Mouf Diarea

Taken from askmen.com. Bold for your attention….

No.10 - Wrongful paternity

Consider this: You just got a divorce, which requires you to pay child support. No problem, they’re your kids and you’re here to support them. But then DNA evidence shows they’re not your kids and you’ve been paying for another guy’s offspring. Now you want your money back, which seems fair and reasonable. Not according to some judges.

Parker v. State (Florida)
Richard Parker found out his 3-year-old child wasn’t his. The twist: The court ruled unanimously that he has to continue to pay child support, which is expected to total $200,000 over 15 years.

No.9 - Deadbeat-dad rulings

A deadbeat dad is a negative label given to dads who fall behind on their child support payments. This largely refers to men who consciously avoid paying every month. The stigma also includes fathers who may have been laid off and can’t keep up on their payments.

State of Wisconsin v. Oakley
This defendant — David Oakley — will never win father of the year. The guy has outstanding child support payments for nine children from four women. Here’s the issue: The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled he could no longer procreate until he proves he can support kids. This sets a precedent that could hurt dads who may have legitimately fallen behind on payments from being laid off.

No.8 - False rape cases

Rape is a serious crime that deserves to be punished within the full extent of the law. When it’s a false accusation, however, rape can destroy an innocent man’s reputation as soon as the claim goes public. By their nature, these cases prove a man’s innocence, but suspicions and a tarnished reputation aren’t as easily abolished.

Hudak v. Johnson
RCMP officer Hudak was accused of sexual assault. The judge threw it out after the female accuser admitted to lying about it. Hudak transferred to a new detachment, but women still refused to work with him. He then moved to a different province where someone said she “didn’t want a rapist on the force.” Redemption: Hudak was awarded a provincial apology plus an undisclosed settlement from his $5 million claim.

No.7 - Putative Father Registry law

This law asks any man who has had heterosexual non-marital sex to register with their state. This is done so that you, as a man, can be contacted if a woman you’ve slept with gets pregnant and she puts this child up for adoption. If you don’t sign up, you might not even know you were a father.

Huddleston v. State (New Mexico)
Mark Huddleston’s child was adopted when he was just 3 days old. The issue: Huddleston didn’t even know he had a boy until two months later. The adoption agency that gave away the boy did not contact Huddleston to tell him. The result: Mark Huddleston was denied the chance to bring up his biological son.

No.6 - Bradley Amendment

This law states that men’s outstanding child support payments will not be reduced for whatever reason. Just laid off from your job and want to reduce the amount of your payment until you find work? Nope. Had a medical accident and been out of work recovering in hospital? Pay up.

Sherrill v. State of North Carolina
This defendant was a Lockheed employee and a divorced father working in Kuwait during the Gulf War. One day, he was captured by Iraqis and held as hostage. He was released five months later. The second night he was back in the U.S. a sheriff came to arrest him for owing $1,425 in payments that accumulated when he was held hostage. Ouch.

No.5 - Proposition 13

Proposition 13 was recently voted in as Texas law. It states that any father accused of domestic violence will be denied bail before trial. Sounds OK on the surface, but if you read closely you’ll see it says any father “accused” of violence is denied bail. This means that if a woman simply says her husband was violent, her husband will be denied bail. While its intention is a noble one — to keep abusive husbands from hurting their wives — the side effect is that any spiteful, angry wife with a cross to bear can send an innocent guy to jail.

No.4 - Restraining order laws

In truth, it’s harder for an adult woman to buy a pack of cigarettes than to get a restraining order. She can tell a judge she simply “feels unsafe” with her husband or boyfriend and the court can issue an order against her husband. This, of course, forces him to move out and reorganize his life. For this reason, many people have dubbed this law “shout at your spouse, lose your house.”

McLarnon v. Douglas and Jokisch
The father, Edward McLarnon, was issued a restraining order by his ex-wife with the help of her social-worker boyfriend Douglas. Douglas used his social-worker status to testify that McLarnon was an abuser when he’d barely met him. McLarnon lost the right to see his son.

No.3 - Trust assets from divorce

Sure, it’s one thing to split marital assets fifty-fifty, but what about an offshore trust or limited partnership you set up to build capital? Sorry guys, tack it on to the bill. Even in cases of private business practice, rulings on trusts generally favor women.

Riechers v. Riechers 1998, New York
The husband in this case set up a trust and a limited partnership. The reason: He was a physician and wanted to avoid a malpractice suit. He named his kids and wife as beneficiaries, but his wife’s name wasn’t explicitly mentioned. This meant, in a divorce, she would not have access to the trust. But she got it regardless, as the court ruled in her favor.

No.2 - Alimony/Spousal support

“I want half, Eddie.” You don’t have to watch old Eddie Murphy stand-up to know divorce can cost men a lot of money. Until now, most U.S. states leave the length and amount of settlement up to each judge. In Florida, it’s on the books that men have to provide lifetime support. The result: Men can be on the hook for a long time for a lot.

Polksy v. Polsky
Trivia: What’s one of the largest divorce verdicts in U.S. history? Answer: $184 million dollars to Maya Polsky, wife of Michael Polsky, a successful power industry businessman in Chicago.

No.1 - Custody

It’s widely accepted that women will be granted custody for children in child custody cases and that men will simply make child support payments. Of course, men who are good fathers and want custody of their children suffer for it thanks to this scenario.

John Doe v. Province of Saskatchewan
The man in this case unknowingly impregnated a woman. Later, he found she was putting this child up for adoption. He took a DNA test to prove he was the biological father and applied for sole custody — but he was denied. The judge ruled in favor of a couple to adopt him.

Tags: Education // 2 Comments »

Will YOU Elect GynObama & VAWA Joe?
by Marc H. Rudov

Biggest Setback to Men in US History

Attention all men: do a quick testicular self-exam. That space you feel between your legs means that Barack Obama and Joe Biden — both on record as ballbusting misandrists — will easily convince you to send them to the White House. If you enable their victory, you will cause the biggest setback to men in US history.

It is Saturday morning, August 23, 2008. All the networks are atwitter about Barack Obama choosing Joe Biden to be his veep. Fawning reporters are camped outside Joe Biden’s “compound” in Wilmington, Delaware, awaiting his appearance at the door, while the Secret Service is ready to whisk him to the airport. From there, Biden will fly to Springfield, Illinois, to join Barack Obama for the formal announcement.

Despite the numerous debates amongst TV’s talking heads, pundits, and partisans about the qualifications Obama and Biden may or may not have to run our country, these pontificators never mention the presidential aspirants’ disdain for men. Never. They never mention VAWA, a four-letter word on TV. That’s because violating the US Constitution, to the detriment of men, isn’t as important a topic as, say, how many homes the candidates own — or the sizes or colors or locations of those homes.

This attitude that men are trivial and irrelevant, and deserve no rights, is precisely why lawmakers, judges, jurists, governors, and presidents continue to ignore the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I guess that female tears smudge the Constitution’s ink, rendering it impossible to read.

Can’t read the Constitution? Ignore it. In California, domestic violence is still defined as “man hitting woman,” according to Health & Safety Code 124250, even though women commit domestic violence up to 70% of the time. Who cares how many men’s lives are ruined? They’re just disposable tools.

Autophobic Men

Many people believe that misandry, the hatred of men, emanates only from radical feminists. Wrong. Most man-haters are autophobic men. Barack Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, squarely established his misandrist credentials on Fathers’ Day 2008, when he unilaterally railed against men as the culprits of fatherless homes. Yet, he failed to lay at least equal blame at the doorsteps of unwed mothers on Mothers’ Day. If he truly respects women as equals, he would have done that.

Recently, pregnant Minnie Driver announced that she will create a fatherless home with this gem, “Today you don’t need a man anymore. In the old days, a baby without marriage and people would put you out. Today you speak about it on talk shows.” Where was Barack Obama to condemn her irresponsibility?

When the divorcing Lara Logan of CBS News “announced” that she had gotten herself knocked up in Iraq up by a married military man, GynObama was nowhere to condemn her irresponsibility. Coddling women is a sign of disrespect for them — and a sign of disregard for men.

Senator Joe Biden, Obama’s new ballbusting partner in crime, is also known as “the father of VAWA.” If you don’t already know about this pernicious law — and shame on you if you don’t — VAWA is the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act, born in 1994 from the loins of Joe Biden.

The senator from Delaware, who teaches a seminar on constitutional law at the Widener University School of Law, believes — unconstitutionally — that violence against women trumps violence against men. Not only did Biden’s jihad against men result in an unconstitutionally funded ($500M/year) Office on Violence Against Women, he recently proposed that US taxpayers fund 100,000 free lawyers to help women file domestic-violence claims against men. And the law students at Widener are paying to hear Biden’s seminars?

The pundits constantly praise Biden’s expertise in foreign policy, and they’re right: VAWA Joe made it permissible for foreign-born wives of American men, going through divorces, to get automatic Green Cards by falsely accusing their ex-husbands-to-be of domestic violence. No proof, no due process required. This isn’t justice; it’s ballbusting gynojustice — and men living in Delaware keep reelecting its promulgator.

The Ballbusting Duo

An Obama/Biden administration would be a huge disaster for men, and I worry that, as always, they will bury their heads in the sand, ignore the perils, and blithely vote for the ballbusting duo.

Let’s look at how our gynocracy — where women have rights but no responsibilities, and men have responsibilities but no rights — will look after these two misandrists take the helm:

* More PSAs on radio & TV accusing men of being the sole culprits of domestic violence
* More acceptance of sitcoms like Everybody Loves Raymond, in which women hit men for laughs
* More acceptance of comedy skits in which women hit men for laughs
* More acceptance of women like Mary Winkler, who killed her husband in cold blood, with virtual impunity, by using the unprovable abuse excuse
* More misinformation from the American Bar Association about men as the sole instigators of domestic violence
* More condoning of female-on-male violence, as shown by ABC News
* More freedom for women, without prosecution, to falsely accuse men of rape, as Crystal Gail Mangum did to three Duke University lacrosse players
* More freedom for women, without prosecution, to falsely accuse men of domestic violence — as Brooke Hogan did to her father Hulk Hogan, just to please her mother.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Anyone with a brain and a pair of eyes knows two things about most American men:

1. They believe that violating NBA or NFL rules is atrocious, but violating the US Constitution to benefit women is just fine
2. Although the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing proved, without a doubt, that women are strong, powerful, and aggressive, we must continue to pretend that they’re delicate, weak, fragile victims.

If you want to perform self-castration and ruin your manhood, please do so in private. But don’t render the rest of American men impotent by sending the country’s top-two ballbusting misandrists — GynObama and VAWA Joe — to the White House. Their victory in November is impossible without the male vote. So, if you elect them, we’ll know that you failed your testicular self-exam.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 80+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2008 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

Tags: Education // Add Comment »

Tags: Exercise /e/, Funny /f/ // Add Comment »

So lately I have been reading up on nutmeg and it’s use as a psychedelic. So I decided to give it a try. Problem is, the literature I read says a dose is around 10-20 grams of powder. But there is no way I was going to eat powdered nutmeg. So I decided to extract the active alkaloids from the nutmeg. Here is my procedure:

10 nutmeg nuts whole
Half a cup of vinegar
1.5 cups of water
stove + pan
Coffee filters ( can use piece of paper towel in a drainer instead or a cotton sock )

Step 1 : Grind the nuts to a powder
Step 2 : Mix powder with water in pan
Step 3 : Bring to a boil on low heat ( stir constantly ! )
Step 4 : Add vinegar once it starts to boil ( Keep stirring ! )
Step 5 : Keep on low heat for around 30-45 minutes while stirring
Step 6 : Take off heat and let cool for a bit
Step 7 : Stir a few times then transfer to drainer with either coffee filters or paper towel in place. - This will slowly drain the liquid ( you want to keep liquid ) and leave all the sand particles in the filter ( you don’t want the sand stuff )
Step 8 : Put the liquid you collected into a big pyrex dish and put in the sun. This will take a long time to dry, so leave it and forget it for a while.
Step 9 : Once this stuff has dried you will scrape it. I have included a pic of what the scrapping looks like.

Tags: Recipes /r/ // Add Comment »

Posted: August 12, 2008
10:28 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Illinois has joined a growing contingent of states to adopt a law that will put electronic GPS tracking bracelets on men who have not been convicted of any crime, but might be involved in a messy divorce.

The plan, named in memory of Cindy Bischoff, who was attacked and murdered by a former boyfriend, was signed into law just days ago and is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1.

And while its goal of protecting women and children from out-of-control husbands and fathers is good, it goes too far and violates the civil rights of innocent fathers, according to a lawyer for a group that will challenge it.

“Electronic tagging devices can be appropriate as a condition of parole or probation,” said attorney Jeffery M. Leving, who is a nationally known fathers’ rights advocate, the author of “Fathers’ Rights” and “Divorce Wars” and founder of DadsRights.com. “The Cindy Bischof Law goes far beyond this, placing long-term electronic tags on men who have never been found guilty of any crime.”

(Story continues below)

According to a website set up in memory of Cindy Bischoff, there are about a dozen states, including Washington, Minnesota, Utah, Colorado, Michigan, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Florida and Massachusetts, that now have similar provisions. The campaign’s goal is to prevent what happened to Bischof from happening to others.

But Leving said there are major constitutional issues that need to be resolved.

“The law carries a presumption of guilt,” Leving said, “without the benefit of a trial, yet the foundation of our entire criminal justice system is based on a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty.”

He said such restraining orders are not unusual.

A recent article by two leaders of the State Bar of California’s Family Law Section said such orders “are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody.” And the Illinois Bar Journal has described them as part of the “gamesmanship” of divorce.

But Leving said the full impact of Illinois’ new law is that judges can order anyone – mostly men and fathers – to wear a GPS tracking device if they simply are accused of violating an order of protection, with no court conviction or adjudication required.

In fact, he said, “such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused’s knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself.”

Such lack of information for the men can result in unknowing violations, Leving said.

“A man can accidentally be in the same park or mall as his ex-wife/girlfriend, and the electronic monitoring device could lead to his arrest even if he never actually saw her. Some men have even been tricked into violating the orders by former spouses. The device will make this easier-a woman could call her estranged husband, tell him she needs him to come to her house because of a crisis with their children, and then have an electronic record of his violation,” he said.

“Perhaps such a drastic measure would be warranted if the men forced to wear the devices had meaningful and fair trials, and were found to be guilty of violent or dangerous crimes. However, the Bischof Law empowers judges with the ability to mandate the GPS tracking device on anyone who is accused of violating an order of protection,” he said.

“Unfortunately, the rush to protect the abused is so incredibly aggressive that the rights of the accused have been violated,” Leving said. “I don’t see any safeguard in this law. This law basically presumes in these situations [men] are guilty.”

He said his organization will work with lawmakers to make them aware of the potential pitfalls of their new law and will watch cases as they develop to pursue a court challenge to its constitutionality.

Pedobears note: You have it gentlemen, we must shun and avoid all American / Western females. We must practice celibacy in the occupied territory of USA. Foreign women have so much more to offer then these femanazis who want to put dog collars on men.

Tags: Education, Uncategorized // Add Comment »