Cindy Ross.....one burger short of a happy meal

Started by woof, May 03, 2005, 04:42 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

woof

This stuff is rather dated, so I don't know if this has been addressed, but I can't help but be amazed at this women.
She is the director for the National Alliance for Family Court Justice in CA, and the following is a letter she sent to Wendy McElroy.



Dear Ms. McElroy:

I read with much interest your recent bashing of the CA NOW report. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56742,00.html. Typical to your own personal biases, I am not surprised that you dismiss the report, based on faulty logic, misrepresentations and "father's rights" (FR) propaganda.  http://www.zetetics.com/mac/talks/scrapnow.html
As CA Director of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice -- an international grassroots organization addressing family court corruption, system failure and retaliation against "normal" mothers who report domestic violence and/or abuse of their children -- I have worked closely with CA NOW, providing them (and others) with documented evidence that:

1. FR groups are affiliated with pedophiles and others who advocate incest and deviant sex, including John Money, Ralph Underwager, Hollida Wakefield, Warren Farrell and Richard Gardner.

2. FR groups are connected to a court kickback/financial corruption scheme that calls for the misuse of federal program funds in the name of "fatherhood" and "shared parenting".

3. FR groups fabricated "parental alienation syndrome" as the strategy used to suppress evidence of child abuse and domestic violence, assist men with getting out of child support obligations and punish women and children in jails and institutions.

4. FR groups are comprised of misogynists, batterers, child molesters, sociopaths and criminals, their present wives, girlfriends and mothers, as well as those trying to repeal the 19th Amendment.

5. FR groups and their allied court "professionals" are connected to hundreds of cases across the country (and around the world) where "custody" has gone to child molesters, violent men and others who are unfit to be parents.

While "feminists" like yourself are primarily concerned with women's rights to "pornography" (i.e., degrading and deviant sex) http://www.ifeminists.net/about/, there are "feminists" (both men and women) like US, who are concerned with protecting women and children from those who view women and children as chattel and/or are talking about resorting to "bloodshed" to eliminate women altogether. (Yes, threats we have received from these "dads" are available upon request to legitimate journalists.)

Since you have publicly dismissed the NOW report as a bunch of "fluff", it is now up to you to show upon what basis YOU have done so. Please provide me with a statement that you dispute the facts stated above (numbered 1-5), including the evidence and proof you used to arrive at your conclusions. Also, please do provide me a statement as to your personal views regarding "sex" and "custody", "fatherhood" and "families".

Please respond A.S.A.P. and be advised that both this email and your response (or lack thereof) are being forwarded not only to CA NOW, but to all of the journalists, court reform groups and others that are monitoring this issue.

Thank you.

Cindy Ross
California Director
National Alliance for Family Court Justice
nafcj.org/


This is the web site that I got this from, http://nafcj.org/mcelroy.htm, it has a lot more on Ms. Ross.



On a side note, this information I received from a email group [email protected] who I highly recommend for information about mens rights/fathers rights issues.
Even a whole village can't replace dad, children need both parents.

realman

Yup, one sandwich sort of a picnic.... :roll:

Just shows us how difficult it's going to be to be taken seriously after decades of feminist hatred, prejudice, and biogtry that has been accepted as "normal".

I find it a sad statemnt on society that as soon as one suggests women screw men over, women do something wrong, women aren't all they're cracked up to be, laws and the legal system play fvorites to women, etc. that you hate all women, want them barefoot and pregnant, don't want them to vote, want to rape them, etc.

Uggghh...

Just because I hate certain women, or hate certain things about how many woman act, and hate the media/legal system/scoiety that supports this, doesn't mean I HATE women! Is that so hard to comprehend? Actually I fancy the idea of being able to truly LIKE women...the porblem is that certain women, certain pervasive attitudes, etc. make that something that is difficult to do... other than in a few individual cases I find it difficult to truly LIKE women right now, but that doesn't mean I HATE all of them! I don't see how one can be labeled a misogynist simply for pointing out these things. And considering how many women display hatred twoards men, why should it be surprising, or even considered such a bad thing, if many men don't especially like women? Would women like MEN if WE acted the way THEY do???

The Biscuit Queen

Do people really think that is what MRAs are about? Wow. I think we really need to get our point of veiw out there more, so people like this are contradicted. SHe makes us sound so awful, so sick, that anyone reading that without knowing what MRAs really stand for would be turned off immediately.

She has NO proof for any of this.

This is one of those reasons why what we say is so important to the whole cause.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

woof

Yes, Biscuit Queen, the answer is yes......
I am so POed right now, a shared parenting bill, AB 1307 in California was killed yesterday using these accusations.


Glen Sacks sums it up like this:

"Two thousand of you called, faxed or wrote Sacramento in support of AB 1307. By contrast, the opposition, led by the California National Organization for Women, the California Alliance Against Domestic Violence, the California Judges Association, the State of California Commission on the Status of Women, and the California State Bar Family Law Section, had no discernable popular support. Nevertheless, they successfully attacked the bill by claiming that a rebuttable presumption of shared custody puts women and children in danger of abusive men. They also claimed that fathers who fight for custody are usually abusers.

I don't know, seems like there is no way to fight lies.....?
Even a whole village can't replace dad, children need both parents.

Alpha Male

Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
Do people really think that is what MRAs are about? Wow. I think we really need to get our point of veiw out there more, so people like this are contradicted. SHe makes us sound so awful, so sick, that anyone reading that without knowing what MRAs really stand for would be turned off immediately.

She has NO proof for any of this.


It's not about reality. It's about the perception of the masses.
She doesn't have to prove it if she can make enough people believe it anyway.
They excel at propaganda.
When someone speaks the truth and they don't like it the tactic is to attack and discredit the speaker. Thus they label us as misogynists, pedophiles, abusers etc.
ies come in three types: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

Go Up