You may
distribute for Educational purposes only. Commercial use is
Prohibited.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues,
etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US
Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
the material on this site is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
I will begin with
this ludicrous, selfish, Unconstitutional set of Laws first,
because this is what they used to KIDNAP my son.
VAWA stands for
Violence Against Women Act which was made into law and
subsequently added to. Hence the 1 and 2.
The first thing I will point out is the NAME
of the Law itself. It is Unconstitutional because it
discriminates against race, religion, sex etc. It specifies
WOMEN which not only is very, very, selfish, but couldn't they
have named it VAPA, Violence Against People Act? What about VAWC, Violence Against Women and Children Act?
Well there is a very good reason why it is
named like it is, but I am getting tired for the day, so I
will be adding much more content tomorrow.
There is a few you can start to get the idea where I am
coming from, but wait, I have my own story of the degradation,
humiliation, and the kidnapping of my Son, in a "Civil Court",
all because of VAWA, and radical feminists. I will be sure to
tell you, but if you read my website, it is already there for
your inquiring minds to find.
My opinion is that this
legislation is ANTI-MALE/ANTI-FATHER, plain and simple. I will
back this up with fact after fact after fact in the very near
future.
Here is an article by a woman named
Phyllis Schlafly about feminism and how they seem to "change"
as time goes by. Their definition of "Equal Rights", well is
suspect to say the least. Here is her article;
Feminists' Double Standards about Child Care
by Phyllis Schlafly January 11, 2006
When the feminist movement burst onto the American social
scene in the
1970s, the rallying cry was "liberation." The feminists
demanded liberation from the role of the housewife and mother
who lived in what Betty Friedan famously labeled a
"comfortable concentration camp."
Feminist ideology taught that the duties of the housewife and
mother were (in Friedan's words) "endless, monotonous,
unrewarding" and "peculiarly suited to the capacities of
feeble-minded girls." Society's expectation that a mother
should care for her own children was cited as oppression of
women by our male-dominated patriarchal society from which
women must be liberated so they can achieve fulfillment in
workforce careers just like men.
Articulating vintage feminism in the 1974 Harvard Educational
Review,
Hillary Clinton wrote disparagingly about wives who are in "a
dependency
relationship" which, she said, is akin to "slavery and the
Indian reservation system."
Demanding that husbands take on equal duties in child care,
the National
Organization for Women passed resolutions in the 1970s
stating, "The father has equal responsibility with the mother
for the child care role."
In 1972, "Ms." Magazine featured pre-marriage contracts declaring
housewives independent from essential housework and baby care,
and obliging the husband to do half the dishes and diapers.
As a model, "Ms." published the Shulmans' marriage agreement,
which divided child-care duties as follows: "Husband does
Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Wife does Monday, Wednesday and
Saturday. Friday is split according to who has done extra
work. All usual child care, plus special activities, is split
equally. Husband is free all day Saturday, wife is free all
Sunday."
Then-ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her 1977 book
"Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" that "all legislation based on the
breadwinning-husband, dependent-homemaking- wife pattern" must
be eliminated "to reflect the equality principle" because "a
scheme built upon the breadwinning husband [and] dependent
homemaking wife concept inevitably treats the woman's efforts
or aspirations in the economic sector as less important than
the man's."
Feminist literature is filled with putdowns of the role of
housewife and
mother. This ideology led directly to feminist insistence
that the
taxpayers provide (in Ginsburg's words) "a comprehensive
program of
government-supported child care."
The icon of college women's studies courses, Simone de
Beauvoir, opined that "marriage is an obscene bourgeois
institution," and easy divorce became a primary goal of the
feminist liberation movement. Three-fourths of divorces are
now unilaterally initiated by wives without any requirement to
allege fault on the part of the cast-off husband.
As divorces became easy to get, the feminists suddenly did a total
about-face in their demand that fathers share equally in child
care. Upon
divorce, mothers demand total legal and physical custody and
control of
their children, arguing that only a mother is capable of
providing their
proper care and upbringing, and a father's only function is to
provide a
paycheck.
Gone are the demands that the father change diapers or tend to
a sick
child. Feminists want the father out of sight except maybe
for a few hours
a month of visitation at her discretion.
Suddenly, the ex-husband is targeted as a totally essential
breadwinner,
and the ex-wife is eager to proclaim her dependency.
Feminists assert that, after divorce, child care should be
almost solely the mother's job,
dependency is desirable, and providing financial support
should be almost solely the father's job.
It is settled law in the United States that parents (note the
plural) have
a fundamental right to the care, custody and control of the
upbringing of
their children. But feminists have persuaded the family
courts, upon
divorce, to acquiesce in feminist demands that the mother
typically be given 80 to 100 percent of those fundamental
rights that belonged to both parents before divorce.
What's behind this feminist reversal about motherhood? As
Freud famously asked, "what does a woman want?" The
explanation appears to be the maxim, Follow the money.
Beginning in the mid-1980s, the feminists used their political
clout to get Congress to pass draconian post-divorce
support-enforcement laws that use the full power of government
to give the divorced mother cash income proportional to the
percentage of custody time she persuades the court to award,
but unrelated to what she spends for the children or to her
willingness to allow the father to see his children.
Since the father typically has higher income than the mother,
giving
near-total custody to the mother enables the states to
maximize transfer
payments and thereby collect bigger cash bonuses from the
federal
government. When fathers appeal to the family courts for
equal time with
their children, they are opposed by a big industry of lawyers,
psychologists, custody evaluators, domestic-violence
agitators, and
government bureaucrats who make their living out of denying
fathers their
fundamental rights.
It's time for a national debate and discussion of the taxpayer incentives
that favor divorce, the anti-marriage feminists, and the
resulting exclusion
of fathers from the lives of their children.
Thomas Jefferson said, "Those who expect
to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will
be."
Most
people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even
in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a
citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live
is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she
will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt
government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To
choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of
standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage
to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to
fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an
excuse not to think at all...
We are
adding new content daily, so check back often.
