Islamic rapists

I was just listening to the news. Two suspects arrested in two different rape cases. Both muslims.


Fight back to stop Islam and the retarded regressive left

England has gone insane. She isn’t anti islamic, she is pro British. Her husband is fighting in the arm forces in Afghanistan. Her only crime is to be concerned of the islamicization of Britan. There are known islamic terrorists in England that have never had a child taken, even though they are taught to hate christian and jews in English Islamic schools.

Indiana Dad Sentenced to Five Years for Criticizing Judge, Custody Evaluator

July 5th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

An Indiana man faces five years in prison because he criticized the judge and the custody evaluator in his divorce and custody case. Here’s Dan Brewington’s website and here’s a link to his brief appealing his criminal convictions.

Dan and Melissa Brewington were married in 2002. They had two daughters before Melissa filed for divorce in early 2007. Both parents sought primary custody of the children, but Melissa was awarded primary custody during the pendency of the case. Dan had visitation three days each week. During the entire course of the two and a half year custody case, no allegation of violence, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, drug or alcohol abuse was ever leveled at Dan Brewington. And of course he had his daughters three days a week, so someone must have thought he was a pretty good dad.

But despite all that, when Judge James Humphrey issued his final order in the case, he stripped Dan Brewington of all rights to see his children. He was entirely denied visitation and, when he called them on the telephone, that mode of contact was denied him as well. So, the question arises “what did Dan Brewington do to lose his children and get himself put in prison?” More to the point, how can a man against whom there is no finding of unfitness as a parent come to be denied all contact with his children? Doesn’t that violate Supreme Court precedent?

It looks like it does, but the answer to all those questions is simple; Dan Brewington harshly criticized both Judge Humphrey and the court’s hand-picked custody evaluator, Dr. Edward Connor. Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that Dan Brewington, like all Americans, has freedom of speech. Moreover, you’re thinking that, because Judge Humphrey is a public figure, anyone can say pretty near anything about him that’s isn’t known to be false, without consequences. You’d be right about both those things, and into the bargain, you’d be saying very much what Brewington’s appellate lawyers say in their brief. Dan Brewington can say bad things about a judge and a psychologist. It’s the American way.

Apparently, Dr. Connor didn’t evaluate the custody matter the way Brewington thought he should, so he began asking questions. He learned that, contrary to Indiana law, Dr. Connor was serving an Indiana court without being licensed to practice in Indiana (he was licensed in Kentucky). Moreover, the original judge in the case had ex parte contact with Dr. Connor and Brewington, who was representing himself, called him on it and forced the judge to recuse himself.

Then Brewington started demanding to see the entire case file in Dr. Connor’s possession. He didn’t want just his final report, but wanted to know how he’d arrived at his conclusions. That’s something every trial lawyer is entitled to and, since Brewington was acting as his own counsel, he should have gotten it, but he never did even though at one point Dr. Connor promised it to him.

So, having been denied custody of his children as well as the reasons for the denial, Dan Brewington got mad. Despite his anger, he never threatened anyone, never stalked anyone, never acted violently. No, what he did was to seek redress of his grievances as he’s entitled to do under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He filed motions, all of which were denied. He wrote letters to Dr. Connor. He threatened filing suit, although he never did. He complained to a professional disciplinary body in Kentucky.

It’s true that he often used intemperate language. He called the judge a ‘child abuser’ because he took his children from him without reason. He suggested that Dr. Connor is a ‘pervert’ because, in his interviews with clients, he asks sexually specific questions of women but not of men.

But as we all know, even intemperate language can be protected speech. The First Amendment doesn’t protect only words acceptable to the Women’s Christian Temperance Union; it protects lots of speech that many deem offensive, and that’s particularly true when the speech is directed at public figures like Judge Humphrey. As Brewington repeated time and again on the websites that were his main mode of communicating his opinions, his goal was to reveal and condemn the terrible dysfunction of family courts. (Don’t we all?) And that, my friends, is protected speech. We Americans get to criticize our public officials and our public institutions; it’s one of the greatest things about this country.

But Judge Humphrey and the local prosecutor don’t agree. They think that speech that’s critical of judges and their hired experts should be stamped out if at all possible. Otherwise, people might get the idea that, well, the family court system is dsyfunctional and needs to change, and we can’t have that.

So the DA trumped up six charges against Brewington that frankly were designed to punish protected speech. With the assistance of the trial court that issued jury instructions that failed to remind the jury about the protections afforded by the First Amendment, and with the ineffective conduct of his trial lawyer, Brewington was convicted of five of the six counts and sentenced to serve five years in prison.

Family judges tell us pretty much nonstop about their concern for children’s welfare. According to them, they’ve never taken a breath that wasn’t in “the best interests of the child.” But of course that’s pure nonsense, and this case shows it. The fact is that Brewington was an obnoxious litigant. I’m sure he was a pain to all concerned. But if Judge Humphrey were truly concerned with the man’s two children, he’d have set aside whatever animosity he had toward Brewington and recognized that the girls need their father. Again, there was never a claim that Brewington was violent, hurtful, neglectful or in any way less than a loving, caring, capable father.

But now his girls won’t see him for five years and probably not even then. That’s because this judge wasn’t concerned about their welfare; he was concerned about showing Brewington, and all others who may be similarly inclined, just what kind of power family courts have. Question that at your peril. Assert your rights only if you dare. That’s the message to which two little girl’s well-being was sacrificed.


Let Europe communist states burn.

As Europe burns, retarded lazy french cut their retirement age from 62 to 60. Now they want North America to bailout their lazy inbred communist asses, never again Europe, never again.

Rot in hell.

France’s cut to retirement age worries business

Businesses and economists have condemned the new French government’s decision to cut the retirement age from 62 to 60 for hundreds of thousands of workers.

Campaign posters for Mr Sarkozy's Socialist rival, François Hollande, in Mulhouse, eastern France - France must decide

Campaign posters for Francois Hollande Photo: AFP/Getty Images

France’s largest business lobby, Mouvement des Entreprises de France (MEDEF) said the move was “worrying for the financial future of the pension systems”.

The reduction in the retirement age, agreed at a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, will be financed by an increase in pension contributions. This rise in costs will be “detrimental to the competitiveness of French companies”, MEDEF argued.

Douglas McWilliams, chief executive of the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) think-tank, said the knock-on effect will be to make French exports less competitive.

“It’s going to be an additional fiscal burden on a country that is currently on the cusp of being part of the euro problem zone,” he said. “I think it makes chances of France being able to be in a currency union with Germany [after other nations exit the euro] … that much lower.”

The Fatherless Generation

  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
  • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
  • 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average.  (Center for Disease Control)
  • 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average.  (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
  • 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average.  (National Principals Association Report)

Father Factor in Education – Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.

  • Children with Fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school.
  • Children with Fathers who are involved are 70% less likely to drop out of school.
  • Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to get A’s in school.
  • Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to enjoy school and engage in extracurricular activities.
  • 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.

Father Factor in Drug and Alcohol Abuse – Researchers at Columbia University found that children living in two-parent household with a poor relationship with their father are 68% more likely to smoke, drink, or use drugs compared to all teens in two-parent households. Teens in single mother households are at a 30% higher risk than those in two-parent households.

  • 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average.  (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
  • 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average.  (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)

Father Factor in Incarceration – Even after controlling for income, youths in father-absent households still had significantly higher odds of incarceration than those in mother-father families. Youths who never had a father in the household experienced the highest odds. A 2002 Department of Justice survey of 7,000 inmates revealed that 39% of jail inmates lived in mother-only households. Approximately forty-six percent of jail inmates in 2002 had a previously incarcerated family member. One-fifth experienced a father in prison or jail.

Father Factor in Crime – A study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency. Adolescents, particularly boys, in single-parent families were at higher risk of status, property and person delinquencies. Moreover, students attending schools with a high proportion of children of single parents are also at risk. A study of 13,986 women in prison showed that more than half grew up without their father. Forty-two percent grew up in a single-mother household and sixteen percent lived with neither parent

Father Factor in Child Abuse – Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect. The overall rate of child abuse and neglect in single-parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, whereas the rate of overall maltreatment in two-parent households is 15.5 per 1,000.

Daughters of single parents without a Father involved are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 711% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a pre-marital birth and 92% more likely to get divorced themselves.

Adolescent girls raised in a 2 parent home with involved Fathers are significantly less likely to be sexually active than girls raised without involved Fathers.

  • 43% of US children live without their father [US Department of Census]
  • 90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]
  • 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. [Criminal Justice & Behaviour, Vol 14, pp. 403-26, 1978]
  • 71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father. [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999]
  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]
  • 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. [Center for Disease Control]
  • 90% of adolescent repeat arsonists live with only their mother. [Wray Herbert, “Dousing the Kindlers,” Psychology Today, January, 1985, p. 28]
  • 71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. [National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]
  • 75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes. [Rainbows f for all God’s Children]
  • 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. [US Department of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988]
  • 85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992]
  • Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. [US D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999]

Census Fatherhood Statistics

  • 64.3 million: Estimated number of fathers across the nation
  • 26.5 million: Number of fathers who are part of married-couple families with their own children under the age of 18.
    Among these fathers –


    • 22 percent are raising three or more of their own children under 18 years old (among married-couple family households only).
    • 2 percent live in the home of a relative or a non-relative.
  • 2.5 million: Number of single fathers, up from 400,000 in 1970. Currently, among single parents living with their children, 18 percent are men.
    Among these fathers –


    • 8 percent are raising three or more of their own children under 18 years old.
    • 42 percent are divorced, 38 percent have never married, 16 percent are separated and 4 percent are widowed. (The percentages of those divorced and never married are not significantly different from one another.)
    • 16 percent live in the home of a relative or a non-relative.
    • 27 percent have an annual family income of $50,000 or more.
  • 85 percent: Among the 30.2 million fathers living with children younger than 18, the percentage who lived with their biological children only.
    • 11 percent lived with step-children
    • 4 percent with adopted children
    • < 1 percent with foster children

    Recent policies encourage the development of programs designed to improve the economic status of low-income nonresident fathers and the financial and emotional support provided to their children. This brief provides ten key lessons from several important early responsible fatherhood initiatives that were developed and implemented during the 1990s and early 2000s. Formal evaluations of these earlier fatherhood efforts have been completed making this an opportune time to step back and assess what has been learned and how to build on the early programs’ successes and challenges.While the following statistics are formidable, the Responsible Fatherhood research literature generally supports the claim that a loving and nurturing father improves outcomes for children, families and communities.

  • Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior, and avoid high-risk behaviors such as drug use, truancy, and criminal activity compared to children who have uninvolved fathers.
  • Studies on parent-child relationships and child wellbeing show that father love is an important factor in predicting the social, emotional, and cognitive development and functioning of children and young adults.
  • 24 million children (34 percent) live absent their biological father.
  • Nearly 20 million children (27 percent) live in single-parent homes.
  • 43 percent of first marriages dissolve within fifteen years; about 60 percent of divorcing couples have children; and approximately one million children each year experience the divorce of their parents.
  • Fathers who live with their children are more likely to have a close, enduring relationship with their children than those who do not.
  • Compared to children born within marriage, children born to cohabiting parents are three times as likely to experience father absence, and children born to unmarried, non-cohabiting parents are four times as likely to live in a father-absent home.
  • About 40 percent of children in father-absent homes have not seen their father at all during the past year; 26 percent of absent fathers live in a different state than their children; and 50 percent of children living absent their father have never set foot in their father’s home.
  • Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.
  • From 1995 to 2000, the proportion of children living in single-parent homes slightly declined, while the proportion of children living with two married parents remained stable.