Thursday, December 22, 2011

Ruminating About Misandry

I have found in my frequent journeys online as well as observations of misandry in daily life, the media, or in the political arena that it never seems to let up. Granted, in there's always a place where I escape from the unfettered ding of its raucous call in order to maintain a seamblance of peace---I have a few devices; cooking gourmet dinners for myself, walking around a local beach late at night or the grappling sessions I attend twice a week.

Still, I find that cannot sever myself from writing about this cultural malaise. Men are being removed as main authority of the family and sometimes even kicked out, with the ever-widening grip of the state encroaching in our lives. Young men are not as scholarly inclined or even discouraged to be more ambitious in school and college, and will have a significant effect on the economic course in our future. Despite some efforts to push for dual child custody in divorce court women are still favored as primary caretakers while many fathers have pay up for CS with limited access to their kids.
Debtor's prison, an Unconstitutional situation, is still enacted in many cases when man cannot financially maintain support payments. Maybe a mother has leveled false charges of abuse against a man to restrict visitation entirely or has found another lover while he slaves away. The ludicrous burden---what I consider should be illegal---of alimony is rewarded to greedy and vindictive-minded ex-wives. In the workplace, false accusations of sexual harassment have men walking on nails and although some countermeasures have been implemented as policy to curtail them, there are women that will still employ this a weapon to be rid of men they don't like or find "creepy" on a whim. Don't get me started on health funding, depression and suicide rates, hypergamy, slutwalks, and domestic violence.

What have feminists, feminism, and their counterparts have done to help men in dire need? If anything they have aided in spearheading legal and social misandry with no signs of letup. With the lie that feminism is supposed to be for legal and social equality, it has clearly shown its true colors---female supremacy---and anyone not giving homage to its poisonous credo is demonized, marginalized, or punished in some fashion.  With the Radfem Hub now made visible and its posters true thoughts laid bare, it is evident what they really think of men.  Many of the statements were particularly cruel, but one of them that troubled me was the suggestion that mothers could starve male infants and boys of affection and nurture in order to (essentially) let them die.  

How heartless.  Unbelievable.

One most note that many of these same women that have made these venomous statements are not exactly in the shadows in the first place; among them are career women and those in influential positions.  And yet, these feminists are the oppressed and victimized---or so they claim.  In reality, they want the power sans responsibility, and burden men further with absurd expectations.  It's the hideous irony that those purporting to champion equality secretly desire to regulate men to the status of second class citizens.  Or worse.

Given all of this, it's not surprising that there are men gradually men drifting away in a sense---refusing to support women without mutual reciprocation, tired of contributing to society with little reward, suspicious of Ameriskank behavior, and cynical of any romantic ideal after being hurt by women for too long or told over and over it's all their fault.  There's a lesson from the Radfem Hub revealing from Agent Orange; men are considered expendable.  Period.  And no matter how profound our efforts to uphold civility and society, as well as . . . oh hell . . .  just expect a modicum of love and affection from a woman that treats us halfway decent in return, we are still inferior by virtue of our Y chromosome.  

Feminism has always tried to control men, and by extension, male sexuality.  In turn, women's sexuality is paramount and should be always given precedence over men's, which is clearly seen in anything with reproductive choice, child support, cuckolding, and the like.  This appeals strongly to women who don't completely share the outright hatred of the more extremist type; after all, it's something that has permeated our culture like a bonfire that seemingly cannot be doused.  Add this with massive redistribution of wealth from men via the state to women (supposedly for the sake of the children).  Imagine if the latter were to fall through (including welfare, CS, and alimony ground to a halt); if the doomsayers are correct, it is a possibility.  If more men wake up to realize they are being extorted, indirectly or otherwise, by a system that basically cares nothing for them outside of production and utility purposes---walking ATMs and sperm banks---things will be vastly different for the sexes, and all the cries to return to bullshit notions of chivalry would dissipate.   

By means of comparison, the feminists spouting hatred have a more insidious viewpoint than your average, smug, selfish Ameriskank.  Men are disposable, superfluous.  And although without men we would not have the advances in our historical evolution as we know it, we truly are perceived as deserving as the expendable sex.  I am still a little surprised that they still feel it should clandestine about it, considering how misandry extends to both the radical left as well as Necons.  Obviously, some of it is out in the open.  It would be a sick joke if they were not so earnest.

As Men Going Our Own Way, there are no hard and fast rules for every individual man, but spreading the word about the truth  has become crucial.   For those that have no respect for men and masculinity should ask themselves this: why should we have any respect for them when they continue to smash any underlying social contract asunder and leave no benefit for men?  

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Robert O'Hara Exposes Feminist Hatred

This is from the site A Voice For Men.

There has been much discussion about this recently and I could probably add more than a few words of my own.  There has been some digging up of feminists posts about what they really think of men.  This is actually recent writings and not just the classic cases of quotes from the your Dworkins of the world; it's proof of how they view men in general, and it gets even worse---they are in certain career positions that will surprise some.  While I consider myself rather cynical, I still find the implications troubling.  Another point here is that unlike the constant protestations that feminists don't have real power and clout in the status quo, this will be another blow to that notion. In fact, it's something I've stated for years; it is ingrained (currently) in our society and quite active in many social and workplace circles.  I'm not the only one who subscribes to this, but I do think they should be held accountable in accordance to whatever damage they ultimately do.  

I want to thank everyone involved from AVFM for shedding light on this serious problem and Agent Orange for his work; some may say that it will not effect great change, but it truly is another blade (as one poster used to say, and I miss him) how feminism will disseminated by a thousand cuts.

From the article:   Radfem Hub: the underbelly of a hate movement

Imagine that you are a fly on the wall of a private meeting. The attendees include a legislative lobbyist, an arts council member, a political writer, a bestselling novelist, a communications assistant for a national chamber of commerce, a web developer, a special education teacher and a child care worker.

What do you imagine you would hear in that meeting? Maybe plans to improve children’s education, especially those with special needs? Perhaps a call to mobilize resources to ensure school kids are not attending class hungry, or that they are safe from abuse and exploitation? Maybe you would hear concerns about the quality of education and school budgets during the global recession, or other problems faced by the upcoming and developmental generation of world citizens.
Well, one such meeting has been happening, conducted by well-placed individuals who fill the job descriptions listed above. But educational and welfare improvements were not the topics they discussed. The agenda of the meeting was the shared desire to abuse and murder children, to trap people in wooden buildings and blow them up, to throw children from, through, windows, to pursue infanticide and forced eugenics, and to seriously entertain and secretly pursue ways to exterminate half the population.

If you are waiting for a punch line, don’t.

Radfem Hub (Radfem is short for Radical Feminist), is a website featuring articles from well-known activists, many of whom are in significant real-world positions of political and social influence. The site has been the focus of some attention since Simon and Schuster novelist Pamela O’Shaughnessy, posting under the name Vliet Tiptree, penned an article there advocating human scientific experimentation and forced eugenics, in order to “extirpate” certain aspects of masculinity.
The publishers of Radfem Hub frequently profess and promote philosophical solidarity with the late Valerie Solanas, author of The Scum Manifesto, a violent ideologue who advocated the extermination of men. She also gunned down artist Andy Warhol, maiming him for life.

Some well-known figures are closely associated with the Radfem Hub. Loretta Kemsley, publisher of Moon Dance Magazine, which was given an award by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, is listed as having a “board presence” on her public profile there. Sheila Jeffreys, feminist author and professor at The University of Melbourne has a public presence there and frequently provides articles. Julie Bindle, author and columnist with The Guardian, a well read newspaper in the U.K., has also posted there. (see Wikipedia Links Below).

Underneath Radfem’s veneer of social consciousness, however, and hosted on the same website, is a private forum; the underbelly and engine room for the site as a whole. The discussions there, assumed to be out of the public eye, are virulent and hateful; often peppered with calls for violence. For a long time, they have been successful and maintaining both secrecy and anonymity. Until now.

Over the past several months an operative ,who will only be identified as Agent Orange, has successfully infiltrated the group and has collected trove of information, including over a hundred screen shots that document what can only be called the most shocking evidence of extreme hatred in the feminist movement seen to date.
Not only have these conversations been documented with screen shots but Agent Orange, with the help of an investigator, has tracked down the identities of several of these individuals. The confidence level of the information is compelling, and more is on the way.  Here is a portion of the individuals identified, along with some of their statemen
Danielle Pynnonen (screen name “Allecto”), a child care worker whose employer is unknown;

click to enlarge
Kat Pinder (screen name “Amazon Mancrusher”), a community development coordinator for the City of Perth in Australia and former U.K. Game show Big Brother contestant;

Click to enlarge
Isabelle Moreira (screen name “Izzie”), a web developer in Curitiba, Brazil;

Click to enlarge

Mary Syrett (screen name “Mary Sunshine”), a writer and member of the City of Kingston Arts Council in Ontario, Canada;

Click to enlarge
Julie LeComte (screen name “Rain”), a communications assistant for the French-Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Australia;

Click to enlarge
Lorraine Allen (screen name “White Tiger”), a special education teacher at The Center for Discovery Hurleyville, New York;

Click to enlarge
Laila Namdarkhan (screen name “yabawife”), a well known feminist activist who was instrumental in passing legislation in the U.K. Regarding the mental health of women in prisons;

Click to enlarge
And of course Pam O’Shaughnesey (screen name changed from “Vliet Tipree” to “karma”), an established writer, publisher and lawyer. In this post, the complete depravity of O’shaughnessy’s ideology shines though with a clear willingness for mass murder as a “last resort.

Click to enlarge
These screen shots represent just a sample the images and other data that document real people engaging in what can only be described as an orgy of gender hatred. What’s more, these are not individuals who live on the fringes of society. They are people who hold public offices, positions in academia and the media. Their voices and ideas are heard in legislatures all around the world and even in the chambers of the United Nations.

In the very near future, the complete body of data collected by Agent Orange will be made available to the public at large. This means that anyone interested learning more about these people and publicizing their own analyses on their blogs, Youtube channels or other media will be able to do so. It also means that interested members of the general public can voice their concerns regarding these individuals to the press, as well as anywhere these individuals may pose a direct threat, particularly to the welfare of children.

For a long time men’s advocates and others have tried to point out to politicians and the public that feminism was, at its heart, a movement rooted in hate. Those contesting this point of view claim that radical feminism isn’t recognized as legitimate by most feminists and that radical feminists aren’t taken seriously. This new information demonstrates those assumptions are false.

This data, and the mountains of it to soon follow, reveal that radical feminists with bigoted, violent leanings are thoroughly entrenched in the media, governmental and education systems worldwide, and that they are exerting their influence to further legislation and policy that reflects not only their hatred of men and boys, but a desire to put themselves in a position to inflict as much harm on them as possible.I will be joining Paul Elam on AVfM Radio tomorrow night, when we will be speaking live with Agent Orange, who has a great deal more information and perspective on what has been happening at Radfem Hub. Another surprise guest will be appearing.


Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Remembering Michelle

To be honest, I really didn't know how to start off this post.  So I will say it; Michelle is only one of two women in my lifetime that I truly loved, and while I was young when it came onto me like an incessant whirlwind you could not dissipate, being young made it no less potent.  If anything, it amplified all the rawness and pain that I felt for it being unrequited.   I do remember her from even before I had been a high school sophomore and that she was exceedingly beautiful and feminine, unlike women now days that feel they have to festoon their bodies with tattoos and gradually wear on their physiology with drugs and partying.  

If "alpha female" equated to Michelle, she was quite the prize at the time.  She was a senior, and not only was she gorgeous, but academically bright, lady-like, kept her nose clean, and had the warmest smile I had ever seen.  There were many things to adore about her to a driven but gangly, introverted teen such as myself.  I don't recall exactly at one point that my lionization would infect my loins like a raging fever I couldn't rid myself from, but I do know when she discovered it.   Perhaps the death of a couple of relatives at that period only added to my dismay; they had died in an abrupt car crash.  Now life and love had another meaning; it could be profound but taken away at any time.  She needed to know how I felt because life was fleeting.

Of course, Michelle it not know how strongly I desired her; never before was I moved so deeply by a woman.  Yes, lust was a part of it, but if it had been only sexual I could have moved on.  That was not so easy.    At fifteen, I was floored by it---I'll be up front and state I didn't know how to come to terms with it.  At the time, I wondered if it had been any more powerful I would have moved proverbial mountains just to be with her.

Not that it mattered.  I was a somewhat nerdy younger guy with a crush.  That was it in her world.  That fact alone was eating away at me, but would be even more brutal when I would see her with a bone-headed football player she had befriended.  Sometimes, I wondered if she had latched on to him as a token boyfriend to prevent me from continued pursuit, although she would smile that particular smile to me on occasion and speak to or about me in passing.  It wasn't just the idea she had a trophy beau on her arm that was devastating; it was because I was not even considered despite her coy and wispy acknowledgments of me.  I was in a lower caste, regardless.  I even ruminated if I might as well have been dead, and that my passing would only been thought of momentarily in her life--and she would continue without that much fanfare.

What is paramount is that I was a romantic soul that truly did believe in loyalty, self-sacrifice, passion, and devotion to a woman that I was enamored with.  It is somewhat difficult to convey that belief now despite other posters finding me fairly articulate and direct.  There were other young women, but in my world Michelle was like the chosen one; I wanted her as a soulmate so badly that it tore at the fibers of my being.  For an entire year, I burned with that core fire that would eventually yield to a colder, more darker flame that would not be the same ever since.

Oh yeah, I did mention that I loved another woman later on.  But even then, I was not the same.  Andrea refused to understand that about me despite (supposedly) adoring me to the point of fixation, and as much as she wanted me, I had changed at a younger age.   A crucial part of not loving simply every woman that came along is that very few would ever appreciate what I would have done for Michelle to be at my side for a lifetime, and it transformed me unalterably.  I don't give my respect and love out to just any woman, because Ameriskanks don't respect and love men back in the same fashion.   Michelle would not do the same for me at all.  I had to come to grips with that notion, and it was like trying to grapple with a venomous tiger.   And once that proverbial struggle was over, I came out the other side scarred and stoic.   

There are women out there that think nothing of how heartbreak effects men.  They will even deride and openly mock those same men, not regarding the former and also not realizing their derision leads to more cynicism and even bad karma for those women.  You do get what you give, and those women in kind---in their hubris---refuse to come to terms with how mistreating, demonizing, abusing, and marginalizing men creates the problems that poison the well---even in our culture.  If men took the personal as political (as feminists do) the landscape of the relationships between the sexes would look very, very different.  To say the least, most women would think twice about purposefully hurting men on one level or another, and at the more extreme, the feminist nightmare of what they perceive is oppression and men's anger---one which they are reaping despite their claims to the contrary---would be made manifest.  It is quite a testament to men's reluctance to be at war with women, if anything.  We are not bred to hate them.   But we are not their punching bags or drones, either.   

There was not one real pivotal moment that lead me to become as I am now, but the Michelles of the world will not know the influence they have.  The magic has been constrained like a hermetically sealed talisman; it may just never return.  Women  cry for that romantic soul will not come back, at least not in this lifespan.   And they should be very worried about that.

My experience may seem to pale in the view of men in child support custody battles or dealing with a violent woman bent on destroying their partners somehow, but I have changed.  I have become that man that can say "No" to anything a woman does in my personal life I don't like at all, to the one that can walk away without looking back.  This frightens Ameriskanks more than the guy that cheats, the one that is emotionally or physically abusive, or the one they purport is a "lazy, no good bastard" that lets himself go.  We are dangerous in the light that we are looking out for ourselves since none of them would bother to do the same.  After all, if they truly don't need us, perhaps we can return the favor and let them stare in the mirror at their own real cause of their problems.

There is more I could say, but Michelle has contributed to the man that has walked away.  There is a heavy price tag to pay for creating men like me, whether is was indirect or not---or if they realize it or not.     

If any substantial number of women begin to wonder why they're suffering, and really want to know why, the information is available. The Buddha explained it all quite clearly 2500 years ago. He was surely not the first, nor will he be the last. Afterwards he simply walked away from the melodrama.  ---Philalethes

Friday, November 11, 2011

My Thoughts On Ameriskanks Losing Their Appeal To Men Over Time

Very recently it was brought up that there are women who still cling the idea that their ability to attract the best of men lasts with them regardless of the ravages of time and an unhealthy lifestyle---or at least men that were perceived good catches, as opposed to men Ameriskanks typically look down upon with scorn.  This includes men which nowdays are typically good men that are often marginalized or even demonized in some fashion. 

If you are a good man in the viciousness and cruelty of a misadrist society, you always have to watch your back.  You have to find some kind of support system that same society which expect you to "man up" and "deal with it" even though that support is barely there.  Regardless of what any feminist or white knight has ever believed, most men have to make in through their lives with little backup of their own.  Even women that aren't as hateful or skeptical about men cannot seem grasp this in concept.  The fact of the matter is that many women have always had some sort of supportive element(s) in their lives that often outrstrip their men cohorts, and since we supposedly live in a "patriarchy" that allegedly benefits men, they are bereft of the understanding that men receive far less of these support structures (including emotionally) than women do on average.  It is a sad commentary on our culture, indeed.

But, as a good friend of mine used to say before his passing, let's cut through the bone and get right to the marrow of the matter.

I've said this before in conjuction with this topic, but you would think a woman that has gone through the gaunlet of self-abuse, excess, addiction, and a catalog of toxic relationships that gave her a hefty amount of baggage would be grateful for a what they would deem as an "average Joe's" attention as being lucky.  The arrogance of the modern Ameriskank helps them thrive on their delusion about Prince Charming still riding in to rescue them from their largely self-crafted problems---even when they have spent a great portion of their lives passing up good men and wondering why those same men they treated with a snear and disrespect will not invest much time with them.  On one of the forums I frequent, a poster writes:

This is why we have this overactive "rape culture". I really think women get off on being scared that they can be raped or hit on at any time. It must mean they're soooooo attractive and hawt. These women would rather believe that a guy is suffering inside with wanting her and not going to get it than the fact that a guy might not be interested at all. That just doesn't compute.
You can REALLY piss off a woman by asking her why she thinks ANYONE would want to rape her? A friend of mine did that once at a bar and she was LIVID! Gawd, it was funny! Wouldn't you think that would be one less thing to be worried about?

And my response in continuation of the thread about this very same subject (although slightly edited):

I've been called conceited because I look years younger than my age, I'm in fairly good shape, and I don't bow down to just any woman that walks by. Even one woman called me "Fabio" because I'm tall and muscular with long hair. With her skewed sense of humor I don't know if it was a compliment or a slam.

With women, however, their hubris and desirability is not to be questioned.

Hell, even with online dating sites (which are pretty much a farce stacked against men and in women's favor), if a woman showed off in her pictures it was okay, but if you are shirtless and musclebound as man you are often labelled as a narcissist. I think it's a way of control, and a way of cutting down men's esteem while lifting women's own at men's expense. They want to dominate the dating, sexual, and procreative marketplace. With feminism it is proverbially and literally law
designed for women's choice and men's responsibility----even if that means there are men that will never find someone remotely suitable as a mate at all.

The irony is that usually the women who are damaged secretly wish they were more desirable, but will not openly admit they have their flaws. It eats away at them in all seriousness, and, of course, how dare you point it out. They want men to trip over themselves for access to their rarely given affection and approval but hate giving up that personal, sexual, and social power. Even with dating, Ameriskanks want to control just about everything, even with ultimate veto power to reject you as a mate (unless they consider you a celebrity alpha or something).

The idea that most men would not want a burnt out, used up skank is not something they will readily come to terms with. I honestly think if women had to deal with the rejection, scorn, criticism, and even hatred men receive as desirability is concerned they would be near lunatic mania with it---and (in all seriousness) even the actual suicide rate would skyrocket, as opposed to the bogus suicide attempts.

Friday, September 30, 2011

"Can an ideology teach hate?" From Toy Soldiers

From the blog site:

One of the curious changes in the online community over the last decade is the growth of the men’s rights movement. Driven by concern for men’s issues, men’s rights activists formed online communities. The movement garnered the attention of several people who have since led offline activist campaigns to help men and boys. But perhaps more than helping men, the men’s rights movement has spawned a feminist backlash against the movement and the discussion of men’s issues.

The most common accusation against men’s rights activists is that they are part of a hate group. Feminists claim that the ideology guiding men’s rights activists is rife with misogyny, particularly as it relates to violence against women. Feminists claim exposure to men’s rights groups causes people to support and potentially commit violence, although no self-professed men’s activist has ever been reported to have hurt anyone, whether on his own or in the name of the movement. Feminist bloggers like Manboobz owner David Futrelle, Amanda Marcotte, Hugo Schwyzer, and dozens of others list examples of comments and posts from men’s rights sites to try to prove their claim. As far as feminists are concerned, the men’s movement or any concern for men’s issues teaches nothing but hate.

Coincidentally, men’s rights activists argue the same thing about feminism. Part of their core beliefs is that feminism seeks to oppress men and shift all power to women. Of course, feminists cry foul at the mere assertion that any feminist is capable of hurting men, let alone that feminism as an ideology teaches misandry.

Case in point, on a recent Manboobz thread I mentioned my experiences with my feminist aunt. Futrelle posted a rhetorical question from a men’s rights blog, but the comment section revolved around a joke one of the men’s rights’ commenters made involving shooting feminists with boiled potatoes until they renounced feminism. To this I replied:
[...] I would have much preferred my feminist aunt to jokingly fantasize about shooting me with boiled potatoes to get me to accept feminism than have her actually maliciously shove dildos and strap-ons up my ass when I was a child to teach me how evil “patriarchy” is.
This prompted a number of comments, the gist of which was that feminism had nothing to do with my aunts actions, that feminism never causes bad behavior, and that my aunt is not a feminist. I received a similar response from feminist blogger Barry Deutsch several years ago when I mentioned my aunt (which also prompted Barry to ban me). My response to the Manboobz comments that an ideology can inform a person’s actions led to a host of retorts, the best of which came from Rutee Katreya:
Find for me where feminist thought says the rape of boys is a requisite action to promote equality for women. What your aunt did was fucking horrible. I don’t really see a reason for you to be on board with feminism because of it. But I simply will not allow you to slander an entire movement trying to prevent similar for hundreds of people (Not women, girls, boys, or men, people) because of one person, who can’t even get people to agree with what she did, and who nobody within has apparently defended. Trying to say we’re ‘like’ or worse, *worse* than a movement that just wants to perpetuate enslavement for a gender, because one woman who is a feminist did a horrible thing to you, is not going to fly.
This is the the same feminism that teaches that men collectively oppress women for the sole purpose of keeping all the power for themselves. The same feminism that claims that every male, regardless of his age or social status, benefits from this “patriarchy” at women’s expense. The same feminism that holds the fraction of men with power and the fraction men who commit violence as representative of the whole male population. The same feminism that views men as the ultimate enemy, one to be feared, distrusted, and suspected.
Would it surprise anyone that an ideology espousing that kind of hatred might cause a person to hurt someone?

It certainly does not surprise feminists. The core of the feminist argument is that society’s ideas about women cause men to commit violence against them. Yet how is it possible for the men’s rights movement and conspiracy theory called “patriarchy” can cause violence, but an openly anti-male ideology like feminism could not possibly cause a woman to hurt her nephew? This blog is full of accounts of feminists using feminism to hurt, punish, and discriminate against men. Numerous men and women have written and spoken about the negative impact feminist ideas had on them. Plenty of people have discussed how feminist policies have hurt boys and men. The misandry within feminist doctrine is obvious that feminists feel the need to create a Feminism 101 blog and constantly remind people that feminism is not about hating men.  And they do this all while claiming that “patriarchy” makes men rape, beat, and kill women. Everything from stiletto heels to make-up comes back to one pseudo-ideology making men oppress women. It is a glaring contradiction that so far none of the feminists responding to me over at Manboobz can seem to get around.

I do feel for them. They are essentially trying to defend the feminist version of “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”. They cannot just admit that feminism as an ideology can be and has been used to hurt people, and something inherent in the ideology makes that so common. As such, I can forgive the insults and the wild straw man arguments claiming that I stated my aunt represents feminism or that I stated that feminism supports child rape. I suppose I would pull at straws too if someone said a thing I do not believe possible happened to them.

(Note:  Needless to say I admire TS's fortitude with the feminist circles he engages.  I have no patience for them, personally or otherwise).  

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Omega Virgin On "A Question No Woman Or Mangina Will Ever Answer"---And My Response

From white and nerdy . . .

Lots of women and manginas say that the reason why I can’t get a girlfriend/get laid/am hated by women is because I’m a “misogynist asshole” or something similar. They say that women are staying away from me because they don’t want misogynists.

Knowing that claim, here is a question that no woman or mangina will ever answer. I wasn’t what they call a “misogynist” most of my life. I had a much better opinion of women most of my life. I was not born with my current opinions about women. They came from experience, especially my experiences with being the victim of false sexual harassment charges. Since so much of that happened before I developed my current view on women, then why did women treat me EXACTLY THE SAME as they do now? Why is not being a “misogynist” getting the exact same results as being a “misogynist”?

My response is here:

One of things they will never acknowledge is that no matter how your perspective is, the feminists, white knights, the media misandrists, and politicians will not come to grips that they have a mammoth hand in crafting the anti-male environment we have now. Openly admitting it would be confessing their guilt even with all the blatant disgust for men and masculinity that has been ongoing. Yet when men criticize feminism and its supporters and adherents for what they are and what they do, we are automatically branded as misogynists. It’s damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

Of course, white and nerdy, they will claim you were bitter all along. It’s absolute nonsense, but as you know they will not ever expose their own complicity, or look in the mirror for the answer as to why men are ever coming to more of the conclusions we have about them.

I also have been accused of being a woman hater more than anything else. Regardless of what that’s supposed to mean to them (hell, even ignoring a woman’s whim has now been labeled as abuse or misogyny), one thing is clear—men who discover that Ameriskanks are far from flowers and light glean this from interaction and experiences with them, not from being shunned. I know some men that would actually prefer being ignored by women after a time considered all the abuse and lies hurled at them over the years. Anyone from Burton to Zed/Zenpriest has made this known; a man who has his eyes opened about the dark side of women does not become cynical and wary because they were like that to begin with—they become wary through dealing with them. Most men I know grew up with an almost idealistic view of women, if not placing them on pedestals. Unfortunately, some men never learn to grow out of that, and even get punished by their denial of skank and feminist behavior. Still, they will defend skanks, golddiggers, single moms, and feminists to the brink of hostility even though they will suffer in the long haul for it.

We have to look out for ourselves and promote our rational self-interest, with or without women. If this is “misogyny,” so be it.

They despise and fear men they ultimately can’t control. That’s what it’s really all about. Even abusive men still gravitate toward women, and there are women who will welcome them. A man that truly has power over a woman is one that can walk away—even one who has loved her in the past, but will no longer tolerate personal jabs and exploitative efforts from one.

I have pondered a few times why so many women have such open resentment and even hatred towards men. In the past, I thought Whiskey is not wholly correct about how Ameriskank women perceive beta men as disposable and loathsome, but now it’s seems much on par with what how they treat men as such. My own opinion is that they pretty much don’t give a shit about the majority of men, and it’s all about them. Period. Granted, that sentiment is in gradients, but it still holds true. But there is a counter to this, and one I hope catches on eventually.

I think enough is enough—I don’t care where that hidebound resent or even seething hatred comes from, and if feminism fuels that fire or not (which is most certainly does). I do not give credence to it. Feminists can bitch about patriarchy until the end of time and justify why they are so angry with men even while being underhanded about—it will never be something I will accept. Not as a man. No way. Not ever.

I honestly believe the MGTOW philosophy, in part, is a reaction for being mistreated as much as we are getting sick and tired of being looked upon as second class citizens (or less so) and want our sense of worth and rights as men upheld in general. I think Zed hit upon something when he pointed out your typical American skank doesn’t see as holistic human beings, and women are shocked when many men reveal we are deep wells that have more depth than they want to realize. This would mean we would have be treated as real equals on every level, and this is precisely what they don’t really want. Herein lies the difference between MGTOW and feminism . . . the latter is about female supremacy, power, control, and lack of accountability while still shunting the onus on men with almost everything.

No wonder more men are gradually awakening up.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

"It's Only Sexist When Men Do It . . "

A couple of good vids on the mockery of a recent gruesome castration perpetrated by the psychopathic Catherine Becker---these were on Sharon Osbourne's caustic joking and the reactions to it. I still find not only the atrocious and extreme crime disgusting, but the responses to it have been also abhorrent:

It's Only Sexist When Men Do It

Man's penis severed: Sharon Osbourne "quite fabulous"

Sunday, June 26, 2011

William Norman Grigg on Tom Ball


When the State Breaks a Man
by William Norman Grigg

"How much does the State weigh?" Josef Stalin asked an underling who had been ordered to extract a confession from an enemy of his regime. Stalin understood that, given enough time, agents of State-sanctioned cruelty can break any man.

Thomas J. Ball, who committed suicide by self-immolation on the steps of New Hampshire's Cheshire County Courthouse on June 15, was a man who had been broken by the State. A lengthy suicide note/manifesto he sent to the Keene Sentinel, which was published the day after his death, described how his family had been destroyed, and his life ruined, through the intervention of a pitiless and infinitely cruel bureaucracy worthy of Stalin's Soviet Union: The Granite State's affiliate of the federal "domestic violence" Cheka.

Ball and his family were casualties in what he calls a federal "war on men." He wasn't exaggerating – and he has a lot of company.

The federally subsidized domestic violence industry operates a bit like the hypothetical Von Nuemann Machine: Placed into a material-rich environment, it will sustain and replicate itself by destroying and assimilating everything within its field of influence. One useful sci-fi example is the robotic Planet Killer from the Star Trek episode "The Doomsday Machine" – an immense, funnel-shaped engine of destruction propelled by the remnants of the worlds it destroys (according to one deutero-canonical source, the Planet Killer uses the same material to generate replicas of itself).

That monstrous device was "self-sustaining as long as there are bodies ... for it to feed on." The same is true, of course, of the State and all of its components – including what Dr. Baskerville calls "The Divorce Regime."

As Baskerville points out in his horrifying study Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, "it is no exaggeration to say that the existence of family courts, and virtually every issue they adjudicate – divorce, custody, child abuse, child-support enforcement, even adoption and juvenile crime – depend on one overriding principle: remove the father." When a family is broken up, each child "becomes a walking bundle of cash" – not for the custodial parent, but for a huge and expanding population of tax-fattened functionaries who "adopt as their mission in life the practice of interfering with other people's children."

Thomas Ball, like millions of others, learned that the people who choose this profession have an unfailing ability to exploit even the tiniest opportunity to invade a home and destroy a family.

One evening in April 2001, Mr. Ball suffered a momentary lapse of patience with a disobedient four-year-old daughter and slapped her face. He left the house at his wife's suggestion. When he called her a short time later, he learned that his wife – "the type that believes that people in authority actually know what they are talking about" – had called the police, who told her that her "abusive" husband wasn't permitted to sleep in his own home that night. Ball was arrested at work the following day. Under the conditions of his bail, he wasn't allowed to ask his wife what had possessed her to call the police.

Years later Ball would learn that if his wife hadn't called the police and accused her husband of abuse, she would have been arrested as an accessory – leaving the children at the mercy of New Hampshire's utterly despicable Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF).

Dot Knightly, who tried vainly for years to win custody of three grandchildren seized on the basis of spurious abuse and neglect accusations, recounts how a DCYF commissar contemptuously batted away both her pleas and her abundant qualifications to serve as a custodial caretaker: "Nobody gets their kids back in New Hampshire. The government gives us the power to decide how these cases turn out. Everyone who fights us loses."

Despairing over being wrested away from everyone he loved, Dot's grade-school age grandson Austin – who had literally been dragged screaming from his grandparents' home – tried to commit suicide. This led to confinement in a psychiatric hospital and involuntary "treatment" with mind-destroying psychotropic drugs. For New Hampshire's child-snatchers, the phrase "nobody gets their kids back" translates into a willingness to destroy the captive children by degrees, rather than allow any successful challenge to their supposed authority.

The instant the police intervened in the domestic affairs of Thomas Ball's household, his family's destruction became inevitable. The officers were required – not by law, but by official policy that followed profit incentives created by Washington – to make an arrest. In a similar fashion, and for the same reason, prosecutors are forbidden to drop domestic abuse cases under any circumstances.

Ball recalled that he was eventually found not guilty, much to the visible disgust of the be-robed dispenser of official injustice who presided at the trial. But this made no material difference: His wife – who divorced him six months after his arrest – was now a consort of the State, his children were its property. His innocence notwithstanding, Ball was given an open-ended sentence of serfdom – and the prospect of being sent to debtor's prison – through government-mandated "child support" system. Furthermore, he wasn't permitted to see his children, despite the fact that a jury had found him innocent.

"I lost visitation with my two daughters when I got arrested. One was the victim-the other was the witness. After a not guilty, I expected to get visitation with my girls. But the divorce judge ... decreed that counseling was in order and they would decide when we would reunite."

The policy options that are rewarded by federal subsidies don't include allowing an innocent man to reunite with his children. Consigning him to the State-aligned "domestic counseling" industry – which was apparently co-designed by August Mobius and Franz Kafka – is a much more profitable alternative.

"Judges routinely use our children as bargaining chips," Ball explained. "Get the adult into counseling, continue the case for a year, and then drop it. This will open up the docket for the new arrests coming in next week. These judges that use our children are not honorable. Which is why I never use the term 'Your Honor' any more. I just call them judge."

Ball's experiences, once again, are all but identical to those endured by millions of others. Dr. Baskerville offers a potent and infuriating summary:

"A parent [generally a father] whose children are taken away by a family court is only at the beginning of his troubles. The next step comes as he is summoned to court and ordered to pay as much as two-thirds of even more of his income as `child support' to whomever has been given custody. His wages will immediately be garnished and his name will be entered on a federal register of `delinquents.' This is even before he has had a chance to become one, thought it is likely that the order will be backdated, so he will already be a delinquent as he steps out of the courtroom. If the ordered amount is high enough, and the backdating is far enough, he will be an instant felon and subject to immediate arrest."

The sinews of this system are the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE) and its state-level affiliates. Some idea of the scope of the Regime's war on fathers is found in this comparison: In 2007, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the spearhead of the "war on drugs," employed a total of 4,600 armed field agents; the OSCE at the time boasted more than 60,000 enforcement agents, all of whom are permitted to carry firearms under the "Deadbeat Parents Enforcement Act."

When brought to bear against an isolated individual, the weight of this State apparatus will eventually destroy the victim. With each year, Ball's financial condition deteriorated and he became deeply mired in intractable despair. By the time he ended his life on June 16, Ball was a 58-year-old Vietnam Era Army Veteran who had been unemployed for two years. Owing to the fact that he couldn't pay the amount of child support extorted from him, Ball was quite likely going to be sent to jail on the following morning.

His only consolation, the company of his children, was sadistically withheld from him. The unfathomably arrogant and completely unaccountable functionaries who did so are people who have learned how to monetize the misery of the innocent.

Ball's manifesto is a work of tortured eloquence. Although marred by occasional errors of diction, it is not the chaotic outpouring of a deranged personality. It is cogently organized and laden with impressive amounts of detailed research. The lucidity Ball displayed in explaining his decision to kill himself by the most painful method imaginable underscores not merely the depth of his despair but also of the entrenched corruption and viciousness of the people who had demolished his family.

The leitmotif in Ball's letter is the phrase "Second Set of Books," a phrase that refers to the "policies, procedures and protocols" actually followed by bureaucrats and their enforcers in defiance of the "First Set of Books" – that is, the federal and state constitutions.

"You never cover the Second Set of Books your junior year in high school," Ball pointed out. That because we are not suppose to have a Second Set of Books." The Second Set of Books contain writings that are too holy to be inspected by mere Mundanes. Those of us who don't belong to the Sanctified Brotherhood of Official Coercion are required to behave as if there is some continuing relevance to the First Set of Books. Maintaining this official fiction is necessary in order to convince the credulous – well, those who pay attention to such matters – that it is possible to receive redress of grievances through the same system that has aggrieved them.

Like millions of other victims of the State's "domestic violence" apparatus, Ball came to understand that the system cannot be reformed from within:

"On one hand we have the law. On the other hand we have what we are really going to do-the policies, procedures and protocols. The rule of law is dead. Now we have 50 states with legal systems as good as any third world banana republic. Men are demonized and the women and children end up as suffering as well. So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. The Second Set of Books originated in Washington. But the dirty deeds are being carried out by our local police, prosecutors and judges." Rather than voting them out, Ball insists that it is necessary to "Burn Them Out" through arson attacks on the appropriate bureaucratic facilities.

He hoped that his self-immolation would be the symbolic spark that would ignite that revolution – just as a similar desperate act by Tunisian street vendor Mohamad Bouazizi sparked a nation-wide rebellion against the fetid dictatorship ruling that country.

While I hope that God has granted rest to Ball's tortured soul, and pray for the comfort of his family, it must be said that his proposed strategy is as tragically mistaken as his suicide.

Rather than attacking the architectural manifestations of the State, we should withdraw from contact with it. In other words, don't call the police under any circumstances, and insulate your family, to the extent possible, from any contact with "welfare" bureaucracies of every kind. This will mean being prepared as parents to take appropriate evasive action when one of the State's tentacles reaches out, with malign intent, in the direction of one's children. It also means being prepared and able to employ purely defensive force where all other alternatives have failed.

Human beings have an instinctive, primordial fear of fire. Burning to death is a prolonged agony in which pain receptors operate at full capacity. The torment Thomas Ball experienced was sufficient, in his mind, to eclipse the horrors of death by fire.

On the same day that this tortured man poured gasoline on his body and struck a match, pundit Ann Coulter used her syndicated column to emit a thick stream of snotty abuse at Rep. Ron Paul and others who insist that the State must be removed entirely from any role in regulating or overseeing marriage and the family.

Hey, Ann – do you get the point now?

June 20, 2011

Saturday, June 18, 2011

The Last Statement by Tom Ball

(Note: This has been circulating around a few forums and I have linked to these articles about him. Tom Ball immolated himself in front of a courthouse just recently and wrote a powerful and lengthy letter that described (in detail) his motivations. Rather than provide commentary now I will let the readers absorb his testimony. While dismayed at his death, I was so highly moved by his words that it had to be posted here.

Also note what he says about the legal system, our misandrist culture, and how he openly talks about feminism as well. Articles about it can be found here and here)

Last Statement by Tom Ball

A man walks up to the main door of the Keene N.H. County Courthouse, douses himself with gasoline and lights a match. And everyone wants to know why.

Apparently the old general was right. Death is not the worst of evil.

I am due in court the end of the month. The ex-wife lawyer wants me jailed for back child support. The amount ranges from $2,200. to $3,000. depending on who you ask. Not big money after being separated over ten years and unemployed for the last two. But I do owe it. If I show up for court without the money and the lawyer say jail, then the judge will have the bailiff take me into custody. There really are no surprises on how the system works once you know how it actually works. And it does not work anything like they taught you in high school history or civics class.

I could have made a phone call or two and borrowed the money. But I am done being bullied for being a man. I cannot believe these people in Washington are so stupid to think they can govern Americans with an iron fist. Twenty-five years ago, the federal government declared war on men. It is time now to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war.

There are two kinds of bureaucrats you need to know; the ones that say and the ones that do. The bridge between them is something I call The Second Set of Books. I have some figures of the success of their labors. You and I are in these numbers, as well as our spouses and children. But first let me tell you how I ended up in this rabbit hole.

My story starts with the infamous slapping incident of April 2001. While putting my four year old daughter to bed, she began licking my hand. After giving her three verbal warnings I slapped her. She got a cut lip. My wife asked me to leave to calm things down.

When I returned hours later, my wife said the police were by and said I could not stay there that night. The next day the police came by my work and arrested me, booked me, and then returned me to work. Later on Peter, the parts manager, asked me if I and the old lady would be able to work this out. I told him no. I could not figure out why she had called the police. And bail condition prevented me from asking her. So I no longer trusted her judgment.

After six months of me not lifting a finger to save this marriage, she filed for divorce. Almost two years after the incident, I was talking with her on the phone. She told me that night she had called a mental health provider we had for one of the kids. Wendy, the counselor told my then wife that if she did not call the police on me, then she too would be arrested.

Suddenly, everything made sense. She is the type that believes that people in authority actually know what they are talking about. If both she and I were arrested, what would happen to our three children, ages 7,4 and 1? They would end up in State custody. So my wife called the police on her husband to protect the children. And who was she protecting the kids from? Not her husband, the father of these children. She was protecting them from the State of New Hampshire.

This country is run by idiots.

The police sergeant Freyer screwed this up from the get go. When I got the Court Complaint form the box was checked that said Domestic Violence Related. I could not believe that slapping your child was domestic violence. So I looked up the law. Minor custodial children are exempted. Apparently, 93% of American parents still spank, slap or pinch their children. To this day I still wonder if Freyer would have made this arrest if it had been the mother that had slapped the child.

Labeling someone's action as domestic violence in American in the 21st century is akin to labeling someone a Jew in Germany in the 1930's. The entire legal weight of the state is coming down on him. But I consider myself lucky. My family was destroyed. But that poor bastard in Germany had his family literally annihilated.

Arrests are mandatory for the police in New Hampshire for domestic violence. That is not law. That is police department policy. Laws come from the Legislature and the Governor's office together. God only knows where these policies come from. The State's Attorney General also has a mandatory arrest protocol for domestic violence. I call these policies, procedures and protocols The Second Set of Books. You never cover the Second Set of Books your junior year in high school. That because we are not suppose to have a Second Set of Books. This is America-we have the rule of law.

I am a regular guy, a coffee and cheeseburger type of fellow. As remarkable as my life has been, I figure that what happens to me must be happening to others as well. I was 48 years old when I got arrested here for my first time. So I went looking for the arrest numbers for domestic violence, this new group that I had unwilling joined. I could not find anything. So I wrote the U.S. Dept. of Justice in Washington. They wrote back that they did not keep track of domestic violence arrests. The FBI keeps track of all other crimes. How come not domestic violence? I thought some low level clerk was blowing me off.

At the time, I had mailing addresses in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts. So I wrote to all six Congressional offices, the two Senators from each state and the two Congressman. They like doing favors for constituents hoping you will favorably remember their name in the voting booth. All six offices reported back the same thing. They do not know how many arrests for domestic violence have been made. I immediately knew something was wrong. And I also knew this was not going to be good.

Improvise, adapt and overcome. The Army teaches that to every soldier it trains. They say that no battle plan survives the first five minutes of combat. So your people on the ground had better be able to think for themselves. Taking casualties in war is just an occupational hazard. Taking casualties and not accomplishing your mission is a disaster. After 21 years of Army service, I am pretty good at improvising.

The first thing I found was a study not of domestic violence arrests but of domestic violence injuries for 18 unnamed states and the D.C. in the year 2000. In the study 51% of the injuries were 'no injuries'. So I knew I had a study of police reports. Who else but a police officer would record no injuries? I populated that out to the 50 states and came up with 874,000 arrest in the year 2000.

I had originally populated the number back to 1994 when the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was enacted into law. I would later find out these arrests stated with the U.S. Attorney General's Task Force of Domestic Violence ten years earlier in 1984. As individual states data became available for various years and states, I would incorporated in to my informal study. The number I have now in 2011 is 36 million adults have been arrested for domestic violence. I have a gut feeling this number could be as high as 55 million. But I only have data to 36 million. So 36 million it stays. And there is a really cool trick you can do once you have this number. You can find out how many American men. women and children ended up homeless because of these arrests.

Most of the domestic violence statistics I have seen break down with 75% male and 25% female being arrested. So I am going to used the male pronoun for the one arrested spouse and the female pronoun for the victim spouse. That should make the domestic violence feminists ecstatic-man bad, woman good. But that is okay because that is probably the last nice thing I am going to do for them today.

When then a man is arrested for domestic violence, one of two things can happen. If they are only dating and have separate apartments, then he can head home. But if they are living together, then this fellow has a real problem. Bail conditions and then a possible protective or restraining order prevent him from being with her. So he needs to find a new place to live, at least until the charges are resolved. The King of his Castle is no longer allowed into his castle. A feminist name Pence who wrote that was absolutely giddy at that outcome. So he can get his own place if he has enough money. Or he can move in with his mother, his sister or another relative. He might have a girl friend who would let him stay with her. And if none of this is possible, well then I guess he is sleeping in his car down by the river.

If he has minor children, money will soon turn into an issue. Most men I know do not mind paying child support. They want their kids to have food on their plates, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their heads. But it does stress that man's finances. Child support is usually 33% of the man's gross income. Withholding for taxes, social security and health insurance can range up to 28% of his gross paycheck. So a man making $500 a week gross has only $825 monthly left over after withholding and child support. That is not enough money for an apartment here in Central Massachusetts. That does not include other expenses like heating, electric, gas, groceries, telephone, cable, car payment and car insurance. So he is in a financial hole. Estimates of homeless men run 82% to 94%. I am going to round that down to 80%.

After the King has left his castle, his wife runs into a problem. She was use to getting his whole paycheck for the household. Now she get a third for child support. Figure they both work and made the same money, her budget went from 100% down to 66%. If she was running the house on $3,045. a month when the King was home, now without him she only has $2,220. Most households in America cannot withstand a 27% hit on the household account. She'll juggle the bills but eventually most wives figure out that they can pay all the smaller bills if they just does not pay the big bill. That would be the rent or the mortgage. So six to nine months after the King is out of the castle, the Queen, the Princes and the Princesses are also on the street. Domestic violence feminists state that 50% of victim spouses of domestic violence end up homeless at some time in their lives.

The last group of homeless from these arrests are children. The domestic violence feminists state that 70% of domestic violence couple have children. So 50% female times 70% children equals 35%. But children is plural. So we will double to 70%.

(Odd isn't it? They know that 50% of victim spouses end up homeless and that 70% of them have children. How can they know the percentages when they do not know how many total arrests were made? Those people at the U.S. Justice Dept. cannot even pull off a credible cover-up. )

Men are 0.8, women are 0.5, and children are 0.7 for a grand total of 2.0 homeless Americans for every domestic violence arrest. Multiply that by 36 million and you get 72 million men, women and children ending up homeless at some point in their lives over the last 25 years because of these domestic violence arrests.

That is a really large number even by Washington standards. That is almost 25% of the entire population of the U.S. using 2010 census figures. Which begs the question did these homeless people contribute to this latest economic meltdown, or did they cause it? Because if they did cause it then the recovery will not be measure in months or years but in decades.

Some of the boys in the Father's Movement think Congress might have shot themselves in the foot over this one. Personally, I think they shot themselves some place anatomically higher. No wonder the Speaker of the House is always crying. The Dummies on the Potomac.

Twenty-five years ago the federal government start pushing these arrests on state's legal systems. Now, we have an economy on the rope. They have thrown a huge amount of money at banks, big business and local and states government. And we are still in the mud. But no economist either at the Treasury Dept., Federal Reserve, universities or think tanks are even looking at the impact of all these broken families. If that 36 million arrest is correct, then 72 million men and women, have been throw out of the middle class into subsistence living. Or is the number 55 million and 110 million? No one knows and no one is even looking. But why should look? According to the Attorney General, we do not know how many arrests we have made.

And if the Tea Party is any indication, insurrection is brewing in the land. Just a coincident? Not likely. This is what happens when the government wipes out the middle class.

The idea for these arrests came from something called the Minneapolis Police Experiment (MPE) of 1981-82. In the experiment police offices were given pads with one of three words written on them; counsel, send or arrest. Counsel meant the officer was to try to mediate the couple's spat. Send was to send one of the spouses out of the house for eight hours as a cooling off period. Arrest was arrest one of the two spouses. The officer was to do as the top paper on the pad said to do. The experiment was set up by the Police Foundation and Lawrence W. Sherman was the lead researcher. The results show counseling resulted in a future assault in 24% cases, send was 19%, and the arrest option resulted in a future assault in only 10% of the cases. Perhaps a cheap way of cutting down future domestic violence.

In 1984 The U. S. Attorney General's Task Force of Domestic Violence recommended arrest as the primary weapon in domestic violence assault. Lawrence W. Sherman recommend not using the arrests because the MPE was just one study and it could be wrong. They ignored him. And by 1992, 93% of the police departments in the nation had adopted some form of mandatory arrest in domestic violence cases.

But by 1992 five more addition studies similar to the MPE became available. Lawrence W. Sherman reviewed all five studies. Then once again he wrote that the police should not use arrest. In two of the five studies, they found the same result as they did in the MPE, that an arrest cut down the odds of a future assault. But in the other three studies an arrest actually increase the odds of a future assault. So arresting someone in a domestic violence situation to cut down on future assaults did not work any better than just flipping a coin. I do not know if Lawrence W. Sherman is still alive. But fortunately he wrote a book call Policing Domestic Violence that was published in 1992.

So we have 800,000 American police officers arresting one in every six adults in the country and throwing 25% of the men, women and children out on the streets in an effort to enforce a policy that they knew did not work back in1992. And I had always assumed that you needed a man to really screw something up. Oh well, there goes another glass ceiling.

Why would they push an arrest policy that does not work? There are two schools of thought on the reason why. The first comes from Lawrence W. Sherman. He calls it the Law of Just Desserts. Revenge for slights and offenses, real or imagined. I am sure there are some that would argue that women are not vengeful. But what is that old saying? Hell hath no fury.....

The second idea comes from the mother of the second wave of feminism. I do speak of the brilliant Betty Friedan. In the Epilogue Chapter of the 20th Anniversary Edition of her book The Feminine Mystique, Betty relayed why she resigned as the first president of the National Organization of Women in 1970. Betty wrote that she, "was unable to openly fight the man haters and unwilling to front for them any more..." So man hating bigots no only existed 40 years ago, they were also grabbing power. Now Washington is funding them. Makes you wonder what bigots they will fund next. Maybe the Klan?

Feminists had always claimed that when women took over, we would have a kinder, gentler, more nurturing world. After 36 million arrests and 72 million evictions what we got was Joe Stalin.

The third wave of feminists do not like to call themselves feminists. The word feminist could be perceived as gender oppression. These third wave of whatever-we-call-you got that right The treachery of our legal system over the last 25 years may end up giving all feminists a bad name. Which would make us as bigoted as the man-hating feminists who got us into this mess to begin with.

So let us talk about those bureaucrats that do. These are the ones that actually carry out the evil deeds. I like call them the do-bies.

Any one swept up into legal mess is usually astonished at what they see. They cannot believe what the police, prosecutors and judges are doing. It is so blatantly wrong. Well, I can assure you that everything they do is logical and by the book. The confusion you have with them is you both are using different sets of books. You are using the old First Set of Books- the Constitution, the general laws or statutes and the court ruling sometime call Common Law. They are using the newer Second Set of Books. That is the collection of the policy, procedures and protocols. Once you know what set of books everyone is using, then everything they do looks logical and upright. And do not bother trying to argue with me that there is no Second Set of Books. I have my own copies at home. Or at least a good hunk of the important part of it.

I got my Second Set of Books when I sued the Jaffrey NH police department. Under the discovery rule, I write them with the material I wanted and it would arrive in the mail a few weeks later. I got the Police Academy Training Manual. I got the Department's Policy and Procedure Manual. I got the no-drop protocol that the attorney general sent to all his or her prosecutors. I even got the domestic violence protocols for the court system, one hundred pages worth. Once you read it the material, then you will know what the police, prosecutors and judges will do. They are completely predictable once you know what set of books they are using.

The police academy training manual states that an arrest in a domestic violence call is the preferred response. They cite the Minneapolis Police Experiment (MPE) as its justification. But the author of the MPE, Lawrence Sherman, said do not use arrest because five follow up studies show that it did not work. The would be a violation of the 4th Amendment in the First Set of Books against unreasonable search and seizure. Then there is that whole issue of whether the police have the right to arrest for any reason other than they believe a crime was committed.

The Jaffrey Police Department Policy and Procedures Manual states that if a wife says she does not want her husband arrested, the police are to ignore her, arrest the husband, and get with the prosecutor to see what they can work out. In other words, make the arrest and then see if you can Mickey Mouse it. The wife is eligible for spousal immunity. If she invokes it, then no statement she mades, written or oral, are admissible because she cannot be cross examined about it under oath. ( Did you say that? What did you mean when you said that?) With no statements the police have no probable cause in most cases to make an arrest. Also a violation of the 4th amendment in the First Set of Books.

The actor Nickolas Cage was drunk in New Orleans with his wife. Everyone else is drunk in New Orleans, so why should Nick be any different. He and his wife were arguing over which house the rented for their stay. Nick grab his wife's arm and started to lead her to his house. The police arrested Nick for domestic violence. His wife was stunned. That was not domestic violence. "Nothing we can do," the police explained to her. "Just following orders."

That is an accurate explanation for victims, even if they do not think of themselves as victims. The police have a zero tolerance towards any physical contact. Things might get worse in the future is the feminist logical for this present iron fist approach to domestic relations. I would have to agree with them. After all the arrests, poverty, homelessness and misery, I can assure you-things are going to get worse.

But that nothing we can do, just following orders the officers explain always sounds so timid and lame. The police need to punch their explanation up a bit, make it more authoritarian. And there is a quick, low cost way of doing it. The police officers only need to say it in its original German.

The state Constitution in NH said the prosecutors job is to promote justice. The Attorney Generals protocols said that domestic violence case are no-drop cases. (Unless, of course, they take the Deal. Continue the case for a year, go to counseling, and everything falls off the books after the year. They did after all find some way of getting rid of all these cases.)

The Attorney General can hire, fire, layoff, promote, demote, commend or award bonuses. The constitution is some old, quaint, dusty document up in the Statehouse some where. So which one do you think is going to get obeyed?

Prosecutors are funny. Some, maybe most, have egos the size of Cape Cod. But of the three, police, prosecutor and judges, prosecutors have the least protection. Micheal Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, was fired, disbarred, convicted of a crime, and actually jailed for trying to enforce the no-drop prosecution protocol for sexual assault in the Duke case.

The prosecutor in my criminal case fared a little better. I filed a complaint with his boss for summoning my two daughters, ages 7 and 4, to court. I had already conceded that the facts were not in dispute. The trial would be about the law. No witness were need much less a couple of toddlers. He still summoned them. (The Second Set of Books tells the prosecutors to get a sympathetic face in front of the judge or jury. What's more sympathetic than toddlers.) The prosecutor could not refute my allegation because I enclosed a copy of the trial transcript. I had to pay for the transcript. When the prosecutor read it, he gave his two weeks notice and then blew town. That transcript was the best $46 I had ever spent in this life.

There is a name for what happens when a bureaucrat is destroyed by the First Set of Books for attempting to enforce the Second Set of Books. It is called the Abu Ghraib Syndrome. The people within the law enforcement community no longer seem to know the difference between the law, with its checks and balances, and the policies, procedure and protocols that constitute The Second Set of Books. In some cases you do not even know who wrote the policy, procedure or protocol. It could have been the local high school gym teacher for all anyone knows. Many of these bureaucrats are eventually going to learn the different between the First and the Second Set of Books. And my guess is that many of them are going to learn it the hard way. Because the only checks and balances in The Second Set of Books is The First Set of Books.

Judges routinely use our children as bargaining chips. Get the adult into counseling, continue the case for a year, and then drop it. This will open up the docket for the new arrests coming in next week. These judges that use our children are not honorable. Which is why I never use the term 'Your Honor' any more. I just call them judge.

Alex Baldwin, the actor, wrote that you have never seen a coward until you have seen a Los Angeles County judge. I call my judges-Sullivan, Arnold and even Runyon-cowards, too. When I first started observing them, nothing made sense. Arnold was completely infuriated when he was maneuvered into ruling not guilty. He verbally went up and down me so many times I lost count. What was the big deal? If I was not guilty just say and then we could all go home. But that was back in the days before I knew about The Second Set of Books.

I lost visitation with my two daughters when I got arrested. One was the victim-the other was the witness. After a not guilty, I expected to get visitation with my girls. But the divorce judge, Sullivan, decreed that counseling was in order and they would decide when we would reunite. I told the judge that the decision on whether these two girls had a father or a fatherless childhood was not leaving this courthouse. There would be a couple of reason for that decision.

First, by then I knew of the Second Set of Books. As much as I had prayed for the return of my children, I knew that this counseling might get thrown in the way. Judges are addicted to counseling like a meth-head is addict to crystal meth. Sullivan wrote in the divorce decree that he envision only one or two meetings with the counselor. There is no counseling done in the first meeting or two. It is intake-who's the players and what are the issues. But Sullivan was not interested in counseling. He merely wanted to unload the decision out of habit. And if we do not shut them down now, they will be doing it to our kids in twenty years from now when they have little ones running around the house.

Second, just exactly where does the buck stop with our legal system? Police have to make an arrest. The prosecutor has to pursue the case. Judges now also walk a away without rendering a verdict, and passing the buck does not constitute a decision. Can those mental health counselors slide the decision over to someone else? Just where does this end? Who is responsible? Who is accountable?

The mental health crowd is the third reason I said no. Some people think they are geniuses with their Masters and PH D's. Others think they are so wacky that they call them fruit loops. Well, I have a third name for them. Suckers. They did not get hired for their medical ability. They got these because they were willing to take these cases off the judge's hands. Which has done nothing for the credibility for their profession. We are not here to help-we are here to unload. And they created a liability that did not previously existed. If a judge releases a defendant and he goes kills someone, that judge or the judiciary cannot be sued. But a mental health worker, and their employer certainly can be held liable. Our judiciary is now using the mental health field like a ten dollar whore.

I sued Monadnock Family Services to make them go away. I told their lawyer Byron that they were a legitimate target for men. We settled for no money. They would have nothing to do with this reconciliation. The counselor was released. And they would no longer get involved in any domestic violence cases.

Every time we ended back in court over whatever squabbles, I would ask Judge Sullivan for my children back. The decision belong to the counselors he would tell me. But he knew he had screwed up. I could see it in his face. But he would not fix it. He would not step out of that box those domestic violence/sexual assault advocates had built for him. After five years, he retired to a part time position at the Littleton courthouse 120 miles away.

So when guys like Alex Baldwin and I call judges cowards, we have legitimate reasons for doing so. It is not good for judges to be called coward. It is unlikely that it is good for the rest of us.

I do not claim to have all The Second Set of Book. I know of one book that I do not have. And I would have love to read that one. That would be the seminar that the domestic violence and sexual assault advocates put on periodically for legal personnel including judges. These advocates are camped outside every state, not federal, courthouse in America. The U.S. Dept of Justice provides 50-100% of their funding depending on the program. They have three day seminars at resorts where everything is paid for except the liquor. Judges in NH are ordered to attend. Neither Sullivan or Arnold would confirm or deny they had attended. They actually said nothing. It must be like the Masons where they will not say anything about the organization until you show them the secret hand sign.

Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis once wrote that the best description of a judge is the impartial guardian of the rule of law. How does three days of wine, women and song contribute to impartiality? It does not. So it should not have been any surprise that they would not answer me. After all, they were not on trial. I was. But they are going to be. They were suppose to protect to rule of law not collaborate in its demise. They have failed miserably.

A guardian ad litem is an attorney appointed for a child. The attorney solely represents the child. I got one when I was first separated to get a neutral pair of eyes and ears on the family. I was disappointed in his findings.

A few years later, another guardian was appointed for one of the kids. A regular report filed with the Court painted me as some sort violent psychopath. I thought that was uncalled for seeing as we had never met. It start a flurry of nasty letters between until we both came to the conclusion that this was not about us. We ended on a friendly note.

At a Court hearing later on I approached him. I asked him if he had had any domestic violence training. He said yes, that it was required to become certified as a guardian ad litem. Another chapter for The Second Set of Books that I never managed to acquire.. So men, if you were thinking about getting a guardian ad litem for an unbiased assessment, then you should ask for the domestic violence material that certified the guardian. And do not worry that you are not sure what you are looking for. It will stand right out.

There are more sections of The Second Set of Books. Medical personnel are supposed to report suspected domestic violence. The college professor Angela Davis has a story of a Latino couple in California getting in trouble feeding the dog his liver for dinner. Mental health employees are also required. Think of Wendy threatening our kids with foster care. Teachers, day care providers, the list just goes on and on. The East German secret police, the Stazi, had 25% of the population on record as informers. The United States is not that high yet, but we are still growing.

These people-police, prosecutors and judges-are suppose to protect us. They are checks and balances to prevent injustice. That is why we spend so much money of police training. But if the police screw it up, the prosecutor can catch it. If the prosecutor misses it then the judge can step in to fix it. But if all three have been compromised, then what does one need to do to get justice? Go to the appeals court or the Supreme Court? That seem a little ridiculous particularly when the zero tolerance has arrests for something as trivial as touching.

On one hand we have the law. On the other hand we have what we are really going to do-the policies, procedures and protocols. The rule of law is dead. Now we have 50 states with legal systems as good as any third world banana republic. Men are demonized and the women and children end up as suffering as well.

So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. The Second Set of Books originated in Washington. But the dirty deeds are being carried out by our local police, prosecutors and judges. These are the people we pay good money to protect us and our families. And what do we get for our tax money? Collaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War. All because they go along to get along. They are an embarrassment, the whole lot of them. And they need to be held accountable. So burn them out.

In the last 25 years they have arrested one in six adults in this country and forced 25% of the men, women and children into homelessness. In 50 years it will be one in three adults arrested and 50% of the men, women and children ending up homeless. Most of our kids will live to the age of 68 years old. As bad as it was for you, your children will have twice the odds of it happening to them.

Some of you will say that 50% homelessness sounds absurd. But 25% is absurd and that is already here. There is no evidence that the police, courts, or government is planning to do anything different in the immediate future. And they will not do anything different until we make it so uncomfortable that they must change. Bureaucracy at its worst. So burn them out. This is too important to be using that touchy-feeling coaching that is so popular with business these days. You need to flatten them, like Wile E. Coyote. They need to be taught never to replace the rule of law. BURN-THEM-OUT!

Most of the police stations built in New England over the last 20 years are stone or brick. Fortunately, the roofs are still wood. The advantage of fire on the roof is that it is above the sprinklers. But even the sprinklers going off work to our advantage. There is no way they can work in a building with six inches of water. And I am certain we will disrupt their momentum once they start working out of a FEMA trailers. If they still do not get the message, then burn down the trailers.

The easiest way of burning a building is with the Molotov cocktail. It was invented by the Finns when the Soviets invaded in 1939. You fill a bottle with gasoline and stuff a rag in the end for a wick. You light the wick and throw bottle, It shatters on impact spraying gas everywhere and the wick ignites the gas. Simple, readily available, and effective. And only two things to remember.

First, use a glass bottle. Thinner glass is better than thicker glass. You want it to shatter on impact. When I was teaching a kid at the high school on the West Side Worcester, MA. threw a Molotov cocktail into his school. Fortunately, he used a plastic bottle. It burned about three square inches of carpeting. I had to laugh when I said to myself, "Thank God for dumb kids."

Second, you need to tie the rag to the bottle. Nothing worse that throwing a Molotov cocktail, landing where you wanted it, and having it shatter perfectly. Then you noticed the wick had fallen out on the way to the target. No wick-no fire.

Some of these building will have brick faces and metal roofs. Just break a window and throw the Molotov cocktail inside. Carpets, furniture, computer plastic, even paint on the walls will burn. It is okay if the sprinkler goes off. I wonder if you can get hip waders over a gun belt?

We had a kid in my hometown that burned down the old junior high school. He walked up to the front door one night with a can of lighter fluid. The applicator on the end squirts the lighter fluid out. He squirted under the door and along the seams and lit a match. The kid took out the entire old part of the building. Why are kids so competent when it is something they should not be doing?

There will be some casualties in this war. Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.

Now, nobody wants to get killed. But let us look at your life. You are broke after paying child support. She and the kids are not doing any better. None of you are middle class any more. You have no say in the kids education, their health treatment, you may not even have visitation with your sons and daughters. And everything you thought you knew to be true-the rule of law, the sanctity of the of the family, the belief that government was there to nurture your brood-all turned out to be a lie. Face it boys, we are no longer fathers. We are just piggy banks.

So you are not losing anything by picking up the Molotov cocktail. It may be too late for us. But without something changing, your kids will have double the odds of it happening to them. That will knock them out of the middle class again, providing they ever get back in. And their kids, your grandchildren, will end up damaged goods before it is over. So it is okay to run. You just need to turn around and run at them. They are no way as imposing as they seem. They only do what they do for a paycheck.

Television would make us believe that people get arrested because of fingerprints, DNA, facial recognition, and instruments that can tell where a substance was made and here is the local distributors. It is Hollywood crap. Most of the people in prison are there for one key reason. They could not keep their mouths shut. They told someone. That someone told others. The cops hear it and start looking at them for a suspect. That how it works in real life.

This need to confess seems to be primeval. Just human nature. But if you cannot keep a secret, do not expect the one you tell to keep their mouth shut. There is only three people I know for certain they will keep their mouths shut. That would be Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

I only managed to get the main door of the Cheshire County Courthouse in Keene, NH. I would appreciate it if some of you boys would finish the job for me. They harmed my children. The place is evil. So take it out

Some where along the line I picked up the crazy notion that it is better to be dead as a free man than to live as a serf. The government needs to be a little more careful about what they teach in our schools.

And bring a can of spray paint to these fires. Paint the word COLLABORATORS ( two L's with an S on the end) on the building before you burn it. Maybe we can shame them back to the rule of law. And we do want the police to know exactly who burned the building. Then the police can start interviewing the usually suspects, all 36 million of us.

We have covered the do-bies. Now let us look at the bureaucrats that say-ers.

The Second Set of Books originated in Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) which is part of the United States Department of Justice. Some of these policies, procedures and protocol were developed locally. But the local results would be sent up to OVW and, if approved, would disperse it out to all 50 states. They are smart, clever, bigoted and able to lie as well as any politician that ever called Washington home. In other words, they have now become Washington insiders.

But what makes them so uniques is their anger towards men, any man. They are so twisted in their hatred of men that they are positively scary. And it is not what they are doing to men that makes them frightening. You would expect that. No, it is what they are doing to the women and children that makes them so twisted.

When the Pentagon drops a bomb on innocent civilians the military calls it Collateral Damage. It sounds better than, "Yeah, we killed a bunch of women and children." Those poor, innocent, stupid civilians have always been caught in the middle since the time we were fighting with rocks.. Your wife and kids are Collateral Damage in the war against you, the man in the family. For 25 years these feminists at OVAW have been willing to sacrifice the women and children to get you. And they cannot claim ignorance about what they are doing. Under the VAWA the federal government is funding at least 1,800 homeless shelters. As long as the Office for Violence Against Women exists in the U.S. Department Justice , no American man, women or child will be safe in their own home.

If you ask these feminists why are the shelters all full, they will not say because of all the arrests. The shelters are full because of men. But they knew from the beginning that this was not man bad-woman good thing. The year was 1976. Two things would happen that year.

First, someone at the U.S. Dept of Justice decided to count the dead bodies. In 1975 there were 1522 women killed in domestic violence. And for men killed in 1975? The dead for men was 1506. Statistically equal a friend tells me so.

If you had asked me before the study, I would have assumed that women were getting the worst of it. But I would be looking at it by genders. What I should have been looking at was species, homo-sapiens, human beings. Men are human-women are human. Being the same species you would expect the same results from both genders. And that is exactly what the dead bodies told us.

The second thing that happened in 1976 was the first domestic violence survey was released. It was so new the time that they called it family violence. Murray Straus of UNH and Richard Gellars from a school in RI were the researchers. They did not find two perpetrators of domestic violence, but three. Men initiated violence 25.7% of the time: women 25.2%, and the other 49.1% was the two going after each at the same time. These two people going after each other at the same time is well recognized in law. The law in NH calls that mutual combat. Men are human. Women are human. And once again we found both genders acting the same manner.

So how did we end up with the theory of man bad-woman good that the government at all levels is using? The feminist writer Susan Brownmiller wrote In Our Time that," the way you get funding and church donations is to talk about the pure victims. If you talk about the impurity of the victim, the sympathy vanishes." If women get to be good then men get what is left-bad. Man bad-woman good was originally a funding raising technique. After 35 years, it has turned into official government dogma at all levels, from the local cop on the beat to the White House. Men need to be punished, restrained and retrained. Your wives and children are, unfortunately, just collateral damage in this effort to punish men. So you were not dreaming it. There really is a government pogrom against men.

When a man batters or kills, there is no excuse. When a woman commits the same act, there is nothing but excuses. Simple though inaccurate. But there is one redeeming aspect to men being demonized. Now we men can act like devils. And we do not even need to apologize for it. Men are going to start acting just like they made us out to be. As an old high school semi-punk I can assure you boys of one thing. This is going to be fun. You guys are going to end up laughing like hyenas.

The money funded under the VAWA is split in two when it leaves the Treasury. Part goes the Health and Human Services for fund these domestic violence homeless shelters. If that 36 million number is correct, and it is all that we have, then the 1.44 million arrests a year will be made producing 2.88 million homeless Americans each year. Women and children constitute 60% of these homeless people, 1.7 million Americans a year. Shutting down these shelters would be cruel. What would these women and children do then? Go live under a bridge. No, we are stuck with these shelters for a while. But there is one thing that Congress needs to fix when they fund them again.

These shelters do not allow men on the property let alone inside the residences. Why is it against the law to use federal money on organizations that discriminate against black, Jews, gays or even women but it is okay to do so against men? Men contributed half that tax money. Eight years ago a man in California fled with his children after the police warned him to get out after they had arrested the wife and mother. None of the shelters would take him and the kids in because he was a man. I wonder if this would survive a legal gender discrimination challenge in a federal court?

A society without men is freakier than a world without blacks or Jews. That is not to say blacks or Jews are any less worthy. It just that there are more men in the world than blacks or Jews even if you combined them. If these feminist had to deal with men on a regular basis, then maybe the country would not be in the pickle we are in now.

There is a third reason to end this discrimination, something of a more practical nature. Apparently, some women like to have sex with men. But men are barred from the property. Suddenly, that 15 year boy two doors down starts looking real good. It might even be fun breaking in this new meat. So this woman driven into insolvency by the push for domestic violence arrests now finds herself charged as a pedophile because someone barred men from her world. With domestic violence advocates as friends, who needs enemies.

This shelters came up with a novel approach to fixing the pedophile problem. Male children over the age of thirteen are barred from staying there. Too troublesome. The family broke up when the father was thrown out of the house. Now a second break up is happening with the teenage boys. Perhaps a relative has one bed available. Maybe the family of a high school friend would take him in their home. If neither option works then that is okay. He can move in with his father. Then they will both be sleeping in the car down by the river.

Children of these parents also suffer. They used to have their own bedroom in a safe town with good schools. First they have a shelter, then Section 8 public housing. An urban school. Maybe good-maybe not. Kids learn how to be tough in an urban environment. The kids might go bad or they could come out just fine. But there will be no clunky car as a teenager. There will be no saving fund for college. There will be no monetary gift to use as a down payment for a starter home. This tradition of the older generation giving the younger generation a financial leg up has been ruin due to the older generation's lack of money. Financially, the older generation is merely treading water. It will take generations after these present two generations to repair the economic damage to these families.

So we are stuck with funding these shelters for a while. These women and children have no place left to go. Some of you guys may think that these feminist caused the problem and then created the solution. But homeless shelters are not a solution. They are just barely a band aid.

The remaining money under VAWA goes to the United States Department of Justice for the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW). As long as OVW exists then the government is at war with men. As long as there is a pogrom against men, then women and children are going to end up as collateral damage. So there is no need for discussion about OVW going. The only thing we need to figure out is which of the two ways we can use to get rid of them-the easy way or the hard way.

And boys, do not try to burn down Washington's Dept. of Justice Building in an effort to get rid of the Office of Violence Against Women. Their offices are over at N Street.

The easy way is using Congress. The VAWA comes up for funding every five to seven years. Next time it comes up, Congress votes no and everyone at the OVW gets a pink slip in late September. Nice and simple except nothing is simple in Washington. We, the people out here in the sticks, do not always know what the dynamics are in Washington. There might be one method of getting Congress on course. Have Congress demand that the Attorney General get, and release the arrests figures. Or have the President order it. He is usually fearless after he makes up his mind. And this is too large and too well known to continue the Washington plausible deniable routine. Then they will know how much trouble they are in because of these arrests.

There are 220 million adults 18 or older in this country of both sexes. If my figure of 36 million is correct, then that is 16.4% of the adults have been arrested. It could be as high as 55 million or 25%. It might be as low as 22 million or 10%. Whatever the number there are two things that Congress should know. First, is the fellow who discovered the arrests in Minneapolis back in 1992 said do not use it because it does not work. And second, the people arrested now constitute a Fifth Column here in the United States. Our loyalty to Washington is gone. But what did these genuises on the Potomac expect? They have harmed our children. If they think Al Qaeda is a pain in the ass, wait to they see what Americans can do once their fuse is lit.

I am certain the Attorney General will sit for months on the request for the number of domestic violence arrests. Then he will explain that they do not readily have the number and that some sort of Manhattan Project effort will be needed in time and money. Nonsense. When Washington started these arrests in 1984 over 6.3 personal computers were sold here in the U.S. That figure does not include all the mini's, midi's and mainframe computers sold that year. There is no way they can pretend that this data does not exist in electronic storage. A request to Ohio for the arrests 1984-2010 would tie up a state clerk for an hour, including their 15 minute coffee break. Time for the truth boys and girls. Because this is not going away.

The hard way is more time consuming, cost more money and is full of headaches. Because the only way of removing a department from the federal government without the consent of Congress is to take out the entire federal government.

The first time I heard that, I said that is ridiculous. We cannot run this country without a federal government. But we will replace the old government with something new and improved. The new government would honor the debts incurred by the old government. There are a lot of useful reasons for starting with a clean slate.

The bipartisan debt commission released their recommendation for cleaning up the $14 trillion we have borrowed over the years. Convention wisdom has it that Congress has no stomach for any of the recommendations.

But a new government could install those recommendation on day one. Three years later, most Americans will not remember that anything is different. The old government laid off its employees when it closed. The new government is hiring. But instead of 65,000 employees at the Dept. of Education, the new government is only hiring 45,000. Instead of an average federal wage of $70,000 a year, the new average will be $52,000. The new government will have to write a tax code. Everyone pays 15% with no deductions. How many IRS employees could you get rid of if there were no more deductions? Any thing is possible with a new government.

Normally over-throwing a elected government is considered treason. Treason is punishable by death here in the United States. But there is one way of over throwing the government. That is through the ballot box. Then it is not treason but democracy. Allegedly, Washington is in favor of democracy, particularly if their candidate wins.

There is no legal mechanism in the Constitution or the Federal code of the United States for dissolving the government of the United States. So that is what we need first. Congress would need to write it. We get them to do it through the ballot initiative.

A ballot initiative is when enough registered voters sign a petition to get a question on the ballot for the next election. The following would be a sample of what the question would look like in New Hampshire.

That all elected representatives from the state of New Hampshire to both houses of the United States Congress are to propose and advance a bill that would set up a legal mechanism to dissolve the United States government should the people decide to do so in a general election by a simple majority.

If this initiative passes in all 50 states then Congress will be stuck. They will have to write the law to dissolve. If they do not I suspect within ten years they will be standing in a stairwell at the British or French embassy with a suitcase in hand waiting to get to a rooftop helicopter. I doubt if they will be thinking about the humiliation of being thrown out of the country. They will be far too busy worrying about what will happen if the mob gets their hands on them.

Washington has not got a friend in the world. Even the British and Israelis loath them now. Kind of a bad time to be losing domestic support. And what they done over the last 25 years? They have wiped out the middle class pandering to a special interest group of bigots. And in typical Washington fashion, they did not even know they did it.

This Ivy League inbreeding in Washington has produced an elite that knows what best. Everyone else-husbands, wives, police officers, prosecutors, judges, attorney generals and guardian ad litems-are to shut up and do what they are told. The rule of law is gone, replaced by the policies, procedures and protocols of The Second Set of Books. Which means the federal government will be going shortly. For the government being unable to deliver the rule of law is like an auto mechanic who claims he does not know how to change the engine oil. A certain minimum competency is required. So it looks like the parents of the Washington elite were right. One can be too smart for their own good.

Betty Friedan wrote that the feminist revolution, like any revolution, would have its excesses. Losing the rule of law is too great to call it a mere excess. It is a catastrophe. It is the heart, mind and soul between the people and their government. These feelings of betrayal by losing it may be permanent. I have 21 years of Army service going back to the Vietnam War. My loyalty to the government should be a given. It is gone. I am certain it will never return regardless of how long I might have lived.

It was another woman that lead us in to this decision to clean house inside the beltway. Something she taught us fifty years ago. You simply look at those folks in Washington and then ask yourself the old Ann Landers question, "Am I better off with them, or without them? Are my children better off with them, or without them?" They are sinking like stones.

Washington, DC was chose as the capital because it was the geographical center or the old Colonies. Today, the geographical center of the country is just west of St. Louis Missouri. The new government can set the capital anywhere in the United States it wants. Imagine how many rodents, insects and parasites they could lose by moving 1500 miles west.

Whether you replace the federal government or not, men are still going to need a legal defense center for men. Something like the NAACP used to get black people their rights. The only checks and balances in the Second Set of Books is the First Set of Books. Which means lawsuits. Now I know you guys are broke. Some of you have had your wives and kids thrown into homelessness. So I completely understand when you tell me that you are broke. But if everyone who has been arrested throws in $10.00 a year then the legal defense center will have a war chest of $360 million. You can buy a whole bunch of lawsuit with that kind of money.

The Ball family has been supplying sergeants to the Army since at least the Revolutionary War. Elijah served as a sergeant in Cushing's Regiment at the Battle of Bennington. His commanding officer was a general from NH with a name of John Stark. General Start was a clever warrior. He was responsible for the bulk of the heavy casualties the British suffer at their victory at Bunker Hill. His orderly, fighting withdrawal allowed the other units on the hill to not only retreat but collect their wounded on the way out.

General Stark would repeat this performance on three hill tops outside the village of Bennington VT one hot August day in 1777. At the end of the battle, the British lost over 900 men killed or captured. The Colonists suffered 30 dead. Two months later, the depleted British army would surrender at Saratoga. That victory at Saratoga would bring the French into the war. John Stark was the most competent general this country ever produced. For that reason alone his men loved him.

But as brilliant as he was on the battlefield, General Stark would become even more famous for something he said. In 1809 the veterans of Bennington decided to have one last reunion. A delegation called on the General with his invitation. But the General was old and frail. He could not attend. But he did send a message, "You tell the boys I said live free or die. That death is not the worst of evil." Since 1945 the State of New Hampshire has stamped Live Free or Die on every pen, coffee mug, license plate and highway sign that they have gotten their hands on.

I think the General and his sergeant would be please that his words have elevated from the novelties and bric-a-brac to something more dignified like a courthouse door. Neither of them would give a second thought to the mess left over after the fire was extinguished. War has always been a grim business. Civil wars are usually worse.

But they would be trouble by the new enemy. Oh, they understood when a government betrays it people. They took up arms against the super power of their day to get relief for their grievances. But the enemy we face now is the government that these men birthed at places like Bennington, Saratoga and Bunker Hill. Government is no different than the food in a refrigerator. Given enough time both will go bad.

The smartest person I knew in this life was my mother. Perhaps that is true of all of us. Maybe I just got lucky. She was a nurse by trade. She worked in a time when Western medicine made that final transition from butchery to science. But it would not be her nursing skills that made her extraordinary. No, it would be this one incredible knack she had that I had only modest success at mimicking in my life. If she had something important to say to you, she would say and then never mention it again. She would talk about it if you raised the issue. But she never mentioned it twice on her own. And, oddly, you always heard her.

But she did have one favorite saying. I must have heard in a thousand times in the eighteen years I lived under her roof. It always came at the end of the conversation as she peeled away to see if it was time for Perry Mason or Lawrence Welk. She would turn her head to the side, and over her shoulder she would say, "And the only thing you really have in this world is your family." Now, thanks to the United States Government, neither we nor our children have that.

I have three things to say to my children. First, Daddy loves you. Second, you are my three most favorite people in the world. And last, that you are to stick together no matter how old you get or how far apart you live. Because it is like Grandma always said. The only thing you really have in this world is your family.