Republican Revolution or Men's Revolt?

Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Republican Revolution or Men's Revolt?
by Dave Usher
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2005/1...-mens-revolt.h
tm

The case of Jeff Milton stirs reaction...

"When we separated 6 years ago, the NY family court magistrate concluded
that because I made $130,000 that year, this was my earning potential
regardless of any other economic or market variables...."

The above goes to the absolute unconstitutionality of child support orders
as they are currently made. They are essentially not modifiable. Billions in
federal funding steer the child support process to procedurally deny men due
process and treat them as if they could pull money out of thin air,
regardless of external influences such as market conditions, the economy,
one's own health, and education requirements imposed by employers.

Political Analysis to Republicans:

Male voters supported Republicans since 1996 in large numbers, partially
because their social rights had been trampled by Democrats for 30 years. The
Republican "Contract For America" suggested that Republicans were interested
in reforming predatory divorce and welfare. But Republicans have not lifted
a finger -- in fact they have gone the wrong direction. PROWA merely took
what they used to call "welfare" and moved it into a different accounting
column called "Advances on Child Support". Exploding welfare spending was
magically converted into an exploding child support arrearages statistic.
Any Republican who thinks the PROWA actually accomplished anything tangibly
positive is either a liar or an idiot.

Republicans can no longer count on the male vote. After a decade of abuse by
Republicans, many men are beginning to look elsewhere. Obviously, Democrats
are not any better than Republicans. I predict we will see many men looking
very hard at third-party candidates. This means that Republicans can no
longer count on third-party candidates watering down the Democratic vote. In
coming election cycles, it will hurt Republicans and most likly put
Democrats back in power.

Men are becoming extremely interested in social issues and equal rights to
be in the family, as are second wives. Nobody is yet attending to them. This
is a tremendous block of votes that is entirely up for grabs.

I worked very hard to help the Republican Revolution -- expecting they would
do what they said they would. They failed miserably. There are a few
Republicans and Republican Organizations who are on the ball, but the
mainstream of the party (including publications such as TownHall,
FrontPageMag, WorldNetDaily, NRO, and Human Events) refuse to acknowledge or
publish anything other than useless tomes complaining about father-absence.

Why Republicans have not worked on this is beyond all political reasoning.
The politics of being pro-marriage and pro-family are bright from all sides
of the coin (I'm not going to elaborate here).

As for Mr. Milton, He can stage protests in front of the courthouse with a
fathers' group, second wife, and his parents or relatives. Flyers should
name Marianne Mizel and any other judges who have failed to handle this case
in an appropriate and lawful manner as being one of "New York's Most
Antifamily Judges" -- thus forcing a rehearing (child support is always
modifiable -- despite what they say).

He might also seek sanctuary within the Catholic Church. This is technically
possible, however, it would take a courageous and determined priest to take
on the state and Federal Government. In fact, we might not see reforms until
the Catholic Church takes up this long-overdue issue that is driving
divorce, illegitimacy, and destroying religion. One major reason why
Churches have poor membership in Western cultures is they no longer take
strong stands on issues of import -- or exercise their own Biblical calling.
Rather, they meekly acquiesce to feminist secular humanism and wonder why
they are being sued because gay secular humanists (who could not care less
about heterosexual marriage principles) turned the church into a dark-ages
den for child sexual abuse.

Mr. Milton's other options are not good. Robbing a bank is a bad idea -- but
this is basically what the New Mafioso are blackmailing him to do -- and
some men in this situation actually do this. Suicide is another way out, and
I spend lots of time on the phone keeping good men from doing this to
themselves.

Many men have left this country, never to return. When one has had their
family, assets, and income completely stripped for no reason whatsoever, and
one is faced with extended time in a political debtor's prison being
gang-raped, one sometimes chooses freedom. Yes, there are countries that
know what is going on in America -- and they do not cooperate with America's
Maoist approach to family and marriage.

It is disgusting that we do this in America, while mainstream Republicans
(the party of equality that brought about the 19th Amendment) does nothing
but egg it on.

America may be the greatest county on earth in some regards, but we are the
worst in others. China and Cuba socialized their economies, and their
economies were devastated. China is well on the way to leaving this behind.
In America, we socialized the family, and our families are devastated. We
have not yet begun the journey towards ending the horrid abuses of human
rights that Mr. Milton has borne with such candor and courage.

"We must now grant to fathers the same right to be in the family as we have
granted to women in the workplace".


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, can help themselves without
Government intervention.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:17:28 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

Men are becoming extremely interested in social issues and equal rights to
be in the family, as are second wives.

I don't believe that; for the most part, I think they're just
males--slaves to anyone who tells them what to do. They'll never
actually do anything for themselves. If there is a solution, it has to
be individual.

The above goes to the absolute unconstitutionality of child support orders
as they are currently made. They are essentially not modifiable. Billions
in
federal funding steer the child support process to procedurally deny men
due
process and treat them as if they could pull money out of thin air,
regardless of external influences such as market conditions, the economy,
one's own health, and education requirements imposed by employers.

So? As for your unconstitutionality claim, it is no more unconstitutional
than Social Security, Affirmative Action, or any other government wealth
transfer
vote buying scheme.

Viking wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:17:28 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

Men are becoming extremely interested in social issues and equal rights to
be in the family, as are second wives.

I don't believe that; for the most part, I think they're just
males--slaves to anyone who tells them what to do. They'll never
actually do anything for themselves. If there is a solution, it has to
be individual.

Men are capable of banding together only for purposes that will give
them better sexual access to females, such as:
war -- which kills other men hence there are more women available.
business -- which gives more money, which can be used to obtain women.

Much of male desire to band together operates at the sub-conscious
level.

Men are handcuffed by their sexuality, and for that reason will always
be slaves to women. It is great being a woman. I adore it!

DebSmith wrote:
Viking wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:17:28 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

Men are becoming extremely interested in social issues and equal rights to
be in the family, as are second wives.

I don't believe that; for the most part, I think they're just
males--slaves to anyone who tells them what to do. They'll never
actually do anything for themselves. If there is a solution, it has to
be individual.

Men are capable of banding together only for purposes that will give
them better sexual access to females, such as:
war -- which kills other men hence there are more women available.
business -- which gives more money, which can be used to obtain women.

Much of male desire to band together operates at the sub-conscious
level.

Men are handcuffed by their sexuality, and for that reason will always
be slaves to women. It is great being a woman. I adore it!

Quite correct, although 'handcuffed' probably isn't the most
appropriate term to describe men's sexual vulnerability! Like all
monopolistic suppliers women have the unfettered sexual power to
enslave men, and use it.

The natural inequality of sexual reproduction influences every social
activity. Gender equality is an absolute nonsense.

Kenneth S. wrote:
Men are capable of banding together only for purposes that will give
them better sexual access to females, such as:
war -- which kills other men hence there are more women available.
business -- which gives more money, which can be used to obtain women.
Much of male desire to band together operates at the sub-conscious
level.
Men are handcuffed by their sexuality, and for that reason will always
be slaves to women. It is great being a woman. I adore it!

Despite the hostile tone of the above (and the distinct possibility that
the message has no purpose other than to provoke men), there is an element
of truth in it, I think.
Women normally don't state the obvious -- that they use sex to handcuff
men. Yet, they do it starting at age 12. They continue throughout their
lives.

As Warren Farrell correctly points out, in the war of the sexes only one
side shows up. Why is this? My own view is that one important element is
that heterosexual men want to go to bed with women
Women will usually mate with men who easily influenced with sex. Over
thousands of years, female will eventually ensure that men who are not
easily influenced do not pass along their genes.

It is a miracle that men who find it a bit easy to resist female sex
temptations exist at all.

In modern Western societies, women have a high degree of control over
whether sex takes place or not.
This will continue. Women use 'love' to ensure men will continue to
fight for their right to control the when/where/how of sex.

Men are trapped.

"DebSmith" wrote in

Men are trapped.

Ah please, get over yourself!

"DebSmith" wrote in message
oups.com...

Kenneth S. wrote:
Men are capable of banding together only for purposes that will give
them better sexual access to females, such as:
war -- which kills other men hence there are more women available.
business -- which gives more money, which can be used to obtain women.
Much of male desire to band together operates at the sub-conscious
level.
Men are handcuffed by their sexuality, and for that reason will always
be slaves to women. It is great being a woman. I adore it!

Despite the hostile tone of the above (and the distinct possibility
that
the message has no purpose other than to provoke men), there is an
element
of truth in it, I think.
Women normally don't state the obvious -- that they use sex to handcuff
men. Yet, they do it starting at age 12. They continue throughout their
lives.

Only if you let them. If you buy into the idea of women being the maiden in
need of salvation, they rule. Of course, treating women as equals and with
the third revision of VAWA (Violence As Women's Advantage), this can land
one in jail.


As Warren Farrell correctly points out, in the war of the sexes only
one
side shows up. Why is this? My own view is that one important element
is
that heterosexual men want to go to bed with women
Women will usually mate with men who easily influenced with sex. Over
thousands of years, female will eventually ensure that men who are not
easily influenced do not pass along their genes.

It is a miracle that men who find it a bit easy to resist female sex
temptations exist at all.

While I am still tempted, I have been through enough to know a 'bait and
switch' routine when I see one.
You'll never get what is promised.


In modern Western societies, women have a high degree of control over
whether sex takes place or not.
This will continue. Women use 'love' to ensure men will continue to
fight for their right to control the when/where/how of sex.

Men are trapped.

Only through their own ignorance.

Phil #3