ACTIVISTS: SCHOOLS MUST TEACH SEX CONSENT TO KINDERGARTNERS

ACTIVISTS: SCHOOLS MUST TEACH SEX CONSENT TO KINDERGARTNERS

Fresh off a victory in getting a law passed that regulates sexual encounters between students on college campuses, feminist activists in California are now pushing for instruction on sexual “consent” for children starting in kindergarten.

My favorite CPS Loving Feminazi blog is on the attack against Michael Farris and the HSLDA

I started reading this blog called "Love, Joy, Feminism" about a year ago.  I was intrigued by how the blogs author Libby Ann, who grew up so sheltered from the real world in what she considers to be a dysfunctional, conservative Evangelical home school home could grow up to become the all wise and knowing bleeding heart liberal parent who should be entitled to project her ways and beliefs onto everybody.  Not only that, I found it amazing how she uses her blog to bash her own mother because she is still pissed about a spanking that she got as a child.  She also constantly complains about being home schooled, all but claiming that her parents used home schooling to hide abuse or something of that nature.    

I was even more intrigued by how trusting she is towards the Child Protective Industry who never came to rescue her from those spankings and how critical she is of organizations, groups and individuals who fight to protect parental rights.  It's like she's totally focused on the CPS Ideology as the gospel truth, rather than the reality of the monster that CPS has become.   She preaches the belief that if CPS is in your life, you must have done something wrong to deserve it.  Of course most of you who read Legally Kidnapped know better because you have experienced first hand how CPS engages in fraudulent, heavy handed activities along with the service providers who are paid to treat, love and care for stolen children as has been documented throughout the LK Blog for years.  

Even more interesting is the group think mentality of this blogs die-hard followers who engage in in depth conversations to support in agreement everything that was said in the original post.  Mostly, the commenters are academic feminists who know everything and are always right, so don't bother commenting or debating with them any oppositional view.  Oh, did I mention they banned me from commenting?  All I had to do to set them off was to speak.

Anyway...

Now Libby Ann has vowed to attack the Home School Legal Defense Association with a new series examining things that the HSLDA opposes.  Here are the first two installments of this.

• Things HSLDA Opposes: Voluntary Home Visitation Programs

• Things HSLDA Opposes: Making Emergency Medical Personnel Mandatory Reporters

Also, she's going to analyze piece by piece a book written by Michael Farris called, "Anonymous Tip".  I'm going to have to follow this.  

Here's the link to the first installment in this series... http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/12/anonymous-tip-introducing-a-new-review-series.html

I especially urge you to read the comments.  It might help you to understand the opposition that we face in the blindly supportive world in which CPS exists.  Notice they are trusting and supportive of CPS.  In fact, their criticism is just the opposite of ours.

Them: CPS doesn't move fast enough to investigate abuse or act on their reports.
Us: They steal too many kids unnecessarily.

Here is a screen shot of a comment thread that demonstrates this...

Now, to tell you the truth, I haven't paid all that much attention to the HSLDA outside of reading and posting a few of their articles.  I've never had a reason to take issue with what they're doing.  Many activists respect the work that they've done and appreciate the help that they have given to families who are dealing with CPS.  And I know many of you support the Parental Rights Amendment as well.  

I will keep you updated.

'Gender inclusive' school district says drop 'boys and girls,' call kids 'purple penguins'

'Gender inclusive' school district says drop 'boys and girls,' call kids 'purple penguins'

The fine folks who run the school system in Lincoln, Neb., are on a campaign to make their classrooms gender-inclusive. And that means teachers will no longer refer to boys and girls … as boys and girls.

Note: I apologize for posting feminist bullshit, but I have to keep you informed.

Would somebody please set these people straight...

I've been following this feminist blog for a while.  Why?  I don't know.  It irritates me sometimes, the nonsense, the complete unwillingness to think outside of the box, theirs being the only acceptable view and refusal to consider any other, the inability to put 2 and 2 together...

I'm not talking about the blogs author.  I'm talking about the blogs followers who are commenting on her perfect little world view of the spanking issue which was sparked by that football player Adrian Peterson.

What I can say is that these people are very judgmental and one track minded.  So when you comment do not expect a rational answer.  Do expect a bunch of silly and nonsensical feminists coming to argue, get all emotional over it, and to be banned from commenting if you push the wrong buttons.

From Humiliation to Cooperation

Systemsuckology vs. the Pre-Conceived Notions of the Feminist Doctrine of Child Abuse Denialism

While I could probably pick a hundred different reasons to go off on these people, I am going to focus on one point.

Yesterday I came across an article written by a feminist who was going off on homeschoolers, Christians, the HSLDA and fathers while glorifying CPS and calling anybody who is critical of a corrupt and cruel system a "child abuse denialist" and bla bla bla.

You are free to click the link and read the comments but I should remind you that their method of arguing is to delete or rather moderate out your comments which are contradictory to their beliefs as such comments might make people think and corrupt the belief system so to say.  Then they'll accuse you of being disrespectful and use that as their justification for deleting comments, even when no disrespect was meant in any way and only because she disagreed with them.  Therefore this argument would not be presented as it took place and is incomplete.

Under the definition given, I and most of my readers would certainly fit her description of a "Child Abuse Denialist," which would be defined most accurately as one who does not agree with and accept HER DEFINITION of the word abuse.  Of course her definition of the word abuse is rather extreme, unrealistic and would include anything which she decides should be included.

I decided to comment as I rarely do on these silly blogs anymore based on my understanding that arguing with idiots often makes it hard for others to tell the difference regarding which one is which, when the inevitable happened. Something that I said tweeked the nipple of one of this feminist bloggers readers or group members or whatever you want to call it.

It basically started like this...

And escalated to this...

And even continued to this...

Notice how I'm suddenly being disrespectful to the person who accused me of wanting to "kill and eat my own family..." by refering to her and her cult as "Feminazi's".  For doing so I lack any shred of basic human decency.  

Now lets consider this argument for a moment.  There is an obvious difference of agreement here right on the surface. That would be the part regarding what to do with a teenager who tells his grandmother to go fuck herself.

I'll say it right now.  If my teenage daughter ever told my mother to go fuck herself and my mother responded by slapping her in the face, I would turn my back and say don't you ever tell your grandmother to go fuck herself again.  Why?  Because I respect my mother enough to know that she would never ever harm my child in any way, and would never slap my daughter in the face without damn good reason and because my mother has been nothing but good to my daughter for her entire life.  I would consider that an act of aggression against my mother by my child.  I could not tolerate that even from my own child.  Of course that would be contrasted with this commenters view that there is NEVER any acceptable reason to slap a child and is debated in a one sided discussion in the comments section of that article, which if I ever tried to pull something like that on my mother she'd turn around and slap my 46 year old mouth for letting my daughter talk to her like that and I would have to stand there taking it like a bitch because I would never hit my mom.   Fortunately I've never been put into that position as my daughters are good kids who absolutely love and respect my mother who loves and respects them even more.

Now let me explain where all of this came from.  Earlier in this conversation it was suggested that there were not enough resources allocated for child protection efforts.  I suggested that in many cases there were but such resources are misspent on social workers chasing shadows and false or unwarranted reports rather than investigating real situations where a kid was at risk of real abuse.  The didn't get that.  So I attempted to break it down for them.  I referenced a case...

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/florida-woman-arrested-slapping-granddaughter-face/story?id=10539757

And then suggested that when allocating resources to child protection efforts, some cases were much worse than others such as the psycho violent grandma as compared to a sicko who molests and beats an infant to within an inch of her life.  Said resources should go to the child who really needs them.

Fortunately the judge would rather agree with me.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/charges-dropped-against-largo-grandma-who-slapped-teen/1092557

Here's where I tripped up.  I gave these people the benefit of the doubt that they would be able to understand a point that is outside of their "one tracked mind" boxes.  I was very wrong in making such an assumption.  I tripped.  I admit it totally.  I am only an imperfect human male who by virtue of my demon-penis should never argue against the infinite feminist wisdom which is never wrong.

This does, however, demonstrate a point about the mentality that justifies the existence of the child protective industry in it's current form.  That is that the feminist does not understand that it is harmful to destroy a family, nor do they understand how the Child Protective Industry is harming children.  They are simply whining for more and stronger, tougher, stricter and unfair social and domestic policies that help her to achieve her agenda's in regards to the control of the child who just happens to be a human being with rights of his or her own.

I should also mention that not only are said policies harmful to the parents and other family members whose needs, according to her, should never be considered when dealing with children in any way.  Nor does she understand how said policies are harmful to the children, as Legally Kidnapped should adequately demonstrate.

They also believe that just because a CPS Agent is not able to find evidence of abuse does not mean there was no abuse.  Only that the standards used to substantiate claims of abuse are too high.

So the point is this: There are a lot of pre-conceived notions that are not only incorrect in a realistic sense but which result in policy decisions that harm families and especially children AND that are not subject to discussion.   Many of these are moral arguments by feminists which become doctrine, meaning that they are unarguable in any way shape or form.

That same mentality has also taken over our schools thus justifying multiple unwarranted reports of child abuse from feminist teachers which add up to nothing but do give her a sense of control over the child and which rob resources from the children who really need them thus resulting in kids falling through the cracks and dying at the hands of abusive parents because CPS Agents spend too much time, for whatever reason, investigating that which is frivolous and unwarranted because it's better destroy an innocent family than it is to leave one kid in a situation that she would consider to be abuse.

The solution to this mess would be to examine these belief's, doctrines and policies and not label that which is frivolous as abuse regardless of the severity levels being high or low.   I'm sure, for example, the mouthy teenager will go on with her life and the child who really needs help will become an angel way too soon.

And to those of you who none of this makes any sense to I do apologize.  This is feminist bullshit.  It's really not my fault.

Peace, love and flowers...
LK

In Defense of the Manny

In Defense of the Manny

When my husband and I toured a preschool last week, the owner told me that her husband, a classical musician, sometimes pops in to play piano for the kids. I assumed she was trying to impress us—what parent doesn’t want a little extra Bach in her child’s life?—but then she explained, nervously, that she was telling us because she felt she had to. Might the occasional presence of a penis, her look implied, put us off from her preschool?

Daddy & daughter dances banned -- what's next, no apple pie?

Daddy & daughter dances banned -- what's next, no apple pie?

The school system in Cranston, Rhode Island has determined that traditional father-daughter and mother-son activities put on by the school are in violation of the state’s gender discrimination law.  Now, I’m a big supporter of Title IX, the federal legislation banning gender discrimination in schools. I want my daughter to have every opportunity – in academics, in sports, in everything – as my son. But Title IX has rational exemptions to the rule, and father daughter dances fall neatly within that exemption. After all, these events are meant to encourage and support our children. To foster and encourage parents to spend an evening with their child at a school endorsed event. So, Federal law absolutely allows for dances and baseball games.

Note: More proof that the feminists need to pull their heads out of their asses.

Political Correctness Gone Mad: Anti-Child Abuse Ad Banned for Showing “Wrong” Abuser

Political Correctness Gone Mad: Anti-Child Abuse Ad Banned for Showing “Wrong” Abuser

An anti-child abuse ad, acclaimed for its brutality and the unnerving performance of the child actor who narrates it, has been banned in Ireland because it did not show a woman beating the child — only a man. It is, of course, political correctness gone mad. Hopefully the ban will serve to draw more attention to the commercial on YouTube, which has been seen by 578,698 people so far — equivalent to 9.3 percent of Ireland’s entire population.

Study: Feminist Custody Evaluators See Most DV as ‘Intimate Terrorism,’ False Allegations Rare

Study: Feminist Custody Evaluators See Most DV as ‘Intimate Terrorism,’ False Allegations Rare

Feminist custody evaluators are the most likely to view family violence as “intimate terrorism.” That’s one finding of a new survey of custody evaluators conducted by three academic researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana and the University of Kentucky at Lexington. (The survey was published in a subscription-only journal, so I can’t provide a link. One of the authors was kind enough to send me a copy.)

How feminism led to increased child abuse and child neglect

How feminism led to increased child abuse and child neglect

Here’s a fine article on the long-term consequences of feminism, written by Carolyn Moynihan at MercatorNet.

Feminist 'Greater Good' Excuses Deny Constitutional Rights of Fathers in Family Court

Feminist 'Greater Good' Excuses Deny Constitutional Rights of Fathers in Family Court


Family Court unjustly uses the 'greater good' excuse of 'best interest of the child' to override constitutional rights and protections of overwhelmingly fathers. Its setup and use of the greater good 'abuse' excuse, too, shows it has no interest in protecting a father's rights but to deny him his children and extort his earnings for the best interest of the mother.

Securing our unalienable (aka constitutional) rights - including parental right, right to property and earnings, life, and pursuit of happiness - is why the U.S. was formed. You can't be denied any constitutional right unless you're clearly proven guilty of committing a serious wrong, or unfit in the case of parental rights. And, upholding the constitutional rights of one person cannot ever be based on denying those of another where no real wrong is done.

There is no 'greater good' than our constitutional rights and their protections. 'Greater good' excuses are what tyrannies use to justify denying fundamental rights to some or all of their citizens.

It's our constitutional rights and protections that courts - all courts - are purposed to protect while adjudicating cases. Any court that denies a litigant's constitutional rights without the required constitutional due process and fairness by invoking a 'greater good' legal excuse commits treason and tyrannizes that litigant.

The family court, now a perverse distortion of its original form, daily denies not only the constitutional rights of litigants - overwhelmingly father - but the very processes and fairness that the possibility of such denials necessarily requires. It does so by invoking the 'best interest of the child' excuse without the necessity of proving the unfitness of a father. And, it accepts the safety of women 'abuse' excuse from mothers to deny overwhelmingly fathers even more rights without the required due process.

*Family court purview and setup shows its treasonous actions:

Women overwhelmingly file divorce or paternity complaints for the privileges family court affords them. The family court dissolves the marriage while determining:

1. which parent shall have physical and legal custody of the child(ren) - which implies denying the parental rights of one parent - overwhelmingly the father,

2. how much child support the noncustodial parent must pay to the custodial parent - which extorts the noncustodial father's property - his earnings - under the euphemism of 'child support' for whatever the mother wishes to use it for.

3. the division of assets between the husband and wife - an appropriation of property without regard to wrong done,

4. how much alimony one parent must pay the other - more appropriation of property

Paternity actions determine only the first two above - i.e. custody and child support issues.

The court's judgment on each of these issues requires no wrong committed by a parent, nor unfitness proven. In fact the court set up is characterized by:

* No jury trial since the judge serves as both judge and jury

* No proof of wrong or unfitness needs to be proved. Insinuations by the mother about the father are sufficient for the judge. Perjury is virtually never punished nor accepted for prosecution even when evident in family court cases.

* There's no presumption of equal rights for father and mother since they'll be awarded inequivalent rights without a wrong proven

* There's no presumption of equally sharing parenting of the children when no wrong nor unfitness is proven

* One parent, overwhelmingly the mother, will be the custodial parent having both legal and physical custody of the child

* The other parent, overwhelmingly the father, will be the noncustodial parent having no physical custody of the child and seriously deprived of most all his parenting rights. If he shares legal custody, his input will in large part be ignored by the court.

* The noncustodial parent, having been denied the right to parent and to directly support his child, will have a significant fraction (30% or more) of his gross income - or even an imputed (i.e. judge-made up) income - extorted from him with the threat of jail to pay what is euphemistically called child support for up to 23 years. Child support does not have to be used to support the child.

* The father - no matter how 'fit' - will overwhelmingly be targeted to be the noncustodial parent.

* Noncustodial parents are reduced to occasional visitors at best, and clear enforcement of that meager 'privilege' is almost never safeguarded by the court.

* If the father is unable to pay the extorted 'child support' ordered, he is sent to jail for up to 6 months at a time without the due process required to so drastically deny rights to a person.

* If he owes 'child support', the state will deny his state-required licenses to work, and his right to travel and passport is denied - all because of an arrearage.

* Federal laws have been passed that prohibits passed 'child support' obligations ever to be forgiven - however unjust.

The family court imposes these constitutional rights-denying judgments without the required substantive due process and without consideration to the maxims of law which promote fairness in court processes to litigants. They use the 'greater good' excuse of 'best interest of the child' illegally since both parents are fit - unless clearly proven otherwise. When necessary, they invoke the 'greater good' abuse excuse, too. And, lastly, they overwhelmingly target fathers as recipients of their injustice and persecution.

Family court judges hide behind feminist-instigated, supported and maintained 'greater good' excuses that deny constitutional protections for fathers and men for the benefits and privileges they afford women. That's wrong - constitutionally wrong. These judges constitute the lynchpin upon which this anti-father tyranny turns. And their judgments that deny fathers' constitutional rights have spawned an enormous and growing state-enforced divorce and domestic violence industry. It profits from the extortion of fathers under euphemistic child support orders, lawyers and other fees litigants must pay, and of course tax money extracted from the public under the phony 'safety of women' legal processes formulated under VAWA (Violence Against Women Act). This powerful industry's propaganda is self-serving and phony.

Feminist-instigated and supported greater good excuses drive fit fathers out of their families and extort and enslave them for their earnings for the benefit and privileges of women. This tyranny against fathers must be exposed for its destruction of fathers, their children, freedom and family.

Shane Flait gives you the capability you need to fight for your rights.
Get his FREE Downloads at http://www.FathersRightsLegalAid.com
Take his ecourse: How to Handle Your Family Court Case at http://www.fathersrightslegalaid.com/HowToHandlePromo.htm

OT: There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap

Tuesday is Equal Pay Day—so dubbed by the National Committee for Pay Equity, which represents feminist groups including the National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, the National Council of Women's Organizations and others. The day falls on April 12 because, according to feminist logic, women have to work that far into a calendar year before they earn what men already earned the year before.

Note: More proof that the feminist's who created this mess are full of shit.

Shout at your spouse and risk losing your home: It's just the same as domestic violence, warns woman judge

Shout at your spouse and risk losing your home: It's just the same as domestic violence, warns woman judge

Men and women who shout at their partners risk being thrown out of their homes under a sweeping ruling by judges yesterday.

Note: Hey England!!! Do you want our feminazi's too?

Assange: “I fell into a hornet’s nest of revolutionary feminism”

Assange: “I fell into a hornet’s nest of revolutionary feminism”

Julian Assange, in the legal fight of his life after having been accused of rape by two Swedish women who discovered he was sleeping with both of them concurrently, has called Sweden “the Saudi Arabia of feminism.”

Feminism Responsible For The Fall Of Rome

Feminism Responsible For The Fall Of Rome

This guy draws an interesting comparison between feminism in ancient Rome and present day America, and how the rise of feminism portends a civilization’s collapse. The parallels are chilling. Yeah, it’s Reddit, waddaya want from me? You think you’re gonna get this kind of cutting edge analysis in the New York Beta Times?

French Feminist Calls Children 'Tyrants'

French Feminist Calls Children 'Tyrants'

French feminist philosopher Elisabeth Badinter has written a book calling children unintentional "tyrant[s]": motherhood, she argues--particularly the quest for perfect motherhood with its handmade baby-food, endless breastfeeding, and cloth diapers--is eating away at feminism's prior gains.

The Real Loser In The Massachusetts Election

The Real Loser In The Massachusetts Election

Smarting from their surprise loss in the race to fill the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, the Democrats are throwing their candidate, Martha Coakley, under the bus. They blame her for running a poor campaign that made losers out of Barack Obama
, the Democrats, their bad health care bill, and even Ted Kennedy in his grave.

Many reasons, of course, contributed to Scott Brown's remarkable victory. However, the chief reason Coakley's campaign didn't connect with the voters is that she is a feminist, causing even a liberal female TV commentator to admit she is "unappealing."

A wife on Dr. Phil show admits lying about domestic violence to jail her husband for 10 months.

A wife on Dr. Phil show admits lying about domestic violence to jail her husband for 10 months.

Interesting how Dr. Phil exposes the abuse of this man's civil rights but pillories him by doing so. His audience is largely female so he doesn't want to step too far out of the box to curry disfavour from his base. Nothing hypocritical here folks.

Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform

Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform

Feminists will argue until they’re blue in the face that women are victims of the Great Satanic Patriarchy. That tenet is laughable when one considers women are leading men on almost every indicator of social welfare.

But give them credit, feminists are a determined bunch. So in their crusade to spread the gospel of female victimization, they have established a network of domestic violence shelters around the nation. These programs resemble socialist thought reform experiments more than anything that can be considered to be professional counseling or crisis intervention.
----
Shelter residents enjoy no right to privacy. I have heard from women about confidences shared with shelter workers that were later passed on to Child Protective Services and other shelter residents. One woman revealed, “Nothing was confidential and what I discussed with staff was being discussed with clients.”

Dr Katherine Rake: The feminist who derides the nuclear family

Dr Katherine Rake: The feminist who derides the nuclear family

Katherine Rake, who yesterday said the days of the 'typical family' are numbered, is a hard-line feminist brought in last summer to head the Family and Parenting Institute, the state-funded mouthpiece on family life.

Note: Gotta get a kick out of the man-haters.