Protest Glenns Sacks and Father's and Families at the Cincinnati Zoo

Father's and Families supporters will be at the Cincinnati Zoo on September 5th for a "Cheetah Run". I am asking all who live in Cincinnati or those close bring your signs and protest this blogger who would steal a child from a loving and caring mother, this blogger who would lie about an adult child (Jennifer Collins) and her experiences as a young child, and this blogger who only publishes untruths about family court.

If you do manage to get there please send pictures and let us know how it goes. I think this should be done wherever any of these unscrupulous fathers rights activists will be.

Robert Franklin - not too bright?

So he is quoting an article on some psychology website about a study concerning fathers and children. Here is his comment:

Sons who have fond childhood memories of their fathers are more likely to be emotionally stable in the face of day-to-day stresses, according to psychologists who studied hundreds of adults of all ages.

Well duh!!!! I think daughters who have the same thing will get the same benefit. And what about those sons who do not have that same great relationship with dad? What about those children whose fathers are abusive (and by looking at Dastardly Dads we see that bad dads are all too common)? I wonder who will do that study?

The daughter did not steal the Mary Jane, but I know who did....

Robert Franklin writes of ONE woman (yes you read that right - just ONE woman) who abused her children. We protective mothers do not say that NO mother has ever abused her children. We simlpy say that when a moher who is protective like we are, and has an abusive ex partner (or ex husband) like we do, who have been abused, like we were and are - the courts should listen and should not force shared parenting down our children's throats. That is what we are saying.

So you want to know where the "abusers getting custody" group is - Robert Franlklin king high ass kisser of glenn cult fame? Right here. We NEVER say that women do not abuse. We do however say that when women bring in stories of abuse, your groups have screamed from the rooftops for so long that it takes an act of God for the courts to believe a woman has been abused. Look at Wyatt.... Look at Darcy Freeman.... Look at Jean Paul Lacombe.... How many more do I need to put out here. Found another blog today. Two children mentioned in that one. I wish the blogger would come back and post soon. I am starting to get a little worried because there have been no posts. Lets add her Emily and John to this mix too..... Anyone else want to join ranks?

So who is stealing the Mary Jane now? I have my own opinion about that one and it should not take a rocket scientist to figure this one out now should it?

Oh and Robert Franklin should you care to do so, you can go look at Dastardly Dads and see literally hundreds of stories of dads killing their children every day. Last count in just this last year we were up to over 80 fathers who killed their chidlren de to custody disputes with the mother - the old if I can't have them nobody will adage.

Why don't you write about that one RF? Or are you like we are - we miss many of these stories due to the sheer volume of men killing their children, men killing their wives, men killing their girlfriends, men killing just about anyone who stands in the way of his property (children, wife, girlfriend). Now when you get this through your thick skulls over there at glenn sucks (oppps glennsacks) dot com, the world might be a better place. Shared parenting does not work with an abuser. And trotting out the occasional story of the bad mom will not make up for the sheer volume of dastardly dads out there who are intent on hurting and even killing everyone who ever cared about him.

So put that in the Mary Jane pipe and smoke it.....

More denial of women's rights - specifically the right to PRIVACY!!!

In fact, Samantha, LDS Family Services, the Hesses and the hospital all worked hand in glove to keep the baby from Shawn. That included the hospital's designating Samantha a "no information" patient. That meant that the hospital could only release information about the baby to people Samantha approved. Needless to say, that did not include Shawn.

We have only heard Shawn's side of this story. We have heard NOTHING from Samantha. She might very well have had a good reason for not wanting infoprmation about herself released to anyone - hence being a no-information patient. And just because some man deposits his sperm into a woman does not mean that 9 months later (or 2 months later or 5 months later or WHENEVER) that man has the right to DEMAND that information about any woman be released to him. PERIOD!!!!!

Women have no rights in the USA, and this just proves it with the thinking of the PIGS MRA's.....

GG I believe I may have the answer to your question

GG Says:

August 21st, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Remember the Colleen Stan kidnapping? Her abductor turned her into a sex slave for 7 years. Why, Franklin, do you avoid the slave industry? After all, it's an international problem. Is that not violent enough for you, or do you just have a hankering to convince people that women are the root of all evil.

GG you ask why Franklin would ignor things like the Stan kidnapping? You might also ask, why he would ignore the pleas of a GROWN woman (Holly Collins) as well. Or why he would ignore Fatima Loeliger's statement that she is NOW happy, when she lived with her father and his wife, she was extremely UNHAPPY? Or how about the hundreds and thousands of protective moms who allege DV and abuse of themselves and the children. Why would he ignore these cries and pleas?

Petunia thinks (OPINION OF PETUNIA) Franklin wants to marginalize women and place us back into the 1940's mentality. Back to when women were seen and not heard. Women have no rights. Just look at any of the commenter on his site and you will find an original signatory to the Father's Manifesto. You know that mysogynistic little piece whereby MEN want women to stay home, never be able to vote, never be able to speak their minds. Yeah that's right - THEY DON'T THINK WE HAVE MINDS.

So there you have it GG. "Those" men will never admit that a woman can actually digest a subject, think about it and form an opinion and even be able to articulate that opinion. We are second class. This IS the issue.

Do you want to borrow my calculator RF?

Are you sure you do not need to borrow my calculator to help you "do the math?" I have several extras laying around, I can send one to you. Seriously....

Okay readers, before you think Petunia is completely off her rocker (well the MRA's already think I am lol) this is why I ask that question of dear Bobby. It seems he cannot "do math."

He says that w well to do woman who makes £50,000 a year will get £8,000, whereas a woman who makes £12,000 will only receive £4,500. Okay as pointed out by several of GS readers, the math does not fly on this one. Are all women supposed to receive the same benefit for having a child? Is there no reward for having a high earner job/career? The math works out to the high wage earner receiving approximately 16 percent of her wages in benefits, the low wage earner will receive 37.5 percent of her earners. Well looks to me like the math does not add up, the low wage earner will receive almost half where the high earner will receieve close to one fourth. Seems someone needs to start using a calculator rather than their fingers and toes. Maybe then the math would add up better. <smiles>

Apples and Oranges here frankfurt

It'll be interesting to compare this case with the strikingly similar case of Arthur Freeman in Australia. Freeman, who was plainly having mental difficulties at the time, threw his daughter Darcey off a bridge in Melbourne, killing her. That tragedy was immediately seized on by anti-father advocates to attempt to repeal amendments to the Family Law Act that promote equally shared parenting. The theory seemed to be that, because Arthur Freeman apparently was, all fathers are dangerous to their children.

I wonder if the Stott-Smith logic will be used in this country to argue against mothers having equal parenting arrangements with fathers. Why do I doubt it?

First and foremost before I forget lets give the obligatory link for Fair Use Protection (I do not recommend visiting however). http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3780 There's your link guys :-)

Freeman had equal rights to his children despite several allegations of abuse. The facts are not all in on this case so don't be counting anything just quite yet. What this woman did was incomprehensible and EXTREMELY wrong - I want to clarify my position on that before some raving loon FR/MRA says I am supporting her.

And while I am at it, I wonder why in all these posts about all these bad moms (oh and there are literally thousands of them if you listen to these loons) why do they never mention an FR going off unless it is to give sympathy?

Emotional abuse illegal?

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3783&cp=all#comments

It had to happen.

There is soon to be a bill before the Malaysian Parliament that would amend the Domestic Violence Act in that country to criminalize emotional harm to women. As one supporter of that bill described it here, "It could be a case in which a husband tells his wife she is ugly or humiliates her until she feels emotionally pressured (Malaysia Star, 5/27/09)." I hope that's clear.

and this also

Fortunately, I know we'll soon hear from American feminists about what a travesty the Malaysian bill would be if passed. I can almost hear the soft clatter of their keyboards now as they urgently explain how gender equality doesn't permit such special treatment. They'll remind us about how women are strong and resilient, and don't need that type of protection from male-dominated institutions. This isn't Victorian England, after all.

I can hardly wait.

Well I shall not disappoint >:-)~~~

I am curious as to why these MRA/FR types are so up in arms about the failure of PAS to fly through court when PAS is supposedly nothing more than emotional abuse of a father by a mother (according to THEM)? Or how about their newest brain child - MMS - Malicious Mother Syndrome? These are both nothing more than "emotional abuse" (again according to them).

I refuse to get into a discussion about these. I know the true information regarding these supposed syndromes and that they are not recognized and probably never will be recognized by any CREDIBLE medical agency or association. They were created by a pedophile protecting (cough snort) "man".

And keep an eye here folks, as I am sure there will be plenty of cult comments :-)

Original article here (for those who just cannot stomach the thought of going to THAT website)

WOOOHOOOOO!!!! Come out come out wherever you are RONDA!!!!

20
Ronda Says:

April 7th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Mr. Franklin, we will make progress on DV when idiots like you walk a mile in these women's shoes before you make your accusations that DV is only "political ideologues".

Let's take you and put you in a home where everyone on the neighborhood knows that DV is occurring on a daily basis and have you be the woman thats on the other end of those beatings and lets see if you still feel the same way.

Oh yea we are going to listen to the expert scientist because they are right about everything. One day we can't drink milk, then the next we can, we can't eat eggs the next day we can. What is the make up of these scientist you refer to? I bet there are more men then women.

I feel sorry for the women in your family.

Ronda where are you? We need you!!!!!!!

Links directly to my posts (and others) that are no longer available?

These are all posts which will no longer work on this page. This is due to the deletion of my 5 or 6 posts. Lets see I will try to recount all of those posts for you. The first one I wrote a vague commentary on the article. mca (menscollegeactivist) then addressed me and his posts were deleted as well. Jason then decided to join his brother in arms with this post:

26
Jason Says:

February 22nd, 2009 at 8:42 pm
"Yet the men on here (and some women) say that when a woman has beaten a conviction in court, she is being given a sentencing discount."

Um... no.

What people mean when they talk about a sentencing discount is that when comparing men and women who have been convicted of the same crime, women tends to receive more lenient punative measures.

This is not the same thing as beating a conviction altogether.

You have misunderstood the terminology and how it is used.

Several more of my posts are then deleted again (again none with foul language, all asking if we could discuss this matter civilly as I had read through most of the report quoted in the quoted newspaper article. Jason then said something to the effect of two other hated female posters on that blog were "attacking" him as was I in his opinion and one of these women had some sort of obsession over his "private areas". I then asked him if he would provide a link to the obsession over his private areas by georgia girl, and he refused (makes me think he quite possibly HOPED georgia girl had this obsession, but again that is just my opinion. I challenge anyone to find this so-called obsession on gg's part over Jason's private parts. I pride myself on being somewhat Internet search savvy, and I could not locate it.

Norman then jumps into the fray by adding his two cents into the mix (which I might add has NOT been deleted):

30
Norman L. Says:

February 23rd, 2009 at 2:12 am
Jason,

sounds like a loser, doesn't she?

If you choose to read the rest of the attacks on New friend or Glenn's Cult (well at least the ones that were left up by GS or RF) you may do so by clicking Petunia.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3350#comment-747880

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3350#comment-747771

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3350#comment-747799

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3350#comment-747774

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3350#comment-747732

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3350#comment-747860

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3350#comment-747751

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3350#comment-747759

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3350#comment-747830

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3350#comment-747799

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3350#comment-747722

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3350#comment-747829

Now to show you that these links do work for the active posts which are viewable right now please go to:

jeana's post, one of Jason's MANY posts, now one must wonder why my posts were deleted? I followed GS's rules, I provided a good email address. It is my firm opinion that GS and the others involved in this attempt to beat women down, must not ever allow anyone who shows credibility the permission to post. It also goes against everything the cult followers of this entity state. GS does censore his website. My only question is

What are you in fear of GS?

Do the twist....They sure do know how to 'twist' scenarios to fit into their teeny tiny little world over at Sacks

Robert Franklin sure knows how to do the twist and make facts and statistics fir into his teeny tiny little bubble of a world. He states that because 60% of all those convicted of human trafficking are female, this means that us awful evil wimmin are bad, bad, bad.

Well RF could it also mean that those who are high up in this little chain of trafficking are simply not being caught and convicted and the little person is caught, tried and convicted?

Let's look at this on this side of the border. When you think of human trafficking (or using humans - no matter their sex) for profit, what comes to mind? What pops into my mind is the ever present prostitution racket. Now what pops into mind when you think of prostitutes? Ahh again females, with a rare exception here and there for a male prostitute. Now what comes to mind when thinking of the pimps (or "traffickers")? Ahh yes again - males come to mind when thinking of the pimps or traffickers of the prostitution trade. There are rare exceptions for a female pimp. Now one last question (I realize all these questions are really taxing you limited intellectual abilities here). What types of punishment is there for the actual prostitutes versus the pimps or even shall we say the customers?

Click here to read an article on targeting of prostitutes and customers. In the first paragraph it is stated that customers are only targeted in 10% of the cases. There really is not the volume of information about pimping or pandering available online as there is for prostitution.

So what does this say to me? It says again women are targeted and men are given a virtual free pass. One note to the pandering information available....There are pages upon pages of information about Hiedi Fleiss available. So yet again we have more women/females targeted. What is wrong with this picture people?