours or something?
Anyway, your complete and total failure to answer any of the questions I raised proves my point completely.
Standing by for more cut 'n paste from the master of kookiness. Cut 'n Paste, Cut 'n Paste, Cut 'n Paste, Cut 'n Paste....but never an ounce of meaning or reason in any of it.
Have you stopped spouting all those bible verses, Eric, or has that still in fashion for you? Remember all the hellfire and brimstone you were calling down on everyone, and how you were condemming everyone but yourself and that little maggot "Jay" to the Eternal Fires Of Damnation?
Remember that? Or do you deny you went through a major bible-spouting phase, then completely abandoned it? Tell the truth now....
No, I do not remember that. You can't either. Why? It never happened.
Have others started posts about religion and I gave my thoughts with Biblical quotations? You bet I have! You did too (anti-Christ).
Again, you make all sorts of accusations, but you can not back them up.
You have repeatedly stated that I advocate killing judges. You can't prove it and I can prove that I did not.
You have repeatedly state that I advocate killing women. You can't prove it and I can show your reference that is obviously stupid.
You state that I have a "calling from God." You can't prove it and you refuse to publish any such statements. Why? Because it never happened.
You state that I am part of some "white race" thingy. You can't prove it and you certainly can not publish any such nonsense written by me. Why? Because it never happened.
You state that I am cahoots with "Jay." The only thing that you can prove is when he published Biblical quotations making his points because others were interested, that I added to those quotations.
I am not afraid to say that I am a Christian and am appalled by your accusations, lies and twisting of what I say.
You are evil. Pure evil in every sense of the word.
Again, you espouse the "Great Lie."
Mein Kampf extract
Hitler wrote in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):
All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ...
So, since you are a liar, twister of other's writings, obviously... YOU HAVE AN AGENDA.
My agenda is to push for the rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting (ESP), the Constitution and TRUE equality that any dictionary defines the word.
So, just what is YOUR agenda to be lying about me as you do? Just what could that be?
Hmmmmm...
Sure makes me wonder and puts the onus on you...
Eric
Another hint to Brent's hidden agendas...
Collapse of the Marxist Orthodoxy and Triumph of American Neo-Marxism
August 5, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Eric Ross, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." (George Orwell)
1. My Unceremonious Re-Introduction to Marxism in Action
Whether it was settling down in New York City or often traveling to the Left Coast on business, but ever since I came to the US shores in 1981, I would invariably run into American Marxists, Socialists, Stalinists, "Revisionists," radical Feminists, Trotskyites and MacDworkinists and all sort and manner of social activists, all expecting that I would understand and share their radical even bizarre views, often turning cold and nasty when I wouldn't. I absolutely didn't want to be bothered. Full of creative juices, I wanted to enjoy a productive life peacefully without being drawn into boring ideological discussions with the West's "useful idiots," who sounded and acted as a time-machine's political caricatures plucked from 1920's and planted onto the streets of New York City, Washington D.C., Boston and San-Francisco, and above all – college campuses of nowadays.
For an ex-Soviet dissident who hated the destructive self-righteousness of ideologues, for someone whose family and friends were survivors of the Stalin's Gulag and Soviet ideology, with its victims fresh in everyone's memory, for me it was an utterly bizarre, almost surreal experience to talk today to social activists of yesteryears circa 1930's, as if they had no historic experiences of the rest of the world, as if the blood of millions of Soviets sacrificed on the altar of Communism meant nothing to these anachronistic relics of the bloody ideology, the ideology which in my mind was no more, dead, finished, crumbling under its own weight, going straight to hell, where it rightfully belonged. But when the contemporary incarnations of this ideology began striking in force and where it hurts most, my family, my won relationship with my beloved young son, then, and only then did I begin to wake up and take notice that the ideology was alive and well, and was destroying thousands of families, including the people I respected, those I worked with, and relied upon, I realized it was alive, and kicking... hard, hitting with vengeance and without concern for even pretending to be in the least humane or fair.
On the surface of America's politics, there seems to be a blissful bipartisan consensus: "Democracy good," "Tyrannical regimes bad." Every politician is aware that Americans wouldn't easily part with these simple political notions. Yet, beneath the surface of American politics, an intense ideological struggle is taking place, a war waged between two competing worldviews, the Americans of the Bill Of Rights, and the advocates of "progress". Many among those draping themselves in the togas of Democracy at the America's political masquerade of today, beneath their bizarre masks reveal sinister gazes of aspiring Tyrants, just waiting out their day to come around, so they could come out of the closet in force. The stakes in the ideological battle waged in the nation's courts, from the Supreme Court to the Village courts, and on its University campuses is no less than what kind of life most of us would have – that of worse than a slave, treated worse than a dog, or the life of free man, and what kind of country the United States will be tomorrow and in the decades to come.
In the midst of my love affair with America, I was briefed in American Neo-Marxism in a place one would least expect, the civil Courts. A local Judge, founder and long-time sponsor of a "community change" organization, was ordering all divorcing parents to sit in a seminar, ostensibly on the "needs of the children of divorce." Hardly a word was spoken about children by the two "instructors" who described themselves as "fighters for social justice"; they spent the entire day on explaining to the stunned audience the hierarchy of the "oppressors" and the "oppressed" and the legal system's civic duty to re-balance the power to make up for the inequities, by marginalizing those groups who "marginalize," according to their theory.
So, how the hell did America come to this ideological juggernaut, which steam-rolls men in family courts as a matter of policy and law, how did it come to deliberate lawlessness of such courts, which fraudulently put ideology above the fact, reason, and stamp out the very notions of equality on which the country was founded? – As I had to piece it together in my own mind to put things into perspective, here is a very quick, cursory outline of my retrospective journey, back into the Socialist future.
2. The Triumphant March of American Neo-Marxism
The Global Proletariat Revolution, which the Marxist scholars expected to occur in 1920's and 30's, after the Russian "Great October Socialist Revolution" of 1917, failed to materialize no matter how hard the Soviets tried to export it on the tips of the Red Army bayonets. The world's proletariat refused to play its "historic role" and didn't want to see Soviet invaders anywhere near their homes. Was something amiss? The "scientific" theory of Communism was not working! Where was the solidarity of the international proletariat? Where were the local revolutionaries from within, who were supposed to help the "brotherly" Red Army to advance and hoist the victorious banners of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin way beyond the Russian borders and all over the world?
Soviet Marxists refused to admit that the Marxist theory was terribly flawed. Meanwhile, certain Western Marxist "revisionists," those who somehow avoided assassinations by the Stalin's thought police, advanced a theory, which propagated – by the decades-long efforts of the Comintern members, international socialists of all hues and the liberal faculties in Western Universities and colleges – through the minds of millions of "fighters for social justice" and "fair-minded progressives," including many amongst U.S. Senators and 'Congresspersons.' It shaped and sealed the fait of millions of people in the Western Hemisphere and all around the globe in the 20 th and 21 st Centuries.
Vladimir Lenin. Ideologue of Dictatorship of the Proletariat
No, the Communist Revolution was not failing because the proletariat in different countries was at different stages of ideological development, often immature, as Stalin thought. Marx was wrong because he underestimated the two major forces that took men away from their class struggle, and defied the Revolution:
Christianity with its traditions of tolerance and benevolence, and
Family , with its "petty bourgeois" aspirations and focus on its own egotistic needs, property above all.
During the 1920-30s, most Russian churches were razed or converted into secular buildings, wearhouses or shops; over 50 thousand priests were either executed or sent to labor camps, many of them perished in the extermination regimes of the Stalin's Gulag during the Great Purge of 1936-37. By 1939, Russia, a formerly great Christian nation, had less than 100 functioning parishes and only four bishops, controlled by the mind police of the NKVD (Soviet Secret Police.) Synagogues were closed. Young people noticed to attend Church faced repression.
Family, from Engels' The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, through Antonio Gramsci's famous Prison Notes, to Katharine A. MacKinnon's Toward the Feminist Theory of the State (with most ideas almost verbatim plagiarized from Gramsci) to the hundreds of "works" of old-school and today's feminists, has been the archenemy No.1, the main force undermining the Communist revolution. As the enemy of the Communist Revolution, the institution of family must be destroyed.
Family kept people focused on its narrow materialistic, despicable goals of survival and life's undeserving pleasures: education for children, clothing, a good place to live and a car to drive to work, that which in America we collectively call The American Dream. In short, it kept the proletariat from fulfilling its historic role. The historic role of the Proletariat was the Global (Worldwide) Socialist Revolution in which it was destined to bury Capitalism forever and establish a borderless utopian Communist society in which everyone is rewarded according to their needs, and everyone voluntarily and eagerly contributes according to their abilities; while children are raised communally, with the ideas of 'enlightened Communism' programmed into their minds early on in life. Sort of what we had in California, where liberals wanted to have everything, and quickly bankrupted the state, so that Arnold The Terminator was called to play the role of Governor in an attempt to restructure and reduce the monstrous debt incurred by the largest state on Left Coast.
The Hungarian Bolshevik Revolution of 1919 and its "Cultural Terrorism" were a precursor of things to come in the United States of today. Georg Lukasc, the Deputy Commissar of Culture in Bolshevik Bela Kun's regime in Hungary put his self-described "Demonic ideas" to work in a campaign of what became known as "Cultural Terrorism." He launched a massive sex re-education program in Hungarian schools. Literature was printed and distributed, and classes given to instruct children and women in "free love" and technique of the sexual intercourse, in the archaic nature of the bourgeois family codes, to disparage and ridicule the outdated mode of sexual relations – monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which the Marxists said "shackled the man" and deprived humanity of all pleasures. Breaking the "chains of the religion," which Lenin also called "the opium for the masses" and destruction of the family became the Marxists' priority. As today's pornographers and TV producers know, sex sells, and Lukasc promotion of sexual promiscuity among children and women was a tool of directly attacking the family and Christianity – the core institutions of the Western Civilization keeping man from fulfilling his historic role. "This was a precursor to what Cultural Marxism would later bring into American schools."
Stalin's massive purges began in earnest in 1920's, right on the heels of Lenin's Bolsheviks' terror. Stalinism was seeking to maintain "purity" of the ideas, wipe out any opposition to Stalin's tyranny, and provide the Soviet State with the armies of slave labor, in which tens of millions of people perished of unbearable labor, harsh conditions and hunger. Disillusioned and terrified of Stalin, Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist and organizer working in 1923-24 for the Comintern (most members of which Stalin later shot as "imperialist spies"), fled back to Italy, under the wing of his friend and ideological Comrade Benito Mussolini, who meanwhile got a few ideas of his own and had devised Italian Fascism. Unexpectedly for him, in 1926 fascists locked up Gramsci in jail, until Mussolini released him in 1934, when Garmsci was already dying of tuberculosis.
Hitler and Mussolini. Fascist-Socialist Dictators
Gramsci's Prison Notebooks, which he passionately wrote in jail, were later smuggled by his Russian illicit love interest and sister-in-law Tatiana with diplomatic mail to Moscow, then published in the West, impressing many thousands of similarly disillusioned Western Marxists. The lecture halls in Yale and Columbia, Harvard and UCLA, and all across the USA are abuzz with his ideas, and ideas of his disciples and ideological heirs, his name reverberating in speeches, lectures, and books and uttered with reverence by the charismatic lecturers and the mesmerized younger generation, the students in Women's Studies, multiculturalism, Gay and Lesbian advocacy and activism, Feminist Legal Theory and other social and political programs.
There's an enormous confusion created with the semantics of the emotion-packed words "liberal," "democrat," conservative," "republican" and such, making such adjectives meaningless, void of their original meaning, and used primarily as curse-words and negative labels. Fore example, those congressman who propose to balance the budget and streamline big government, are denounced as "hating gays, hating women, hating minorities and hating the environment," in short – "right-wing extremists" and "fascists." Interestingly, "right wing" and "fascist" misused deliberately by the MSM for political reasons, essentially describe the same political regime as "left wing", "socialist" and "communist."
Joseph Stalin. A bloody Communist Dictator
NAZI was an acronym for the National Socialists' party of Germany. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all socialist monsters, the leaders of the workers of their countries, all quite popular in their heyday with American Socialists and Communists. America's schoolchildren in 1920's and 30's were reciting their Pledge of Allegiance with an extended hand salute, the same adopted by German Nazional-Socialists, the Nazi's. Hitler and Stalin both favored a strong state, and solidified their control over the masses through the socialist political movement, their ideologies and practices were closely intertwined and similar. Both the Soviet Socialist State and the German National-Socialist State were dictatorships, states based on tyranny, and on close examination were similar. Not even for a second do I doubt that there are many people in our government today who'd just love to establish a "benevolent" socialist Dictatorship, if they could get away with it, and they do establish it in as many dark corners of American public life today as The sleepy People let them get away with.
Gramsci had a different idea than Stalin about what would work in the West. He theorized that the average citizen of the West would never voluntarily embrace the "revolution". Therefore, the citizens of the West must be systematically demoralized by the erosion and destruction of their culture from within.
Mass media would be slowly transformed from the news dispensing organizations into an agent of subtle propaganda. [Check. Accomplished.] It would encourage the demise of education, history, and traditional values. The loss of a common culture and the resulting immorality and dramatically rising crime would split the society into hostile and small subgroups and subcultures, at odds with each other, competing for the benevolence of the state, money and power. It is when the people would cry out for an end to the madness, would beg "authorities" to end the chaos and crime, that the State should move in decisively and install totalitarian controls.
Antonio Gramsci, Italian Communist, Ideologue of the Cultural Revolution
According to Gramsci, the immediate targets of the Cultural Revolution must be the "institutions [which] include education, the family, the church, the mass media, popular culture."
Unlike Stalinist theory of a Communist Uprising seizing the power, then imposing a cultural revolution through terror, Gramsci saw a different, lengthier path to the triumph of Communism, making it impervious to the military coups. It was through a cultural hegemony and invisible terror and censorship of the opposing ideas, where the screams of the victims would drown in the deafening cacophony of propaganda from the media. The specifically American brand of Garmscian practitioners is making trillions of dollars on redistributing wealth in the process of social engineering.
The Gramscian trick was that Marxists would change the Culture first, then political power would fall into their lap like a ripened peach. His was a "bloodless" Communist Revolution, and its class struggle was the "position war" for the minds and souls of the masses, alienated from their traditional cultural values. First, colleges and universities must be taken over by the cadre of dedicated revolutionaries. Second, from this beachhead a major attack would be launched, with millions of people indoctrinated and the cadre of 'fighters for social justice' would take over the press and media, and the institutions of real power, the Courts. Third, through a process of destruction of the family, altering social consciousness and redistribution of wealth from the oppressors to the oppressed, the Communism will triumph internationally, virtually without any public displays of spillage of blood, any reporting of which the mass media must suppress, anyway. It would be a tyranny, all right, but a tyranny of good intentions, a tyranny the properly mind-programmed masses would eagerly embrace and support. It would be for their own good and happiness. It would be a revolution whose achievements are not going to be easily dismantled through a military force.
While Gramscian thinking originated in a fascist prison, and Katherine MacKinnon's – in an ivory tower, following her indoctrination in lesbian political activism in the Smith college notorious for its Marxist-feminist agenda of family destruction and political advocacy of GBLT and other fringe causes, it never ends up being "just a theory." On the backdrop of general feeble-mindedness, political apathy and cynicism, MacKinnon's theory drastically changed the law, and the country's legal profession's collective consciousness; it changed legislation, and case-law, and perverted the institution of the "family" and civil courts, in which the judges assume the roles of the feminist judge, the jury and the executioner. American social policies originally based on Judeo-Christian precepts, and Kantian-Enlightenment ethics, are now based on Gramscian and Marxist-Hegelian concepts of group power, and a forceful redistribution of thereof in favor of those groups the theory fraudulently and arbitrarily declares "oppressed" or "disadvantaged."
As we all know, the orthodox Marxism met its demise, and hardly any of the socialist experiments have worked in the long run. In the end, after decades of ignoring mass repressions by the Soviet Regime, which killed an estimated 40 million, creating a nation of cynics and thugs, forever effecting Russian collective conciseness, after more than 70 years of the Soviet Power's bloody rule, it finally collapsed under its own weight, and the world reluctantly agreed to see it for what it was, a bloody conspiracy by a group of ruthless political criminals. It was a regime, which used the Communist ideology in a fashion similar to the dark ages of the medieval Inquisition, maintaining a grip on the absolute power through mass terror, indoctrination and exploitation of the masses for the benefit of a small elite.
Regardless of whether various lecturers preaching today from the pulpits of institutions of higher education any of the incarnations of Gramscian theory give him proper credit, or whether they pretend to be spontaneous and autonomous geniuses, ideas of Antonio Gramsci are alive and well, making decisive inroads into political, academic and legal realities of the West. In fact, these ideas have a tremendous following among the so called "intellectuals" in the US, UK, Australia and the entire Western World, with education systems permeated with programs of "class struggle of the oppressed", destruction of the family, hatred of religion and its "oppression," hyping up the "enlightened" sexual behaviors – lesbianism, gayety, bi- and trans-sexual lifestyles and political activism. These programs of mass re-education receive massive federal funding, while simultaneously millions of dollars in federal incentives are spent to break up traditional family in "family" courts, and billions more are siphoned into Marxists programs of social engineering, while children in weakened families are slated for being raised communally and trafficked through the Foster Care system, in which thousands are being raped, murdered and used as fodder to the industry's profiteers.
Gramsci's main legacy arises through his revision of the orthodox Marxism, and choosing a different way to Communism. Like Marx, he argued that all societies in human history have been divided into two basic groups: the privileged and the marginalized, the oppressor and the oppressed, the dominant and the subordinate. Unlike Marx with his fixation on the mythical "proletariat," Gramsci defined the ranks of the "oppressed" differently. Specifically, he wrote in his Prison Notebooks, about the hegemonic (vanguard) classes of the upcoming Revolution that...
"The marginalized groups of history include not only the economically oppressed, but also women, racial minorities and many 'criminals.'"
These oppressed and marginalized groups lack their collective class consciousness of being oppressed, and are fooled by the "oppressors" into believing that everything's just dandy. Hence, comes the MacDworkinist assertion that all sex – including consensual – is rape: Women, being the oppressed class, simply lack gender conciseness, they do not know their true sexuality, and they assume the one hoisted upon them by men's "oppressive culture." It's only through re-education in lesbianism and GBLT activism that they would begin to realize "what women really want." To reverse the balance of power from the "oppressors" to the "oppressed" was the goal of Gramsci's "scientific" socialist analysis.
Gramsci theorized that Power is exercised by the oppressors in two ways:
through economic and political domination, force, and coercion; and
b) through "hegemony" – the ideological supremacy in the mass media and school systems, and a whole system of moral and social values that supports the interests of the "oppressors." Subordinate groups, according to him, are coerced to internalize and adopt the value systems and world views of the privileged groups and – by doing so – they perpetuate and consent to their own oppression and marginalization. His theory is echoed by Katharine MacKinnon's feminist theory of the state.
3. Back to the Socialist Future
To discard Gramsci as a fringe theorist is truly myopic, if not outright suicidal, at least for those whom the millions of followers of his theory designate as "oppressors," which in the framework of today's MacDworkinism includes all men, even young boys, regardless of their background. It is necessary to appreciate his theory to begin to understand what is going on in the United States of America today, and how far-reaching and omni-powerful it has become in many vital aspects of life, especially when it comes to adjudication of divorce and an epidemic of false allegations of rape, the occurrence of which is thousands percent greater in America than, say, in Poland, where women have not "figured out" yet, or have been re-educated by the international sisterhood that "all sex is rape."
As Catharine A. MacKinnon, Professor of Law, and Mother of the Feminist Jurisprudence which has overwhelmed and took over America's courts, wrote in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State,
"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism."
Catharine A. MacKinnon, Ideologue of the Dictatorship of the Female, The Presumed Societal 'Underdog'
Thanks to Professor MacKinnon, U.S. Courts today apply the Marxist- MacDworkin-Hegelian presumption of power relation between any two representatives of the "dominant" and "subordinate" groups, which translates to de facto presumption of guilt, and decide cases not on the basis of fact and law, but on the basis of the dictates of the ideology. Sort of what Leon Trotsky ordered the Red Army to do in 1917-1920: shoot anyone wearing a white shirt and necktie on sight. If they have soft, callous-free hands of the bourgeoisie , shoot them on sight, too.
Leon Trotsky delivering agitprop to the Red Army detachment. 1918.
It does not even matter that what MacDworkinism cleverly defined as a subordinate group, has been traditionally dominant and in numerous ways privileged. In the "feel good" Gramscian society, the art of victimology is brought to unprecedented heights, perception becomes reality, and perception-reality is created by the feminist-controlled mass media, propping up the dictatorship of the self-avowed underdog, whose anger is continuously aroused by the constant barrage of the feminist agitprop. While America's "Justice" of today does not shoot members of the "privileged" groups on sight, it gleefully goes about expropriating the "expropriators," the basic tenet of the Neo-Marxist theory and its favorite pastime.
Gramsci wanted to de-legitimize the dominant belief systems of the oppressors and to create a cultural hegemony of the oppressed, thus empowering them culturally and legally, while marginalizing the oppressors, again through pop culture and law. Moreover, he argued that because hegemonic values permeate all spheres of "civil society" it is a great war for ideological hegemony, it is the "war of position" everywhere: schools, the media, courts and law, churches, personnel departments of major corporation, and the censorship of the "thought police" employed by publishing houses. Philosophy, religion, art, literature, industrialism and business – all aspects of our society become political battlegrounds. His ideas reverberate in the feminist slogan that "all life is 'political' and as one of my fellow post-graduate students in her critique of my favorite economy professor noted, his manner of teaching was "oppressive to women." I liked the guy because his mathematical models were not only original, but damn descriptive and elegant.
The religiously ideological left is hysterical nowadays, getting ever so shrill, spitting venom at "Constitutionalists" and launching its enraged attacks on the basic human rights of the "oppressors" because they have come so far in 35 years, only to be thrown back by a tidal wave of increasingly conservative, smart middle America taking back the country from the fanaticism of Sociocrats. Despite a massive effort, the billions of dollars redistributed from federal taxes into their re-education programs, their indoctrination hasn't worked that effectively, and its influence is diminishing outside the mass media and courts, and the influence of their dying Old Media is quickly diminishing as the unbiased news is now available through the Internet, talk radio, and Internet-based downloadable digital media from people of far greater intellects than the Sociocrats' mouthpieces, such as Maureen Dowd, Catie Couric, or Dan Rather.
Maureen Dowd, NYT reporter, Ideologue of Female Genetic Supremacy
The Democratic Party has been overtaken by the fringe activists, supported by radical, men-hating feminists with militant, angry lesbian and gays' agenda, the bar associations whose membership makes billions every year on redistribution of wealth, and environmentalists clamoring for abolishment of private property and banishment of the automobile, while they're crisscrossing the country in gas-guzzling SUV's. Do you know why the Erath Day celebrated in America's schools with great hoopla is on April 22 nd? – Because it is Lenin's birthday. So, now you know the rest of the story.
Where the Neo-Marxists of today are in complete concordance with Marxists Orthodoxy of yesterday, is that they don't give a flying hoot about the very people whose interests they ostensibly advocate – the working people, the racial and ethnic minorities and women. The use them only as stepping stones to power and money. Joseph Stalin used to say, "one death is a tragedy, millions of deaths is a statistic." Just as Stalin sent to death 40 million of the working people in the Soviet Russia, and sent millions of infantry troops to be mowed down in reckless attacks on the Nazi tank columns and machinegun fortifications, while The New York Times and the mariachi bands of the West's communists and other "useful idiots" serenaded Uncle Joe who could do no wrong, the Neo-Marxists' elite of today only cares about its grip on power and the super-wealth it acquires redistributing wealth from its creators to its consumers. To this end it stops before nothing in its quest for ever more effective tools of deception and lies. They do not give a damn about the masses, be it the working people whom they levy with taxes up to their eyebrows, 700% more than in 1950's, while they are busily redistributing wealth into the pockets of their ideological elite and the functionaries of its apparatus. They spawned multiple, non-value producing high growth industries: the Prison Industry with American Gulag beating all the current world records in the numbers of incarcerated, 44 percent of them black and poor, the Domestic Violence industry declaring an "unkind glare" Domestic Violence, a word conjuring up imagery of blood-curdling murders, the Divorce Industry where the enterprising predators – America's divorce lawyers – pocket families' net worth made by lifetimes of hard work.
The People in the former Soviet Union held by the regime at a gunpoint, learned to beat the system early on. Hardly anyone outside the closed circles of the elites, and the apparatchiks of the regime, believed any of the official propaganda and rhetoric, and finally the system imploded from within. It is about time Americans learned to see the Neo-Marxist agitprop for what it is, too, a smelly pile of poisonous lies.
Comintern was a n international organization of communist parties founded by Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik's) leader Vladimir I. Lenin in 1919. Initially, it attempted to control the international socialist movement and to foment world-wide Communist revolution; later, it became an instrument of Soviet foreign policy and a conduit of its propaganda. Soviet dictator Joseph V. Stalin dissolved the Comintern in 1943 as a conciliatory measure toward his Western military allies.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/
http://www.sozialistische-klassiker.org/lukacs/lukacse02.html
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/modernism/lukacs.htm
http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/kun.htm
Altermedia Scotland: The Roots of Political Correctness. By Raymond V. Raehn http://scot.altermedia.info/general/the-historical-roots-of-political-correctness_568.html
bourgeois: A person belonging to the middle class; A person whose attitudes and behavior are marked by conformity to the standards and conventions of the middle class; In Marxist theory, a member of the property-owning class; "a capitalist," a vicious class enemy.
Expropriation of the Expropriators, a Marxist term for confiscation of the property of the petty owners.
Eric Ross, Ph.D.
Copyright © Eric Ross, Ph.D., 2005.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the author: Dr. Eric Ross is a management consultant and an adjunct professor in the North East. He holds a Ph.D. in Information Sciences and MBA in Economics and Finance and is a member of the National Business Honor Society. He is a full-time father to an adorable 7-year-old boy, and an ardent researcher of economic and political "megatrends." Being originally from the defunct Soviet Union and painfully familiar with the massive social injustices, first hand, he is painfully aware of the erosion of the constitutional principles, protections and liberties in the United States. He can be reached at
[email protected]
Please stop flooding the board with this pointless garbage. If you keep posting this junk, I'll just remove it. If you can't post something useful or participate without annoying people, don't post anything. Understand?
Then, stop lying, Brent.
There is nothing that I have posted that is NOT part of "Father's Issues" or of interest to Fathers about how and why we are in this predictament that you seem to want to discredit.
And, if you are going to threaten me, stop posting your disclaimer about not being the opinion of SPARC...
Eric
P.S.: Thank you for your hate rhetoric. The applications to become a member of FIRM has soared exponentially today...
>Then, stop lying, Brent.
Whatever, Eric. Sounds like you want to make an issue of this so you can have a hissy-fit and cry about how SPARC is run by "feminazis" and how we're "oppressing" you. If that's what you want, keep doing what you're doing. I can tell you right now that the person who'll decide this really isn't in the mood to deal with your petty crap today.
>There is nothing that I have posted that is NOT part of
>"Father's Issues" or of interest to Fathers about how and why
>we are in this predictament that you seem to want to
>discredit.
No one here wants to read your favorite Hitler quotes. I'm asking you politely to stop posting that kind of material. Link to it if you want, but no one wants to come to this board to read "Mein Kampf". I don't, and I'm damn sure Waylon doesn't either.
>And, if you are going to threaten me, stop posting your
>disclaimer about not being the opinion of SPARC...
Thanks, but I don't take direction on things like the content of my signature line from people like you, lol. I'll put what I want there. (Although I'm terribly sorry that it disturbs you.)
As for my opinions, I'm a moderator here but my opinions are still my own. I'm sure this concept is very difficult for you to imagine but that's the way it is. I don't support any "party line", not SPARC's and certainly not yours. I work to futher SPARC's goals, but I don't worship at the Altar Of Waylon. Again, I know this must be hard for you to grasp but there's no helping that, is there?
My suggestion to you at this point is to go about your business, try not to post any unecessarily inflammatory stuff, and participate no more in this particular pissing contest.
>P.S.: Thank you for your hate rhetoric. The applications to
>become a member of FIRM has soared exponentially today...
LOL, you're still counting how many members you have? That's cute. Best of luck to you.
I did not start this, YOU did.
"participate no more in this particular pissing contest."
Take your own advice.
But, I will not let rest what you have started...WITH YOUR LIES. YES, LIES!
You quit it.
Eric
Please stop posting in this thread, Eric.
Please stop spreading lies about me in this thread, Brent.
Eric
Since you can't to follow the simplest request, I've temporarily disabled your account until I speak with Waylon about this. Don't make a new account and post here just to show me that you can.
As much as you would like to be able to "disable" the truth, YOU CAN NOT.
You have lied about me too many times.
You have lied to the world about this being your "opinion."
Ask Socrateaser about agency law. Go ahead, ask your "in house" homosexual activist attorney, Maury, lawmoe or whatever name she/he is using for the moment...
And, yeppers, you are right. Unless I get an apology from Waylon and statement that he did not write "that letter" that obviously, from your comments, you did, I will report the truth about you and your lies as an agent/representative of SPARC for literally, millions to see and I am relentless (not "that" relentless).
And, no. Unlike you, I do not believe in posting in multiple names. EVERY thing that I post has my name in it.
When you made that statement, I laughed and knew exactly who you are on other boards...you feminazi PIG!
Good riddance to you.
Eric
Fathers' Integrity & Rights Movement (FIRM)
//www.FIRMncp.com (the site to watch out for)
The hater and slayer....
(you know the rest...)
(sigh) You're such a loser, it's not even worth responding to you.