BlogWonks

The lamestream media told you:

“The nation’s top two law enforcement officials acknowledged Friday that the FBI broke the law to secretly pry out personal information about Americans,” according to an AP report with no byline.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

No arrests are expected in this case, since the nation’s top two law enforcement officials didn’t do the actual prying, will deny any personal culpability, and you can’t “arrest the FBI” named as the culprit in the story.

“The only difference between this offense and all the others the FBI routinely commits is that this one is in the news for some reason,” said an observer who wishes to remain anonymous. He echoes the sentiments of “news” readers everywhere. In addition to occasional scandals, malfeasance, lost weapons and computers, waste, inefficiency, inter-agency bickering, ineptitude, deceit and complaints, the FBI does a lot of good work bringing serious criminals to justice.

Unlike the FBI and the tens of thousands of agents and bureaucrats in its headquarters and 400 satellite offices, a citizen who runs afoul of the law, even for paperwork errors, faces time in prison, confirming critics fears that the tyrannical nature of government is advancing unchecked.

“There’s a remote possibility someone will be fired over this,” one observer observed, “but if you or I flagrantly and repeatedly broke federal law, getting fired would be the least of our worries.”

Federal employees who are fired instead of being imprisoned for crimes are often hired by other agencies, or even the private sector, at an increase in salary. The few who are imprisoned must wait until they get out to get new jobs with pay raises.

The lamestream media told you:

Gas prices have gone up at least twenty cents everywhere, the AP reports with a straight face in a story with no byline.

“Concerns over falling gasoline inventories from decreased refinery production and fewer imports have boosted oil and gasoline prices lately,” they say. The government reported that gas inventories dropped by more than analysts had expected, AP says in a brief squib.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Anyone who drives, walks or rides public transit can see the big signs with big gas prices getting bigger, so saying the price went up hardly qualifies as news, unnamed analysts say.

“The bafflegab about ‘concerns’ and ‘refinery production’ do little more than hide any semblance of news, and sounds like old-world communists managing the public with mindless verbiage,” critics point out. “Wheat production is up in sector four,” while the public starves.

To qualify as news, the report would need to tell who has these concerns, who is in charge of raising the prices everywhere (a complete mystery to American “news” consumers), and why the people in charge imported less oil and refined less gasoline, deliberately forcing these increases. Prices, as people know, do not increase themselves. The rumor that imports were lowered so prices would rise could not be confirmed at press time.

“We’re being soaked, and the media is hiding the culprits,” says one gasoline user who owns a pickup and an SUV.

The AAA, often quoted when fuel prices rise, is a private consumer club of drivers and has no direct connection to fuel prices, oil giants or the perpetrators. “But the publicity is good for the club,” one AAA member noted.

Why the government would report gasoline inventory numbers, when private industry manages the supplies, refining, inventories and pricing, was unexplained by the AP, as usual. In the interest of fairness, it should be explained that reporters are encouraged by their bosses to rely on official sources.

The lamestream media told you:

“Criminals in Texas beware: if you threaten someone in their car or office, the citizens of this state where guns are ubiquitous have the right to shoot you dead,” reports Reuters, from Dallas.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Texas today joined a growing list of states determined to remove barriers that could jeopardize or impede citizens who protect themselves from unprovoked violence instigated by vicious hardened criminals.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, on signing the Castle Doctrine bill, said the right to defend yourself from imminent harm is intuitive to human nature, and that Texans can protect themselves from criminals, and receive protection from state law when they must use deadly force in self defense.

Effective on Sep. 1, 2007, the new law creates a legal presumption that a criminal forcibly and unlawfully entering an occupied home, automobile or place of work is entering to do harm to the occupants, making deadly force justified.

It removes so-called “duty to retreat” language under such circumstances, and establishes clear civil immunity for anyone involved in a justifiable defensive deadly force situation — preventing nuisance lawsuits from being filed by criminals or their family members. Lawyers who bring such suits used to be disbarred, a practice no longer followed.

The Reuters wire service, running editorial comment where news belongs, said, “Sympathy for violent offenders and criminals in general runs low in Texas, underscored by its busy death row… A conservative political outlook and widespread fondness for hunting also means Texans are a well-armed people capable of defending themselves with deadly force.”

The lamestream media told you:

“A top aide to Sen. James Webb was charged Monday with trying to carry a loaded pistol and extra ammunition into a Senate office building, U.S. Capitol Police said,” according to the Washington Post on March 27. The firearm was taken into protective custody, along with the aide.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

A top aide to a freshman Democrat was caught trying to bring a fully loaded semiautomatic handgun and extra fully loaded magazines through security and into a Senate office building it was learned today.

The notoriously anti-gun Washington Post referred to the device as a loaded pistol, and as a firearm, abandoning its usual terminology when guns are in the hands of armed people committing criminal acts. They failed to note in their lead that the perpetrators were both Democrats.

“They managed to get a quote from a Sgt. spokeswoman,” noted the Uninvited Ombudsman, “that, ‘I don’t think he intended to harm anybody,’ which the perp was also quoted as saying, implying they might ‘go easy’ on him.”

We’ll be watching to see if elite Democrats gets the same justice the public might expect for a similar act. So far, a massive feeding frenzy of followup stories has failed to materialize for unknown reasons.

Real research and reporting finds that: Perp was arrested under a local D.C. statute — Carrying a pistol without a D.C. license (up to 5 years), unregistered pistol (up to 1 year), and possessing ammunition for an unregistered pistol (up to 1 year). One felony count and 2 misdemeanor counts. If convicted, it also includes loss of right to vote, hold office, keep and bear arms, more.

The spokeswoman, Kimberly Schneider, was also quoted as saying, “Any senator who has a gun permit and wants to bring a gun onto congressional property must unload the gun and make sure it is ’securely wrapped.’”

No such law is known to exist, but laws making such actions federal felonies do exist, and went unreported. Webb is a former Marine, his aide is a former Marine, and Webb has reportedly gone shooting at the NRA HQ range in Virginia.

The safety aspect of carrying a fully loaded very dangerous semiautomatic handgun with extra bullets in multiple clips in a briefcase and “forgetting about it,” as well as why any Senator would even need such a thing, was not discussed by the Post.

They did however find space to say the gun was unregistered, the ammo was unregistered, and the Senate aide had no license. The consequences of a Senator’s ownership of an unregistered gun was not mentioned, but we’ll be watching that too.

No one was harmed in the incident.

I was invited to a neighborhood rally against gangs this past Wednesday (3-21-07), in a park near Grant High School about three miles from my home.
The flyer that was sent to me said, “bring signs” so I hastily made a big 30″ X 40″ sign, just minutes before the event began.

I arrived at our meeting point on time, and found about 40 people gathered in the park, including: L. A. City Councilwoman Wendy Gruel, L.A. City Prosecutor and L. A. Unified School District School Board Candidate Tamar Galatzan, several official looking people assisting Ms. Gruel and Ms. Galatzan, a representative of the local neighborhood council, and an LAPD, gang task force officer.  The assembled dignitaries spoke to the crowd of people around 5:30 P.M.  Near the end of the speech making, an LAPD squad car drove up to the crowd (on the grass) and a couple of more LAPD officers joined the assembled throng.  All the public speakers expressed their sincere concerns for gang problems and spoke of the importance of reducing graffiti, having proper lighting, having adequate police officers and prosecutors to enforce the laws, and community involvement in reporting gang crimes.

After the dignitaries finished speaking, I personally handed Councilwoman Gruel a copy of some Fatherlessness statistics I’d cut and pasted from this Internet site.

http://www.thecardp roject.info/ the_card_ 002.htm

This site also appears to accurately document the cost of Fatherlessness to our society. http://fathersforlife.org/divorce/chldrndiv.htm

Around 6:00 P.M., the crowd marched to Grant High School with Gruel and Galatzan marching alongside the neighborhood crowd.  It turns out I was the only person who brought a sign, but I was undeterred and held it high as we marched the approximately half mile to the Grant H.S. Auditorium. http://www.granths.org/ 

 Several people inquired as to the meaning of my sign throughout the afternoon and evening.  On the walk to the Grant H.S. Auditorium, a woman spoke to me about the sign and told me, “Dads are involved in their children’s lives when they pay their child support promptly and regularly.”  I replied that, “Men are more than wallets.”  I also told her, “Surveys show that men want to pay child support and the vast majority does, unless experiencing joblessness, injury, illness, or sometimes the vindictiveness of an ex-wife denying visitation.”  I told her that denying Fathers no more than “just a financial role in their children’s lives” was the kind of gender feminist policy, destroying Fatherhood and creating gangs, that I was referring to.http://www.ncfmla.org/ncfmla-flyer.pdf

Most divorced and separated dads want to nurture their children, but courts often reduce them to “visitors” and do not even enforce “visitation.” So-called “deadbeat dads” are usually dead-broke or dead-bolted from their kids’ lives by biased court orders or moms who impede access. Over 80% of divorced or separated dads who have jobs and access to their kids pay their support in full. Nonetheless, our government spends hundreds of dollars to enforce monetary support for each dollar it spends to enforce access. (Sanford Braver, Ph.D., “Divorced Dads.”)

Finally, I referred her to a Google search of, “fatherlessness predictor delinquency juveniles” and told her that would produce a number of hits, including feminist opinions attempting to refute the fact that Fatherlessness leads to a whole series of problems and maladies in juveniles.  I further stated my opinion, that the mere fact feminists were refuting the overwhelming statistics showing Fatherlessness as a predicator of delinquency in juveniles, shows that Fatherlessness is a significant issue in the politics played by gender feminists in our liberal, local government. 

Los Angeles has a women’s commission, office of women’s health, women’s studies programs on local college and university campuses, with nothing likewise for males, and those women’s industries institutions all work to demean and diminish the role of fathers in their kids’ lives, IMO.  It appears these gender feminist institutions undermine the role of Fathers in families, and that they actively work to deny Fathers the choice(s) Mothers have.  Further isolation of Dads from their children often occurs when the dissolution of a marriage occurs.http://www.ncfmla.org/ncfmla-flyer.pdf

In divorce proceedings, false accusations of domestic violence or child abuse, and restraining order abuse, are common. Without warning, men are arrested, jailed and barred from their homes and bank accounts without due process. More than 50% of child sexual abuse allegations are unsubstantiated. (Eckenrode, Powers, “Substantiation of child abuse and neglect reports, Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psych., 1998, 56, 9-16; Lewis, “Reliability rather than zealotry,” Summer 1996, Kentucky Bench & Bar, 60, 23-30.) False accusers are rarely prosecuted.

Once we got to the auditorium, I was surprised to find several hundred more “neighbors” gathered there, as well as other Los Angeles government agencies: Dept. of Water and Power, Sanitation, Street Lighting, Graffiti Removal, etc., etc., etc. I worked my way through the large crowd to the front of the auditorium, had a seat and waited for the meeting to start.

 While waiting, a reporter from KABC, TV, Channel 7, approached me and asked if she could interview me. “Certainly,” I replied. I reiterated what I’d said on the march over from the park, but added, “Randy Kendrick, Independent Women’s Forum, Board Member, points out in an interview in their Winter 2007 journal,”

‘An alarming percentage of young men are not going to college, and they are getting into a lot of trouble and ending up in prison. Most of them don’t have good male role models. Well, have you ever looked at elephants and dolphins? Did you know that dolphins have teenage gangs? Well, if a couple of teenagers go off without the influence of a male, they actually do things that teenage gangs do - violence, rape, theft. It is the same with elephants. When people are managing elephants in Africa, they found if there were no strong male [elephants], the young teenage male elephants would run rampant.’

 It was convenient that I had the journal with me to quote from. I went on to point out that most of this aberant behavior in elephants is also documented in a National Geographic Explorer entitled, “Elephant Rage,”http://shopngvideos.com/products/elephant_rage_2

After my interview had concluded, and once everyone had taken a seat, Councilwoman Gruel opened the meeting and again spoke on the issue of gangs as they affect the quality of life in Los Angeles neighborhoods.  Councilwoman Gruel was followed by Deputy Chief Michael Moore of the Los Angeles Police Dept. (LAPD), and he was followed by an Administrator from the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), whose name I neglected to take down.  There were other less notable public servants, who gave snippets of speeches from the main podium, however those three aforementioned public servants sat at a table on the stage (each with a microphone), and their input was lengthy.Councilwoman Gruel largely repeated what she said to the crowd in the park, and perhaps expanded a little.  Deputy Chief Michael Moore spoke, while going through a power point presentation (slide show).  I recall Deputy Chief Moore stating that gang homicides increased in the San Fernando Valley in 2006 by 54%.  That statistic stood out in stark contrast to this obviously inaccurate “feminist fact” I found on the Internet, http://members.aol.com/asherah/fatherlessness.html

“Among the report’s most positive results is a 40 percent drop in serious violent crime involving juvenile offenders since 1993.’”

A few other points that stood out from Deputy Chief Moore’s presentation were, “Our jails are full,” “Crime is down,” and “Arrests are up.”

After the meeting, I had a chance to talk to Deputy Chief Moore and began by telling him I was supportive of his work to reduce gang crimes and violence.  I then asked him about “our jails being full,” to confirm that I’d not misunderstood what he’d said.  He confirmed I’d heard correctly.  I mentioned my concern that we may someday live in a society largely comprised of ex-convicts, or people in jails, if we don’t find some other way to address societal problems leading to crimes and violence.  He expressed, that when he goes home in the evening, as a private citizen, he too shares those serious concerns.  He added, “America has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.”  “Yes,” I joined in, “we’ve passed Russia.”

I also asked Deputy Chief Moore if I’d heard him correctly when he stated, “Crime is down,” and “Arrests are up.”  I said, “I assume we are still arresting people for crimes so that statement seems contradictory to me.”  Deputy Chief Moore cited some statistical accounting/categorizing procedure, but honestly, I still failed to reconcile that seeming contradiction in my mind.  I did not pursue the question.  I thanked the Deputy Chief for his time (as he had others waiting to ask him questions) and proceeded to filter out of the meeting room.

Later Wednesday evening, I watched the 11 o’clock news on KABC, channel 7, and was pleased when I saw my face on the screen, but then was very disappointed, when neither my words, nor my sign (calling attention to the issue of Fatherlessness and Gang violence), made it into the report.  I’m certainly pleased there’s at least some structure in place in Los Angeles to address the frightening dilemma of gang crime and violence, but I’m very discouraged that so little effort is being expended to promote meaningful roles and relationships for Fathers in their children’s lives.  No men’s commissions, men’s studies programs, or offices of men’s health exist anywhere to work for such things.  Los Angeles has a long way to go, IMO, before it can effectively address Fatherlessness in families as a major cause of gang crimes in Los Angeles.  The first thing Los Angeles has to do is recognize that the connection exists.

http://www.ncfmla.org/ncfmla-flyer.pdf

Society pays a huge price for this gender bias. Fatherlessness is the leading predictor of crime in a community. The less time a child spends with his/her dad the more likely the child will drop out of school, commit crime, abuse drugs or alcohol, become pregnant or commit suicide. (Warren Farrell, Ph.D., “Father and Child
Reunion.”)

The fierce determination of the eagle shown through in our nation’s capitol.  They came from near and far, some as far away as Canada to answer the calling to defend our sacred memorials on March 17, 2007 from anti-war protesters who have been known to get out of control in recent marches. 

Ordinary Americans supporting the troops, and proud Vets from past and present wars, met up in Washington D.C. under the banner of the Gathering of Eagles.  Approximately 30,000 Eagles came together to show that the voice of the silent majority, those who support the troops and their mission, must be heard! 

Of course we all knew that the mainstream media had no intention of covering the Eagles event, only anti-war protesters. They called the Eagles the “opposition”, “the other side”, or “demonstrations” being held near Memorials, but they did not go into specifics about the Eagles.

That is the sort of attitude in the media Blue Star Mom Deborah Johns, and the rest of the Move America Forward family spoke of during their caravan stop in Memphis March 13, 2007.  Johns spoke about how disgusted she is with the way the leftist media depicts the war, and that the entire truth is not being told.

Note: The Move America Forward group started their caravan in San Francisco March 8, 2007 and planned to reach D.C. March 17, 2007 to join the Eagles. Their theme, “These Colors Don’t Run” traversed with them through several states, stopping along the way to collect flags to display at the memorials and to hand to military families in a show of support. Many people, some families, joined them as they made their way across the country.

It is evident by the fact that the media only chose to cover anti-war protests, that they have a bias. A HUGE showing of 30,000 Eagles didn’t even get their attention!

The Gathering of Eagles was to me, an historic event. Even as the Move America Forward caravan passed through the Memphis area, local media was barely present. However, many from radio and quite a few bloggers including Freerepublic.com, BlueCollarRepublican.com, and Alpha Patriot showed and documented the event enthusiastically.

As a reporter for the Mid-South Patriot newspaper, I was honored to see these fine Americans come to Bartlett, a suburb of Memphis, to talk of their brave family members who have served in Iraq. 

The Move America Forward organization, other military personnel, patriotic families, and the Rolling Thunder Motorcycle group, stopped at Coletta’s Italian Restaurant in Bartlett to mingle and talk.  A press conference was held at noon amidst the threat of rain. However, everyone pressed on with the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance and a quick prayer. A heavy downpour began as the prayer commenced, but people stayed intact. Afterwards, the Move America Forward crew urged everyone to file towards the restaurant’s overhang to say a few words.

Among the speakers were Blue Star mom Deborah Johns and Gold Star mom Debra Argel-Bastian, who spoke emphatically about the need to support our troops. 

The military moms were in sync in saying that, “Our military are counting on us” and that they need funding.

In countering the liberal media’s lies, Deborah Lee said that her son, who served as a Navy seal, wants everyone to know of the Iraqi people, ”they want us there.”

After the speeches, flags were collected from attendees to go with the caravan to D.C. to be flown during the Gathering of Eagles rally, placed at the Vietnam Memorial, and given to military families.

Then everyone headed inside Coletta’s for some Italian food.  It was a great time meeting and talking with those who had joined along the way and was in full support of the mission to D.C., which was to ultimately uplift the troops and to tell them that their job is not in vain. 

Our troops are watching all that is occurring back home, so let’s not disappoint them. If we should lend an ear to anyone, it should be the family members of the fallen and our troops serving.  In this case, the mothers of the fallen (other than Cindy Sheehan) DESERVE to be heard! 

Despite the rain, approximately 70 people showed for the Memphis rally. 

The Memphis rally and the D.C. Gathering of Eagles pro-troops rally was peaceful unlike recent protests from the anti-war crowd.

Blog sites like Littlegreenfootballs.com are abuzz with news of an anti-war rally in Portland, OR in which protesters burned an American Flag and an American Soldier in effigy! That’s NOT what I’d call supporting the troops ( http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24853_Leftists_Supporting_the_Troops&only )!

Those who supported and attended the Gathering of Eagles pro-troop rally, the ordinary Americans are the true patriots who stand behind our troops 100%. Others who rant on the anti-war crowd side like to cause trouble, and many of them do not like this country. They do not like our troops.

Anti-war protesters are also very good at vandalizing, defacing, and resorting to violence when they do not get their way… as in another case of a window that was destroyed in the building of an Army Recruiting office in Milwaukee ( http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/6585292.html ).

I don’t need to say more. It’s enough to make one vomit considering the sacrifices our military men and women have had to endure just so that we have the freedom to assemble and voice our opinions.

But in staying positive, I want to say, proud Americans stood at the Vietnam Memorial and at various Memorials in D.C. with American flags and in silence, stood by their fallen comrades. In that, they sent a loud message, they accomplished their goal! 

The Eagles, America’s patriotic, will not hesitate to come together and make their petition for the respect of our military if needed. And March 17th will not be the last time!

Important Links:

Pictures from the Move America Forward caravan stop in Memphis, TN (scroll down):

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/benamon/070322

Photo of a fraction of the Gathering of Eagles Group in D.C.:

http://gatheringofeagles.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/goe-rally.jpg

Gathering of Eagles website:

www.gatheringofeagles.org

Move America Forward website:

www.moveamericaforward.org

Rolling Thunder National Organization Headquarters website:

http://rollingthunder1.com/  

Berlin Residents to protect monuments:

http://www.newbritainherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18087941&BRD=1641&PAG=461&dept_id=572377&rfi=6

Other Links:

Sponsors of the Move America Forward rally in Memphis:

Rolling Thunder Chapter V Motorcycle Group:

www.rollingthundertnv.com

Coletta’s Italian Restaurant:

www.colettasrestaurant.com

Mid-South Patriot:

www.freewebs.com/midsouth-patriot

*Felicia (Fee) Benamon is a political columnist who writes for various conservative sites including RenewAmerica.us, Michnews.com, Daley-Times Post, Renaissance Women ( http://www.rwnetwork.net/ ) , Capitolhillcoffeehouse.com, TheConservativeVoice.com, Mensnewsdaily.com, ConservativeCrusader.com, and other news sites like AmericanChronicle.com.  She is a columnist and a reporter for the Mid-South Patriot ( www.freewebs.com/midsouth-patriot ) in Memphis, TN.  Felicia hails from a military background, and has been politically active since the 2000 elections. She has been a guest speaker on several conservative internet radio shows, most recently KFNX News talk radio in Arizona with Clancy Jayne ( www.insidepoliticswithclancyjayne.com ).  

 

You may email Felicia: Feereports@aol.com  

I have been reading David Horowitz’s new book, Indoctrination U and have found many of the observations in parallel with my own experiences in taxpayer funded, American institutions of higher education - especially in the area of taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs.In My Opinion:

The prejudice and discrimination that is allowed to be preached and practiced in taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs across America is astounding.

Perhaps the demonstration in front of a California University with a taxpayer funded, women’s studies program (included at the end of this article) will add some graphic perspective to problems that exist today in taxpayer funded women’s studies programs.

The two photos at the very end are taken in front of a California Police Station, and a California City Hall.   Those two photos are meant to emphasize how the misandry, taught in taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs, has transformed into so much bad social policy and law.   Many taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs, in addition to teaching, also offer internships to students to train and lobby in Washington, D.C.   Therefore, if you don’t consider taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs a religion, then just consider them a taxpayer funded political party.   You know how it works in a Stalinist country’s politics, where all those lines are very blurred.   Well, that’s the model taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs in America aspire to.

There are approximately 52 taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs in California and none for men.   There are hundreds of classes taught in those programs, if not thousands.   How again, is that supposed to work under Title IX?   Somebody please explain that to me.

Patriarchy Theory (a foundation block of taxpayer funded, women’s studies):

# It can be shown that men are indeed oppressed in numerous ways and not all receipients of some vast Patriarchal network’s endless benevolence to all men.   Where then, is the universal “male privilege” that taxpayer funded, women’s studies advocates have been touting?

# It can be shown that the vast majority of men are not members of a Patriarchal conspiracy to oppress all women.  Where then, is any justification for the vilification of all males that has been rampant in taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs?

# The concept of Patriarchy as taught in taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs is flawed to the core, and does not consider men as individual human beings as our United States Constitution intends.   Taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs blatantly violate the human rights of every individual American male.

Taxpayer funded, women’s studies programs are not content to exist just within the women’s studies discipline, or even the liberal arts dept.   Taxpayer funded, women’s studies activists are constantly lobbying academic administration to have their curriculums integrated into the curriculums of many disciplines, where it seems oddly out of place - Geography, Physics, Mathematics, etc., etc., etc.  Where is the academic freedom of individual departments to ”choose,” what goes into their own disciplines, based on their own scholarly expertise?

Taxpayer funded women’s studies programs have justified teaching from the woman’s perspective, in the women’s studies discipline, because (in their words) ”women’s studies is about women.”   Yet when women’s studies advocates lobby academic administration to integrate (foist) taxpayer funded women’s studies curriculum into other disciplines, the taxpayer funded women’s studies curriculum does not change.   It does not include the oppression of men.   It does not show ways in which women have many privileges in our society that men do not enjoy.  It does not talk honestly about domestic violence committed against men by women, or the absences of shelters and services for men.  It does not talk about the horrendous number of child fatalities attributed to women by HHS, nor lobby for remedy, etc., etc., etc.

Taxpayer funded, women’s studies curriculum cannot withstand objective,   logical,  methodical,  analysis and remain valid.   Even though “women’s ways of knowing” professes to be a valid form of “knowing,” the contradictions and factual inaccuracies resultant from its “research” appear to me to be damning indictments of such a “fuzzy,” unsound methodology - so why is this apparent “taxpayer funded, hate movement,” (vilifying all men) still in existence anywhere in America’s college and university systems?

Taxpayer funded, gender feminist, women’s studies curriculum is not fit to be accredited for teaching in any college  or university class anywhere in America, IMO!

 

Concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by:

Gore: 19; Bush: 29

Square miles of land won by:

Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:

Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:

Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The left wing of the Democrat party, lead by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), has introduced a bill to form the swell sounding U.S. Dept. of Peace.

This would be a cabinet-level position, with a Secretary of Peace, Undersecretary of Peace, and dozens upon dozens of other officials, each with a staff of their own. The starting budget will be only eight thousand million dollars ($8 billion), and will grow only as fast as everything else at the federal level.

According to a presentation attended by The Uninvited Ombudsman, the new Dept. will avoid the usual bureaucratic waste and inefficiency because it will be, “an umbrella group” absorbing other agencies, and “it will be streamlined and efficient.” Why other federal agencies can’t also operate that way was unexplained. The Dept. will be better than a private operation, a non-profit, or a think tank, organizers are sure.

Promoters are quick to point out that the Dept. of Peace will “research, facilitate and articulate peaceful nonviolent solutions to conflict.” They are less quick to point out that the new Dept. will have policy making powers, social engineering programs, indoctrinations for school children called “educational programs,” enforcement powers, and more, in its 5,000-word enabling statute, HR 808.

As currently written, the Dept. of Defense will have to confer with the Dept. of Peace before it can do anything. It was not clear from the discussions if any of the bill’s supporters have read the bill.

Not to overlook an opportunity for backdoor gun control, the Peace Dept. will, “(5) analyze existing policies, employ successful, field-tested programs, and develop new approaches for dealing with the implements of violence, including gun-related violence and the overwhelming presence of handguns.”

The reason the lamestream media missed this story are unclear.

Apologies friends and fans –

I must have been half asleep –

let me start with the easy errors,

and progress to the more involved issues:

WRONG:

“1- Second Circuit Court Ends D.C. Gun Ban”

RIGHT:

1- U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Ends D.C. Gun Ban

WRONG:

“By now you’ve probably heard that the federal 2nd Circuit Court has overturned…”

RIGHT:

By now you’ve probably hard that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned… [the 2nd Circuit is up New England way.]

WRONG:

“Congress could care less.”

RIGHT:

Syndicated radio host Tom Gresham of Gun Talk notes — Alan, this means the opposite of what you wanted to say. This means that Congress cares. You mean to say that Congress could NOT care less. It’s common usage, but it means the opposite of the intended meaning. Thanks for being on the show Sunday. As always, you did a great job. Tom

http://www.guntalk.com/site.php

WRONG:

“The case is named after Cato senior fellow Tom G. Palmer.”

[Dumbest error of them all. Sheesh.]

RIGHT:

“Parker v. DC” is named after Shelly Parker, an African-American woman who lives in DC and had her life threatened by local thugs. I knew that. Cato senior fellow Tom G. Palmer was one of the six D.C. residents in the case who argued for the right to defend themselves in their homes.

WRONG:

“The Cato Institute… lead this successful charge.”

RIGHT:

The Cato Institute does not litigate. It does occasionally file amicus briefs, but did not in this case, didn’t fund it, and made no arguments. This was a personal project by Cato scholar Robert A. Levy, who paid expenses out of his pocket, and had legal assistance from colleagues. Lead counsel Alan Gura worked for small compensation and co-counsel Clark Neily worked pro bono. Cato was supportive on the issues, and weighed in with the media, but was only indirectly connected to the case.

PLUS:

An NBC correspondent objected to how I characterized their coverage of the case (”I fear your recent note did not fairly represent the story I did for NBC News”). The quote attributed to NBC came directly from the caption at the top of their website story, with the glum-faced DC mayor all upset. Admittedly their story did go further than the single item I used. On the other hand, they didn’t lead with jubilant civil rights advocates who were jumping for joy nationwide, now that the tyrannical decades-long repression of basic human rights had been lifted.

In that sense, the NBC coverage was remarkably similar to the other networks and mainstream outlets — a similarity that leads many in the public to wonder about their independence of thought. Why do mainstream stories have such a uniform slant, which so often does not harmonize with what the public thinks?

Note to correspondent — I don’t recall seeing any reports from NBC on armed self defense, even though by all accounts these occur frequently in America; yet I frequently see isolated criminal acts involving guns from remote areas of the country on national news. This leads many to believe NBC has a bias against all the good that guns do — saving lives, stopping crime, family enjoyment and the rest. How would you respond to that claim?

Aaron Zelman, the head of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership asked for a public apology, and here it is. They are definitely not “shouting from the rooftops with joy” as I indicated by batching them with other gun-rights advocates who are. They are keenly aware of the downsides of the decision, and the huge potential damage an appeal could cause. Check them out here: http://www.jpfo.org. And Aaron, let’s not overlook the court’s reliance on permit schemes instead of rights, easy acceptance of onerous conditions like mandated training and registrations, reasoned discussion of the bogus individual/collectivist subterfuge, and the severe limit of the decision to people only in their homes.

Author and scholar Dave Hardy observes:

“And the dissent is … weird. It doesn’t say there is no individual right, it says the right doesn’t apply in DC because it was meant to protect states against federal tyranny and DC is not a State. If that sounds rather nonsensical … well, that’s the best I can read it.”

Syndicated columnist Vin Suprynowicz notes:

Unfortunately, ALL THREE judges ruled there’s no right to keep and bear arms. Yes, yes, I know two of them SAID there’s a fundamental individual right. They then proceeded to instruct D.C. to issue the plaintiff a PERMIT to own and carry a weapon, but ONLY IN HIS OWN HOUSE. How can you issue a PERMIT to exercise a RIGHT? Got your Freedom of Religion Permit? Don’t try to use it outside your own house, now!

I have to agree with Vin, and have been a long-time foe of all the permit schemes so willingly embraced by gun-rights advocates everywhere. See, for example, “Reciprocity Schemes.” The question before us is one of incrementalism, and politics being the art of the possible. We can, like libertarian purists do, stand on perfect philosophical grounds and be crushed, or stand by and watch politicos of every stripe do battle in the belly of the beast and gather up what crumbs may fall. Yeah, mixed metaphor. And a tough call. For complaints on that point, please place finger in electrical outlet.

Item (6) about the gun lobby being less than unified on the merits of this case (and that’s putting it nicely) will be explored in a story under development (not by me), and I’ll let you know when there is news.

And finally, news media everywhere characterized this as a battle between the “individual rights” and “collective rights” interpretations of the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The New York Times: “unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to the collective rights of state militias.”

That is a fallacious, underhanded and preposterous deception, because the “collective rights” nonsense was invented late last century solely as a way to attack this basic human right. Into the 1960s nearly every high school in NYT’s home turf had a firing range and rifle team, and there was virtually no debate on whether you had a right to arms — it’s a new concoction (but why let that stop the Gray Lady).

Attorney Stephen Halbrook’s extensive historical research lead him to this interesting conclusion:

“In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the ‘collective’ right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of ‘the people’ to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis. The phrase ‘the people’ meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it did in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments — that is, each and every free person.”

In further research he discovered:

The “collective rights” theory originated in U.S. v. Tot, (1943). The historical references in Tot simply do not support its thesis. See Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed 189-191 (1984): http://www.gunlaws.com/books3.htm. Subsequent cases merely string cite to earlier cases which are ultimately traceable to Tot. http://www.gunlaws.com/SCGC-News.html.

Stephen’s work is just SO good.

And thanks, y’all, for your patience with me.