Site hosted by Build your free website today!


"You guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now its our turn."

--- Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall

[From: The Court Years, 1939-1975: The Autobiography of William O. Douglas (New York: Random House, 1980), p. 149. Citing the first reverse-discrimination case DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)]




One of the most unnerving aspects of the American Feminist revolution is the aspect that this is a tyrannical organization whose main tenant’s stem out of hate. They are a publicly funded organizations who hate Men, Patriarchy, the Bible Family life, Law and personal responsibility. They have used the Patriarchal sense of Justice and Fair play and turned them against itself, in which to at first gain its goals, then; once accomplished to wreck an unequal havoc against all those who are not "Politically Correct" and who do not agree with them. From gaining their own special interest social advances, they now are ‘remaking’ law in which to shut out everyone else who do not uphold their Feminist doctrines. They lie, cheat and have become a secret closed society within our main systems of government. Such things as ‘bean count’s’ and open purges of government employees has become common-place within the specter of this totalitarian mindset. They have become the worst of which this nation has combated against, for the encompass the worst of Socialism, Communism, Fascism and Totalitarianism all rolled into one. It has become widely recognized, that Feminism, has gained the status of being a religion, all the while encompassing the complete domain of our form of Government.

."To handle social obligations and interdependency in the 21st Century, we must abandon any illusion that we can or should revive some largely mythical traditional family. We need to invent new family traditions and find ways of reviving older community ones, no wallow in nostalgia for the past or heap contempt on people whose family values do not live up to ours."

[The Way We Never Were, Stephanie Coontz, p. 278.]

"Consider such slogans, circulating in the early 1990s on bathroom walls: ‘Dead men tell no lies,’ " ‘Dead men don’t rape!’ ‘The way to a man’s heart is through his chest.’ So many men. So little ammunition.’ The individual man is not relevant, all men serve as symbolic targets. And this is true alone a wide continuum, from permissibly sexist jokes about men to the applause garnered by women who kill. The message being conveyed is that women, being blameless, are entitled to victimize without consequence. It was in that context that Aileen Wuornos killed and in that climate of sanctimonious wrath that she gained her sympathizers. As Candice Skrapec observed in 1993, in an essay about serial killers, ‘A woman’s anger and need for empowerment will be directed at the power-brokers, those she has experienced as victimizing her. She will seek to punish them for being men.’ With what result? "The victim becomes the victimizer.’"

[When She was Bad, Patricia Pearson, p. 232.]

"In regard to the institutional church all women who are both Catholic and feminist desire passionately the conversion of the institution from the sin of sexism and know that this requires a full and final repudiation of Patriarchy."

[Beyond Patching, Sandra Schnieders, p. 108.]


These few short quotes lay the foundation of hate which successfully emanates from feminism. These women, contrary to what happens to other persons who utter even lesser offensive and threatening material, get widely published, go on speaking tours, and are regarded by the mainstream media as ‘experts’ and are presented to a national audience by the media to spread these views. If men inadvertently speak as such, they are thrown out of their jobs, out from their positions on campuses, and out of the mainstream media.

Strangely, feminist hate is either viewed as innocuous, or as okay by both the media and government. What is most odd, is many of these people who carry these misanthropic hate doctrines are females who also work in the Social Services sector of Government: at Colleges and Universities, in Affirmative Action, in Health and Human Services, Child Support, in our Courts, and the range of other Support Industries linked both to radical feminism and government social services or even the media. These entities have turned a blind eye to either the constitution and this nations Laws. They only have a either narrow or broad view of their powers (as the circumstance dictates such need), and rule arrogantly, in direct violation of their oath of office. As was discussed earlier, many of these people don’t even believe in our form of Government; worse yet; is that they don’t believe in many of the Institutions which made America free in the first place. They are on top of the food chain now, in government, in the media, with very lucrative benefits and salaries, and they do not care about anything else than their own interests. They then use their own "practices, policies and procedures" to ‘go after’ and even-out any score or agenda which they want served. They even go after their own, if it serves their political purposes:

Spock faced the underlying anger engendered by his book at the 1971 National Women’s Political Caucus meeting in Washington, D.C., whose endorsement he hoped to gain. Before his speech, Eugene McCarthy was chastised for missing the Senate vote on the Equal Rights Amendment and for calling his secretaries: "girls." Given the tenor of the meeting, some friends tried to talk Ben out of getting up at the podium, but he wouldn’t hear of it. He had nothing to be ashamed of. After all, Spock knew that millions of American women had bought the book and expressed their gratitude for helping to elevate the role of motherhood, calling upon men to help share the responsibilities of parenthood.

When he climbed up on stage, Ben received a chilly response. Once audience member marched out shouting denunciations at him. He immediately apologized for previous writings that could be construed as sexist. In response to questions, he promised to review the text for any female stereotyping, and reiterated his long-standing belief in equal child-rearing obligations for parents. Somehow, Dr. Spock’s mea culpa didn’t seem sufficient. During one dramatic encounter, Gloria Stienheim, perhaps the best-known feminist in the room, tried to summarize the reasons for the ill will.

"I hope you understand," Steinheim continued, "The you are considered a symbol of male oppression—just like Freud."

Spock was dumb founded. He stood silently at the podium in his archetypal doctors suit, all six feet, four inches of alleged male chauvinism, weighing his words. He looked drained. News accounts of the meeting later suggested that Steinhem’s declaration had shamed Spock into a form of nolo contendere. Even decades afterward, Ben remembers Stienem’s words as "really scornful."

[Dr. Spock, An American Life, by Thomas Maier, ©1996, Harcourt Brace & Company, 6277 Sea Harbor Drive, Orlando, FL 32887-6777; ISBN 0-15-100203-7, pp. 353-354.]

Again, this is a blindness, and hatred, which now inhabits every corridor of power within this nation. It infects our governments, it is a cancer upon our nations Universities, it is openly taught in our public schools; and it is a putrid reality dragging down both private industry and the home This twisted mindset, because again; men try to be fair like Mr. Spock above—has permeated society beyond the Radical Feminists wildest dreams. I argued with a friends wife who was an ardent feminist about an issue one time, intellectually repudiating each and every one of her arguments. Finally, in exasperation she blurted: "Well, men have been in charge since the dawn of time, its our turn now." This of course proves exactly what is happening throughout feminism and within government. Under their perverse morality, they think that two wrongs make a right. They are directly defying even the highest Constitutional law, fully aware that the courts will protect their criminal activities—thereby—since ‘they’ are in charge now, they will rule with as much antagonism and tyrannical authority that they can inflict. This of course has a label: "Administrative Absolutism" others even call it "Judicial Imperialism.".

"First we must put excessive zeal—one might often say crusading zeal—on the part of officials and particularly on the part of subordinates, which leads them to see their relatively narrow task out of proportion. This was notably shown under the regime of national prohibition. Those who had enforcement of the National Prohibition Act in charge were so impressed with the transcendent importance of the task before them that they often assumed in entire good faith that all other considerations must give way before the supreme one of enforcing the statute at all costs. Constitutional guarantees, individual rights, the ordinary decencies of investigation and of procedure were by zealous officials held impertinent to be observed."

[Administrative Agencies and the Law, by Roscoe Pound, Dean, Law School of Harvard University, April 1946. P. 16.]

Feminism goes beyond this into a religious fervor—yet, amazingly; it sits embedded throughout government accruing huge grants to fund it’s religious zeal and doctrines. From this, they obtain huge monies to ‘redesign’ the home, family and society—something which is not within their proper function. Yet they pretend these powers—as nobody is powerful enough to stop these Madwomen, such as Ms. Clinton and other Radical Feminists. Contrary to their belief, neither the Patriarchal family nor foundational American government have to be ‘redesigned’ and any attempts are in fact; a war raged upon unsuspecting American’s by a new self-proclaimed Elite regime which dares these fundamental changes. Because of this, as anyone presently can see by reading any newspaper—this nation presently is in real trouble, especially taken in the light that we are supposedly, at a time of profound peace. But how can there be peace with Feminists? It is an oxymoronic assertion as they are willingly ready to enforce their zeal upon all of us as revenge for supposed injustices placed upon them by Patriarchy, which of course was fair enough to allow them to share this power in the first place...this fact has not happened in other Patriarchal regimes who still do not let women share power, yet; our American Patriarchal construct was different, and the fairness ran throughout this society, from individual homes, to the general society itself...yet feminist compromised this sense of justice, equity and fair play. They undermined it, seized power—and now are ruling through war and tyranny.

In return, Radical Feminists have espoused a doctrine which is not only shocking to the consciousness of every good citizen, but an affront to civilized life itself.


From these quotes, you can see a deep religious, Anti-American abyss in which the Radical Feminists have dug for themselves. What is so odd about this, is that from these queer and inflammatory remarks, they have not been driven out of the institutions of government, nor out from the media’s purview—like other hate groups such as the KKK or the vast Radical Religious "Right-Wing Conspiracy"--as we discussed earlier, the opposite has occurred. They have been embraced by these elite run and controlled institutions. However, it is from these base comments such as these that most American’s can clearly recognize as hate-speech, that this is an organization and a belief system that cannot be worked with. Not only can’t this system be worked with—as we have stated over and over in this book, it is a communist model empowered by our own government, to undermine the very basis of our American way of life:

So that just to assure the elimination of the economic classes requires a revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and, in a temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of control of reproduction: not only the full restoration to women of ownership of their own bodies, but, also their (temporary) seizure of control of human the end goal of Feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first Feminist movement, not just the elimination of the male privilege, but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human being would no longer matter culturally....the division of labour would be ended by the elimination of labour altogether (through cybernetics). They tyranny of the biological family would be broken. [Firestone p. 19.]

[Men on Top, and Feminist Lies, by J. Mitchell, Psychoanalysis and Feminism, Middlesex, Penguin, 1975, p. 70.]

Just like the RCA logo, the dog, curiously looking into the speaker to where his master’s voice mysteriously emanates from a magical source, the American public has listened to these raving lunatics embedded throughout feminism (and now our government)--and we wonder how they ever came to power and how they keep in power. Indeed, this scene gravitated to even the most ridiculous levels when President Clinton was charged time and time again of sexual assault, sexual harassment and even worse: outright rape—and the American public only heard an immutable silence from what was normally a belligerent faction in these feminist enclaves. Indeed, people are no longer just shaking their head at the upside down world of Feminist Jurisprudence—they are completely lost all faith in all Institutions aligned with this radical organization. Simply put: everyone really doesn’t want to deal with these people anymore—they are well recognized liars, hypocrite’s, and petty tyrants. They have left a disgusting taste in many peoples mouths’ and needlesslyruined many lives who have seen many perverse things aligned with them, which of course make people listen and turn their heads quizzically, exactly like the RCA dog when they hear these outrageous things such as these outrageous quotes above. "Did they really say/pass this law/do this?!?" they wonder in outright amazement. This is not only confined to law and politics, but the feminist especially hate the formal basis of Patriarchy, which is found within our own religion: Christianity. As we have shown earlier, this fact is backed by Congressional, and Presidential mandate—yet, the Feminists hate this institution with a vengeance.

It was a temptation to call this chapter "Sisterhood as Cosmic Church" in order to express some of the movement’s elements that are in dialectical tension with is mode of being antichurch. However, the negative reactions of feminist to the term are warning enough. Betty Friedan expressed this gut feeling by remarking simply that "the Church is the enemy."

[Men on Top, and Feminist Lies, by J. Mitchell, Psychoanalysis and Feminism, Middlesex, Penguin, 1975, p. 155.]

Of course this religious hatred has been added into the Feminists zeal to destroy men. For instance, it has helped pass many laws which are blatantly unconstitutional. These laws use the premise that it’s okay to abandon every American constitutional precept in the name of "saving the child," and in the "best interests of the child." Of course, the State Legislatures have gone blind to the requirements of a law being Constitutionality upheld, and the courts have become nothing more than a slavish extension of the Legislatures which are nothing more than an extension of the feminists.

"An example is New York State’s Megan’s Law, officially known as the Sex Offender Registration Act. Under its provisions, offenders must register with the state'’ Division of Criminal Justice Services within ten days of being released from prison. Some offenders must then verify their home address annually for ten years. High-risk offenders must keep in touch every 90 days. When Governor George Pataki signed the law early in 1996, he declared: "This will make New York’s communities safer for our children."

He’s wrong. So is the law. The best intentions—and they abound in the case of victimized children and their pained survivors—don’t always result in good laws. Megan’s Law is an example. It won’t resurrect Megan or protect her peers. It certainly won’t rehabilitate child molesters, which is the action society needs to take to guard youngsters. Warning parents about a potential threat to their children is a worthwhile goal, but Megan’s Law is so unconstitutional that it can’t survive a serious challenge in the courts."

[Sexual Violence, Opposing Viewpoints, Mary E. Williams, Tamara L. Roleff, editors, ©1997, Greenhaven Press, Inc., P.O. Box 289009, San Diego, CA 92198-9009; p.163.]

Unfortunately, this "expert" is wrong. It will pass "constitutional muster"—not because the law is constitutional in any way, mind you, but rather because it is exactly ‘unconstitutional’ and thereby; these errant and criminal courts will pass and administer such laws—and will prevent them from being overturned. We can no longer trust our court systems or our Legislature’s to do the correct things. No longer do they have "constitutional eyes," like every great tyrant of the past, these courts have an unconstitutional tenor attached to them, like totalitarian regimes, their logic is indefinable, to where "the impossible becomes possible, the implausible, true." This, along with the willing conspiracy of government has given them the basic building blocs of outright fascism:

Fascist Party The feminist party is a "fascist" party, which is defined as:

    1. Suppress the opposition brutally
    2. Remove rights, access to children, family role, reputation

    3. Exalts race and nation over individual
    4. Elevate (children & women) rights over father’s

    5. Central strong autocratic government
    6. [government Providing and Protection System] invade families in the seven "C" {areas]: Courts, Collection Agency, Crisis Shelters, Cops, Custody Battles, Child Access, Custody Investigator.

    7. Severe economic and social regimentation

[government] approved / enforced justice, and party speech codes

Nazi The fascism in the feminist party explains much of what we will come to know. Most of us however are not familiar with the word ‘fascist,’ but we do know the word "nazi" which is defined as:

    1. Member of fascist party controlling Germany under Hitler.
    2. One who is like or similar to a nazi

Feminazi Using the dictionary we have verified Rush Limbaugh’s label "FEMINAZI" to be the correct label for this revolutionary group. (The feminazis have shown more chutzpah than Hitler’s nazis by choosing a target group that is half the population!)

[Where Have All the Good Fathers Gone? Child Support and Custody, by Douglas O’Brien, ©1997, Skid 18 Press, P.O. Box 60630, Fairbanks, AK 99706; ISBN 0-9637496-2-5; p 14.]

They emote fascism because they have been captured by the hate that this new Feminist Elite impress upon themselves. It is not law which controls our courts or public institutions any longer: it’s hate. Hate rules within our Courts, within every state Legislature, and throughout all executive Branches of our government.

"At Yale an unstoppable force met an immovable object: The liberal Bill Clinton met the conservative professor Robert H. Bork, an expert on constitutional law. Clinton disagreed with most of what Bork taught him in class. Years later, when Bork was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, Clinton remembered those lectures at Yale. He submitted written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee suggesting that they should reject Bork’s nomination because of his interpretations of constitutional and civil and individual rights.

[Hillary, Her True Story, by Norman King ©1993, A Birch Lane Press Book, Carol Publishing Group, 600 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10022, p. 40.]

This all encompassing hatred is why we have Police seizing cars for "drunk driving," in direct violation of American Law, even before that American citizen has gone to court and been found guilty a specific requirement under our form of law. Now, you are found guilty and pay a penalty long before you even enter a court. Not only that, but under American Law, for one crime you are supposed to receive one penalty—now—especially in the Fathers Rights arena—for one crime, you get multiple penalties!! Factually, any such a person is both guilty and instantly judged and penalized, long before he ever goes to pretend court thus turning over all law within our nation. This is why Child Protective Services is seizing your children even before you have gone into court or had a proper hearing. This is why American’s now openly fear their own government, and no longer worry about a ‘Communistic’ threat, or any other foreign invader; no—they worry about the IRS, CPS, Police, the DEA, FBI, BATF and a host of other Agencies and Agents who at any point in their life, can come in, steal from you, shut down your business, and destroy your life, at the slightest possible accusation, need or whim. Then, in court and in the media they will lie about it, or most likely become silent and do nothing at all. What is most disgusting is that the courts continually allow these illegalities, with absolutely no harm or penalty coming to the ‘Public Servants" implementing such illegal despotism, because if any citizen dare resist in this regime, it is they who are attacked, it is they who are expunged, it is they who are publicly dismembered, and ruined.

Of course the Constitutional oath our "Public Servants" swear an oath to says that they will do and act differently. But there are many within government presently that are a new elite, totally immune to mere mortal trifles such as the Constitution. They’re on a religious quest to either impose their own proactive agenda, or a personal quest to gain power, control and money...or even sometimes just mere self-aggrandizement. When unsuspecting American’s who are destroyed by these intentional, planned acts of terrorism by government elite, they are then entreated by those within this same system who destroyed them to: "use system’s of redress" to try and obtain justice. These same people within government are both laughing, and directly profiting from these Quixotic acts of desperation of "seeking redress":

...But when a divorcing woman’s civil rights are violated by a judge, she has little chance to redress these wrongs in the federal courts, where violations of Constitutional rights are normally addressed. The reason is that federal courts have ruled—with few exceptions—that family issues belong solely in the lower state courts. In theory, individuals can have their Constitutional rights addressed in federal court, but as Lynn Hecht Schafran, director of the Legal Defense and Educational Fund at the National Organization for Women (NOW), points out: "Realistically, you can’t [get into federal court]. I suppose in some dream world you could....But the federal courts absolutely do not want any part at all, under any circumstances, of anything having to do with domestic relations. So it is extremely difficult."

Schafran’s view is supported by case law precedent and, more recently, a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Ankenbrandt v. Richards. In that case, the Supreme Court addressed this issue very plainly when the majority accepted the existence of a "domestic relations exception" barring spouses in divorce from federal court and held that this exception applies to cases "involving divorce, alimony and child custody."

Even more recently, a 1994 law passed by Congress to curb domestic violence includes a provision to protect the civil rights of victims of gender-motivated violence, but the act specifically forbids civil rights violations in domestic relations cases from being heard in federal court. Under Subtitle C—Civil Rights for Women, the provision reads: "Neither section 1367 or title 28, United States Code, nor subsection (c) of this section shall be construed, by reason of a claim arising under such subsection, to confer on the courts of the United States jurisdiction over any State law claiming seeking the establishment of a divorce, alimony, equitable distribution of marital property or child custody decree."

Because of these rulings, Constitutional rights are not guaranteed. For example, when a state court or state agency wrongfully removes a child from its parents, this is considered a violation of a parent’s Constitutional rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on this matter, in the case of Santosky v. Kramer (New York, 1982), that the state courts "can’t terminate rights without clear and convincing evidence...." But when mothers try to use this ruling or other similar rulings to get into federal court, they may be turned away. As child rights activist Michelle Etlin explained: "I know of more than a dozen cases where the mothers suing for civil right violations perpetrated on them were kicked out of the federal courts in anywhere from fifteen minutes to two years, on the stated basis that domestic relations cases are not entitled to federal jurisdiction—even though the cases that sought federal jurisdiction were based on Santosky v. Kramer and Duchesne v. Sugarman."

[Divorced from Justice, The Abuse of Women and Children by Divorce Lawyers and Judges, by Karen Winner, ©1996, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022, ISBN 0-06-039184-7; pp. xxiii-xxiv.]

What is really sad about this is that we are just on the upswing on this wave, it hasn’t even begun to peak. State tyranny has gone beyond the common-place and has now moved into the realm of being an art-form. This is one reason why all state agencies are doing ‘bean counts,’ to get rid of all those individuals like Mr. Bork, like Clarence Thomas (and a host of others, most of whom are mostly white males) who might dare stand up within the organization and challenge their tyranny. And this is also why Fathers, and now mothers, as noted above, are getting stonewalled when they try and access these present courts for justice. We have progressed from a nation which jealously guarded our rights, into a nation to where "You have no Constitutional Rights!" has become part of our mainstream culture. Again, this is directly due to the Pandora’s Box these feminists so unwittingly (actually, I contend they intentionally) opened! They now dare complain about the system they helped pervert! They have established, and built an Anti-American monster within government which adheres to their Ani-Law precepts—and now that they need our nations courts because the monster is starting to willingly consume them too—they dare complain that the system is "unconstitutional!!!"

Unfortunately, this widespread insanity and tyranny is driving many citizens, most of them fathers, to the brink of hopelessness and despair. This is why many wives and husbands go on killing rampages upon the mere mention of divorce or separation. Because they fully understand the inner workings of the Krell Machine. They know they will be destroyed anyway’s, and thereby "resistance is futile." This insanity is also driving many more people to collectively join together and to try and combat this new domestic enemy that is buried throughout our own government. From these attempts of ‘defense,’ the government is now building even more radical Imperialist Empires, and making the most benign government institutions complete fortresses. They have turned from the "kinder and gentler" public institutions, to those armed and embattled encampments, with a complete military mindset. It is rare when you go and actually speak to real ‘persons’ within government now-a-days. Now, to hide their shame, and to protect their criminal acts; most government workers have one to three inches of bulletproof and bombproof plate glass window between them and their supposed "master" the private American citizen. This is of course, predicated on the fact that you might even meet a government in the first place—for many of our public institutions are becoming more and more faceless, nameless, and you either have a phone on the wall, or a button with a speaker near a door, or just a telephone number with an answering machine attached to it.

This is what such hatred has wrought in this nations public institutions. Sadly, there are more and more heinous laws coming against us, as there is no more constitutionality or restrained government. It has come to the point, where the American people and their own government have become the exact opposite of the Founder’s dream of a "Republican Form" of governance. The abyss is growing wider and wider, due to the pressure of reactionary and unconstitutional laws along with unlimited powers of government intrusion and outright theft and seizure. Now the government, both state and federal, are quickly establishing a set of even more draconian and unconstitutional "Anti-Terrorist" laws, pretending that America’s threat will come from abroad. The real truth and real intent of these laws is to protect government from its own people—who, because of the fact that there is no longer redress within our courts, will have to find alternative method’s to protect themselves from the tyranny and oppression of their own American government--which again, is an even more egregious affront to any hopes of re-establishing "Republican Form."

When these government Legislatures and Administrations fool themselves into passing such Anti-American, draconian laws which are nothing more than an affront and direct threat to our sacred liberties; they have completely violated their oath of office, and more importantly; they have destroyed the fabric, safety and security which binds us as one people, under one form of governance. Now those even embedded within the Feminist movement recognize what idiocy they have implemented through "Feminist Jurisprudence." Now they turn again against "a male dominated society" and blame "Lawyers, and Judges" mostly men, they assert—who planned this injustice. Of course these feminists will never admit that these bad Judges and Lawyers were taking advice and adhering and implementing Feminist Jurisprudence input from this nation’s elite socialists in how to change the courts to "save the children" in the first place!

One of the most vibrant forces in legal academia was the Critical Legal Studies Movement (described by one of its leading members as a "political location for a group of people on the Left who share the project of supporting and extending the domain of the Left in the legal academy"). In terms of scholarship, this enterprise meant applying the European literary criticism and neo-Marxist social thought to the study of legal doctrines. That, in turn, meant dismissing old notions of legal reasoning as historical artifact or the will of the dominant classes. For "the crits" (as they were known), law was a hegemonic struggle for power, and the vast body of judicial decisions reflected little more than a sinister desire to perpetuate the class, gender, or racial advantages of the lawmakers.

The crits deconstructed the law, exploding what they perceived as myths about the potential for objectivity or the value of tradition, history, and the common law. The deconstructed law schools, too. Duncan Kennedy, one of the movement’s founders, went on tour as a CLS evangelist with such "modest proposals" as equalizing the pay of janitors and professors at Harvard (where he taught) and having them exchange jobs for a while. Heirs to a sixties radicalism, the charismatic leaders of CLS charmed students with their "context smashing" doctrines while a follow-up army of feminists, multiculturalists, critical race theorists, and champions of gay rights borrowed deeply from such attacks on the established order.

[Closed Chambers, The First Eyewitness Account of the Epic Struggles Inside the Supreme Court, by Edward Lazarus, ©1998, Times Books, Div. Of Random House, New York. ISBN 0-8129-2402-9; p. 236-237.]

What is sad here about such elite’s as the "Crit’s" and the Feminists is: that they had no license to change or ‘deconstruct’ our laws. One dramatic example of this outrageous abuse has been exemplified by the O.J. Simpson case. After being found innocent of murder from one jury; those people (mostly feminists) whose hatred they felt could supercede the law by using the law twice (it wasn’t law), to go after and attack him again, then again! This of course is not just a complete violation of Constitutional protections against double and triple jeopardy, but it is a violation against the sanctity of American law. These people who hate, many of them feminists who have made Mr. Simpson a lifelong advocacy cause, have somehow gained and established some super-right to supercede foundational and organic American law! These people were not satisfied with stealing Mr. Simpson’s life savings, property and most personal prized possessions—especially after he was found innocent--they now are going after his own children, in continued and complete violation of the law! This ability has become so wide-spread that they violate the law and have these violations well-publicized as if that could somehow mask their outrageous crimes. Yet, when they turn to the courts to seek justice, or redress; they are then outraged when they come in contact the same machine that they themselves designed and built, which provides only injustice; in direct contravention to our form of law and governance. Unconstitutionalism is okay for Mr. Simpson...but when feminist go into court—they demand their ‘constitutional rights’ and are outraged that they no longer have any!!!

What people latently come to understand is that these unconstitutional laws are in the final analysis, used against them, in their own homes. Contemporary American’s recognize that there are no more procedural safeguards or protections within one’s own home, as government has most arrogantly violated that sacred domain also—because the feminists demanded its deconstruction through Feminist Jurisprudence in order to overthrow the Constitutionally protected power of the Father within the home. Through their ignorance, they had no foresight as to the monster they were creating by doing so.. William Pitt and other great American’s affirmation that "the home is the castle" have been laid waste by these new self-proclaimed, unconstitutional Imperialistic powers. Now all our children are at risk in being consumed by Hillary’s Village. Something as innocuous as going to the Dentist could wind up with seizure of you child—for your child’s "best interests." What is sad is and most terrifying; is that they haven’t completed their total program of terrorism yet. We have yet to see uncovered the complete Krell Machine that still awaits all of us.

Again, one design of this system is to undermine this form of government. The present system is seamless at accomplishing this by undermining the Father. Once the Father is criminalized, he then becomes civilly dead. (Actually, in all truth; it is Civil Murder). This murder is a very convenient tool to the Clinton’s and their Feminist regime who want more and more power. Since they can’t get more American people, they implement the reverse logic, they remove the citizens who are against their programs by criminalizing them. Once a Father had been so marked, then; that reduces his chances of entering public office. This of course happened in Chico where I lived where one gentleman who was an ardent activist and wanted to enter into the political domain to make changes.

Of course once he entered the race, his past "Deadbeat Dad" issue became a pre-eminent issue with the media who wouldn’t let it go. This of course dashed his hopes and he lost all such community support completely. Again, this feminist design doesn’t end there; it also moves to the vote itself—for after a father becomes a felon over this, he then loses his right to vote. Strangely, the Feminists do not lose their vote by and from their criminal acts—but more and more men are due exactly to this perversion. What is happening is that the Father’s side of representation is slowly being eroded away. We are quickly becoming a nation of professional voters, to where only a small, special interest class is voting. This impact has disheartened the whole spectrum of American voters, who clearly recognize the fact that there is no longer hope or redress through voting. This has biased voting groups to the Feminist side, and especially government side, thereby establishing an environment to where they can propose and pass even more Anti-American and unconstitutional laws, then from their passage, like Megan’s Law, revengefully declare that such unconstitutional laws are thereby "the law" when in fact, they are Anti-Law.

Such political acts are not laws, but only special interest tools of social control.

Again the political component of this Feminist hatred schemes other dogmatic designs which spill-over into gun ownership and other more direct domestic issues. This hatred has allowed the accomplishment of many other Feminist agenda’s, from removing men in the workforce by making them less marketable, to making them submit to every part of the Feminist regime by unbelievable standards of ‘sex speech,’ and ‘sexual harassment,’ which virtually encompasses anything they desire; to again, removing guns from citizens by force. Once the male has been undermined, or cannibalized through civil murder by the political force of feminism, then; his replacement goes to those whom easily bow or conform to this new political regime. Hillary and her cohorts extrude more political power each and every time they destroy a male in this society. Many within this society, especially the ignorant and untrained masses, do not comprehend the fact, of how important the Father is to the control and political structure of a nation. We are no longer trained in these arts, and thereby—the elite regime whom know and understand that fountainhead of power and understand the construct of its political nature of control—compromise this misunderstanding to their advantage and to our deficit:

These changes, of course, are the end of the story; what we encounter here at its beginning are several factors whose confluence sometime around 1600 makes it possible to understand why the family became a central category in English political thought during the Stuart period.

These factors may be summarized as follows: (1) The family had been the implicitly accepted source of society’s origins in Europe for almost 2,000 years. When one of its main implications, the inseparability of state and society, was challenged by the contract theory, the working out of an answer helped to elevate patriarchalism from a relatively unappreciated political theory to a fully rationalized doctrine. (2) Religious and conceptual changes in English society after the Reformation called attention to the family and altered the way it was perceived as well as its actual role in society. Through this new awareness, the household became more relevant to political discourse, and this new symbolization perhaps provided some added insight into the kinds of relationship that were being alleged as the prototype of all social ties. (3) A growing but still crude historical understanding and a tendency to look into the past for the normative principles that underlay the present made it possible to dispense with the teleology that had previously been associated with the tracing of political origins back to a primitive family. The teleology was replaced by a genetic doctrine in which contemporary political obligation came to be understood in terms of those origins. In short, it was possible to hold that because political power was merely an extension of natural and absolute paternal authority, the obligation of the subject to obey his sovereign was identical to the unquestioning obedience a child owed its father.

[The Authoritarian Family and Political Attitudes in 17th Century England, Patriarchalism in Political Thought, by Gordon J. Schochet, © 1988, Transaction Inc., New Brunswick, New Jersey, 08903, ISBN 0-88738-695-4, pp. 63-64.]

Unfortunately, many men within the Fathers Rights community, especially the "Joint Custody" contingent, have no comprehension of the true interaction of the Father to the Family and its relationship in delegating power and authority to the state. Indeed, there is a clear understanding that the emanation of the Patriarchal authority is in fact, the creation of all state authority. What many men in the Joint Custody encampment, give away by default, is in fact—not just control in their own families—but a whole system of government. Allow the State to replace you as a Father, and the American system of governance no longer exists. Being a Father, is a declaratory condition: "I shall rule over thee." "I will control what happens in my home." "I will tell my children how they will act in school—not you." "I am in control over my wife, my children and my property."

What is less and less amazing, if seen in the light that Feminist hatred is used as a socio-political tool, is that people in government actually go along with the subornation of the American father. Most have no idea that they are undermining our system of government through, what they consider is just a benign act. "We are ‘saving the children,’" they will inform us as they coerce Fathers to socially and politically fall on their own swords. The Feminist couldn’t have made a dent in this society if Government officials and Public Administrators and other state actors didn’t slavishly attend to these unlawful sophistries. Through the mythology of Feminism, they have allowed themselves to be led down a fallow road which has destroyed lives, and which has squandered Trillions which could have been put to more useful endeavors, all the while overturning foundational sacred laws which formed the nucleus of this nation in the first place! Now, they can’t turn off the Krell machine they have mistakenly allowed to grow, and they take offense at the injustice they have ceded to our courts and criminal Legislatures who promulgate feminism.

Of course, nobody takes responsibility for this, nor will admit their part in this hostile takeover of this nation by Radical feminists. All those within the corridors of power remain strangely mute as Feminists propagate more and more inhumane and disgusting laws and outrageous profligatery. What is even more sad is that as the Feminist driven social Pathologies and outright social destruction climbs—all these people go further, deaf, dumb and blind. They have committed so many illegal acts—that they have convoluted this system beyond repair. To do so would be to admit their own criminality, so they become silent.

We could see this perversion and inability to do the right thing, after the tragic Jonesboro, Arkansas incident, where two children killed their schoolmates in a planned armed ambush. Several of us were discussing this incident on the internet and on the phone where we had found out that both the boys were from broken homes—as most of these children are--yet another correlation of which the media refuses to make. We were discussing and permutating the realities of this issue when Le Roy Marshall suggested we contact the National Rifle Association, (NRA). We were all electrified by this suggestion, and agreed to do it. I was selected to draft an introductory letter to them, showing our analysis of these children who committed such crimes, that almost all of them came from Fatherless homes.

I mailed both a letter and the FRFS to them, and spoke to first their regional California director, who was floored by our information then suggested I immediately call the National Director, Tom Wyld as nothing could be done without at first gaining national approval. When I spoke to these people, especially the National Headquarters Secretary, they were stunned by our research. I even spoke with the main NRA director in Washington himself; yet surprisingly, week after week, their interest strangely waned. They never used the FRFS to correlate and capture the national mindset as to what could really be happening with our children.. What was odd was, that at this time, the NRA had been getting pummeled terribly by the national media and special interest groups as guns being the cause of this incident. Again, it wasn’t guns we asserted, it was Fatherlessness—something which the national media had never considered! Yet, to this day, the NRA has remained mute on this issue.

Of course everyone whom I spoke to at the NRA was electrified by this research, not only that; they were vocally stunned at the impact of the FRFS. Yet, instead of using this research material to deflect errant assumptions by Feminists and others who had a clear agenda to remove guns from this society; the NRA did nothing! All they did was to engage in the pedantic "guns are the problem/guns are not the problem" pedantic arguments that did nothing for them, and which have become no more than a banality to the American mindset. I wonder about the true intent of the NRA administration, as this information should have been used at some level to deflect the continued national disinformation campaign which has been used to disarm this nation over the past 20 years. I don’t own a gun—so this is a tertiary argument in my main emphasis for Fathers Rights—however; this incident posed a true conundrum for me as logistically, upon the NRA getting our information, they ‘should’ have established a beach-head behind these demarcated truths. Instead, they just sat on the issue, and engaged their enemies with the pedantic ‘same-old—same old’ and got massacred throughout the press. To this day, I don’t understand why they didn’t seize upon this issue. The "Fatherless" issue, may not just be the cause of what is happening in our nations schools—it may be the answer. Yet, nobody, and I mean nobody wants to discuss this palpable issue.

We must wonder why the mass of our Public Servants and other public leaders are so willing to bow before the Feminist mindset, when clearly, other action is needed. This question goes beyond the mere purchasing or political demographics of 16 to 32 year-old American females. There is something sinister about men and leaders who do not stand up for their nations precepts in the light of such outrageous tyranny. My observations are that this inability of these people to stand up and avert such injustices, exactly parodies the installation and Nazi take-over of pre-World War Germany, which succumbed to the same power influences and which I have documented throughout this book.

Those within the corridors of power throughout this nation have got a lot of explaining to do as to why they have allowed such visceral Feminist supplied hatred to become such a successful training and subversion tool throughout our society. This is clearly not a failure of the American system, rather—it is a failure of those persons bestowed of the public trust who have errantly allowed this hatred to allow it to take hold, gain root, and flourish throughout our laws and institutions. Presently, what we as American citizens are now poised with, is a complete review and overhaul of our foundational public institutions, and most importantly, a complete review and expurgations of hundreds if not tens of thousands of clearly unconstitutional laws and public edicts which offend the true basis of this free nation.

This hatred has come a long ways where such vitriolic approbation’s would have hardly gained notice before. Now such defiant cries as "Take back the night" and "not one more child" have come to imprison countless innocent victims, and more importantly; it has propagated a beast; not of this nations design, nor making.

"As student throw stories of suffering [rape] to the waiting crowds, the spiritual cleansing takes on darker undercurrents. The undercurrent is the competition for whose stories can be more Sadean, more incest-ridden, more violent, more like a paperback you can buy at a train station.

Under Blair Arch [at Princeton University], a blind girl takes the microphone and says, I have been oppressed by everybody, straights and gays, Catholics, Jews and Protestants. Unless I am imagining it, a ripple of unease runs through the crowd. There is something obscene about this spectacle. This is theater, late-night drama. One earnest male Princeton Junior tells me "it was better last year. More moving. There was more crying. Everyone was crying."

[Sexual Violence, Opposing Viewpoints, Mary E. Williams, Tamara L. Roleff, editors, ©1997, Greenhaven Press, Inc., P.O. Box 289009, San Diego, CA 92198-9009; p.103.]

What we see here of course, is the ever-growing design of a malevolent special-interest culture of the few, subverting the lives of the many, growing into a religious frenzy to where, none dare say "the King wears no clothes." The feminists and other splinter groups such as gays and lesbians—are engines of the same design—using the fuel of hatred to promote and accomplish their special interest agenda.

"The radical feminists’ declaration, "organize around your own oppression," soon degenerated into the narrower position, "organize around your own interests."

[Women in Movement, Feminism and Social Action, by Sheila Rowbotham, ©1992, Rouledge, 11 New Feter Lane, Nondon, EC4P 4EE, ISBN 0-415-90652-0; p. 274.]

Again, which aptly demonstrates feminism’s self-serving political agenda which uses "The Best Interests of the Child," "Take Back the Night," and other such ignoble social experiments, only as an ends to justify the means...they are in more than tools to be used against an unsuspecting public whom has no idea that they are being used to change the national interests and political spectrum of their own country against their own vested interests.

What of course is absolutely insane, and which has lent itself to depleting what were once considerable rolls of the NOW’s membership to a mere 6,000 national membership—is that this radicalism has now begun to feed upon even the women within the organization itself! Their hatred is evolving into political cannibalism:

"If you are a feminist who is not sleeping with a woman you may risk hearing any of the following accusations: "You’re oppressing me if you don’t sleep with men"; "You’re not a radical feminist if you don’t sleep with women" or "You don’t love women if you don’t sleep with them." I have even seen a women’s argument about an entirely different aspect of feminism be dismissed by some lesbians because she was not having sexual relations with women.

"....This perversion of "the personal is the political" argument, it must be noted, was not invented by those gay women who may be using it now; the women’s movement has had sporadic waves of personal attacks on women—always in the guise of radicalism (and usually by a very small minority of women). I have seen women being told they could not be trusted as feminists because they wore miniskirts, because they were married (in one group quotas were set lest the groups quality be lowered by "unliberated women"), or because they wanted to have children. This rejection of women who are not living the "liberated life" has predictably now come to include rejection on the basis of the "unliberated" sex life.

The original genius of the phrase "the personal is political" was that it opened up women’s private lives to political analysis."

[The Women’s Rights Movement, Opposing Viewpoints, by Brenda Stalcup, Book Editor, Greenhaven Press, Inc., PO Box 289009-9009, San Diego, CA 92198-9009; ISBN 1-56510-366-1; pp. 194-195.]

This exact form of extremism and cannibalism can be seen by our government’s own actions, whom are driven by this Feminist brand of outright hatred and are openly undermining our most sacred and fundamental rights.. In again, an insolent display of anti-constitutional pro-activism, we see that our government, fueled by this new Radical Regimes power, is attacking even the most benign of citizens, who beseech the government for the most benign of redresses:

"But constitutional constraints are no impediment to the Clinton civil rights regime. In 1994, HUD launched a Fair Housing Act investigation against three Berkeley residents for opposing a planned homeless shelter in their neighborhood, threatening each with fines up to $100,000 and a year in jail if they did not turn over all their records, including lists of their coalition’s members. HUD subsequently disclosed similar investigations around the country, aimed at suppressing what Heather MacDonald, writing in the Wall Street Journal, described as "textbook examples of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

After widespread publicity, HUD’s Achtenberg backed down, conceding that the "Berkeley citizens acted within their First Amendment, free-speech rights." She pledged that "every attempt is being made to ensure that HUD’s not have a chilling effect on political activity or the exercise of free speech." But, warned Achtenberg, "We can anticipate more cases of this kind."

[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. 106.]

Again, such deconstruction of our nations organic laws is much worse against Fathers who dare attempt redress of grievances to protect either, life, liberty or property. Of course, these acts, like more and more government’s acts, are outrageous; and completely against our form of governance. Most Fathers who are economically annihilated, do not have the resources in which to even defend themselves, as most American’s don’t, in which to combat this feminist socio-political system. Of course this hatred is generating social ripples throughout our society, where the extremes are beginning to become more, and more normal, as the hatred imbued within our public institutions, portray and become more malevolent and intolerant through Feminist imprinting upon those institutions. This social pendulum is beginning to swing wildly to each of its axis limits, as the social hinge of this nation is slowly beginning to weaken, and tear apart from the strain.

"Those who are angry at government withdraw from it, call themselves Freemen, hold up in Montana, and, armed to the teeth, challenge hundreds of FBI operatives to bring them in.

Angry tax protesters, reeling out reams of constitutional rhetoric, refuse to become "tax slaves" and burden the courts with their unwinnable causes.

The maddened who can no longer identify their oppressors express their rage in random freeway shootings or burn the stores of small merchants in Los Angeles with whom they likely have had no dealings whatsoever.

The young, born in bondage and with desolate visions of a meaningless life, join gangs in which all human life is seen as being its cheap and as goalless as their own.

Across the land, vast segments of the nation, alienated and economically emasculated smolder in anger and, without thoughtful leadership, follow any who will but point to some race, some religion, any handy scapegoat at which to strike.

Because it is so easy to identify the color of skin, we have a resurgence of racism, and the Ku Klux Klan takes on a new and venal life.

Because the angry can readily identify a religious or ethnic group, we are presented with such ilk as the Aryan Nations and their preachment of hatred against the Jews.

Like a geyser in Yellowstone, these troubled waters boil away under the surface and finally erupt in the Unabomber, whose genius became distorted by his reaction to the pressures of technology. And in Oklahoma City, some demented dissident, already at an early age wildly enraged, blows up a federal building, sending 168 innocent people to their deaths.

[Give Me Liberty! Gerry Spence, ©1998, St. Martin’s Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, 10010; ISBN 0-312-19267-3; p. 102.]

No society can withstand these internal strains, and it is only America’s national size and huge economies which are keeping it afloat presently—while at the same time this national wealth is being siphoned away. When the next major financial crisis hits, we may see this nation instantly decimated into anarchy caused by this Feminist social pressure and their deconstruction of our law. Again, this is only speculation, however; we do know that Socialism is fundamentally flawed, and Feminism absolutely. When Marx and Engles placated the masses in their socialist blueprint, The Communist Manifesto, they wrote:

"[Our critics warn that}...but you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives in common, and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypercritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private."

[The Communist Manifesto, A Modern Edition, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engles, ©1998 Verso, 180 Varck Street, New York, NY 10014-4606; ISBN 1-85984-898-2; p. 57.]


This of course is classical contemporary feminist mantra, which wells up directly from its source: Socialist Communism which Hillary Clinton espouses. Again, they both recognize and desire the throwback to a community of women which "has existed almost from time immemorial." They of course hate the Patriarchal regime which they label as bourgeoisie, for using the wife efficiently within the own home, and that such use is a "prostitution"—not love for which men live and die for their own homes and families. Of course this double-speak continues in the enchanted mantra of Ms. Clinton herself who warned:

"Hillary argued in "Children Under the Law" that Blackstone’s thesis held for a time when young people were apprenticed at the age of seven or forced to work in the fields and young women bore children very early in their lives. In fact, the law was mainly concerned with the successful passing on of estates belonging to the property classes."

[Hillary, Her True Story, by Norman King ©1993, A Birch Lane Press Book, Carol Publishing Group, 600 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10022, p. 67.]


Again, this clear hatred of the American system and property classes, which; as Ms. Clinton fully recognizes and understands, was for the first time in history distributed as never before within any human populace more to the common man than in America. Here, the common man was the property classes, of which she and the Feminists hate so much. Again, this comes back to dreams deferred, as through the implementation of this Radical Feminist hatred for the American way of life, by their hatred of Capitalism and the attendant systems of law, justice and fair play; all American trademarks, Ms. Clinton and her Feminist elite fully intend to implement the safety of failed Socialist politics’ into the American mainstream and pretend that they are American concepts and practices all under the guise of "The Best Interests of the Child." Again, this is not in America’s interests, as it is the factual usurpation of our American Republican form of government into something malevolent and as-yet-to-be-defined, and it is happening at ground zero, right in the American home.

This insane jealousy over the profits within the American household are obscene, as the present Anti-American socialist model has been, and still is draining huge profits from that institution. The fact that the nuclear two-parent family still survives, and that it still accrues the highest wealth within our society, is a demonstrative proof that the Patriarchal system is clearly a superior model, even when it is being under direct siege by a Feminist empire proactively determined to destroy that very institution. Again, given enough time, energy, money and government programs—they will destroy that institution as well, and life on this earth will never again be the same, and again; our children will curse us for we letting this perverse legacy be allowed to survive.

We all must once again recognize, just as the Stuart’s did in 17th century England, that the Father has more importance to this society, especially the free American society, than what most people in modern society comprehend. Fathers, must again "know their product" and understand not only the biological reasoning for men becoming Fathers, but perhaps more importantly their socio-political function that establishes, and allows the most successful environment for men to be Fathers: to create homes and families, strong children—and thereby—a robust, independent and successful society. Clearly, immutably; there is a symbiotic relationship to Fathers and their system of governance. Indeed—as the ancients clearly recognized—no free society can be without, a strong, capable Father, controlling, ruling and defending his own home: his own life, liberty and property.

It is time men stop falling on their own swords and subsidizing their own destruction. It is time that men start thinking of themselves, and enforcing their authority, and defending their homes, their children and their property with a all costs. It is time that men stop thinking about the mythical ‘other male’ "who might be an abuser." It is time for men to once again become selfish and start thinking of their own interests—for clearly—nobody else is...

Again, we are circularly proving here is adducible to the maxim: "with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father."