Site hosted by Build your free website today!


Morbius Imprinting

"Perhaps nothing reflects the chasm between the law’s stated objectives and the reality of its evolution than the changed rhetoric of civil rights. Unlike their predecessors, today’s self-proclaimed civil rights leaders no longer quote from the Declaration of Independence. They speak not about individuals but groups, not about liberty but entitlements, not about opportunity but outcomes, not about colorblindness but preferential treatment. The conceptual metamorphosis is precisely 180 degrees: in today’s debate, to be in favor of nondiscrimination is to be castigated as anti-civil rights.

The changed rhetoric reflects a fundamental transformation in the philosophy of civil rights that built on the expanded power of government created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent enactments. What evolved over the course of the 1960s was a radical revised agenda that would come to completely supplant the traditional civil rights vision. Every basic precept of the vision was jettisoned.

A few years ago, I noted this phenomenon to a very liberal friend of mine who was an active participant in the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Why, I asked him, did the movement abandon the principles it had so consistently invoked, after the revolution succeeded? He smiled and replied, "We abandoned those principles because we never really believed in them."

[The Affirmative Action FRAUD, Can We Restore the American Civil Rights Vision?, by Clint Bolick, ©1996 by the Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; ISBN 1-882577-28-0; p. 43.]


I should relate something that happened to me tonight while in the middle of writing this book. I went for a late evening walk, about 7PM, and since this is February, the weather was mild, but brisk.

Now because I am considered an ‘outlaw’ of these present courts—I have not been my usual self. Because I am presently engaged in this war I described in the previous chapter, I have had to give up alot and have been living in abject war-time conditions in which to fight this perversion and persecution in my life. Nonetheless, I was walking and formulating new ideas of what to say and how to say it for this book, when in the distance I heard a basketball dribbling.

Well, I’ve played collegiate basketball, and it is by far, my favorite sport. I have played all around the country and still play to this day. I’ll scrounge up a game at the drop of a hat. I have been looking for a good game of basketball in New York for months, but strangely—there are none. At least not that I can find. Not like I’m used to at least, for in the small California town of Chico, where I can always drum-up a game in at least several places around town. But, I had been proactively looking around town and could find no viable games. When I heard the basketball bouncing so late at night—I stopped. I couldn’t believe my ears! Usually the public Basketball courts are either locked, or if not locked—they have no nets. (A casualty of the Feminist Culture). Most certainly the play was low-level and not the level to which I am normally accustomed. But here, in the middle of nowhere...was finally a game!

I saw bright lights leading me to the basketball court, and there at about 8PM at night, was a group of young Asian teenager’s playing basketball. I wanted to play in the game badly, but I just decided to watch. I didn’t know them, and I didn’t want to intrude.

Clearly, none of these young adults could really play ball, in fact; they were terrible. However, they were very enthusiastic and having a great time and that is what basketball is all about. There were about 10 maybe twelve of them mostly rumbling around the court. In the half hour I watched them I may have seen but three or four baskets made. But here they were, running, giggling, everyone intent and focused on the game. I then noticed that there were two girls of the same age playing also, both on opposite teams covering each other. I hadn’t noticed them before because they were usually on the inside of the key, and were just swapping positions as each of their respective teams went from offense to defense and visa versa. They were in the game, but in another sense, they were not. They sometimes got the ball through and errant shot bouncing off the backboard, sometimes they were passed to by other teammate’s; but for the most part, they were only in the periphery of the game. The boys were clearly dominating the game.

Yet here they were, with the guys, playing ball; having immense fun. Everyone was having fun. I didn’t see any of these girls stop the game and complain: "Hey! You aren’t passing me the ball!!! I demand to be equal in this game!!!" That wasn’t even on these girls minds. It was on nobodies mind. They all were just experiencing the moment of the game for the possibility that at some point, they would get the ball, and by then (it was quite cute actually) they didn’t know quite what to do with it when they got it, but; they were so happy just playing. Everyone was. This respite made me smile as I watched them play.

Nobody was discriminating against these two young women. The game proceeded just like any game would. If they didn’t get the ball, well; they didn’t get the ball. If they did, they did the best they could with the ball when they got it and played as tough as they could muster. Everyone equally shared in what the game itself equally provided. But the girls took their place on the court, and assumed their rightful position naturally, without incident. The result? Everyone was happy.

Yet this playing field is not true for modern feminism. The elite cabal of feminist women have made both complaining and lying an intrinsic part of their organizations in which to implement change within the society. This change has not been either in the interests nor the charter of what this society or our government was either designed or intended for. In the ‘game’ of life, these people have taken unfair advantage of a system and subterfuged it. The way in which they did this, was under the system of Patriarchy which tried to be fair to them, and is meant to be fair to all. Now they have used this fairness against us, to impose a tyranny that abrogates the very nucleus of why this society was formed. They have in the game of civilization, made excessive and wild accusations (to a willing government with an apparent agenda) in which to force upon the rest of us, a foreign system of law and governance, which is not of Constitutional construct nor American in form. Now they have the ‘Ball’ and everything around us has turned into a war, a fight for our lives—while we constantly watch the devolution around us.

Simply put, nobody wants to play basketball with the Feminists. Especially, while the government pretends its a fair and unbiased referee. . It’s not, it is only a thug.

The Feminist war has waged so complete in this society that now the Fathers Rights movement (along with the rest of society) is faced with the burden of proving the obvious! That all Fathers aren’t abusers. That men and woman belong together. That marriage between a man and woman is a proper institution and it is the only institution that should be supported by our civilization.

Most people trying to argue our side, have not properly added up the argument yet. They haven’t made the concrete link of abstract reasoning to this problem and they cannot give the problem voice, nor can they give the solution because they are blind to what Patriarchy is, and where it fits in the whole scheme of things.

Sure, America is a nation whose precepts are built on individual freedom. However; you can do anything you want in this nation, as long as it doesn’t intrude, hurt or damage another individual. Under this construct we can see that the Gay and Lesbian lifestyle, intrudes and hurts others—all of us in fact—and it thereby, shouldn’t be supported. Homosexual marriages—cannot be supported by our civilization. The panorama of perversions—all done under the allowed banner of individual freedom by the implementation of Feminism, cannot be supported in the American system of governance.


Because if we allow these perversions and aberrant lifestyles to exist, then again; an ensuing ‘leakage’ from the base Ancient Id through the tribal society occurs which causes a cascaded failure within society as we have discussed in chapter nine. The duty of civilization is to ascend. It can only do this by and through freedom. But civilization must order that freedom, and it must permit was is good and moral to rise and ascend, and it must prohibit that which is bad and perverse and force that down into failure. Nobody from the opposite side of this argument will disagree that society shouldn’t allow what is good and moral and it conversely that we should admit and allow those things which are bad or immoral to flourish. This is proven by a Maxim of Law that states: The pig does not skin himself.

Neither does a society.

Yet, there are many within these aberrant communities that would happily drill holes in the bottom of the boat of civilization if only to provide them with the pleasure of doing it. "The boat is going to sink sometime" they will intellectually shrug. "Let me be, let me live free." "I get off on drilling holes, and it’s only a tiny hole I’m drilling in this great big ship," is most certainly their biggest argument.

Well, I cannot let them be free if I’m on the boat and I want to go to Hawaii, I’ll be damned if the boat is going to sink, and I’ll stop anyone from drilling any holes in the bottom of the boat—no matter how small the holes they think they are—at any cost!

This is the charge of civilization: not to let the boat sink...or not to let the "Pig skin himself." With all freedom there must be a corresponding duty to adhere to responsibility; to morality.

Allowing Feminism and the host of other groups who share that Ancient Id ‘base and disgusting’ mindset to exist is one thing; giving them the lawful embrace and full protections of society is another. Civilization, should not be handing out immoral or even amoral drills per se, to such people—but that is exactly what we are doing, all under their perverted assessment and moniker of "Freedom." Now these people with the drills putting in the holes in the bottom of the ship of America want us to be tolerant of them—while we watch the nation of America slowly sink.

Does this mean we allow roving bands of "Angry White Males" to hunt and kill Gay and Lesbian people??

Most certainly not. But we cannot allow our Churches to marry them! We don’t allow Government or Institutions to allow them the same rights of what other citizens should have. Because allowing what is good, or what allows society to ascend does not skin the collective pig of civilization.

This language may anger some, however; the intellectual thesis I do believe is solid. If society does not have this function: then who does? Conversely, if a society allows this ‘leakage’ of the base ancient perversions of Feminism to exist, to benefit and flourish upon the same equal footing as the higher moral standards of our society—then how is a Family going to combat their children from being effected by the perversion that such a ‘society’ now permits? How can a Father protect his children from something he knows is wrong, when the media and government is pervading the society and stating that such actions based upon the Ancient Id are right??? How will a child choose the good and moral system of life if we do not sequester one, while advocating another?? How can even a society tell what is good or moral anymore if there is no distinction between the two?!?

In fact, under this present system, children cannot choose, and they are not making the correct choices, as a panoply of facts and figures and national headlines clearly indicate. Apparently, neither is government.

Again; this is a circular argument which only contributes to devolving the society. If government permits everyone having a dot in the middle of their forehead as a legal and preferred activity; highly publicized, and receiving not only normal conferment, but special treatment in some cases—wouldn’t it follow that by government in permitting such an activity that this activity would most certainly rise?!?? That soon, over a time-period you’d start to see more and more dot’s in the middle of people’s foreheads? Well, isn’t the proliferation of tattoo’s just an extension of the proliferation tribalism? Proof that the base Ancient Id is permeated through mainstream America? Isn’t the government’s attack upon Fatherhood the same thing?

There is a high probability of these residual realities occurring influenced by the impetus of a government which has lovingly embraced the anarchy and perversions within the Feminist state of mind. Therefore, civilization is allowing perversion to become normal, will most certainly increase the perversion, (which is occurring in this society right now) which will have untold effects against the society. These effects will burden that society, and such a society will devolve. This exact construct may have occurred with the proliferation of HIV and AIDS which has spread among our civilization, with the main part of it, 87% being only within the Gay and Lesbian communities. Has this been a direct causal factor induced by government by allowing them to criminalize fatherhood? I doubt this society has the courage to even broach, or even attempt to answer this question.

Therefore, it appears to be very true, that this Government, by ‘allowing’ and not prohibiting such acts, most certainly has had a rather profound effect on this society. We can exponentially estimate many more, which have burdened this society which have directly been due to the proliferation of such perversion.

One case which must be considered is: What damage has been done to the institution of marriage by the Gay and Lesbian communities?

I don’t think anyone could say that there has been no damage done. Perhaps two to five percent of all divorces may be directly effected and pushed into divorce because of this immoral ‘leakage’ of the gay and lesbian communities imprinting upon this society. [The two to five percent figure is only a general guess on the authors part and is unverified. RLCII]

We cannot change the foundational bedrock of this society. We are held to that responsibility so that all people may be free. For instance, in recognizing that the Feminist have had way too much power and control within government, we can easily see that their discrimination has wrecked havoc across the face of America, all the while destroying the venerable institution of marriage...and most surely...destroying men.

What effects will happen when we let the Gay and Lesbian influences to infest our form of government which; by the way; originally secured their freedoms? Like the Feminists, you can be sure there will be a backlash of less freedoms, and less justice. For the basic tapestry of America will be perverted to that new order, just like Feminism has presently done.

We have a duty to maintain the basic foundation of this nation, unperturbed by the light and transient fashions which may temporarily take hold within a society. Feminism is such a transient cause and now is on its rapid decline. However; its damage has been incomprehensible to society, and totally unacceptable for men.

Because of this, we are now charged with setting things straight. We are burdened because of the pestilence which Feminism has waged upon this society, and now must go back and prove the obvious. Like the young Actress noted over and over on the Television show Rosanne, "All men aren’t bad."

Incredibly, this is a new discovery for many young American women who are throwing away the false doctrines of radical feminist teachings!!! This society is going to have to rediscover the obvious, that abortions are immoral, sperm is not a poison, marriage between a man and woman is good, that the gay and lesbian lifestyle is not good, that men are not abusers, that women who love and obey their husbands are not bad nor are they losers. (They can’t comprehend how important and precious they really are to us.) We have to recognize these things, and force, literally force the present errant and illegal mindset emanating from Washington D.C., to cease and desist. For their invocation of these perverse ideals is a direct threat against the Safety and Security of this nation, and thereby; under law—is actionable. If government does not adhere to these good and moral principles, then; it must be changed in accordance under law by our rights secured by the Declaration of Independence. When the safeguards of the each of the three branches of government refuse to instill the safety and foundation of the well established and documented order of the American Republic; then the fourth branch of government of "We the People" is mandated to implement that realignment—by any means necessary.


In 1998 both the Anglican and the Episcopalian Churches made national headlines when their national congregations reaffirmed that marriage is a sacred institution and that in accordance with the Bible, the woman must be subordinate to the man. This was a direct contravention to government policy and ardent Radical Feminist doctrines. This reaffirmation sent reverberations nation-wide, and headlines splashed across the national specter like a shock-wave.

For many in the Fathers Rights community the affirmation was like a breath of spring air or a fresh drink of water. We had hungered to hear other groups concur with what we had been saying for over a decade and which we had formally put our names down in writing in 1997 with the Re-Affirmation and Declaration almost a year before their adjoining public declaration. These rediscoveries were of fundamental truth, and to many within the our community, we stood up and took notice and openly cheered, while strangely; which is a rife problem within the feminist movement of today—they remained strangely quiet.

In fact, earlier in 1997; I was part of a historical meeting within the Fathers Rights community which was held at the Purple Heart House, owned by Christopher Robin in Hollywood California. It was here where twelve Fathers Rights advocates who, over a weekends period of time, argued bitterly over this subject. After two days, in the early morning hours after intense debate (several friendships and coalitions were lost, or a least severely strained in bringing this document to fruition), this historical document was finally put to pen, signed and sealed on May 25, 1997. It simply reads:


The Purple Heart House, Hollywood, California

We Signatories to the Fathers’ Manifesto, responding to both natural and Biblical laws, in defense of our nation and our families, hereby declare and assert our patriarchal role in society. America is an experiment in freedom, and the feminist experiment in freedom, under the guise of "equality," unleashed a panoply of social ills which have become a cancer on our land, led to the moral and economic destruction of our nation, made America a house divided unto itself, created a vast underclass with a bleak and bankrupt future and is the greatest national disaster we have ever faced. Recognizing patriarchy to be the greatest creator of wealth, prosperity, and stability civilization has ever known, we hereby demand that our children, homes, lives, liberty, and property be unconditionally restored to us. We hereby demand replacement of the doctrine of Parens Patriæ with the Biblical doctrines upon which this nation was founded. We hereby recognize and reaffirm that patriarchy is the order established under God and under his Natural Law. We the posterity of this nation, hereby reclaim our ancestral liberties and God-given rights.

Signed this day, Sunday, May Twenty-Fifth, in the One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Seventh Year of our lord, at the Purple Heart House, Hollywood, California.


Christopher Robin,

National Fathers Rights Activist, The Purple Heart House, Hollywood

Robert Lindsay; Cheney Jr.

Executive Director, The Sovereign Patriot Group, Chico, California

Bob Hedrick,

Executive Director, Parents for Family Justice

Ron Jensen,

Investigative Reporter.

Jay Samuels,

Director, Valley Compassion Center

Vert Vergon,

President, Fathers of America

John Knight,

Executive Director, The Fathers Manifesto, Newport, California

This document took these men a weekend of non-stop, vituperative and contumacious arguments, of almost daily battle and epic proportions. Our discussions were non-denominational, each of us having several religious convictions, but in the final analysis, this is the document we forged. I am proud of it. I think everyone should be who was there.

The document is groundbreaking in its truths, and in its simple affirmation of total support of the father, under the constraints of natural law, and natural common law rights. It most certainly, was a ‘rediscovery’ of the obvious. Just as the Anglican and Episcopalian Churches who would later follow in their public support of that institution: the document is valid because of the simple truth.

Yet, because of the intense fractionalization within the Fathers Rights community it was hard enough even to affirm even these fundamental truths. I could tell that the principals addressed in this document were solid, because in all our arguments; the one most ardent point that kept on resurfacing again and again was: "What about the Father who beats his child, how can we give him complete control over the home?"

The proof of this document’s strength lie in the Fact, that to a man—this was the most powerful concern within all Fathers Rights groups, the errant, out-of-control Father. In that light, the fact that they came together, created and finished this historical work, with the main concern being not about gaining more control for themselves, but in protecting the children from the errant out-of-control Father who beats his child. In this light, these men, who all of them argued to the bitter (believe me, very bitter) end, that in the final analysis, the Father must be a major influence and control the home to protect that child. For in the Final analysis: that is his job and no one else can, or is doing it. Especially government. It took a weekend of visceral argumentation to finally push through to a cold, abstract analysis which finally allowed everyone to sign this in good consciousness.

The care and concern that was placed within this document was legion. The small assembled group whose characters came in and out constantly during the weekend, (I slept as I could while the battle raged outside on Christopher’s porch throughout the day and night) we argued about every single word on that document, especially any reference to religion or the Bible. The construction of the sentences were argued, and again; the all prevalent "But what about the out-of-control Father?" issue came up again and again.

We would vituperatively argue this issue no less than I would say fifteen to twenty times—maybe more—we’d argue it into the ground, and it would resurface. We would all come to agreement, and upon a different noun, article or adverb being inserted within the document: the issue would resurface and the battle would rage yet again: "But what about the out-of-control Father?!??"

Indeed, at the twelfth hour as we were signing our names to this document in Christopher’s living room at about two in the morning, everyone worried that something or someone would again, might bring up the issue but one more time. But we didn’t. Solemnly, we each put our names to a harried piece of paper which had the final version of our work. We veritably held our breath as each signature was solemnly signed to the document, in the very early morning hours of the final day of this meeting.

The document was forged with roots deep in history, and with basic elemental truths After signing it, I could see that each man after coming away from the document had a sense of satisfaction, of accomplishment. It was worth the battle. We had no idea what we had done, but there was an intrinsic feeling that whatever it was, it was historic, and it was right. This document presaged the same basic declarations of the churches who would follow its gospel a year later. It’s principals have yet to be incorporated into the mainstream of America, but those days are rapidly coming, perhaps, but one to four years away. The document is anachronistic in one sense, while being strangely futuristic in another.

It is a document that has rediscovered the obvious, which is but an adumbration of what this nation is about to do. That men need a place within the home, that more importantly, they have a vested and most important place within it, and as young children they should be groomed to meet that challenge. Those ideals are immutable and cannot be transgressed. And that in the final analysis, he must be able to rule within the home, freely, for this is the basis of a free and independent society. We don’t have free governments. We have free families which form free governments.

Saying the simple statement that men must be men and we must take back what is ours, which has been compromised; and assume our proper roles as fathers, has become revolutionary statement. That is how far and how perverse this society has gone into the extremes of feminism. Feminists (and Government) would factually be infinitely happier having a nation full of "A Man Called Sissy" rather than to have but one man rule with absolute authority and sovereignty within his own home as the Randy Weaver case proved. That is how fragile their mindset and theology is.

From the Founders onwards, these truth’s were of such import and so obvious to our Forefathers that they were "Self Evident". Yet the scope and perversion of Modern Radical Feminism has been so sweeping in its imprint of the Ancient Id upon this American society, that we actually lost those concepts within the dissonance of a competing and antithetical movement: the advent of Radical Feminism. Presently, this society has to relearn Patriarchy—that a man is a man, that his place is within the home beside his wife and children and that he protects, provides and rules within that home and that those duties provide for a stable society. He must have broad sweeping powers within its domain, because; in the final analysis: that is the cost of a free society: self governance.

Self governance does not mean micro-management. Self governance does not mean community validation or imposition. Those are only tools of Autocracy. Society best flourishes when left to itself, the individual; as Adam Smith and De Tourqueville and others noted...and you can only do that when freedom reigns within the scope of individuals everywhere—within their own sacred homes. If we disdain this, then we get what Hillary wants for us: this view of subservient human nature and the nature of a profligate government in which Hillary Clinton's infamous statement that ``our mission is to change what it means to be a human being in the 21st Century'' will become the rule.

By what authority does she force me to change? Or you? By what doctrines does she use to change what we American’s decide in our daily lives and attributes in which to self-determine our own and best form of happiness? In which our nation, this nation called America, has secured for us?!??

I mean, really—who is this woman?? Who does she (and the nation of Autocrats like her who ‘think’ they know what is best for us) think she is?!???

I was under the mistaken pressure that she was just merely a special interest Lawyer—not a God among men... I would think it prudent, given the light of common understood circumstances, that simply put, Ms. Clinton mind her own garden which appears to be slightly overgrown with weeds. I would make the supposition, that Ms. Clinton be a more valuable resource to this nation rediscovering her own home and her own kitchen rather than intruding into mine with socialist flotsam and untried and failed theories of feminist social engineering....

Yet, these people would, and are gladly seizing from us what is foundationally ours. Like the Federal Bureau of Land Management, they are just Park Rangers, managing the wild herd of humanity for a greater purpose, which is coincidentally, their purpose... And if they conclude that your child will not be an artist or a mathematician, well, sorry; you lose. Because you are just a Human Resource to be used for the greater good of man under the careful and Fatherly guidance and management of Parens Patriae imbued through the unlimited resources and power of a mad, and power hungry government. This translates that you are a piece of equipment that will be managed as they see fit—and ‘they’ are implementing the first forms of this Autocracy already. They can do this, when they could have never done this previously in American History, due to the fact of the incessant, insouciant impressment of Radical Feminism upon the mindset of our national people. We through several generations of mostly the Welfare Class, have been bludgeoned with its indoctrination. Now, we accept what is most reprehensible in form as our form of governance, as the defacto will within our lives, incredibly; most without any question whatsoever. We are again, to the point where just saying that a man should be a man—appears revolutionary.

There will come a time when our Declaration and Re-Affirmation will become widely taught, openly disseminated and known. In fact, this document should be read by every grade-school child along with the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution for the united States of America and other foundational documents within that order. For the Declaration and Re-Affirmation like Marshall McCluen noted earlier, looks to our future through the rear-view mirror of our past, in those supporting foundational truths. Our words build off those sacred Documents solid construction, while conversely; Hillary’s words and the Radical Feminists doctrine are built upon lies, and antithetical foundational Anti-American precepts and concepts. If you hold mankind’s conceptual square up to the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and our Declaration and Re-Affirmation, you will see a tight fit. Hold the same square up to Hillary’s and the Radical Feminists concepts and you will see a extremely skewed, fallow house of cards in a glaring light of disparity.

On a final note about our Reaffirmation and Declaration; I am not only proud of that historical document—which by the way—is a legal document and can be used by anyone who enjoins in the highest logic and reason it inculcates; but I am also proud of the men who forged it. Simply put they exemplified exactly what men are and always have been: consumately fair. These gentlemen just were not a bunch of "Angry White Males" which the media and feminist have continually portrayed us to be. No. To a man, each of them was concerned about something else higher than himself: a higher issue concerning humanity. Something which lent itself to the terms of legacy, history, family, tradition. Something most certainly lost, and dying. There were very committed men at that assemblage, erudite, with vision. Unlike what I have seen displayed by Feminists who appear to have a hidden political agenda underneath their pleaded cried to "save the children".

No man there said "I want my slice of pie and the hell with anyone else"—no! There were no agenda’s here. There was just a recognition of a clear and ever present danger, something which was ruining both Fathers, Families and America; and we just restated the obvious. In the final analysis, these men were ready to capitulate their own interests to truly ‘protect the children’. Again, looking at the final product, we can readily see without any hesitation; a lineage to law and an age of reason. There is nothing frivolous in this document; and in the absolute analysis, this document will become a cornerstone in defining what rights are imbued to Fathers and there role within the family. This document can withstand the test of time—and may become as important to future generations as all this nations other foundational documents. I am humbled and honored that I have had the opportunity to have been a part of it, as there are others within this movement more suited to have had their name attached to this document. In reality; all fathers names are on that document, both past and future. However, any Father who concurs with our Reaffirmation and Declaration presently undergoing persecution by any government tribunal would be wise to file this document along with the Constitution, their State Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, in their own case, and to sign his name to the Fathers Rights Reaffirmation and Declaration under ours. Simply put, it is a legal line in the concrete, and if they dare cross it, if they "dare cross that threshold" they have been noticed of the law, and thereby have violated their office and their oath of office. By these crimes, they are no longer immune from justice.

Doing this is going to push this system to the limits, and it will exacerbate an issue they want kept silent: "Who really owns this nations children?" Is it the putative parents under the Father as head of household, which is clearly recognized under law, or is it ‘something else’? Is it the State, which cannot run its own affairs nor keep it’s own financial house in order?? Under this scenario, even the dreaded Doctrine of Parens Patriae would come under severe scrutiny, and most likely, lose in the end. It will not be able to withstand a constitutional common law challenge made from within an American home.

For government to own humans and to be a parent—has no authorization in our constitution. If it is not a specific power delegated by the constitution, the government does not have such an authority, and is in fact, trying to go under the common-law principle of local usage and procedure. They figure, do a crime long enough to where the people accept it; and poof! It magically becomes law. Of course they are wrong; this isn’t law, it is tyranny. Again, this would be a very tentative and highly charged case, one that would supercede the Feminist and even Roe v. Wade if such a material fact was entered and challenged into the courts. The government, and Feminist and a host of other ‘special interests’ would be sweating the proverbial bullets—it would be their worst nightmare come true if this case were ever framed in trial. For under this challenge, the competing and opposite systems of Matriarchy and Patriarchy would have to be entered into the record Only one could win. The government would have to be a party—and all doctrines, "Best Interests of the Child", "Tender Years", "Parens Patriae", and Patriarchy and Matriarchy would have to fall under the true scrutiny of the law in the harsh reality and light of day—only one would be able to square consistently with the Constitution, and the common law rights of man. And that is Patriarchy. When this happens, there would be many doctrines falling by the wayside. There would be many people out of a job. And more importantly; there would be many children saved by this act.

Here is the groundwork of our law:


The American Digest

1897 – 1906

§99 Custody of Infants

(1) In General

[a] The father is the natural guardian of his child, and will be awarded possession of his person, unless he is unworthy, and incompetent to discharge the trust imposed upon him.

(Ohio—C.C. 1899) In re Coons, 20 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 47 11 O.C.D. 208;

(Tex. Civ. App. 1905) Parker v. Wiggins, 86 SW 786

(W.Va. 1891) Green v. Campbell 35 W.Va. 698 14 S.E. 212, 29 Am. St. Rep. 843

[c] (Ga. 1893)

The father is entitled to the custody of his child during minority, unless such right has been relinquished or forfeited. – Franklin v. Carswell, 29, S.E. 476, 103 Ga. 553.

[d] (Ga. 1902)

On the hearing of a writ of Habeas Corpus to determine the custody of a minor child, it is an improper exercise of discretion to render Judgement depriving on of the custody and awarding it to another, where there is undisputed evidence of the right and fitness of the former to have such custody, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

Carter v. Brett, 42 S.E. 348, 116 Ga. 114.

Determinations of Particular issues or question – Custody of Infants.

[j] (Mass. 1834)

In general, as the Father is by law clearly entitled to the custody of his child, the court will so far interfere as to issue the writ of Habeas Corpus and inquire into the circumstances of the case, in order to prevent a party entitled to the custody of a child from seeking it by force or stratagem. And the court will feel bound to restore the custody to the father, where the law has placed it, unless in a clear and strong case of unfitness on his part to have such custody. -- Commonwealth v. Briggs, 33 Mass. (16 Pick.) 203

[k] (Mo. 1865)

Upon a petition for Habeas Corpus to determine to whom the custody of certain minor children shall be given, the court has no authority to order the Father to pay any certain sums of money to a trustee for their Support. – Ferguson v. Ferguson 36 Mo. 197.


Upon a petition for habeas Corpus, the court has authority to relieve an infant from restraint; but it has no power to determine matters of guardianship, appointment of trustees, disposition of the property, or moneys of the parties, or the making of provision for the child placed in the custody of the Father. Ibid.

[f] (S.C. 1883)

Other things being equal, the claims of the Father to the custody and control of his children are superior to those of the mother, but it is discretionary with the court to which one of the parents children shall be committed, and, where they are under the age of choice, the court will exercise that discretion, looking solely to the welfare and happiness of the children. Ex. Parte Reed, 19 S.C. 604.

[Decennial Edition of the AMERICAN DIGEST, A Complete Digest of all Reported Cases from 1897 to 1906, Volume 9 – Executors and Administrators – Hawaii – West Publishing Co., St. Paul. 1909.]

I am certain that there are Fathers reading these laws right now, whose jaws are hitting the ground. Yes...look at it. This was and still is the law. This comes from the American Digest, a beautiful, old and ancient set of law books which inculcated law and order into one of the greatest nations ever developed on the face of the earth: America. Patriarchy was the written law up until 1906 and beyond. This law was instrumental in bringing this nation into the world’s greatest national power on earth.

Perhaps now you understand the impetus of my book. Simply put: we’ve all been had by the modern "court" systems. We all have—to a man. This has been one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated throughout history...and we bought into it only because we were fair. We thought sharing might be fair—instead it became our downfall. This mistake will never happen again.

We have supposedly, somewhere down the line, either by having a Social Security Number, a Birth Certificate, or, our child having those same things, or—even your initial court case, or your signature you signed thereof, or—perhaps even your marriage license; it is all relative to this conversation, for nobody truly knows how these courts ensnare fathers. The fraudulent myth is that we have ‘given up’ these considerable perfect rights to our home, families and most importantly our children. We have been coerced into ‘volunteering’ to give up Patriarchy. Or at least their thesis goes. What this is really called is: fraud by way of inducement.

I mean look at the wording of these laws of the American Digest! The intent was dogmatic and perfectly clear! Let the Dads have their children was the clear message in the Law. Yet—in less than 50 years these laws would be turned around 180 degrees. This was done without a vote, without a mandate, in fact; with no American citizen actually realizing it was taking place. This fraud of: we as Fathers giving up our children, and then civilly killing ourselves; was invented by a malevolent, hateful group of opportunists and elite’s who had a direct hand in forging these laws. No Father in the world would give up such vested rights, which, (as this book and others now coming into the mainstream are beginning to show), were so intrinsic and mandated by Western Civilization itself. No father would have ever done these things "if" we had been informed of the real intent of allowing the Government and Feminists to criminally harvest our homes and our lives.

Our higher-ordered Western Civilized culture chose Fatherhood, and fully intended to protect it so that both Fathers and Mothers would have a function within the home. This caused a social stability and wealth that man clearly recognized went back 5000 to 7000 years. There was a purpose to this choice, not just the mere harnessing of sex to make it work within the home, and not just to uphold the Judeo-Christian belief in the Bible—but man empirically noted and ingrained into society that which worked best and most sensibly—and a man and a woman joining as one was not just romantic, as an engineered solution to a potentially wide-spread problem; it was a very succinct and essential solution! As a matter of fact, I doubt that the feminist contention of a "male dominated" society had as much to do with ‘domination’ as it did with the proper engineering of both the family and society. Male domination by any comparison to modern feminism was not as brutal nor as warlike as they would have you think. It is a well known fact that we were not placing women into prisons because we couldn’t steal from them—which is a main part of what American Feminism is all about. The ‘alleged’ "Male Domination" was simply putting the quarterback where the quarterback should be to play the game, and letting the lineman do what the lineman does in his game. I’ve never heard anyone say that the game should be stopped and they reverse their respective positions. Confucius addressed this problem earlier in chapter XX.

Nonetheless, in looking at these laws from the American Digest 1897-1906, we can see that as in the case noted earlier: Fanning v. Fanning, that the courts protected the rights of the father as a social responsibility, and thereby, they fully understood that they were protecting not only the children, not only the family, not only the father, but also society as well. This of course, brings up a question as to how either we, as a society contracted out of those rights. Society never gave them up, nor to my knowledge have men abdicated them. "Something" mysterious replaced the law, with a new foreign and alien law. Not just alien, but Anti-American law—the law which allows women to steal children and then walk into court and by this criminal act—by their ‘unclean hands’--they obtain a career on Welfare and profit from their criminal acts, while destroying the man who fathered their child and replacing him with the security of the state. If you look at §99, item [j] above, you will see that it states simply that the law clearly gives fathers their children, and if anyone uses any form of "stratagem" to prevent a father from obtaining custody of his child, that the court will forcibly restore the custody back to the father upon a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

This is in exact synchronicity with true law, which states that no person who has "unclean hand’s" (in other words, someone who has committed a criminal act or crime, ergo: done something wrong or unjust) that such a person cannot profit from or benefit from the law. The maxim states: "He who is without clean hands cannot profit from the law." This means that a man stealing a car, cannot then go into court and have the court force by law the original owner pay the bank loan on the car...but this is exactly what Feminist Jurisprudence does, all under the guise of law, with full complicity from the Judges who profit by this conspiracy.

This is in direct contravention to modern Feminized courts who commonly overturn such truths and allow those with filthy and outright criminal hands to gain if not subsidy, then outright careers. A Mother who has stolen her child from the child’s father is protected in today’s courts and is financially and criminally protected. The courts can now be depended to allow those who have committed crimes and who have ‘unclean hands’ to directly profit by their act. This is one of the cornerstone foundations of law which has been usurped by the modern Welfare State. Without this perversion in law, the whole system would be severely crippled.

Because of this, women have gotten a ‘green-light’ from the courts and from government, to commit acts of crime of kidnapping and even egregious acts of insolence within their own home against the men they are with. And to this end, the Feminist shelters, hotlines, and Welfare advocacy organizations throughout every community in this nation; urge mothers to kidnap their children from their fathers, to enrage them by insolent or immoral acts, and then; to file either frivolous or outright lies against the father and to allege ‘abuse’ in which the courts will not only support—but will if need be—imprison fathers for decades. Most men, never have a chance against this system, many never see this coming, and there are many of them; (the low figure starts about 33% and the high figure could go as high as 90%) of these fathers who are totally and completely innocent; yet, sit in jail for years because of the perverse support these courts now give to mothers—who are in fact; the real criminals with unclean hands—in direct violation of law, and the maxim’s of law...all to support "The Best Interests of the Child."

Conversely, our courts of the Fanning era, protected fatherhood, because the courts intrinsically knew that the Father, was the centerpiece of the home and the family. Keep him protected, and we would have a nation of two-parent families and social stability, which was the best design man devised to protect children and both the man and the woman.

"Probably no group in the country is subject to a more pervasive, firmly established and staunchly defended system of discrimination than are women. Relying on such varied arguments as biblical authority, the women’s lack of muscular strength, her child-bearing function with its attendant incapacities, and the natural capacity for motherhood, male members of society have undertaken to "protect their women" from having to compete against men by assuring them, insofar as possible, a role of their own in society. States have, at one time or another, forbidden women to work at certain jobs, to engage publicly in certain sports, to work while pregnant or to collect unemployment benefits when on maternity leave. Until 1968 a Connecticut statute provided that a woman could be sentenced to three-years at the "State Farm" for a crime for which a man could be sentenced to only eighteen months in jail, and until 1982 a state could still establish a one-sex school, while one-race schools were held to deny equal protection of the laws."

[Leading Constitutional Decisions, Robert F. Cushman, 17th Ed., @1987, Prentice Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliff's, New Jersey 07632; ISBN 0-13-527367-6; p. 354.]

Yet, while we as a society are not upholding this once noble "Protection of the Women" any longer as now we have instituted Radical Feminism in our courts, the courts have held men up to an even more unequal burden and disenfranchisement of their own homes, the result which has devolved a plague upon this nation. This substantive inequality of removal of the male and disenfranchisement from his own children, which he and civilization understand of which he is a key component to their well-being, and to societies well-being has factually led to anarchy, and the establishment of new Government Superstructures and Empires. Presently, women are supposedly not "Protected" any longer (at least not by men, but most certainly by the courts), and from not being protected the courts have given them "equal" Super-Rights, never seen before in any civilization; and conversely; they have given men the "equal right" to be imprisoned , coerced and categorically erased for any attempts to either protect themselves, their homes, their women, their children or their property. Now the courts have leveled the "equal protection of the laws" so well by such vehicles as the "strict scrutiny test", the "rational basis test", and the dreaded "intermediate test" which has created a draconian legal environment with broad powers with which has led to more men being imprisoned to ‘uphold’ the "Equality" industry than every before. Our prisons are burgeoning with men that have been "equalized." The tax rolls and ‘Deadbeat Dads’ rolls are overflowing with men who, factually are at the end of a Government sponsored feeding cycle, and can no longer be harvested, as they are eminently broke.

This equalization came about through a fundamental shift in the rights of men expressed within the law. Something changed, that no American had any inkling that such a fundamental change was taken place. Once the change occurred, it opened a floodgate, a Pandora’s Box if you will, which has so profound as to change the organic nature, protections, and mindset of this nation itself. This change has come at the cost of basic freedom’s, and at the cost of the American Republican form of government itself.

The more recent version of Corpus Juris Secundum, which is but a late cousin to West’s Century publication quoted earlier in this chapter, we can trace this organic paradigm shift in the American law itself.


Volume 67A

§16 -- A parents right to the custody of a minor child is more in the nature of a personal trust reposed in the parent by the state, as parens patriæ, which trust imposed the reciprocal obligation to maintain, care for, and protect the child, as discussed infra §49 et. Seq., And in which the trust of the parent will be secured as long as the parent discharges such correlative duties.

Ariz-- Shumway v. Farley, 203 P.2d 507, 68 Ariz 159.

Minn.-- In re Adoption of Anderson, 50 N.W. 2d 278, 235 Minn. 192.

N.J. -- Gardner v. Hall, 26 A.2d 799, 132 N.J. Et. Seq. 64, Affirmed 31 A.2d 805, 133 N.J. Eq. 287—Frank v. Gaylord 182A. 614, 119 N.J. Eq. 427—Lippencott v. Lippencott, 128 A 254, 97 N.J. Eq. 517.

Okl -- Corpus Juris Secundum cited in Carigan v. State 469 P.2d 656, 659.

Wash -- In re Hudson, 126 P.2d 765, 13 Wash 2d 673.

Wyo -- Nugent v. Powell 33 P. 23, 28, 4 Wyo. 173, 62 Am. S.R. 17, 20 L.R.A. 199.

B -- Rights of Custody

§16 Beginning -- Rights of Parents

As a general rule, parents have a natural and legal right to the custody of their minor children, but that right is just a prima facie one and not absolute, and it is more in the nature of a personal trust.

As a general rule, at common law and under statures declaratory thereof, Parents have the natural and legal right to the custody, care, and control of their minor children, or, as otherwise expressed, a natural right to the custody, companionship, and bringing up of their children. Accordingly, if the parents are fit and proper persons, as discussed infra §23, they ordinarily have a primary, prior, or paramount right to the care and custody of their minor children. This right grows out of the parents’ obligation to maintain and educate their children, and public policy demands that such right be held inviolate, and not easily controlled by other considerations. Moreover, under some statutes, a parent’s right of custody continues unless one of the methods provided by statue for depriving the parent of such custody, has been pursued.

The right of parents to the care, custody and control of their children is an important and substantial right. It has been characterized by the court as inherent, fundamental, and constitutionally protected right. However, such right is really a prima facie right even though there has been no voluntary abandonment of the right, and it may be invaded or entirely nullified. Even though the right is not absolute right, it may be limited or interfered with only for the most substantial, compelling, and sufficient reasons, and it is subject to judicial control only when the interests of the child demands it.

Parents have no property rights, in the ordinary sense of that term, in or to their minor children, and, accordingly a parent’s right of control or custody of a minor child is not a property right which may be bargained, sold, or otherwise disposed of. However, a wrongful injury to a legally protected interest in the custody of a minor child will support a right of action by the parent or parents as a direct injury to such interest.

R.I. -- Bedard v. Notre Dame Hospital, 151 A. 2d 690, 89 R.I. 195

M.o. -- Tripp v. Brawley, App. 261 S.W. 508.

N.M. -- Hill v. Patton, 85 P.2d 75, 43 N.M. 21.

Chattle – A child is not chattel to be bought or sold, directly or indirectly.

Ark. -- Knight v. Deavers, 531 S.W. 2d 252

N.Y. -- People ex. rel. Gill v. Lapidus 120 N.Y.S. 2d 766 202 Misc. 1116

Or. -- Benessen v. Taylor, 255 P.2d 148, 198 Or. 347.

U.S. – Weinberger v. Wiesendeld N.J., 95 S.Ct. 1225, 420 U.S. 636, 43 L.Ed. 2d 514.

Newton v. Burgin; NC.N.C., 363 F.Supp. 782, Affirmed 94 S.Ct. 889, 414 U.S. 1139, 39 L.Ed. 2d 96.

Ala. -- Thorne v. Thorne, Civ. App., 344 So. 2d 165.

Alaska—Matter of S.D., 549 P.2d 1190.

Wash. - In re. Sego, 449 P.2d 881, 7 Wash. 457, reversed on other grounds 513 P.2d 831, 82 Wash. 2d 736.

W.Va. -- In re. Willis, 207 S.E. 2d 129.

§17 -- As Between Parents

At common law, the primary right to the custody and care of minor children is generally in the Father, but, under various statues, as well as under some modern decisions, the parents are generally regarded as having equal rights to the custody and care of the children, and when parents separate, the custody may be awarded to the one of the other. Of the parents, according to the exigencies of the particular case.

At common law, and under some Statutes declaratory thereof, as a general rule, the natural or primary right to the custody of the minor children is in the father, since such right necessarily springs from his duty to provide for the children’s protection, maintenance, and education.

Mass -- Hathaway v. Packard, 82 N.E. 2d 881, 323, Mass. 501—Broman v. Byrne 78 N.E. 2d 616, 322 Mass. 578—Barry v. Sparks, 27 N.E. 2d 728, 306 Mass 80, 128 A.L.R. 983.

N.C. -- Tyner v. Tyner 175 S.E. 144, 206 N.C. 776—In re. Ten Hoopen’s Custody 162 S.E. 619, 202 N.C. 223.

Pa. -- Commonwealth ex. rel. Martino v. Blough, 191 A.2d 918, 201 Pa. Super. 346

- Commonwealth ex. rel. Renny v. Murdock, 94 Pa. Super. 59.

And, if the parents are living apart and there is a dispute as to the custody, the right of the father ordinarily is superior to the mother.

Fla. -- State ex. rel. Rasco v. Rasco, 190 So. 510, 139 Fla. 349.

The common law rule, however, has been changed in many jurisdictions by statutes and by modern decisions of the courts.

Ark. -- Phifer v. Phifer, 129 S.W.2d 939, 198 Ark. 567—Southwestern Gas & Electrict Co. V. Denney, 82 S.W. 2d 17, 190 Ark. 934.

Md. -- Ross v. Hoffman, 372 A. 2d 582, 280 Md. 172.

Minn -- Miller v. Monsen, 37 N.W. 2d 543, 228 Minn. 400.

Under such statutes and decisions, subject to the considerations affecting custody, as discussed infra § 20 et. seq., the father and the mother as against each other, are regarded as having equal rights in the custody and control of their minor children. Accordingly, in the absence of a Judicial determination, neither parent has an absolute or superior right to the custody of such children, or, as been held, even a prima facie right of custody. These rules have been held applicable not only where the parents are living together, but also where they are living apart.

Under these statutes and modern judicial decisions, the strict common-law rule has been relaxed, and, when the parties separate and cannot agree to the custody of the child, the court may exercise its discretion and award custody according to the exigencies of the particular case, with special regard to that disposition which will serve the best interests and welfare of the child.

Ala – Hall. V. Donnelly, 149 So. 867, 25 Ala. App. 481, certiori denied 149 So. 872, 227 Ala. 289

Ariz. -- In re Winn, 63 P2d 198, 48 Ariz. 529.

Cal. -- Holsinger v. Holsinger, 279 P2d 961, 44 C.2d 132

Fla. -- State ex. rel Rasco v. Rasco, 190 So. 510, 139 Fla. 349—State ex. rel. Bonsack v. Campbell, 184 So. 332, 134 Fla. 809.

Ga. -- Folsom v. Folsom, 186 S.E. 2d 752, 228 Ga. 536—Knox v. Knox 176 S.E. 2d 712, 226 Ga. 619—Whaley v. Disbrow, 166 S.E. 2d 343, 225 Ga. 145—Waldrup v. Crane, 46 S.E. 2d 919 203 Ga. 388.

Generally, it has been held that, other things being equal, the mother should be given the preference in matters involving the custody of minor children.

Alaska- Glasgow v. Glasgow, 426 p. 2d 617.

Cal. -- Denham v. Martina, 29 Cal. Rptr. 377, 214 C.A. 2d 312.

Neb. -- McNamee v. McNamee, 47 N.W. 2d 383, 154 Nev. 212.

N.J. -- Sheehan v. Sheehan, super., 143 A.2d 874, 51 N.J. Super. 276---Fiore v. Fiore, 139 A.2d 414, 49 N.J. Super.,, 219—Application of Jackson, 80 A.2d 306, 13 N.J. Super. 144.

Rule explained:

    1. The maternal preference rule is explanatory of, rather than distinct from, the general principle that paramount consideration in custody cases is the welfare and best interest of the children, and, in most cases, the rule follows naturally from the general principle.
    2. LA. – Stevens v. Steven, App., 340 So. 2d 584.

    3. "Maternal Preference" should not be expressed as a consideration in a child custody case upon evidentiary facts.

Md. – Cooke v. Cooke, 319 A.2d 841, 21 Md. App. 376 70 A.L.R. 3d 255.

Fathers Secondary Right.

    1. Father does not have a superior right to custody of a minor child when all other things are equal.
    2. Ill. -- Wells, v. Wells, 344 N.E. 2d 37, 36 Ill. App. 3d 488.

    3. Fathers right to custody of child is secondary to that of mother.

N.Y. – Roe v. Doe, 296 N.Y.S. 2d 865, 58 misc. 2d 757.

Fathers Responsibility.

It is the fathers responsibility to care for and maintain both mother and children when other considerations do not require that children awarded care to the mother or another person, and father is regarded as having legal right to custody and care of minor children when he is not show to be improper person best to conserve welfare of children.

Nonapplicability of Statute

Statute giving the parents equal rights does not apply because there is another statute which gives sole custody to mothers in such cases.

N.H. -- Sheehey v. Sheehey, 186 A. 1, 88 N.H. 223

Violation of Foreign Statute

Mother’s disobedience of foreign decree forbidding her to remove child from state has been held not such misconduct as precluded, as matter of law, from availing herself of statute providing that wife of citizen of another state who has resided within state six months successively, separately from husband, shall have exclusive custody of minor children living with her, since wife need not be blameless to avail herself of statute, but question is merely whether misconduct renders her unsuitable person to have custody.

N.H. -- Sheehey v. Sheehey, 186 A. 1, 88 N.H. 223.

Also: N.H. – Bodeau v. Bodeau, 27 A. 2d 191, 92 N.H. 183.

[Corpus Juris Secundum, by Arnold O. Sinnow, Editor in Chief, West’s Publishing Co. St. Paul, Minn., Vol. 67A, pg. 202-206.]


As most readers can already see, this is a complete disjuncture and severance from the basic law of the past. It is a complete usurpation of our common law. What we have here is not just a total abrogation of the common law principals and ideals, but; a complete reversal of law itself. The dogma and basis of law, and been completely obfuscated by these profligate laws being now perpetrated against an unsuspecting male, and more importantly—the public as a whole, because—this monster is now headed for everyone, not just ‘bad old’ abusive Fathers... From the absolute right of Fathers to custody of their children in the American Century, we now have "secondary rights" as written by the Corpus Juris Secundum.

"Any person’s" child in which the state takes an interest, is now subject to abject, total and irrevocable seizure by the state. Notice how, what was missing before, the Parens Patriae doctrine immediately comes up as a solid principle in law, where before it was barely known or brought to light. Where the state once would dare not tread, presently; due to these new Orwellian Feminist laws which embrace Ms. Clinton’s Village tribal model, it is knee-deep into every single home within the United States, ready to have several standing armies at the ready, force dynamic entry into your home to take your child upon any issue under the broad scope and powers of "Parens Patriae.". These present laws are factually so broad, so sweeping and draconian in their intent to remove the common law, the maxims of law, and the rule of law in which to now state that the "Best Interests of the Child" is the paramount objective of this society under the doctrine of Parens Patriae. No longer are individuals entreated to enjoin in the great American Experiment of Liberty and Justice. Today, we are screamed at as government officials beat down our door, seize our property, totally eliminate our rights, hold treasonous public tribunals and mask them as ‘trials’—all to protect the children, or the broader public interest. In fact again, when one sees the real protection that this have levied upon our children—we can begin to understand the statement above at the very beginning of this chapter in which these people enforcing these false doctrines upon us really never did believe in the foundational precepts and principals of Americanism at all. "We abandoned those principles because we never really believed in them." Neither does Ms. Clinton. Under this light, what we are speaking to here, is: treason.

Hillary’s socialists and Elitist friends now control—by law, our children, our homes, our property, and our thoughts and beliefs. If we waver upon any endeavor, they ‘notice’ the infraction upon a multiplicity of laws and dynamically coerce performance or conformance—and from this they build their Imperialist Empires. We can factually document the "legal" lineage of this treasonous transgression. Our laws have been ‘changed’ to support an un-American regime and ideal: Socialism: Communism: Totalitarianism.

In the American Digest noted earlier, it was clear that "The father is the natural guardian of his child, and will be awarded possession of his person, unless he is unworthy, and incompetent to discharge the trust imposed upon him." This established the stable, two parent nuclear family and the attendant wealth that created this nations wealth and security and made it the singular worlds superpower. This then; through the miscegenation of Feminist Jurisprudence, (a socialist, anti-American radical hate group), changed these laws to the "Fathers right to custody of child is secondary to that of mother." Which is a complete reversal of foundational American law, and common law, and the maxims of law. This has brought us to Hillary’s "Village" model, a tribal model that now rages across our newspapers in scenes of horrifying wars and death and slaughter among our children. "This" is the benefits of Ms. Clinton’s "Village" waged in real time life, and—which will get much, much worse in the future.

Neither Ms. Clinton, the Legislature, nor the Courts themselves have the right to change and reform these basic laws of this nation. They have no right, no authority, no grant of power to even enter the common law—which is completely out of their domain. Our rights, and now laws, which have been bred out of the American populace, were well defined, noted and understood in earlier generations. These lessons have been lost through and by the planned destruction of our educational systems, which no longer teach these precepts, and; as the High School students in Miami found out—once anyone tries to exercise those rights, they will be arrested and thrown out of school, and jailed, which is an education to what really is happening in our schools and nation.

"We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there by any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest mean fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that a man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

[Documents of American History, Vol. 1, to 1898, Ninth Edition, by Henry Steele Commanger, @1973 by Prentice Hall, Inc., Inglewood Cliffs, New Jersey, ISBN 0-13-216994-0, "Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, p. 187.]

History has answered this question time and time again, and we as a nation have forgotten those lessons which were learned and won by outright slavery, blood and great human sacrifice. Yet today, we fetidly allow such treason’s as national public policy to not only allow such un-American doctrines to exist, and permeate our Court and Legislative systems of government, but also to have these malefactors proliferate fraudulently presented social doctrines to us in the name of the law. Hillary and those of her ilk pretends that she is an Angel among us—she is not. She is this nations greatest enemy, for she is the Lifeguard, drowning the swimmer.

Again, these false laws propagated from an elite cabal of special interests who have met anywhere from 50 to 100 years ago, (and still presently meet) and their plans are just taken fruition. Clearly, this disjuncture of the law cannot be explained within any legal reason. It was bludgeoned upon an unsuspecting American public through the creation of the national bogeyman: "The Father." Again, amazingly, the people through their mass visceral instincts bought into this fantastic choreography. This is a great danger to us, for it shows, a symbiotic link with the German Judges of the Weimar regime who were so willingly employed in the overturning of their own laws which protected humanity in order to institute inhumanity. Our simplistic and treasonous Judges have similarly overturned the well-known precepts of Western Civilization itself—something well documented within their own maxims of laws, and mandated through their job performance, as such as we have proven in Fanning v. Fanning. They have then overtly attacked the basis and foundation of our good organic laws of this nation, and replaced them with a fallow and inhumane substitute—which has knowingly wrecked havoc upon this nation.

For profit.

This again can be seen from comparisons between the Digest and Secundum above. The digest notes: "In general, as the Father is by law clearly entitled to the custody of his child, the court will so far interfere as to issue the writ of Habeas Corpus and inquire into the circumstances of the case, in order to prevent a party entitled to the custody of a child from seeking it by force or stratagem. And the court will feel bound to restore the custody to the father, where the law has placed it." Again, the point is clearly presented here in both reason and law that by some ‘devious’ "force or stratagem" a child is wrongfully taken, the court in accordance with every law known to mankind must return that errantly stolen property back to its rightful owner under the Clean Hands doctrine of law.

Now however, due to the inconsistencies and illogic of modern Feminist Jurisprudence in which our courts have treasonously embraced—now the mother can steal the child and move to another state, and the court will not punish her—not only that—they will proactively protect her! There are cases to where the Father is paying his child support, and the state, who knows where the mother is, and dutifully sends her share of his theft to her—yet; they will refuse to disclose the location of the child to the father! So under this new mindset, if you have "unclean hands" and are a woman—the courts will protect you by overt acts and omission of laws and procedure. "Mother’s disobedience of foreign decree forbidding her to remove child from state has been held not such misconduct as precluded, as matter of law, from availing herself of statute providing that wife of citizen of another state who has resided within state six months successively, separately from husband, shall have exclusive custody of minor children living with her, since wife need not be blameless to avail herself of statute, but question is merely whether misconduct renders her unsuitable person to have custody." This is clearly anti-law, and many fathers including myself, have suffered from this malady of the government not performing, in accordance with law, once the mother broken the laws by stealing the child. Women, now have a license to steal against men, verified not only in law and statute, but also by voluminous outrageous and past criminal performance of the courts and all Administrative Agencies linked to them. Clearly, this is a subornation of law, it is an affront to Statewide comity issues as guaranteed under our form of government and between each of the states. Presently, under the new "Feminist" mindset—these clear acts and omissions are obliterating legal jurisprudence to where it is not only not dependable, but rather it has become arrogantly criminal in act and performance. No longer is Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution have any legal effect for fathers: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State, And the Congress may by General Laws prescribe the Manner in which such acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." This legal paradox has created an unacceptable environment for the adjudication of issues within ‘our’ court systems, to where presently; there is a ever widening hatred and estrangement from these illegal and criminal tribunals whom uphold such idiocy.

"Practically speaking, the paradox of totalitarianism is power is that the possession of all instruments of governmental power and violence in one country is not an unmixed blessing for a totalitarian movement. Its disregard for facts, its strict adherence to the rules of a fictitious world, becomes steadily more difficult to maintain, yet remains as essential as it was before. Power means a direct confrontation with reality, and totalitarianism in power is constantly concerned with overcoming this challenge. Propaganda and organization no longer suffice to assert that the impossible is possible, that the incredible is true, that an insane consistency rules the world; the chief psychological support of totalitarianism fiction--the active resentment of the status quo, which the masses refused to accept as the only possible world--is no longer there; every bit of factual information that leaks through the iron curtain, set up against the ever-threatening flood of reality from the other nontotalitarian side,

[The Origins of Totalitarianism, by Hannah Arendt, @1951, 1958, 1966 by Hannah Arendt, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., New York, Library of Congress Cat. Card No.: 66-22273, pp. 391-392]

This ‘new’ and ‘modern’ gestation of laws which enslave the father, and ultimately throw the ultimate possession and control of our children away to an ever omniscient state, is a stupidity, legion in the time of man. Indeed, Jefferson’s warning about finding Angles’ among the multitude of government workers who have been intruding deeper and deeper into our lives, to allow the state such an all pervasive authority to enter our lives at the slightest provocation [please note the ‘slippery slope’ of gun legislation, insurance laws, safety legislation and environmentalism as well as a host of other steady incursions into micro-management of our daily lives by government], is not only creating absolute pandemonium and havoc in today’s headlines, but; in the future, will have a super-deadly effect upon humanities hopes for any freedom, liberty or justice. These acts of course go directly to the root of the Fathers Rights problem. First, these supposed violations of law are brought against the father by everyone receiving a benefit from his economic destruction. Secondly, the law, from its inception, flatly prohibits such outrageous perversion of the "law."

Administrative agencies act as judges in cases in which they are also prosecutors and so, in effect, act as judges in their own cases.

Many of these agencies entertain complaints, institute investigations upon them, begin what are in effect prosecutions before themselves, allow their own subordinates to act as advocates for the prosecution, and often make the adjudication’s in conference with those same subordinates. All this runs counter to the most elementary and universally recognized principals of justice. So thoroughly grounded were the common-law judges in this principal that in no less than four cases between Coke and Holt the courts laid down that even an Act of Parliament could not make one a judge in his own case. As an American court put it:

"One of the rights secured to an accused person by the law of the land is that his accuser shall not at the same time be his judge; that is a principle of law that is fundamental; it is the first requisite to a fair and impartial trial; it is a privilege that the law of the land guarantees to every man when his life or liberty, good name, fame or property is involved."

[Administrative Agencies and the Law, by Roscoe Pound, Dean, Law School of Harvard University, April 1946.]

Most fathers must be aware of this common law principal and maxim. The reason for this if because every single person involved in this magical ‘crime’ has a vested money interest in destroying him. From secret "retirement fund" deals with the County Supervisors which pay Judges $2.00 towards their retirement fund for every guilty person the convict, to things such as Government Code 77000 or other "Trial Court Funding Acts" which allow counties, and everyone in the court system to be ‘reimbursed’ (i.e. "funded") by the state and federal governments by finding you guilty. Again, for every Father found guilty, from the pretended "Public Defender" to Bailiff, to the Court Reporter, the supposed "welfare mother," right up to the Judge himself has got his hand in the money till. All of them have a pecuniary interest in destroying you and finding you guilty. This is how the Krell Welfare Machine runs. It lets one person have a dream and absolute freedom with no concomitant responsibility while at the same exact time, it is destroying another human being. This is a huge point and a huge crime presently being committed by these Anti-Constitutional "undefined" court systems. And everyone within these systems knows exactly what is going on, the fully understand their criminal intent and participation in this horrid cannibalistic design, and they willingly participate in obtaining their "daily bread."

Please take note of the full page ad placed in the Village Voice with the large exclamatory Please Join Us! emblazoned above the whole ad in large point type:

"Lawyers try judicial end around Federal Child Abuse Rules--"Activist" lawyers have filed a federal class action suit designed to thwart the efforts of the Giuliani Administration to protect abused children in New York City, and to effectively block the City from complying with new federal child abuse reforms.

In the wake of the notorious murder of 6-year-old Elisa Izquierdo by her crack-addicted mother in 1995, Mayor Giuliani directed caseworkers to emphasize the safety of children rather than the failed family preservation policy that rewards child abusers with special services. Congress similarly acted to curb family preservation in 1997 with passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act directing states not to make repeated efforts to reunify families where parents have killed, tortured or sexually abused their children, and to move to terminate parental rights in cases of death or severe injury.

As we reported two weeks ago, the NY State Assembly is preparing to thumb its nose at this new law and risk the loss of $450 million in federal funds by passing a bill that would make it harder to remove abused children from brutal homes. The Assembly bill is unlikely to become law, however, given the opposition of the State Senate and Gov. Pataki. So attorneys with the Center for Law and Social Justice have gone to court in an attempt to do a judicial end-run around the new federal rules. In a federal court suit they accuse the City of discriminating against African-American and Latino parents (by acting to protect African-American and Latino Children) -- and ask the court to establish procedures for removing children. In other words, they are seeking the classic judicial trump card -- a court decree that will preempt federal and state law and lock in family preservation in New York. CCI is considering joining with child advocates in intervening in the suit on behalf of the kids.

[The Village Voice, February 16, 1999, --Weekly Update Ad from the Center for the Community Interest, 114 East 32nd Street, Suite 604 New York, NY 10016 Tel. (212) 689-6080 or FAX (212) 689-6370. P. 27]

As you can start to imagine, this is incredibly big business. It’s all about money—nothing more. And instead of these Elite’s who now wholesale work in a theatre of anti-law and complete corporate Feminist Mythology, are not funded to buy tanks and rifles (although they do have those through the embodiment and embrace of the state), they now kill Fathers and Families through Ads such as these, and TV commercials and Radio spots. They do this to maintain the mythology of this war, and to keep "that an insane consistency rules the world; the chief psychological support of totalitarianism fiction--the active resentment of the status quo, which the masses refused to accept as the only possible world--is no longer there; every bit of factual information that leaks through the iron curtain, set up against the ever-threatening flood of reality from the other nontotalitarian side." You have in this as the classic Feminist mantra’s noted in this book. "Save the Children! Save the Children!!" It is the only side being upheld or propagated within the media. Any intent to bring in any other issue, or mindset—like Hannah Arendt classically notes above about totalitarian regimes—is not just a direct threat to the mythology of the feminists, it is a wartime assault, and they will call their elite cadre above them for "more funding" and "more grants," which of course, burdens not only society, but the Fathers even more.

A poignant example was brought to my attention one day when I was walking through several antique stores in Venice beach in California. There I was perusing through the various items, fascinated by their artwork, design—their smell and the way each item called back a previous history of classical Americana. I came across a bunch of War posters from World War I, and II; and fanned through them, reading their supporting treatise as to why we were going to war, how we should live, and support the war, what sacrifices we must make as a society so that we might prevail. Then one stopped me dead in my tracks as I read it’s bold assertion: "Save Our Children from Autocracy" it exclaimed, warning of a fascist regime willing to overpower the American precepts of home and family. I was stunned when I read it, because it affirmed we as a nation, once used this precept to defend ourselves from foreign enemies. Now we have a domestic enemy undermining those very precepts in the full light of pretended law, and they demand we pay for this subversion.

The precept of which we fought wars over, that we "Save Our Children From Autocracy" has been lost through the ever shrill dissonance, rising from the Feminist encampment to "Save Our Children." To accomplish this, the family preservation has to be openly destroyed by government, and that destruction, is becoming marketed worldwide. No longer can we defend our children from autocracy, and no other nation will be defend themselves from it, if we can’t.


W.L. George, who quoted in V.F. Calverton’s book The Bankruptcy of Marriage, said: "The ultimate aim of feminism with regard to marriage is the practical suppression of marriage and the institution of free alliance." [p. 293] This ‘free alliance’ is what our courts are now emoting to Father and men across this nation. They have intentionally accepted the national Feminist doctrines of hate and persecution against the Family and the American Male, and have renounced their celebrated position as the protectorate of society, for the false doctrines of the Radical Feminist hate methodology. In the passage noted above in Legal Constitutional Decisions where the court implied that either men or society were relying on ‘varied arguments’ ingrained in the Bible itself that somehow these were flawed. This of course, is the dead-center of Radical Feminist hate doctrines which have excoriated the Bible and not only hate its doctrine, but war against it outright. Clearly, as civilization chose and supported Patriarchy as an institution, the Bible gave it voice, under law. This once document has had a magnanimous impression upon the scope of Western Civilization and most certainly; is one of the main reasons for Western Civilization’s success. To institute Radical Feminism, the feminists had to eradicate these powerful truism’s which Western Civilization advocated through the teachings of the Bible. To do this, they simply eliminated the Bible—and our fallow court system, has amazingly, complied with this radical doctrine.

"The true enemy of women skulks behind the altar. The Bible is not the word of God. The Bible is the act of men written to keep women subordinate [and] written out of the love of domination." [Quoted in The Case for Father Custody, p. 276, from a quote in the Los Angeles Times, 1 August, 1988.] Somehow, now these words have become the centerpiece of all legal decisions, yet; strangely, our Legislature and the Office of the President itself, has noted differently.

Public Law 97-280 [S.J. Res. 165]; October 4, 1982


Joint Resolution authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as "Year of the Bible"

Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made an unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the

early settlement of our nation;

Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas many of our great national leaders--among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson--paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as in the words of President Jackson that the Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests";

Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the

teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families and societies;

Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this nation as it has

never been tested before; and

Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can

strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

Approved October 4, 1982


Congressional Record, Vol 128

Mar 31, Considered and passed Senate

Sept 21, Considered and passed House

1 US Cong and Admin News 82-29 96 STAT 1211

Strangely, this public law accords the Bible and its doctrine, in a Christian nation—a very special place within our laws. Yet, the courts, and both Legislative and Executive Branches of government scream differently. Amneus also cites Judy Mann saying "Christianity, patriarchy, and abuse are all wrapped up together, and together they doom girls to second class citizenship." [From The Case for Father Custody, by Dr. Daniel Amneus p. 268] Yet, clearly, the Feminist doctrine of complete hate and eradication of the Bible and its influences is now rote public policy as dictated in error of law, by and errant Judiciary which has become the ground zero norm for Radical Feminist and other hate groups which hate the Christian heritage and teaching of the Holy Bible. There can be no disputing the facts here, feminist have undermined our Christian Heritage which supports the Father and Family, and they have through an unseen elite regime implemented Anti-Americanism along with a Anti-Christian indoctrination within the law, in which, is in direct contravention to our foundational laws! Simply put: the Feminists, in conjunction with the courts, along with an unseen Elite Regime has undermined America.

What is most surprising, is that the feminists in their most celebrated document, the 1848 Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions invokes God as a fundamental precept in which to gain ‘equality’!!

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one in which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them...

....That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...

[Documents of American History, Vol. 1, to 1898, Ninth Edition, by Henry Steele Commanger, @1973 by Prentice Hall, Inc., Inglewood Cliffs, New Jersey, ISBN 0-13-216994-0, "172. WOMENS RIGHTS, The Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, July 19, 1848" , p. 315.]

Impress these factual words upon any modern Feminist, and they will be caught in the paradox of their own making in which Hannah Arendt noted previously about Totalitarian regimes. Simply put, they cannot both hate the bible and demand it’s eradication, then under their own feminist formative doctrines seek equality under God, and claim those freedoms under American governance which invokes those same principals! The modern Feminist movement is proactively trying to dismantle both God and Christian doctrine within this society, all while claiming and asserting their freedoms under those same foundational precepts which they emulate and borrow from our Declaration of Independence. What they demand in his name; they deny us in application.

When we look not only at the scope of our laws, brick by brick, we see a clear discontinuity by such inconsistencies in the feminist mindset—a complete break within the framework of modern law. We then notice a new set of Draconian laws starting out of the complete ether, with no basis in law or logic, and which have more designs on radical Social revolution or outright fascism than they do in American law, governance or even reason.

When we look at what effects such a draconian mind-set has impressed upon this society, we see that this has had a social upheaval and such a negative impact upon society that in less than a generation it has turned a free American form of society, virtually first in all social indicators across the spectrum, to a Socialist society almost dead last in every social category but a few short years after implementation. Presently, we live in a highly emblematic Police State, with closed forms of redress in a Autocratic Totalitarian Fascist State which is more apt to deny freedom than to protect them.

The place in which the courts once provided protection in truth, reason, principles and justice; and even in Biblical precepts has been lost to a meaner more base agenda—one driven with special interests and purposes, based on illogic and the total acquisition of power. More importantly, a complete theft of a gender of citizens, the American male; all to fund this new Imperialistic order of Ms. Clinton’s, whose intent it is to ‘redesign humanity.’

Contemporary Judges, Lawyers, Legislatures, right down to individual social workers and special interest groups, fully understand their Anti-American agenda. They inculcate the Morbius Imprinting They have used this nations Patriarchal Institutions’ natural endowment to seek justice, to gain a toehold upon an American mindset—and to replace that mindset with their own--which now kills the institution which allowed such fair assessments and hearings in the first place. Its intent is to replace it with an unmovable mind-set of the Socialist-Autocratic fascist society. The blueprint of this social revolution is well documented throughout feminist history. The only betrayal here has been by the courts and the Legislature’s who have abandoned the free-American Patriarchal model and have replaced it with a totalitarian Socialist State. If anything, such as the Constitution or even the Bible stood in their way, these Feminists, backed by an unseen Elite Regime: just annihilated it.

From this seizure upon the American landscape, we see the legacy of the results within our society of this social revolutionary war: children no longer able to pray within our Christian societies public school system; no manger’s at any public building; children seized and taken out their family’s home for but teaching Constitutionalism or Christian belief; no morality issues being able to be raised within ‘Family’ or ‘Divorce’ courts; removal of the Ten Commandments from public building’s; essentially a complete destruction of the moral society to be replaced by a Fascist-Autocratic amoral society.

This has proliferated generations of amoral children with no hope or dreams, who wage war upon society for they have none of the inner control mechanisms of morality and law which come from the inner sanctum of the home. Such as twenty-one year-old Jokie Para, a full-time female gangster from Los Angeles California. She related on CBS’s television show Crime and Justice, which aired on Friday February 20, 1999 about the LA riots and how everyone was looting. "I wanted to say I done it." She says casually. She then tells about a coffee maker which she brought back into her parents house, and how her father would never use it, angry that she had stolen it in that melee. "For years, he wouldn’t use it," she says quizzically. "He has something—uhhmmm—called morals I think." [Crime and Justice, Cynthia McFaddle reporting, Television broadcast on Thursday, February 11 1999, Ch. 07 NYC]

This is the feminist product of what our contemporary courts and Legislatures have knowingly embraced and continue to embrace and develop, even though they fully understand and have been presented with, and can readily see the fact that anarchy is reigning throughout the society. They have turned their backs insolently to the quiet internal regulation that once inhabited the family through their support of decisions such as Fanning v. Fanning which protected Fatherhood. Instead, they have created and sustain an altruistic syllogism under an iron fist of terror, applied directly against men, and more especially against Fathers, and then watch the resultant pandemonium and anarchy; all with the hopes of having the social Elite create through government yet more altruistic programs in which to manage the conflagrations in which the courts and legislatures have set upon us all.

These new amoral standards which Feminist Jurisprudence imbue have established a Leviathan of Socialist program’s in which to profit from and ‘manage’ these new problems in which to benefit from and enlarge the problems that the courts before managed simply by allowing the home to be a home, a father a father, and the precepts of morality in the law, and perhaps even ingrained in the Bible to take their proper form and function. Now, allowing proper form and function is sexist—while amorality and draconian injustice in anarchy is considered rule of law.

A microcosm of this construct could be seen 50 years ago after WWII after the defeat of Japan. Feminist Icon Beate Sirota, a 22 year old graduate of Mills college and a Japanese American national and ardent feminist was selected by Washington to help with the restructuring of Japan. (Just as America is presently being ‘restructured’) She was placed on a secret committee in Japan, consisting of all Americans, to rewrite that nations constitution. No Japanese citizen had any inkling about this Elite cabal of foreigners who were intent on changing the national character of Japan. This committee’s work was done in secret and was highly classified. Ms. Sirota was in charge of implementing Feminist rights into Japans ‘new’ constitution, which she did; and which now—are a part of Japan’s present day constitution. [NBC Nightline, with Ted Koppel, Wednesday, February 10, 1999, 11:30PM, Ch. ]

The same exact thing has happened in the United States. There has been a take-over of this government by a Radical Feminist minority, and those Elite’s who saw that they could not only profit from it, but also seize power allowed this alien mindset to take over this government behind closed doors. Then, they had public meetings and ‘hearing’s’ and backfilled the laws so that it would look ‘legal’. "Oh!" these figureheads will now say; "we had open public hearings on that in the 1970’s when we held the National Advisory Council on Women’s Educational Programs, or the National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts; or the National S.E.E.D. Project on Inclusive Curriculum; or The National Commission on the Observance of International Woman’s Year; or the National Women’s Education Fund; or the National Women’s Conference; etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. They used these special meetings, only open to those select, highly radical feminists in which to ‘fundamentally change American society,’ in direct contravention to our laws. No ‘Fathers Rights’ groups or advocates representing the ‘other side’ were never there. Indeed, only a select few people are ever even invited into these sacrosanct assemblies.

Like the Japanese plebecite of WWII, we hardly knew what was happening as we really were never informed, although; many of us can openly see the war and more importantly—like the anonymous Taxi cab driver that noted earlier that we were ascending while devolving at the same time—everyone knows in their heart that something is very, very wrong here in the United States. "Something" is very much broke.