Fathers In Extreme Situations: To be Ghandi or John Brown?

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/mental...ons-to-be.html

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Fathers In Extreme Situations: To be Ghandi or John Brown?
"The Sun Story troublingly lacked details, as did other news accounts, and
no arrest were made. The story had suspicious timing-it came out the same
day as the English announced they would be using notoriously strong-armed
private debt collectors to collect child support."



by Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq.

When confronted with extreme deprivations of rights, reactions differ
substantially, especially as between incendiary agitation or pacifically
seeking change. There was Booker T. Washington who sought advancement
through personal development and industrial education, versus the radical
approach of WEB Dubois who thought of Washington as an accommodationist. You
had Malcolm X who had no use for the non-violent approach of Martin Luther
King. There was the National Women's Suffrage Association that was only run
by women and believed that it was more important that they receive suffrage
before blacks, versus the American Women's Suffrage Movement that believed
women's suffrage and black suffrage were equally important and guaranteed
men leadership positions. You had the Quaker pacifist abolitionist versus
the pike-wielding guerilla abolitionist tactics of John Brown.
Yesterday, Fathers-4-Justice, a British based fathers' rights group, again
made national headlines when an alleged plot to kidnap English Prime
Minister Tony Blair's son Leo was revealed. No doubt, if there was such a
plan, poetic justice was in mind. Fathers' rights activists believe the
courts have kidnapped their children. In one Internet chat group I will not
name, a father writes, "When the government takes our children, is it time
to take THEIR children, one might ask?"

Fathers' rights groups quickly denounced the kidnapping plot. Faced with the
publicity, fathers-4-justice founder, Matt O'Connor, has disbanded the
group, although from their website, it is not clear whether the move is
permanent. Some note the stories source, "The Sun," is a British Tabloid
often strewn with shrill headlines, scantly clad women, and is not noted for
quality journalism. There is the motive of the British police to exaggerate
what appears to be stupid pub talk (if even that) after years of
embarrassing tactics by Fathers-4-Justice, including stunts like climbing
the walls of Buckingham Palace, scaling St. Paul's Cathedral and the London
Eye, climbing the clock tower at Westminster, and throwing purple flour at
the Prime Minister while giving a speech in House of Commons.

On the website MensNewDaily.com, in an "Official Statement from an Alleged
Blair Kidnapping Plotter," Martin Mathews inculpates The Sun: "Late last
night and early this morning I was approached by a 3rd party offering me
£10,000 from the Sun Newspaper to lie and admit that the kidnapping plot was
a Matt O'Conner idea and that he had asked me to look into it for the
group."


The Sun story troublingly lacked details, as did other news accounts, and no
arrests were made. The story had suspicious timing-it came out the same day
as the English announced they would be using notoriously strong-armed
private debt collectors to collect child support.

The sad truth is that unspeakable deprivations are being visited upon
fathers. Though they may be completely fit, they endure losing their
children and their fortunes on attorney fees and mind-boggling child support
orders. Children are being raised fatherless. Men are literally being sent
to debtor's prison unable to pay astronomical child support awards, some
predicated on incomes that are not real but invented under a theory known as
"attributed income."


Restraining order abuse abounds, so that men cannot even be assured they can
live in their own homes. The sad truth is that the while this so-called
"kidnapping plot" was quickly-and rightly-condemned, the daily kidnapping of
children by family court systems around the world has not.


Understandably, public support is with fathers. On a ballot question that
was on over 30 state representative districts in Massachusetts, shared
parenting won by an 86% margin. But the fathers' rights movement has many
problems turning this popular opinion into success.


Some of the fault lies with fathers themselves. Faced with wrongs far
greater than say, to pluck one out of history, higher taxes and no
representative in Parliament igniting a revolution, they sit docilely by
instead of joining and helping a fathers' rights group. Fiery orations prove
awkward before small audiences.


Then there are the wealthy, who believe in our cause but refuse to provide
the one-thing legislatures understand-lobbying money.


Why don't fathers dress up in suits and ties and appear as intellectuals on
Nightline or The Charlie Rose Show? No doubt they could, but they just aren't
invited. Larry Parnas, managing editor of the Daily Hampshire Gazette admits
that fathers' rights groups are unfairly shunned by the media. At best, this
leaves you with Batman perched on a ledge at Buckingham Palace. At worst,
you have those that are becoming increasingly disillusioned with a movement
that has produced little change over the past 30 years despite widespread
public support, and who are seething that politicians and judges do not
change their ways.

Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq.

Mr. Del Gallo is spokesman for the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition.

posted by Mike LaSalle at 11:16 AM

2 Comments:
chrislf said...
The men who lead are always notoriously independant and idiosyncratic,
Ghandhi sat and got in the way and was followed. His acts of defiance were
public. His public were largely the dispossessed and poverty stricken. Today
it is not so easy with so many people being apathetic on the one hand and
fully bound by the realities of complex daily living on the other.

Revolutionary action is usually violent and destructive and born from
irrational hatreds. Not always of course. Today in western democracies the
governmental forces are very strong and revolutionary action would be met
with much death. No decent man seeks that.

But what we are seeing is a mass of individuals who are taking a different
route. A mass dissaffection. Marriage is on the wane, not because of simply
father issues but the whole raft of LAW that diminishes men and marriage and
ties them up in bureaucracy. Men are voting with their feet. This does not
threaten the State, as passive, public resistenec did or revolution did.

The State WILL be threatened when their power is diminished and THIS WILL
HAPPEN by the same action by men when responding to the marriage issue. A
walk-out on a mass level in an area the governments NEED..

Men will NOT DEFEND a country that marginalises them. Even now most
western countries have difficulty raising sufficient numbers for their armed
forces, just at the time when the polity is moving toward enforcement of its
aims by arms.

The reversal of feminist policy and its effects CAN come about by a more
vocal expression, an articulation of the reason why young men no longer want
to serve their country. If there is a rallying point anywhere it is here.

Ghandi-isation of the military recruitment effort. Sit downs outside
recruitment offices. Not anti-war, but anti-defense. Saying clearly - the
society you have forced on us against our will and to our diminishment, is
NOT WORTH DEFENDING. Throwing the bureaucracy into disarray by doing all the
tests and interviews and then telling them to shove it. That will get the
message to Gov't in a way they will understand.

6:02 PM
Eric said...
There are some very valid points made by the above two authors.

However, neither will solve anything with just rhetoric and repeating the
same observations over and over.

The men not marrying are not marrying because it is the feminazis plan for
men NOT to marry. The destruction of the family and marriage is a dogma of
the feminazis.

Not only men, but the masses in general are being "dumbed down"
purposefully to ensure the feminazi goals. One only needs to look at an 8th
grade test given to students in the 1800's to see how true this is (very few
college graduates-including me-could ever pass such a test). Instead of
teaching and focusing the three R's, the feminazi and homosexual (joined at
the hip) influence for social reform is the mainstay of our indoctrination
centers, formally called schools.

As each generation gets dumber, any movement for true equality and rights
is designed to flounder and expire.

When you have a government that refuses to acknowledge that we are a
Republic as opposed to a democracy, what else can one expect when the masses
docilely obey and don't know the difference? How can they? They have been
purposefully "dumbed down."

"Oh! That's not fair!" is about as far as anything goes because men have
been indoctrinated NOT to be men. Oh sure, men sit around and moan and groan
to each other. Then, someone says something like let's do what has worked
throughout history for reform such as demonstrating or peaceful civil
disobedience, the moaners and groaners back down in fear that their PERSONAL
situation may be tarnished for such participation and nothing happens as
evidenced by the demonstrations planned in the past such as the "Million
Dads March." As they back down, things only get worse-not better...unless
you want say that making words politically correct in statute laws
better...as they tighten the noose around our necks.

Some say that when things get really, really bad, we will stand up and
win. I say: Forcibly taking our children, wealth and property is not really,
really bad?

Some say that we are too angry to be of any good. How can that be? Being
angry constructively, is the only way to make change. Since when is it wrong
to take a natural emotion to effect change?

I know men that refuse to play. They don't pay child support (good for
them). They stand on street corners with signs (all by themselves). They
have no qualms about being put in jail for their beliefs. These men are a
dying breed as the indoctrination centers continue to espouse their filth
and turn out "good little drone citizen workers" for the governments and
corporations to exploit.

If you are not willing to put your beliefs on the table no matter where
you are, not willing to sacrifice for those beliefs, not willing to stand up
for those beliefs, not willing to sacrifice your money and future, not
willing to die for those beliefs...you have no beliefs, morals or
principles!

Me thinks that you deserve what is happening to you, your children and
their children...

May God have pity on us that do have integrity for we will surely be
doomed by our fellow non-doing, dumbed down, felow "men" that refuse to look
at history as they repeat the same mistakes over and over and over.

Eric Ericson

Thanks for the news, Dusty. I'm very sorry to hear this about F4J, and
I hope their disbanding is only temporary. They were a glimmer of hope
over here.

Interestingly enough, the editor of the Sun (the paper that first
published the questionable story alleging that there was a plot on the
part of F4J to kidnap Blair's child) is a feminist who has used the
paper in her "high-profile" campaign against domestic violence.

She was also recently arrested for assaulting her husband:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/051103/137/60v1h.html

- Ron ^*^



Dusty wrote:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/mental...ons-to-be.html

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Fathers In Extreme Situations: To be Ghandi or John Brown?
"The Sun Story troublingly lacked details, as did other news accounts, and
no arrest were made. The story had suspicious timing-it came out the same
day as the English announced they would be using notoriously strong-armed
private debt collectors to collect child support."



by Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq.

When confronted with extreme deprivations of rights, reactions differ
substantially, especially as between incendiary agitation or pacifically
seeking change. There was Booker T. Washington who sought advancement
through personal development and industrial education, versus the radical
approach of WEB Dubois who thought of Washington as an accommodationist. You
had Malcolm X who had no use for the non-violent approach of Martin Luther
King. There was the National Women's Suffrage Association that was only run
by women and believed that it was more important that they receive suffrage
before blacks, versus the American Women's Suffrage Movement that believed
women's suffrage and black suffrage were equally important and guaranteed
men leadership positions. You had the Quaker pacifist abolitionist versus
the pike-wielding guerilla abolitionist tactics of John Brown.
Yesterday, Fathers-4-Justice, a British based fathers' rights group, again
made national headlines when an alleged plot to kidnap English Prime
Minister Tony Blair's son Leo was revealed. No doubt, if there was such a
plan, poetic justice was in mind. Fathers' rights activists believe the
courts have kidnapped their children. In one Internet chat group I will not
name, a father writes, "When the government takes our children, is it time
to take THEIR children, one might ask?"

Fathers' rights groups quickly denounced the kidnapping plot. Faced with the
publicity, fathers-4-justice founder, Matt O'Connor, has disbanded the
group, although from their website, it is not clear whether the move is
permanent. Some note the stories source, "The Sun," is a British Tabloid
often strewn with shrill headlines, scantly clad women, and is not noted for
quality journalism. There is the motive of the British police to exaggerate
what appears to be stupid pub talk (if even that) after years of
embarrassing tactics by Fathers-4-Justice, including stunts like climbing
the walls of Buckingham Palace, scaling St. Paul's Cathedral and the London
Eye, climbing the clock tower at Westminster, and throwing purple flour at
the Prime Minister while giving a speech in House of Commons.

On the website MensNewDaily.com, in an "Official Statement from an Alleged
Blair Kidnapping Plotter," Martin Mathews inculpates The Sun: "Late last
night and early this morning I was approached by a 3rd party offering me
£10,000 from the Sun Newspaper to lie and admit that the kidnapping plot was
a Matt O'Conner idea and that he had asked me to look into it for the
group."


The Sun story troublingly lacked details, as did other news accounts, and no
arrests were made. The story had suspicious timing-it came out the same day
as the English announced they would be using notoriously strong-armed
private debt collectors to collect child support.

The sad truth is that unspeakable deprivations are being visited upon
fathers. Though they may be completely fit, they endure losing their
children and their fortunes on attorney fees and mind-boggling child support
orders. Children are being raised fatherless. Men are literally being sent
to debtor's prison unable to pay astronomical child support awards, some
predicated on incomes that are not real but invented under a theory known as
"attributed income."


Restraining order abuse abounds, so that men cannot even be assured they can
live in their own homes. The sad truth is that the while this so-called
"kidnapping plot" was quickly-and rightly-condemned, the daily kidnapping of
children by family court systems around the world has not.


Understandably, public support is with fathers. On a ballot question that
was on over 30 state representative districts in Massachusetts, shared
parenting won by an 86% margin. But the fathers' rights movement has many
problems turning this popular opinion into success.


Some of the fault lies with fathers themselves. Faced with wrongs far
greater than say, to pluck one out of history, higher taxes and no
representative in Parliament igniting a revolution, they sit docilely by
instead of joining and helping a fathers' rights group. Fiery orations prove
awkward before small audiences.


Then there are the wealthy, who believe in our cause but refuse to provide
the one-thing legislatures understand-lobbying money.


Why don't fathers dress up in suits and ties and appear as intellectuals on
Nightline or The Charlie Rose Show? No doubt they could, but they just aren't
invited. Larry Parnas, managing editor of the Daily Hampshire Gazette admits
that fathers' rights groups are unfairly shunned by the media. At best, this
leaves you with Batman perched on a ledge at Buckingham Palace. At worst,
you have those that are becoming increasingly disillusioned with a movement
that has produced little change over the past 30 years despite widespread
public support, and who are seething that politicians and judges do not
change their ways.

Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq.

Mr. Del Gallo is spokesman for the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition.

posted by Mike LaSalle at 11:16 AM

2 Comments:
chrislf said...
The men who lead are always notoriously independant and idiosyncratic,
Ghandhi sat and got in the way and was followed. His acts of defiance were
public. His public were largely the dispossessed and poverty stricken. Today
it is not so easy with so many people being apathetic on the one hand and
fully bound by the realities of complex daily living on the other.

Revolutionary action is usually violent and destructive and born from
irrational hatreds. Not always of course. Today in western democracies the
governmental forces are very strong and revolutionary action would be met
with much death. No decent man seeks that.

But what we are seeing is a mass of individuals who are taking a different
route. A mass dissaffection. Marriage is on the wane, not because of simply
father issues but the whole raft of LAW that diminishes men and marriage and
ties them up in bureaucracy. Men are voting with their feet. This does not
threaten the State, as passive, public resistenec did or revolution did.

The State WILL be threatened when their power is diminished and THIS WILL
HAPPEN by the same action by men when responding to the marriage issue. A
walk-out on a mass level in an area the governments NEED..

Men will NOT DEFEND a country that marginalises them. Even now most
western countries have difficulty raising sufficient numbers for their armed
forces, just at the time when the polity is moving toward enforcement of its
aims by arms.

The reversal of feminist policy and its effects CAN come about by a more
vocal expression, an articulation of the reason why young men no longer want
to serve their country. If there is a rallying point anywhere it is here.

Ghandi-isation of the military recruitment effort. Sit downs outside
recruitment offices. Not anti-war, but anti-defense. Saying clearly - the
society you have forced on us against our will and to our diminishment, is
NOT WORTH DEFENDING. Throwing the bureaucracy into disarray by doing all the
tests and interviews and then telling them to shove it. That will get the
message to Gov't in a way they will understand.

6:02 PM
Eric said...
There are some very valid points made by the above two authors.

However, neither will solve anything with just rhetoric and repeating the
same observations over and over.

The men not marrying are not marrying because it is the feminazis plan for
men NOT to marry. The destruction of the family and marriage is a dogma of
the feminazis.

Not only men, but the masses in general are being "dumbed down"
purposefully to ensure the feminazi goals. One only needs to look at an 8th
grade test given to students in the 1800's to see how true this is (very few
college graduates-including me-could ever pass such a test). Instead of
teaching and focusing the three R's, the feminazi and homosexual (joined at
the hip) influence for social reform is the mainstay of our indoctrination
centers, formally called schools.

As each generation gets dumber, any movement for true equality and rights
is designed to flounder and expire.

When you have a government that refuses to acknowledge that we are a
Republic as opposed to a democracy, what else can one expect when the masses
docilely obey and don't know the difference? How can they? They have been
purposefully "dumbed down."

"Oh! That's not fair!" is about as far as anything goes because men have
been indoctrinated NOT to be men. Oh sure, men sit around and moan and groan
to each other. Then, someone says something like let's do what has worked
throughout history for reform such as demonstrating or peaceful civil
disobedience, the moaners and groaners back down in fear that their PERSONAL
situation may be tarnished for such participation and nothing happens as
evidenced by the demonstrations planned in the past such as the "Million
Dads March." As they back down, things only get worse-not better...unless
you want say that making words politically correct in statute laws
better...as they tighten the noose around our necks.

Some say that when things get really, really bad, we will stand up and
win. I say: Forcibly taking our children, wealth and property is not really,
really bad?

Some say that we are too angry to be of any good. How can that be? Being
angry constructively, is the only way to make change. Since when is it wrong
to take a natural emotion to effect change?

I know men that refuse to play. They don't pay child support (good for
them). They stand on street corners with signs (all by themselves). They
have no qualms about being put in jail for their beliefs. These men are a
dying breed as the indoctrination centers continue to espouse their filth
and turn out "good little drone citizen workers" for the governments and
corporations to exploit.

If you are not willing to put your beliefs on the table no matter where
you are, not willing to sacrifice for those beliefs, not willing to stand up
for those beliefs, not willing to sacrifice your money and future, not
willing to die for those beliefs...you have no beliefs, morals or
principles!

Me thinks that you deserve what is happening to you, your children and
their children...

May God have pity on us that do have integrity for we will surely be
doomed by our fellow non-doing, dumbed down, felow "men" that refuse to look
at history as they repeat the same mistakes over and over and over.

Eric Ericson

"Werebat" wrote in message
newsCSAf.9358$NE.7989@dukeread12...

Thanks for the news, Dusty. I'm very sorry to hear this about F4J, and I
hope their disbanding is only temporary. They were a glimmer of hope over
here.

Interestingly enough, the editor of the Sun (the paper that first
published the questionable story alleging that there was a plot on the
part of F4J to kidnap Blair's child) is a feminist who has used the paper
in her "high-profile" campaign against domestic violence.

She was also recently arrested for assaulting her husband:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/051103/137/60v1h.html

- Ron ^*^

Absolutely true on that one, Ron. Rebekah Wade is a perfect example of
what lengths our friends, the radfems, will go to in order to push their
agenda upon the rest of us. Personally, I don't buy a word of the story
that the Sun put out - where are the arrests? Where's the corroborating
evidence and statements from Scotland Yard??

I feel certain that she used her influence to get a trash story about F4J
published in her rag of a paper (even Brits think the Sun isn't worth the
effort to use to line the bottom of one's bird cage with!). And made
certain that the story was so sensational, so outrageous, that if enough
"sister" newspapers picked up and ran the same story (newspapers these days
just change the by-line and reprint the same "information" over and over
again - there is little, if any actual journalism left in the media), that
it would be believed.

Welcome to Yellow Journalism at it's finest my friends.

The problem with Yellow Journalism is that if enough gullible people read it
(and their are a $#*%load of them out there just chomping at the bit to
discuss it 'round the water cooler on Monday morning) again and again, they
will believe it as fact. This was a favorite tactic of Hitler and Stalin -
yes, this has been tried many times before, just look at the results those
two assholes got by telling lies so often and for so long that their own
people (not to mention the rest of the world) believed the lies over the
truth!!

I believe Hitler once said, "Tell a lie long enough and anyone will believe
it." OK, maybe I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

I'd bet you a dollar (or a beer, take your pick) that that's exactly what
Wade was hoping to do.

Oh, I've not heard another peep from the other side of the pond about what,
if anything, ever happened to her being caught beating up on her hubby...

I'm fairly familiar with the British press, and I agree with the
comments below about it. The Sun is the worst of the trashy tabloids. It
is now pretty clear that this story was the result of collaboration between
Sun reporters and police officers who had a vendetta against Fathers For
Justice because of the embarrassment they had caused to law enforcement by
their successful stunts designed to call attention to the plight of divorced
fathers.

In 2003 a Fathers for Justice activist conducted a sit-in on a
construction crane near Tower Bridge for several days. As part of the
police's vendetta against the fathers' group, they unjustifiably closed off
many roads in the area. This action infuriated commuters who turned their
wrath on the group, just as the police had intended. However, in the
subsequent court action, the activist was acquitted of causing a public
nuisance. In addition, records of police communications that came out at
the trial indicated clearly that the police knew the road closures were
unnecessary, and were intended merely to bring pressure to bear on the
crane-sitter and the fathers' organization.

Having said all that, the fact remains that many people read the Sun.
How seriously they take it, I don't know. What this whole episode indicates
is the strength of the opposition fathers' groups face. My impression is,
however, that there are other papers in Britain that are much more willing
to listen to the fathers' side of things than the Sun (or, for that matter,
the politically correct mainstream media in the U.S.) I remember reading,
during a visit to Britain several years ago, some extremely hostile coverage
of the bullying tactics of the British Child Support Agency.


"Dusty" wrote in message
news
"Werebat" wrote in message
newsCSAf.9358$NE.7989@dukeread12...

Thanks for the news, Dusty. I'm very sorry to hear this about F4J, and I
hope their disbanding is only temporary. They were a glimmer of hope
over here.

Interestingly enough, the editor of the Sun (the paper that first
published the questionable story alleging that there was a plot on the
part of F4J to kidnap Blair's child) is a feminist who has used the paper
in her "high-profile" campaign against domestic violence.

She was also recently arrested for assaulting her husband:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/051103/137/60v1h.html

- Ron ^*^

Absolutely true on that one, Ron. Rebekah Wade is a perfect example of
what lengths our friends, the radfems, will go to in order to push their
agenda upon the rest of us. Personally, I don't buy a word of the story
that the Sun put out - where are the arrests? Where's the corroborating
evidence and statements from Scotland Yard??

I feel certain that she used her influence to get a trash story about F4J
published in her rag of a paper (even Brits think the Sun isn't worth the
effort to use to line the bottom of one's bird cage with!). And made
certain that the story was so sensational, so outrageous, that if enough
"sister" newspapers picked up and ran the same story (newspapers these
days just change the by-line and reprint the same "information" over and
over again - there is little, if any actual journalism left in the media),
that it would be believed.

Welcome to Yellow Journalism at it's finest my friends.

The problem with Yellow Journalism is that if enough gullible people read
it (and their are a $#*%load of them out there just chomping at the bit to
discuss it 'round the water cooler on Monday morning) again and again,
they will believe it as fact. This was a favorite tactic of Hitler and
Stalin - yes, this has been tried many times before, just look at the
results those two assholes got by telling lies so often and for so long
that their own people (not to mention the rest of the world) believed the
lies over the truth!!

I believe Hitler once said, "Tell a lie long enough and anyone will
believe it." OK, maybe I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

I'd bet you a dollar (or a beer, take your pick) that that's exactly what
Wade was hoping to do.

Oh, I've not heard another peep from the other side of the pond about
what, if anything, ever happened to her being caught beating up on her
hubby...

"Dusty" wrote in message
news
"Werebat" wrote in message
newsCSAf.9358$NE.7989@dukeread12...

Thanks for the news, Dusty. I'm very sorry to hear this about F4J, and
I
hope their disbanding is only temporary. They were a glimmer of hope
over
here.

Interestingly enough, the editor of the Sun (the paper that first
published the questionable story alleging that there was a plot on the
part of F4J to kidnap Blair's child) is a feminist who has used the
paper
in her "high-profile" campaign against domestic violence.

She was also recently arrested for assaulting her husband:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/051103/137/60v1h.html

- Ron ^*^

Absolutely true on that one, Ron. Rebekah Wade is a perfect example of
what lengths our friends, the radfems, will go to in order to push their
agenda upon the rest of us. Personally, I don't buy a word of the story
that the Sun put out - where are the arrests? Where's the corroborating
evidence and statements from Scotland Yard??

I feel certain that she used her influence to get a trash story about F4J
published in her rag of a paper (even Brits think the Sun isn't worth the
effort to use to line the bottom of one's bird cage with!). And made
certain that the story was so sensational, so outrageous, that if enough
"sister" newspapers picked up and ran the same story (newspapers these
days
just change the by-line and reprint the same "information" over and over
again - there is little, if any actual journalism left in the media), that
it would be believed.

Welcome to Yellow Journalism at it's finest my friends.

The problem with Yellow Journalism is that if enough gullible people read
it
(and their are a $#*%load of them out there just chomping at the bit to
discuss it 'round the water cooler on Monday morning) again and again,
they
will believe it as fact. This was a favorite tactic of Hitler and
Stalin -
yes, this has been tried many times before, just look at the results those
two assholes got by telling lies so often and for so long that their own
people (not to mention the rest of the world) believed the lies over the
truth!!

I believe Hitler once said, "Tell a lie long enough and anyone will
believe
it." OK, maybe I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

I'd bet you a dollar (or a beer, take your pick) that that's exactly what
Wade was hoping to do.

Oh, I've not heard another peep from the other side of the pond about
what,
if anything, ever happened to her being caught beating up on her hubby...



I guess that's the great thing about our democracies - our leaders never
lie.