The Demise of the Rule of Law

A distinguished researcher and professor in modern history named Michael Burleigh has written this excerpt regarding the laws in Nazi’s Germany. We must bear in mind this statement is based on tested facts about the utopian beliefs of a mad dictator.
“In the course of promising judges security of tenure, which was immediately violated by the law for the Restoration of the professional civil service, Hitler indicated that he expected judges to evince ‘flexibility’. Empty talk from Hans Frank, leader of the Nazi League of Jurists, about restoring the judiciary’s quasi-regal autonomy, alluring in a system without the British division of elite judges and lay magistrates, came with the expectation that judges would abandon impartial objectivity, a quality normally synonymous with their profession. They were to grasp the essence of the case, approaching it with ‘healthy prejudice’ and in line with ‘the main principles of the Führer’s government’. This was an invitation to cut every procedural corner: a general mandate for courtrooms tyrants, of whom there were many”.

Does this sound familiar? If it does, it is likely that you have been roughly dealt with by the British Family Courts as most of its ruling have already abandon the impartial objectivity, hallmark of justice, and their decisions are directed against paternity as a matter of course and regardless of the facts of the case. One of the most elementary rules of law of property is ownership that has been accepted by all civilizations since Hammurabi’s laws. If you paid for it you own the rights to do as you please with it. Since biblical times this right has been upheld as it is clearly explained in genesis when Esau sold his Birthright to Jacob.
However, the judiciary, do not regard ownership right as relevant at the ancillary relief hearing, therefore, dispossessing and transferring those rights, willy nilly, to the party of their own choice. Exactly in the same fashion, Hitler indicated to the judges of the Third Reich.
It is easy now to comprehend why we no longer can take refuge in the law because it is no longer there to protect us from state sponsored assets despoliation.

Divorce pedlars

It's all fair in love and war! This is the phrase used by the media and publishers of women's magazine to justify themselves when they refer to the shabby competition in the information war amongst themselves. That phrase could be translated into "anything goes" licentious way to publish anything, however intellectually harmful that may be, and, which appeals to the reader. If it sells the extra few magazines to the feble of mind, or, people who are not able to make head o9r tail out of their own lives, it will be deemed a success story. It is not by coincidence that women magazines outnumber men's publications in the publishing business.

(to be continued)

A Gem of Feminism obtusness

This is really, a rare insight into the ludicrousness of the feminist mind. It is quite an amazing thing to listen to the thinking some feminist expose to the world to be heard, seen and, read by all of those who, out of curiosity, let themselves into this surreal wonderland of feminism. The following writing comes from an american feminist writer. It is, undoubtedly, an excellent example of the sort of literature we are to expect in the new century from this sort of ideologism, and quote: "Whether or not feminism is the reason the traditional family concept is quickly becoming obsolete is questionable. I think there were several factors working together that ushered in a new type of family framework for the 21th century american family. The industrial age, with it's long working hours, certainly didn't help the traditional family. In fact, this era seems to be the beginning of the end for the concept of the working father with a housewife and good little kiddies at home". As we have to start from somewhere to be able to begin to understand this last paragraph, let us start from the industrial age being responsible for the demise of the family. The industrial age began a long time before this feminist was born and, at the onset of it, during the years of expansion and progress did not seem to affect the family nucleus, indeed, capitalism thrived on the back of a strong family unit lifting out of abject poverty many impoverished families and deprived children living in slums. The kind of slums which the execellent Charles Dickens has so poignantly described in detail to us, in his writings.
During the forties, fifties and sixties, America was a proud country thriving on their industries in which men work hard in order to give their families a great standard of living. So, when obsoletism began then? Let's read on!" The sexual revolution helped everyone shake their prudish ways and realise there was more to life than a single monogamous relationship". No surprises here. It has always been down to sex. Men want quantity and quality, women would rather have diversity. The more the merrier. The unexplored is so exiting as long as they don't end up in e sexually transmitted disease clinic, which, by the way, are doing a helthy bussines in trying to contain the epidemic sweeping the western world. And on! "men have known this for thousands of years, but the sexual revolution opened the door for women to further explore their sexuality". The last paragraph may well still be echoing inside the new woman brain. So here we are! Proud of ourselves in our freedom. Finally, "equally promiscuous to men" the sexual revolution has taught women something men knew for a millenia! The selfishness of men! How can they be forgiven? Never telling women when they are having sex! Is them then who are responsible for women's predicament. Let's get our own back by being just as promiscuous. Be more assertive with whom we are going to travel the tunnel of love tonight.
That is the new woman, free love, free sex, and free penicillin. I will not include abortion because it is a whole subject in its own right. And on! "of course, feminism did introduce women in the workforce en mass, which reshaped family life at the end of a long work day". We are now sailing in the realm of feminism fantasy land. It is an undisputed fact that women have worked through the ages. What feminism may have succeeded in doing is to make women work in places where, previously, were considered just too dangerous for them, or somehow unsuitable as a female place of work. That is now no longer so. As many available jobs in dirty trades or physically demanding work are taken up by women.
The fact is, sadly, the feminist ideology, once a noble cause seeking equality for women, has now become so sullied as to go hand in hand with the dowdiness and the cliche of dungaree-wearing, man-haters, sporting underarm growth and "Feminism rules OK" badge on their chest. Women have fought hard to win all that they take for granted today, but they have not only reaped the obvious benefits, they will also have to live with the downside of those achievements and that is that most women are left on their own, spending old age stroking their cats, or sharing the twilight years of their lives, with their old comrade in arms, or a much worse fate like being left alone in some run down home for the elderly without a man to call her partner. For the young feminist who may think they have won the war of the sexes against men will, soon enough, realise that they have not converted the minds and hearts of those close to them like the brother who keeps a stack of pornography in his shelf because he just can not figure out his lost way through the feminist ideology maze, or, those who claim that women working in the sex industry be liberated from their exploitation.

Mums can lie about paternity.

Mothers are not always legally obliged to tell their husbands the truth about their children's paternity, the High Court has ruled.
The full bench of the court dismissed an appeal by Melbourne man, Liam Neil Magill, who sought damages from his ex-wife for the pain he suffered when DNA tests revealed two of her three children were not his.
Mr Magill paid child support for all three children for eight years after the marriage broke down.
The High Court unanimously dismissed his appeal.


Three justices found that a spouse could not take legal action against his wife for lying to him about paternity.
Three other justices said that such legal action might succeed in exceptional circumstances, but not in Mr Magill's case.
Chief Justice Murray Gleeson said the law could not oblige a person to tell their spouse the truth if it risked damaging the marriage.
"The Family Law Act declares the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage," Chief Justice Gleeson said.
"That is a legislative expression of public policy.
"The imposition of a legal duty of disclosure of infidelity would, in the practical circumstances of many cases, be contrary to that policy."
He said Ms Magill deceived her husband, "but the hurtful deception was in her infidelity, not in her failure to admit it".
Chief Justice Gleeson said Mr Magill failed to prove that the harm he suffered was a result of his wife's deceit.
The Magills married in April, 1988. Mr Magill's son was born in April 1989.
Five months later, his wife, Meredith Jane Magill, began an affair. In July, 1990, and November, 1991, she gave birth to her lover's children, but allowed Mr Magill to name himself as their father on the birth certificates.
The Magills separated in November, 1992, and later divorced.
In 1995, Mr Magill first learned of his estranged wife's doubts but continued to pay child support.
Justices William Gummow, Michael Kirby and Susan Crennan said Mr Magill's appeal failed because Australian law no longer recognised fault in divorce and new laws permitted the recovery of amounts wrongly paid for child support.
Mr Magill was never credited for his child support payments for the two children.
His payments were adjusted in 2000 to reflect only one child and an amount he owed the agency for failed payments was cleared.
In 2002, Mr Magill was awarded $70,000 in damages and economic loss by the Victorian County Court.
The Court of Appeal overturned that decision. The High Court upheld its ruling.
Outside the High Court in Melbourne, Mr Magill thanked his partner Cheryl King, who represented him in a separate County Court case, which he lost last week.
"She had the guts to stand up on her own with no legal representation against the might of the Child Support Agency and the government," Mr Magill said.

'Mommy Wars': To Work or Stay at Home?

Linda Hirshman Says Stay-At-Home Moms Are Wrong


Feb. 22, 2006 — An alarming number of college-educated women are leaving the work force to stay at home and raise their children, a trend that is a tragedy not only for the mothers, but ultimately their children and women as a whole.
So said law professor and working mom Linda Hirshman in a 2005 article for American Prospect magazine that has ignited an intense debate among mothers.
Census figures show 54 percent of mothers with a graduate or professional degree no longer work full time. In 2003 and 2004 Hirshman interviewed about 30 women whose wedding announcements had appeared in The New York Times in 1996 and who had had children. Five of the women were working full time, and 10 were working part time. The rest were not working at all.
"We care because what they do is bad for them, is certainly bad for society, and is widely imitated, even by people who never get their weddings in the Times," Hirshman wrote. "This last is called the 'regime effect,' and it means that even if women don't quit their jobs for their families, they think they should and feel guilty about not doing it."
Hirshman also said educated women choosing to stay home was bad for them as individuals.
"A good life for humans includes the classical standard of using one's capacities for speech and reason in a prudent way, the liberal requirement of having enough autonomy to direct one's own life, and the utilitarian test of doing more good than harm in the world," Hirshman wrote. "Measured against these time-tested standards, the expensively educated, upper-class moms will be leading lesser lives."
The Other Side
Faith Fuhrman has a master's degree in nursing, but chooses to stay home with her children.
"The job I was in when I had, first had my child, I couldn't have done it," Fuhrman said. "I was working 14 hours a day. I was on call."
When Debbie Klett became a mother, she quit her job in ad sales and started a magazine called Total 180 so she could work from home and spend more time with her children.
"For me, I feel it is vital to be there for my children every day, to consistently tend to their needs, to grow their self-esteem, and to praise them when they're right, guide them when they're not, and to be a loving, caring mom every minute of the day," Klett said.
Klett acknowledged there were consequences to her choice to stay at home. To save money, her family has given up cable, does not go out to dinner, and does not go on vacations.
"We made tremendous financial sacrifices for me to be able to stay home with my children, and I wouldn't trade that for the world," Klett said.
What About the Children?
Hirshman argues that Klett's children would be fine if she worked outside the home. Statistically there is no difference in the happiness levels of the children whose mothers work and the children whose mothers stay at home, she said.
Deborah Skolnick agrees. She is a magazine editor who will not give up her job and feels working is a good example for her children, and helps them in other ways.
"I think my kids are as well-behaved and as well-socialized, if not better, than a lot of a fair number of at-home moms," Skolnick said. "I see at-home moms whose children won't separate from them, won't go to school, cry at the door. My children have learned, from an early age, that Mommy will be back. So they kiss me and they say goodbye."
Fuhrman asked her 13-year-old son what he thought was the benefit of having a stay-at-home mom.
"He said, 'Well, I really like to come home every day and finding you here,'" Fuhrman said.
"But on the other hand, my daughter says to me, 'Mommy, when I grow up, I'm gonna get a job at your magazine, and I'm gonna sit at the same desk as you and we're gonna be on the same magazine together until we die,'" Skolnick said. "And that makes me kind of happy."
Tune in to "Good Morning America" Thursday when the "Mommy Wars" continue.

He's only 12 but.... "it is love"

I read this article in a women magazine (eve june 2006) and I want to publish it as proof of how messed up in the head women are.

The first time Julie *kissed Callum* was the most romantic moment of her life. They were on a deserted beach, turquoise waves lapping on golden sand and, as Callum brushed his lips on hers, hia taut body wrapped around her in a passionate embrace.
"It was without a doubt the sexiest kiss I have ever had" Julie, a business manager, says. "I was on holiday and Callum was staying at the same hotel. He was gorgeous, with a toned, hunky body. It seemed perfectly natural to sleep together and, because Callum was so eager to pleased me, the sex was amazing too".
Feeling envious yet? Thought so. But perhaps you might feel a tad diferently when you hear that the perfect kiss Julie describes was between a 30-years-old engage woman and a 16 year old boy. And that the "amazing sex" was Callum first time and took place in a hotel room yards away from his parents.
Some of you will undoubtedly be shocked.
You might fantasise about having a muscle-clad toy boy do your bidding, but you draw the line at adolescents. Yet a growing number of intelligent, attractive, middle-class women are prepared to put their marriages and reputations on the line to have a fling with a teenager. Some even risk prison and an entry on the sex offenders register because the boy in question is under 16, the legal age of consent ( although it is against the law for teachers to have a relationship with pupils under 18) .
Last year in the UK. the cradle-snatching roll-call included teachers Samantha Grixti, 30, who received a three month suspended sentence and community service after kissing a pupil, and Nicola Prentice, 26, who was given a 12-month suspended sentence after sleeping with a 16 year-old student. Hannah Grice, a 32 year-old mother of two, was jailed for 15 months after admitting an affair with the 14 year old son of one of her friends and, in July 2003, Amanda James, a 36 year old mother of four was jailed for a year after a two year affair with a 14 year old boy.
Some American women seem just as willing to get their sexual kicks from schoolboys. In March, Lisa Lynette Clark, 37, from Georgia, was jailed for nine months after falling pregnant and marrying a 15 year old, as allowed by state law. Three months earlier, newly-wed Debra laFave, 26, from Florida, was sentenced to house arrest after sleeping with a 14 year old boy and, in November, Sandra Geisel, a 42 year old teacher from Albany, was sentenced to six months in jail after having sex with a student.
This might seem like the beginning of a sexually chargrd trend but, according to psychologist Petra Boynton, some women have always been willing to throw caution (not to mention their careers and marriages) to the wind when it comes to sex with under-age teenagers. "These relations have always existed" she says, but we hear about it more when an older woman seduces a shcoolboy. The newspaper think: "Wow, that's a great story", and splash it all over the front pages.

No one should be surprised at this development. I bet my hard earned money that we'll be hearing a lot more of these stories, in the years ahead.
The feminist have liberated them, now they are independant, free to burn their bras anytime they pleased, and throw their lives to the wind.

So what nobody cares anymore!!!!

PsychoKat, I would first like to say thanks, as your post meant a lot to me. as for the quote left by this moron....Freudianslippers"On one hand we have dollface accusing Debbie of being naive and imploring her to go to Jordan (don't hold your breath, dollface) to see what beautiful and peaceful people the Jordanians are, and on the other hand we have PsychoKat telling us dollface was terrorized by Muslim terrorists while living there."
You see how idiotic people are....there it shows..If you would have read carefully, Kat said there was a terrorist attack nearby my town...and one of the first times there was one in 10 years .not a terrorist attack made on me! I take it you have not been to jordan, and for that much, been to an arab/muslim country...you would be surprised. Jordan was more at peace than the good ol windy city, chicago, where i have lived for the past 22 years. In my time in chicago, i have seen numerous people killed, stabbings, gang fights, battered wives and beaten children, 2 suicides, i have lost 4 best friends to a drunk driver, i have lost a good friend to drugs, and another who got hit with a bullet, on his front porch, although the gun was supposed to be pointed at some one else...And if anyone cares to get any information on my area, thats oak forest, a very high class area....now my one year in jordan the only things i saw was very loving people, neighbors helping neighbors, sisters helpign sisters...i walked proudly down the street, people wanting to meet me...I felt more love from my inlaws and my husband than i honestly have felt from my own family here in the states. Point is, there is bad shit everywhere, and to be honest, i would put a million dollars saying the US is much worse than Jordan, or other arab countries. Im not being unpatriotic, but its the sad truth....it cannot be escaped, nor ignored, but you cannot judge a book by its cover...If i had been judgemental to jordan, i would not have spent the best year of my entire life there, learning a different intriging culture, my 4th language, spedning a year getting to know the faboulous family i now have, a work free, stress free year with my husband, and so much more....i dare someone to take a walk in my shoes, cause i gaurantee, you would never be sorry you did...i wish people had the kind of love sofyan and i share everyday...the kind that makes you not want to sleep, in fear of missing one another, the kind that women and men dream about finding everyday....im lucky i got it, dont hate on me because u didnt....