gotta get to work

my front page of my website froze with a lot of stuff I can't do.....so, I gots to erase it and start page one over again:

goto: pissedoffwhitemen.5u.com

AND I TOLD YOU THE SEAHAWKS WOULD MAKE IT TO THE SUPERBOWL!

Al Gore - THE LIAR

So we got so see Al boy lie on TV all day - accusing Bush of things the Clinton Administration also did - the only difference is that the Clinton/Gore Administration actually broke into U.S. homes without warrants. Bush is only wiretapping.

Then I got this little diddy the other day showing Gore's idiocy:

It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.

There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!

He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"

Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"

"No, sir," continued Ollie.

"No? And why not?" the senator asked.

"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."

"Threatened? By whom?"! the senator questioned.

"By a terrorist, sir," Ollie answered.

"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"

"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir," Ollie replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.

"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of," Ollie answered.

"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.

"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."

The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.

That senator was Al Gore!

Also:

Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners."

However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released.

Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.

Husbands beware

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/nononsensedating/2006/01/enabling-unfaithful-wives.html

It's a fact that the liberal courts screw men over - this is why reform is needed now!

Just another story demonstrating how feminism and liberalism have destroyed the American family, our economy, and the future of our children.

According to Charles Corry, PhD, head of the Equal Justice Foundation, "Colorado has made adultery profitable, encouraged infidelity, enslaved men, and destroyed children."


Thursday, January 12, 2006

Enabling Unfaithful Wives
A Toronto-based Website, AshleyMadison.com, is in business to help your wife cheat on you. Lots of wives cheat on their husbands. But, we've been socialized to believe women are faithful and men are pigs. Yet another lie about men and women. My book -- The Man's No-Nonsense Guide to Women -- 12 articles, and 11 podcasts set the record straight about male and female behavior.

Your wife's infidelity will ruin you financially, especially if you earn more than she does. Yes, she gets a cash bonus for cheating on you. Find out how and why in my latest podcast.

AFTERWORD (What happens if your wife becomes pregnant with his child?): If your wife's extramarital dalliance results in a pregnancy, your headaches will grow exponentially. If you suspect that she has been cheating on you, and then she becomes pregnant, you should assume the worst case. Insist that she do a DNA test the moment the child is born. Why? If the child is not yours biologically, don't let it become yours legally and financially. States differ in how they handle paternity cases.

For example, Colorado has just passed SB05-181, which stipulates that, once paternity is established -- including a husband's naive assumption of paternity -- no DNA tests are allowed. What does this mean? Let's say you caught your Colorado wife having an affair and then begin divorce proceedings. During the divorce proceedings, which can take years, she delivers a baby. If your exwife-to-be gets the court to force you to begin supporting that child, because you have not used a DNA test to prove the child is not yours, it becomes your child. Now, let's fast-forward to after your divorce. The child is almost two years old. It becomes obvious to everyone's eyes that this child is not yours. Too bad. Too late. Colorado won't let you submit DNA evidence after you began treating a child as your own -- even if it's not really yours.

Guys, make sure you know what you're getting into out there!

Send this to your legislators

I'm sending this to all my legislators and telling them I want this in my state, too. Then I'm sending it to all the Congressmen in D.C., too.

Then I'm firing up the torch and heading down to my courthouse to get arrested.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/kathleenparker/2006/01/13/182425.html

New Hampshire gets serious about child visitation

Jan 13, 2006
by Kathleen Parker
Bitter parents who try to block their formerly beloved's access to the couple's child(ren) following divorce might think twice in New Hampshire, where a proposed bill aims to make life difficult for uncooperative custodial parents.

How difficult? By inviting the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to investigate the offending parent for child abuse and neglect.

This relatively revolutionary move was the brainchild of Maine psychiatrist Dr. Stevan Gressitt, who has been working with legislators to put some teeth into visitation enforcement. New Hampshire HHS Commissioner John Stephens endorsed the idea, and a bill sponsored by state Rep. David A. Bickford (R) heads to committee Tuesday.


Gressitt is hoping for a domino effect if the bill passes in New Hampshire.

The idea behind such legislation is that children of divorce should continue to have access to both parents, assuming there's no reason to protect a child from one of his parents. While child visitation orders are taken seriously in theory, the legal process of enforcement is usually time-consuming, laborious and expensive. In practice, the failure to take them seriously leads to an ever-widening, and predictable, trajectory of distance between the child and visiting parent.

Bickford's bill (HB 1585) would make it easier for parents denied visitation to seek remedy, while promising grief for parents who don't cooperate.

First, the non-custodial parent would get an expedited court hearing rather than take a docket number and possibly wait three to four months. Next, if the judge determines that the custodial parent is blocking access for no legitimate reason, then the Department of Health and Human Services would be notified of a possible case of child abuse and neglect.

Gressitt contends that denying a child his parent out of vindictiveness is a form of child abuse, but Bickford, a non-clinician, says he isn't ready to go that far. He explained to me that the bill supposes some parents may block access to hide abuse and that, therefore, the case warrants investigation.

He did say, however, that should there be a finding of psychological or emotional harm - a form of abuse - then the custodial parent could be prosecuted, referred for needed treatment, or lose parental rights.

I feel your cringe. Who wants government bureaucrats breathing down parents' necks to see who got little Johnny for the weekend?

I'm happy to lead the chorus saying family matters are none of the state's concern - let the adults hash out their visitation schedules. But abuses of this mannered approach assume qualities not always present in some adults and often leave non-custodial parents (usually fathers) bereft and angry.

Common sense tells us what we seem to need studies to demonstrate - that children need two parents and manage divorce best when they have equal access to both.

While family courts are increasingly trying to ensure that children have that access by awarding joint or shared custody, emotionally distraught humans don't always follow directions.

Meanwhile, courts and the state historically have been more effective in enforcing child support than visitation such that we have entire bureaucracies built around support collection tied to federal incentives. For every dollar that states put up to collect child support monies, for example, the federal government matches with two dollars. Other incentive funds are also available to reward collections.

While fathers' organizations long have pushed for stronger visitation enforcement, there are also some 3 million non-custodial mothers in the U.S., according to David Levy, CEO of the Children's Rights Council, a nonprofit group that advocates for shared custody. Levy applauded the New Hampshire bill, saying that the proposed bill codifies the idea that it's important for children of divorce to continue to have both parents.

But the proposed bill is not without critics. As with any law related to personal relationships, this one could be tricky to enforce. Imagine a HHS social worker knocking on your door to ask why you didn't let Johnny see his daddy last weekend.

Such well-intentioned laws also could backfire. As one close observer put it in an e-mail exchange, "Getting (HHS) involved is usually the worst thing to do. They usually side with the 'Mom who is concerned about letting the kids go to their father' and, they (investigators) may decide that neither parent is fit. And take custody of the kid(s)."

Such is the mess we have made of our lives.

In the best and least of all worlds, the deterrent effect of such a scenario would make visitation abuses less common and enforcement unnecessary. That way, only the bad guys lose. Or gals, as the case may be.

Kathleen Parker is a popular syndicated columnist and director of the School of Written Expression at the Buckley School of Public Speaking and Persuasion in Camden, South Carolina.
Copyright © 2006 Tribune Media Services

It ain't hate speech until I make you slither back to your hole

that's right losers

you want me to hate you

i can do that

feminazism declared dead, part 1

The Sisterhood, Defrocked

Kate O'Beirne provides a reality check for anyone who thinks "feminist" means "pro-woman."

BY MELANIE KIRKPATRICK
Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Kate O'Beirne is ill-served by the lurid cover of her new book, which features unflattering caricatures of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hillary Clinton, Jane Fonda and Sarah Jessica Parker (a k a Carrie Bradshaw of "Sex and the City"). The Ann Coulter-ish title--"Women Who Make the World Worse"--is almost as off-putting. Uh-oh, is this going to be another one of those right-wing rants?

Happily, it is anything but. Mrs. O'Beirne's book is a serious examination of 30-plus years of feminist folly and the conservative counter-approach. And while the National Review columnist and TV commentator is not shy about saying what she thinks, the only rants that appear in her pages here are those she quotes from some well-known feminist icons.

In fact, one of the most striking features of "Women Who Make the World Worse" is its "I can't believe she said that" quality. Mrs. O'Beirne informs her chapters on the family, day care, education, politics, the military and sports with a review of the radical feminist dogma on her subject. Anyone still operating under the delusion that "feminist" is synonymous with "pro-woman" should find this a useful reality check.

Where to begin? There's Robin Morgan, one of the founders of Ms. magazine, saying in 1970 that marriage is "a slavery-like practice" and arguing that "we can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Or move forward a couple of decades to the 1990s, when University of Texas professor Gretchen Ritter, who favored then-First Lady Hillary Clinton's plan to "liberate" women by putting children in federally funded day care, expresses the view that stay-at-home mothers are shirking their duty "to contribute as professionals and community activists."
Also from the Clinton era is Duke University law professor Marilyn Morris, who in her role as an adviser to the secretary of the Army urges the elimination of the "masculinist attitudes" of the military, such as "dominance, assertiveness, aggressiveness, independence, self-sufficiency, and willingness to take risks." Another Clinton adviser complains that the Little League encourages "aggressive violent behavior."

A line that should go down in political history comes courtesy of the late Democratic Rep. Bella Abzug, who in 1984 confidently predicted the victory of the Walter Mondale-Geraldine Ferraro ticket as "women . . . join across all racial, social, and regional lines in stark opposition to President Reagan and his policies." Women went for Reagan by a margin of 56% to 44%.

One of the contributions of Mrs. O'Beirne's book is that she marshals data that effectively shatter the demeaning liberal myth that women vote on "women's issues." She notes, for instance, that when the Gallup organization polled voters monthly during the 2004 presidential election year about the subjects they cared most deeply about, "not even 1% mentioned issues like pay equity, child care, or discrimination and violence against women." Men and women polled equally in their concern about race relations, health care, military strength and so forth.

Also in the realm of politics, Mrs. O'Beirne recounts the hypocrisy of feminist leaders during the Clinton years, comparing them to battered spouses willing to endure any humiliation so long as they don't lose their man. "As long as Bill Clinton supported abortion rights, affirmative action, and federal child care," she writes, "it didn't matter that he was a sexual predator."

Then there's the feminist myth that women are denied equal pay for equal work. No one doubts that this was the case several decades ago--and isolated cases persist--but today women's pay overall is on a par with men's. Discrepancies are generally explained by the personal-employment choices that many women make, such as flexible hours, part-time work or other family-friendly options. She lists 39 occupations--aerospace engineer, speech pathologist, financial analyst--where women earn at least 5% more than men.

Mrs. O'Beirne's assessment of the effect of the feminist agenda on women in the military is especially relevant. There are 213,000 women on active duty, including more than 24,000 single mothers and 29,000 married women with children. The first female casualty in Iraq was Army Pfc. Lori Piestewa, a 24-year-old single mother of a 4-year-old son and a 3-year-old daughter.

The Pentagon's "risk rule," which used to prohibit assigning women to units that were at risk of attack or capture, was repealed in 1994. Mrs. O'Beirne believes that women in the military--especially mothers--belong well behind the front lines. I'm not sure I agree, but I know her analysis has made me think harder about what's at stake not just for the military or women but for our society.

One of the values of this volume is that it reviews the antifeminist research on the family, education, abortion and more. Mrs. O'Beirne is generous in citing the work of scholars such as Mary Ann Glendon, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Elaine Donnelly, Karlyn Bowman and others. Radical feminists may have the loudest megaphones, but they aren't the only voices. "Women Who Make the World Worse" is a brief history of how wrong the gender warriors have been about virtually every aspect of American life. But it offers hope for the future in highlighting the scholarship of many women who have made the world better.

Ms. Kirkpatrick is associate editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. You can buy "Women Who Make the World Worse" from the OpinionJournal bookstore.

NOW officials need to resign

This crap about NOW officials calling Coach Paterno's remarks insenstive, and then demanding he resign, shows just another case where feminists are out of touch with themselves (pun intended).

In an AOL poll yesterday, 80 percent of the respondents said Paterno's remarks were NOT insensitive, and 90 percent said he should NOT resign.

I demand that NOW officials make a public apology to Paterno and then resign!

Then there is that book that came out, written by two former feminists, saying that feminism is dying and the cause has ruined America and brought untold harm to the American economy and family. They want $26 for this book that tells you something I could have told you for free. (refer to mensactivism.org)

Another rant, another rave

okay, let's review what we have here:

I'm pissedoff at liberals.

Uh, I guess that's enough for now.

http://standyourdround.com