Oh, this is just sick. Exploiting children for propaganda purposes is bad enough. Now we find out that the Obama campaign has been trying  to find a rape victim that they could use in one of their television ads. But surprise surprise, none have been willing to come forward.

Barack Obama’s campaign earlier this month sought to find a rape victim to appear in a campaign commercial, according to an e-mail obtained by Politico.

Kiersten Steward, director of public policy at the Family Violence Prevention Fund, served as a conduit between the campaign and victims and women’s advocates.

“Obviously, this is a big ask and I haven’t seen a script but presumably it will be a brief ‘this is what happened to me, we need someone who will fight for women like me, these are the guys to do it,’” Steward wrote in a Sept. 15 e-mail. ”Again, that’s just my assumption, given how these things
usually go.”

Steward, a former top aide to Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), said the Obama campaign would have a crew in Washington and was hoping to film that week.

She didn’t respond to a message.

The Obama campaign wouldn’t detail the strategy behind finding an individual to discuss such a sensitive topic but did suggest the ad may be aimed at underscoring their candidate’s support for abortion rights and ongoing effort to retain those women who backed Hillary Clinton in the primary.

As I’ve said, there’s absolutely no level to which the Obama campaign will not sink in order to try to win this election.

Alright, this is pretty reminiscent of the kind of propaganda we see coming from totalitarian states. Is this the shape of things to come during an Obama administration?

Obama propaganda video exploiting young children

Plus, the song really, really sucks okay? Interestingly enough though, while the video is supposed to be a homemade production, it turns out that it was produced by some media  bigwigs like Jeff Zucker, the head of NBC Universal. Why am I not surprised? And, how stupid do these people think we are? Did they really think we wouldn’t find out about this?

Update (10/1 9:00 AM)

It looks like the creepy Obama video has now been pulled due to all the bashing it has attracted.

Has been pulled from YouTube. From a reader:

No big surprise there, I knew it wouldn’t last after Hannity played it on his show tonight and Rush this on his show, the last I looked it had received close to 400,000 views.  Its to bad the country needed to see this, did anyone tape this so that i can e re posted or is that a copyright problem..

Hopefully some bloggers have copies so they can keep showing it.

Update (10/1 11:04 AM)

There’s still a copy of the video right here. Watch and enjoy.

It turns out the the Graham- Leach -Bliley bill, which Barack Obama claims was an example of John McCain supporting financial deregulation, was not even voted on by John McCain. He didn’t vote on the bill at all. But, guess who did vote for this bill? Eighty nine other senators from both parties. And, in the House, the bill was supported by 210 Republicans and 151 Democrats. It was then signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

So, if you want to blame somebody for passing a financial deregulation bill, there’s plenty of blame to go around. I don’t necessarily think there’s anything inherently wrong with deregulation, and numerous industries function in a more efficient  manner due to deregulation. But you can’t blame McCain for deregulation of the financial sector, which isn’t even responsible for the problems we’re having now anyway. Here’s a link to the Graham bill, and how the vote went. You’ll notice John McCain’s name didn’t vote.

One can file this under, when you lose, sometimes you win.

The judgment of Judge Miriam Goldman Cederbaum came in on the issue of discriminatory pricing for NY nightclubs.

Roy Dan Hollander, who has been crusading against such practices, commented that her dismissal of his lawsuit was consistent with the discrimination against men in the legal system.

Basically, Hallander was making the argument that charging a man $25 dollars to walk in the door, while not charging women was sexual discrimination. The practice of free drinks for ladies also becomes suspect under this line of thinking.

True to form, Judge Cederbaum, invoked the mental process of oppressor and oppressed dialectics and decided that giving women free drink and not charging them entry was a completely legal and fair thing. The reason given though is key.

Judge Cedarbaum said nightclubs can price their products as they wish because they’re not acting as representatives of the state.

Judge tosses suit over ‘ladies’ nights’

NEW YORK — It’s closing time for a lawsuit alleging ladies’ nights at nightclubs discriminate against men.

Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum tossed the lawsuit out of federal court in Manhattan on Monday. She said nightclubs can price their products as they wish because they’re not acting as representatives of the state.

The lawsuit was brought by attorney Roy Den Hollander, who has crusaded against feminism and recently sued a university over its women’s studies program.

Hollander said ladies’ nights at Manhattan nightclubs discriminate against men by offering women free or discounted admission and drinks. He tried to link the state to the discounts because it licenses the sale of alcohol at nightclubs.

How does that translate to a condition of when you lose you win?

Easy. Mr Hollander is probably upset (and the article says as much), but he hasn’t seen the overwhelmingly positive outcome that this legal precedence makes.

Basically various businesses and clubs in NY have had a problem when it comes to running their business the way they want to. Just as in this nightclub case.

Various businesses have sought to have men’s only businesses, but the women’s groups will not let such discrimination stand. that its illegal and discriminatory to prevent a woman from participating in a mens only gym, because she is a woman.

Well this problem has now been fixed by Judge Cedarbaum, prices that are set by gender are not discriminatory, they are legal.

Now Gyms that wish to be mens only can have this not by forbidding women from entering, but by just charging them differently.

The ladies night in a club has the effect of promoting the attendance of women, while dispromoting the attendance of as many men. What this judge has in effect ruled is that one can set prices in ones own free market business that promotes one sex or gender over another, and that since the business is not a state entity, they are free to do this.

This means that no more lawsuits as to sex discrimination in business and clubs as it is fair for them to charge men $50 dollars a month membership fee to join the gym, and charge a woman $500 dollar fee.  

One may make the argument that the disparity in price might signal discrimination, but this is not so. if the clubs in NY charged a dollar for the women to enter, and charged the men $25 dollars then the difference would be established as 25 times the prices. at that disparity, the gym could charge $1,250 and be on exact parity with clubs.

However the club lets them in free… and free is less than a dollar, and so the amount of disparity is actually anything one wants to claim, especially the amounts above what a dollar would be fractional.

This means that every club in NY that wishes to disbar women from entry, need only set their prices. Judge Cedarbaum has ruled that such practices are perfectly legal and not considered discrimination.

Hollander can now proceed to fight on behalf of NY hair stylists. Years ago, they ruled that a hair stylist cant charge women more for a cut because the women have more complex hair styles, or longer hair.

Well, now that has been replaced by the new free market precident that business owners can charge what they want. Hair stylists are not acting as representatives of the state.

ALSO, this means that dry cleaners can also charge more for womens clothing, another lawsuit years ago made that illegal. Even though the explanation, like the hair above, is that women tend to wear finer clothes with lace and these items have to have more care.

Well now judge Cedarbaum has insured that such reasons are not needed. a business owner can charge whatever they want in an effort to promote or inhibit attendance by any group they wish, and its not discriminatory as long as they are not representatives of the state.

This means that one can also go back to the evil days of jim crow and have different prices based on race, since race and gender are legally equivalent in discriminatory law. And one can now charge the young more money and the elderly less, after all, that’s a social good too. Now atheists can charge Christians more, just so they don’t have to bother with them.

Judge Cedarbaum has insured that 40 years of democratic meddling in free business will now finally come to an end. Businesses are free to discriminate in pricing since such isnt discrimination unless the state does it, and they are free to succeed or fail based on that policy.

So in the case of nightclubs, they are free to do this, and we are free as patrons to decide whether we agree.  The same would be now true of any business over any reason like age, race, religion, or disability. They are free to succeed or fail on that policy and its outcomes in the market. have higher prices for African Americans, and that’s ok, if you can succeed doing that.

Whats more is that Judge Cedarbaum in her effort to be fairly unfair, and sock it to the guys has also gutted the disabilities laws. For if its ok for a club to charge differently at the door for different classes of people, then its ok for a business to charge a wheel chair bound person 100 times the price to cover custom service of moving them into the store without a ramp yet still grant access.  

Ah…  Judge Cedarbaum having decided that there is a double standard and its legal, has under the concept of equality under the law, made such double standards a legal goodness again.

It will be interesting to see how this all might pan out if these things are applied. Will then Judge Cedarbaum change her judgment, or would a higher court do so?  would the courts be forced to let it stand and therefore, have to grant the legality of these practices under freedom, even if we don’t like them?

I guess it depends on Hollander, and all the other businesses who wish to define how and why they do business with people.

After all, its now legal to charge higher rents for “undesirables”. An apartment is a business, its not owned by the state, and so the business is free to set prices any way it wants. So it can charge 10k a month for a minority and can charge 1 dollar a month for a favored group. Why? because judge Cedarbaum has said that it can.    

At the very least, she has potentially thrown all this prior law into contention.

Either its ok for businesses to set prices to promote or inhibit a mix of clients, or its considered discriminatory to do so.

The key is that the mechanism is prices, not rules forbidding attendance. That a group can be inhibited is now legal, it just can’t be prevented. Having a high price for one group, inhibits them, but does not prevent attendance. The argument that such disparity is not burdensome is specious when one then says it’s discrimination against the poor men who wish to go out with the women who wish the door cost was their to weed out poor men.

The argument that the same disparity that is absent from clubs and doors, is absent when one looks at the skin color, the age, or anything else, is just as specious.

 “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”

Sir Walter Scott.

Well it’s about time, since this whole financial crisis we’re going through right now, with all the trillions of dollars of wealth that has been lost by the American public, is all the fault of the corrupt accounting practices at Fannie Mae  and Freddie Mac.

Adding to their woes, mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are facing a federal grand jury investigation into their accounting practices.

The mortgage finance companies said Monday that a federal grand jury in New York is investigating accounting, disclosure and corporate governance issues at Washington-based Fannie and McLean, Va.-based Freddie.

Fannie and Freddie said they received subpoenas Friday from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan as well as requests from the Securities and Exchange Commission that they preserve documents. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government earlier this month as their mounting defaults and foreclosures threatened the entire mortgage market.

The government investigation focuses on activities starting in 2007, Freddie Mac said in a statement.

Critics have long questioned the companies’ bookkeeping. Last November, for example, a Fortune magazine story said new accounting procedures at Fannie Mae masked potential losses on bad loans.

And several years ago, both Fannie and Freddie were forced to restate billions in earnings after federal regulators discovered accounting irregularities at both companies.

The scandals led to the replacement of the companies’ top executives. Freddie Mac’s former CEO, Gregory Parseghian was ousted in December 2003. Fannie CEO Franklin Raines and chief financial officer Timothy Howard were swept out of office a year later.

Yes, that Franklin Raines.  The same one that has been an advisor to the Obama campaign. The Franklin Raines who was praised by Maxine Waters and the other Democrats as an outstanding CEO back in 2004 when the Bush administration was trying to fix the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before they caused an economic disaster like we’re having today.

Just remember and understand that that the free markets did not cuase this financial crisis. This is not a failure of the free markets or Wall Street. This financial crisis is a failure of government. Government created the crisis by encouraging Fannie, Freddie and others to loan money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back. And then the government refused to see the problem and do something about it. And, it was the Democrats who looked the other way and refused to see the writing on the wall.

You have to watch this video in which prominent Democrats such as Maxine Waters and Barney Frank rail on and on about how there are no problems at Fannie Mae, and no increased regulation is thereby required. Of particular interest is Maxine Water’s idiotic pronouncement about what an outstanding  CEO Frank Raines is, just shortly before he was forced out of the company for cooking the books. The bottom line is that the Bush Administration, and the Senate GOP particularly John McCain, saw what was going on at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and tried to stop it. Unfortunately, the Democrats were either completely out to lunch, or so intoxicated by all the money Fannie and Freddie were forking over in “campaign contributions” that they completely let them slide. And, now we’re all paying for it.

This is a bit frustrating. The articles title is “what makes an ideal woman?”, they claim six authors will tell you their score on the situation.  HOWEVER they dont tell you that there is a seventh author squeezed in at the end to quickly inform what the ideal man would be, that way the feminists get to have their snarky responses appended to this article, rather than an “article of their own”.

One would think that  the ideal woman wouldn’t think her two cents as to the ideal man would belong in an article about the ideal woman…

In an effort to make the article a lot better, and more true to its title, i left the last paragraph out, so that those who are interested in her opinion, can then follow the link and be happy. 

 

What makes an ideal woman?

She speaks when she’s spoken to, smells lovely and has a big nose - six writers wax lyrical on their picture of perfection

 

GILES COREN

Once upon a time, a man on the hunt for a wife would set great store by a woman who could cook. But things have changed. And to be honest, I’ll settle for a woman who can eat. A woman who doesn’t poke her food around the plate and hide things under her knife and claim to have a thousand intolerances and allergies. A woman who isn’t “off carbs”, “not drinking this year”, “toying with the macrobiotic thing” or made to “feel funny” by red wine. I don’t want to sound narrow-minded. If I truly love her, then I guess we could always work the food thing through. As long as she isn’t always “tired”. Men are either awake or asleep, but women are always “exhausted”. What the hell is that? If you’re tired, woman, go to bed.

Also, I want a woman who is prepared to admit that what she wants from a man is a big c*** and a lot of money. I am fed up with women always claiming that what they find most sexy is a sense of humour. Because it isn’t true. I know this because I am hilarious. Way more funny than most of the slack-arsed, car-obsessed, office wonk baldies you’ll meet in a wine bar on a Friday night, and yet I practically never get laid. If it were true that women are turned on by a man who makes them laugh, Woody Allen wouldn’t have had to marry his own daughter.

As for a woman with a sense of humour, that’s fine, as long as it simply means that she will laugh at my jokes. Most women only laugh at their own jokes. Shut up. If you say something funny, I’ll let you know. And don’t give me “career”. Only women have “careers”. Men have jobs, to get money, and if we could stop and have babies while someone else earned the loot, believe me, we would. We don’t need a “career” to feel validated. We don’t want to feel validated. We just want to feel boobs. As many as possible. And then, at the last minute, quickly have babies and then die.

 

ALEX JAMES

“Long-legged, expensive, bossy, messy wife required. GSOH not essential in the mornings, but must be able to climb trees and beat me at tennis sometimes.”

I’m not sure if that’s exactly what I would have written before I met her, but that’s what I got and she’s perfect for me. The moment I stop believing my wife is my ideal woman, I guess it’s over. No man can ever be sure whether he’s got a Linda or a Heather on his arm as the confetti falls, but I’m certain that nobody ever walks down the aisle with any sense of compromise. The whole absurdly wonderful, almost impossibly romantic thing about all marriages is that what you are saying to each other is: “You and me, we’re perfect.”

I suppose all men must conjure notions of their ideal partner. Mmmm, let’s see, I’ll take a big slice of Zeta-Jones with some Germaine Greer on top and the Abi Titmuss sauce — but these Frankenstein birds would never fly. Choosing a mate is not like buying a car or a house. Until she comes along, we have no idea what we really like: my imagination couldn’t hold a candle to the real thing. The best part of falling in love with Claire was discovering all the things I didn’t know I wanted or needed.

Of course, it’s not been all roses. There are whacking great thorns, but they’re a vital part of it, too. I think you’ve got to be able to surprise each other sometimes, without meaning to. Our daughter was born last week. Claire was pulling faces I’d never seen before and crushing my hand in hers. “Does anyone ever manage to do this without the swearwords?” I asked the midwife. Oh, yes, she said gently, through the torrent of obscenities. It struck me then that Claire, in her mind probably far from her best or most elegant, was incapable of not looking good, and even her swearing had a kind of grace to it.

I’d never seen Claire, or anyone, look so beautiful. Then I saw my daughter, and that’s a whole other story.

 

AA GILL

The most attractive attribute in a woman, the most melting, the most utterly winning, is gratitude. And the older you get, the more attractive it becomes. The nice thing for men who have been short-changed by Adonis, or fallen out of the ugly tree, is that gratitude is the one honest, decent and admirable emotion money can buy. And surprisingly, quite a small amount of money. You will find it in nature: I recently watched a David Attenborough programme about the bower bird. The male of the species spends all his time preparing the nest in an effort to attract a mate. Day after day, he will bring bauble after bauble — a tireless display of devotion to his future bird. But I saw it slightly differently. It’s not a virtuoso act of love. It’s more what women will do for a couple of bottle tops and an old Oyster card.

But, actually, this is the wrong question altogether. When Casanova was very, very old, and was asked how he had been the most successful seducer of women in the history of sex, he said it was because he loved women, and that there was, in every woman, something that was divinely beautiful, and his gift was that he alone had been able to see it in everyone, when so many other men couldn’t. I knew a man like that once, a white-van man I used to drink with in a pub. He was one of the most unattractive men: sweat-stained wife-beater, paunch, hairy back, a face that looked like it had been made out of melted tyres. He had a foul mouth and fouler breath, was utterly bereft of charm, but all anyone could talk about was how much and how often he got laid. I thought he was patently lying, but he insisted it was absolutely true. So I asked him why he got lucky so much. He said: “I drive round delivering things all day. I’ve got a mattress in the back.” That doesn’t make you any more attractive. “I drive slowly with the sliding door open. Every girl I pass, I say, ‘Do you want a shag?’ And every so often, one in a hundred says yes. It doesn’t take very long to ask a hundred. But that’s not the big deal. The big deal is when they say yes, you’ve got to.” Now that’s gratitude.

 

MATT RUDD

I’ll be honest, in five years of marriage, I quickly learnt to be too afraid to imagine the perfect woman. If I had even so much as looked off into the middle distance and begun to picture a half-Swedish, half-Japanese, permanently 25-year-old, 5ft 8in bisexual gymnast with a medium cup, a penchant for tastefully slutty cocktail dresses and an erotically feisty side that meant arguments about the Iraq war always deteriorated into sex rather than slammed doors, my wife would have known. Now that I have been asked, in a professional capacity, to reveal my views on female perfection, she says I have immunity. That is obviously a lie. A man trap. She will read this and I won’t be allowed to go to Tokyo or Stockholm or bisexual-gymnast meets ever again. So, obviously, my perfect woman is my wife.

But there are ways to improve on perfection. First, the perfect woman would show far greater tolerance of her perfect man’s habits. She would allow, for example, just off the top of my head, not that I have a list or anything, the following: sugar in tea; a healthy scepticism of yoga and/or arnica; at least one curry a week; nonorganic deodorant (ie stuff that works); and free rein in Blockbuster at least twice a year (free rein to include films with explosions in them).

Second, she’d intuitively understand and accept that she was the less accomplished driver. And map reader. And satnav operator.

Third, she would not make any conversation during Sky Cops, Street Wars, Road Wars, Cops on Camera, Cops with Cameras or, latterly, Caribbean Cops.

Fourth and finally, for we don’t want to be unreasonable about these things, she would hate having all the duvet. She would not sleep in a starfish shape. And she would always get the tea in the morning. With sugar in, but I think we have already covered that.

 

TOM STUBBS

Questing for the perfect woman is folly. A check list gets a man nowhere. Like buying property, you’ll never find all you desire: “I really like her: high ceilings, great amenities, but does she have a south-facing garden?” In my own case, foolishly harbouring a romantic ideal has left me marooned, like a cross between Carrie Bradshaw and Travis Bickle, but with more shoes, fewer guns, and the same chin-up routine.

But since you’re interested, here it is. Proficient deployment of glamorous high heels is essential — I call it altitude slickness. She’ll also require the knack of delivering the brushoff to unwanted, intrusive men. Some women have instinctive pest-control abilities, some don’t. My ideal girl also smells lovely and is excellent with profanities, emitting surprising and haphazard outbursts. Her cooking ability is immaterial, but she delights in her food. I’m needy-phobic, so her independence is crucial, as she runs a vigorous schedule of her own activities. We meet without unsavoury embroilment and enjoy jealousy-free satellite manoeuvring, once loyalty is pledged. It’s black and white for me, so no green eye from her. She’ll offer to pay her way; who actually pays is irrelevant, but willingness is critical. Her love of music reveals passion for life, while her dance moves will confirm this.

I’d consider a liaison with 70%, ono, of the above criteria satisfied. I guess you could also chuck in the poise of Rachael WW in Blade Runner, the chic of Faye Dunaway in The Thomas Crown Affair and the impact of the girl on the Rio album cover by Duran Duran. What’s wrong with high aspiration? I’ll be saying that in the queue for my pension, pondering whether the striking open-plan reception with balcony and sought-after views was “the one”.

 

DOM JOLY

Let’s start with Béatrice Dalle from Betty Blue, but without the mental side. I fancied her when I was 16 — I thought she was gorgeous, exotic, and I liked the idea of having a French girlfriend. Then I once saw her interviewed and realised she was an absolute lunatic. I kind of like stability; I’m pretty all over the shop myself, so I like someone to balance it out. Now I’ve grown up, my ideal has got even more sensible, boring even, such as Jennifer Aniston.

I also have a thing about noses. My wife has a normal nose, but when she lined up pictures of all my exes, she pointed out that they all had prominent ones. I do like weird, strong noses. Not Jodie Marsh, obviously. Natascha McElhone has a wonderful nose, and I had a big crush on Laura Dern in Wild at Heart, but that went with Jurassic Park.

I am very disappointed that I have a crush on Sarah Palin — and I don’t think I’m alone. I loathe everything about her politically, but there’s something about her. It’s not the librarian bun and glasses, it’s just that I find women in power attractive, perhaps because they’re bright. I can’t stand women like Kate Moss. She is hideous, the exact example of a skank I would snog at Glastonbury and end up regretting. I think Agyness is gorgeous, but reminds me of the girls I fancied at 18.

Having a similar sense of humour is obviously a biggie, because if they don’t, the whole thing goes downhill. Sarcasm, cynicism, maybe a goth past — although I do tend to like sloaney girls, which feeds into the nose thing. My ideal woman used to be Patti Smith on the cover of Horses. She’s got that very cool, confident New York vibe, that no-bullshit stuff. All my life I’ve thought I’ve known what I was after, but I have never ended up with it — and what I have ended up with is a 5ft 2in Canadian blonde, who turns out to be ideal.

 

 

More and more we are seeing articles, and science that debunks and causes problems for feminism, and left wing ideological “truths”. What is clear is that more often, we are seeing a view that maybe the bad old days are better than the good new days will ever be. Follow the link to read the interesting comments from both sides.

Be honest: we all love the sexist alpha male

Many women will tell you that one of the most irritating things about life is that alpha males - great silverbacked gorilla types - strike us, maddeningly, as being rather more attractive than their kinder, gentler, more considerate dwarf-monkey counterparts. We know intellectually that it shouldn’t be so, since the gorillas are often sexist pigs (just to mix the animal metaphors); but when push comes to shove and we’re picking a boyfriend rather than a friend, few of us find beta males especially appealing.

In real life as in Georgette Heyer, the reprehensible, oddly sexy brute fares rather better than the sensitive flower. Now it turns out that the unreconstituted, sexist male chauvinist is not only more attractive to many women, but earns more money and is more professionally successful than the kind man who sympathises when you have period cramps and offers to make you a nice cup of camomile. Not fair, is it?

The Journal of Applied Psychology has just published findings from a University of Florida study based on interviews with more than 12,000 men and women. Between 1979 and 2005, they were questioned regularly about how they viewed male and female roles - whether they believed a woman’s place was in the home, whether employing women led to more juvenile delinquency(!) and whether it was the woman’s job to take care of the home and family.

Sexist men, the scientists found, made an average of $8,500 (£4,600) a year more than men who viewed women as work-place equals. Meanwhile, feminists earned more than their more traditionally minded female colleagues (but not a great deal more - £800 a year, on average). And while there was only a small difference between the pay packets of “egalitarian” men and women, sexist men’s wages outstripped everyone else’s.

Surprised? Me neither. It’s one of those stories that, even without being corroborated by the figures, has the horrible ring of truth about it: we’ve all worked in an office where the sexist monster is (a) very good at his job and (b) gruesomely and guilt-inducingly attractive despite his antediluvian attitudes.

The existence of such men is why sexism persists: it is obviously wrong on every level, as many an industrial tribunal will attest, but the combination of power and, shall we say, lack of political correctness can be a potent one - which is why everyone in Britain fell in love with Gene Hunt, the hulking great throwback in the BBC series Life on Mars, which was set in the 1970s. On paper the character was entirely despicable; in full flow he made his intelligent, evolved, sensitive sidekick look like a ladyboy. Men wanted to be Hunt; women wanted to be with him. This says a great deal about men’s sense of being emasculated at every turn in modern Britain - a complaint that is, I think, pretty much justified and needs to be addressed before it does considerable damage.

It is surely no coincidence that men seem angrier than they have ever been; you notice it especially when it comes to pornography. Wanting to subjugate and violate powerless women used to be a specialist minority interest; it has now become mainstream. Nobody seems to mind much. I find that pretty alarming.

See also the extremes men now go to in order to punish their former wives or girlfriends: horrific news stories about fathers murdering their children and then killing themselves have become, if not quite commonplace, frequent enough to ring loud alarm bells. There was another one just last week. There’s not much point in women saying, “Oh dear, how horrid - but anyway, about my right to breastfeed in public . . . ” These are issues that need to be looked at urgently before the situation gets wholly out of control.

Women aren’t powerless - au contraire. What is interesting about the sexist pay packet is that it doesn’t happen despite women, but rather with their consent and, in many cases, their covert approval. The fact of the matter is that biology will always get in the way of gender politics; you can cogitate and reason all you like, but it isn’t easy simply to eradicate attitudes and desires that have been hard-wired into us for millennia.

Wet men aren’t generally considered desirable or attractive; manly men are. Manly men, knowing they are considered attractive, continue to behave in their retrograde way and are rewarded for it with popularity, success and, if they’re good at their jobs, a heftier pay packet than anyone else’s. And then everyone likes or admires them even more, secretly or otherwise: success, money, esteem - what’s not to like, apart from the little matter of gender politics? And so it goes on.

Meanwhile, confusingly, everything we read and observe and are taught shows us that the object of our admiration is to be condemned and that being a victim of sexism is one of the most terrible things that can befall a helpless woman (in fact, it really isn’t and we’re not helpless: there are many worse things than people making jokes about your bosoms, especially if the jokes are quite funny. If they aren’t, we all have a tongue in our head and, if need be, recourse to the law. Part of the problem with all this is the irritating assumption that women are constantly doomed to victimhood and need protecting from the big, mean boys).

No wonder people get muddled. So this is a little plea for the sexist alpha male – the one we all secretly think isn’t as dreadful as he’s made out to be. Isn’t it time that we gave him a break from the full force of our disapproval? We live in a furtive sort of society where lots of women fancy men they feel they shouldn’t and many men go through life pretending to be a great deal sweeter and more feminine than they actually are, because they’ve been told it’s the only way to be.

It’s unhealthy, really - smoke and mirrors masking the unavoidable fact that, underneath it all, women prefer manly men, even ones who make sexist jokes; and men prefer womanly women, even ones who whinge about being fat. Perhaps that’s a terribly self-hating and sexist thing to say. Or perhaps it’s just the truth.

+ Writing in 1605, Luisa de Carvajal, a Spanish nun who was brought to London by the Jesuits and risked her life in pursuit of martyrdom (she was especially good at the gruesome task of collecting relics from the freshly murdered bodies of Catholic martyrs), opined as follows: London is overcrowded, dirty, rowdy, especially on Friday nights; the food’s not up to much, everything’s too expensive and it rains all the time.

“The food looks good,” she wrote in letters home, “but it has no smell and almost no taste.” As for the neighbours: “At times, they grind me down with the noise that comes through the wall where I sleep. All you hear is the sound of meat being roasted and others cooking, eating, playing and drinking.” She is repulsed by the lack of sanitation - one day she sees carrots transported in a cart that had just been used to carry the corpses of plague victims - and is shocked by thieving children “of 10 or 11” being sent to the gallows.

No change there, then, despite the intervening 400 years (you can substitute the vilification of child criminals for the gallows, as though babies were born evil). The nun’s letters have been translated for the first time by Dr Glyn Redworth, a history lecturer at Manchester University. His book, The She-Apostle: The Extraordinary Life and Death of Luisa de Carvajal, published last Thursday, is an absolute treat - utterly gripping from start to finish.

The goons from the Obama campaign have succeeding in shutting down the conservative Macsmind blog by flooding the site with “sql bombs” causing the severs to shut down.  As a result, Macsmind has temporarily moved to this location. Why did the Obama thugs go after Macsmind?

Well, for linking to videos like the one titled “Barack Obama plans on  disarming  America”, which is linked to below. Over 2 million people have already watched this video. If you haven’t seen it, you should. You’d be educating yourself and telling the Obama thugs to drop dead at the same time. What could be better than that?

Barack Obama Plans on Disarming America

The lamestream media told you:

A meat packing plant in Nebraska has fired at least 86 Muslim workers for walking off the job to conduct prayers during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Mohamed Rage, a spokesperson for the Muslims and one of the people fired, says 150 were fired. A spokesman for the plant says the company, Swift, told the workers that if they walked off they would be fired, a fact the Muslims dispute. The plant employs 2,500 people, with about 20% of them Muslims, many immigrants from war-torn impoverished Somalia.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Showing spine that hasn’t been seen in some places in years, a meat-packing plant in Nebraska refused to cave in to Muslim segregationist demands, and fired scores of religious followers insisting on special treatment for a month that would disrupt orderly business practices. In other parts of the country, virtual quislings have caved into Muslim demands, for example providing segregated swimming times (Harvard) and public foot baths for Muslims (just Google it), in what numerous observers see as a carefully orchestrated attack on American values, using American values to advance Muslim causes, Muslim culture and Sharia law.

The lamestream media told you:

“CHICAGO (CBS) — 125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer; Total Is About Double The U.S. Troop Death Toll In Iraq

“An estimated 125 people were shot and killed over the summer. That’s nearly double the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.

“In May, cbs2chicago.com began tracking city shootings and posting them on Google maps. Information compiled from our reporters, wire service reports and the Chicago Police Major Incidents log indicated that 125 people were shot and killed throughout the city between the start of Memorial Day weekend on May 26, and the end of Labor Day on Sept. 1.

According to the Defense Department, 65 U.S. soldiers were killed in combat in Iraq. About the same number were killed in Afghanistan over that same period.

In the same time period, an estimated 247 people were shot and wounded in the city.”

You can see the maps yourself.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In a story almost without precedent, CBS identified Chicago’s high murder rate as almost totally gang related and geographically isolated. In modern America, that would mean these are war deaths in the War on Some Drugs, and not “gun deaths” as the media likes to frame the argument, to vilify firearms and create public fear.

With surprising candor, CBS announced, “Gang and gun violence continue to be the dominating threat on our streets,” according to a police e-mail to CBS. “Up to 60 percent of the shootings are gang related. More than 90 percent of the offenders have criminal histories and up to 80 percent of the victims have criminal histories.”

It’s unclear how the police concluded that only 60% of these crimes are gang related, when 90% of the shooters have criminal records and 80% of the victims do too. It’s also a fairly typical police distortion to suggest gun violence is the dominant threat “on our streets” when these gangland rubouts happen “on their streets,” and normal citizens generally only get to see it on the news from the “bad” neighborhoods. Look at the maps. Comparing Chicago’s rubout rate to the wars against Islamofascists is just bad reporting, from the town that has virtually banned guns (unlike Iraq and Afghanistan) and spawned Barack Obama.

This just keeps getting better and better.  Scared out of their minds that Obama could lose the state of Pennsylvania,  the Obama campaign is telling  Pennsylvanian televison stations that if they show ads from the NRA about Obama’s anti-gun record the Obama camp will try to have their FCC licenses revoked.

The Obama camp has been threatening television and radio stations to keep them from airing anti-Obama ads.

The latest target is the NRA and stations in Pennsylvania.

Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama’s longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama’s real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF’s ads.

The Obama camp is particularly angry with an NRA ad entitled “Hunter” which lays out Obama’s record on gun control.

I guess the First Amendment only applies if you’re a liberal.  You can watch the ad that really has the Obama campaign freaking out  here.

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

A fully informed jury is a bedrock principle of American freedom. Simply put, a jury of your neighbors (“peers”) has the power to decide the facts in a case if you’re charged, and the righteousness of the law you’re charged under. If legislatures pass laws that are unfair, your neighbors (those pesky peers again) can let you go, even if you’re guilty under the facts. It’s an ideal check on the system — prosecutors stop bringing bad cases, and legislatures stop the bad laws. It’s elegant, ingenious, a beautiful thing.

This played out swell in failed attempts to convict people helping slaves escape pre-civil war (deemed a crime), or catching grandmas with wine in the bathtub (during prohibition). The roots are in the trials of William Penn (Sep. 5, 1670) and John Peter Zenger (1735). The court told the juries to convict, and they refused (and were imprisoned for their audacity!). What good is a jury if it can’t make up its own mind?

Today, judges are determined to keep juries in the dark, won’t reveal excessive punishments awaiting minor offenses, give out checklists requiring convictions, and call fully informed jury actions “jury nullification,” a derogatory term meant to keep power away from juries and in judges’ hands. It’s a horrific abuse of power.

To combat this, three states have declared Jury Rights Day on Sep. 5th, to let the public know they, not the court, can decide the fate of a person charged, as it should be. The most recent declaration came from the great state of Alaska under… Governor Sarah Palin. Last year, in 2007.

Read Vin Suprynowicz’s marvelous piece on Jury Rights Day, and visit the fully informed jury association to educate yourself about this bulwark of liberty.

Do note however that if you are in a juror pool and talk up fully informed juries, they won’t let you sit on a panel. I did mention it’s a horrific abuse of power, right?

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The District of Columbia is being sued for $3.5 million in legal fees, the cost of bringing the successful Heller gun-ban case against the city, to restore people’s civil rights. Taxpayers may have to foot the bill for the city’s arrogant denial of rights to its… taxpayers.

“Certainly this money would be put to better use if it were allocated to proven crime-reduction measures like adding more police officers and prosecutors,” said National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president and general counsel Lawrence G. Keane. The city apparently would prefer to squander its limited funds — forcing Dick Heller to sue them again — to get them to obey the Supreme Court’s ruling. The hubris of these people is just over the top.

I really think this was a devastating moment for Obama from last night’s debate. To not be able to remember the name of the dead soldier whose bracelet you’re wearing is just awful and says so  much about how artificial Obama is. Watch the video and judge for yourself.

Obama can\’t remember name of dead soldier

Update (9/28)

Wow, the story is even worse than I imagined. As it turns out, the family of Ryan David Jopek  whose bracelet Obama is wearing has asked Obama not to wear it.

Barack Obama played the “me too” game during the Friday debates on September 26 after Senator John McCain mentioned that he was wearing a bracelet with the name of Cpl. Matthew Stanley, a resident of New Hampshire and a soldier that lost his life in Iraq in 2006. Obama said that he too had a bracelet. After fumbling and straining to remember the name, he revealed that his had the name of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek of Merrill, Wisconsin.

Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son’s name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.

Radio host Glenn Moberg of the show “Route 51″ asked Mr. Jopek, a man who believes in the efforts in Iraq and is not in favor of Obama’s positions on the war, what he and his ex-wife think of Obama continually using their son’s name on the campaign trail.

Jopek began by saying that his ex-wife was taken aback, even upset, that Obama has made the death of her son a campaign issue. Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because “she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan’s name.” Jopek went on to say that “she wasn’t looking to turn it into a big media event” and “just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself.” Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.

So, not only is Obama being majorly disrespectful to Jopek’s family. But, Barack Obama blatantly lied about Jopek’s family giving him the bracelet because they were opposed to the war in Iraq. This Obama guy is a dispicable liar that will do anything to get elected including fabricating stories out of whole cloth.

In last evening’s presidential debate, Barack Obama tried to score points by claiming that Henry Kissinger, one of McCain’s foreign policy advisors, was in favor of having the President of the United States sit down without preconditions with the President of Iran. Barack Obama is in favor of this himself, and this could’ve have been fairly embarassing for McCain. Sadly for Obama it turns out that Henry Kissinger supports McCain’s position NOT to have presidential level meetings with Iran  without preconditions.

ABC News’ Kirit Radia Reports: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger came to the defense of longtime friend Sen. John McCain following Friday’s presidential debate saying he “would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level.”

“Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality,” Kissinger said in statement issued by the McCain campaign.

During the debate, Obama pointed to Kissinger to defend his position because the former secretary of state supports direct talks with high-level Iranians without preconditions. Kissinger does not, however, support the U.S. president personally engaging in those talks, a point which McCain sought to drive home during the debate.

I’ll cut Obama some slack, and say that Obama just didn’t really understand Kissinger’s position on this issue, rather than that he was telling another lie and trying to get away with it. Obama did not understand many foreign policy issues last evening, so this is just one more example of that.

In Slacker Uprising Michael Moore sings a song to himself and the tune is both false and aggrandizing, but you won’t find any real slackers rising here. This film is all about Michael Moore and his narcissism which he exhales with every gargantuan shuffle. This is a rich man’s tale showcasing his 20 state 2004 college tour. The venture was a crusade to stop George W. Bush from getting reelected. His name is up in lights at every locale…and the camera documents these events enthusiastically. The college students seem much taken with Moore which is not surprising as emotion charged thinking and self-absorption are hallmarks of youth. Hopefully, as the kids progress in life they will discover the truth about the world on their own. It’s never too late to grow up—unless you’re Eddie Vedder that is. There’s about five minutes here devoted to that reed of cultural effluvia and he parroted all the standard soundbytes about the president. My favorite line from the film was when Moore proclaimed, “They have God on their side and we have Ben Affleck.” Agreed! And thank you.

The press asks him softball questions like, “Do you believe what you’re saying or are your films propaganda?” Guess how he answered? Yep, he said he’s countering manufactured news and that he’s anti-propaganda. However, the only conservatives he depicts in this film are straw men who mention Jesus somewhere in their statements. This is in keeping with Moore’s disdain for Christians. He taunts protestors saying: “You’re not going to do the whole rosary up there?” and “Who would Jesus bomb?” Speaking of clichés, Moore is endorsed by all manner of empty headed celebrity. Having REM, Viggo Mortensen, Gloria Steinem, and Joan Baez support you means …nothing because a collection of bobbleheads remain a collection of bobbleheads.

Overall, Democratic partisans everywhere will cherish Slacker Uprising as it confirms and redistributes numerous Democratic talking points from the last election such as John Kerry’s getting “swiftboated.” What is dubbed swiftboating is actually the act of Kerry’s former comrades telling the truth about the way he behaved while in Vietnam. Pretending that his failed candidacy was a product of conspiracy is how the left chooses to recast history. Ultimately though, if his labors were so effective, then why did John Kerry lose the election? Answer: he was an unsuitable candidate who did not connect with the people and did not reflect their needs. Most conservatives refuse to watch Moore’s films and I cannot blame them. I only waste my time doing so for the purposes of argumentation.

That’s the title of an excellent and concise video explaining just how the current financial crisis came about. Watch it, and send to anyone you know who you think might benefit.

What caused this financial crisis?

KMOV.com in St. Louis is reporting that the Obama campaign has asked Missouri law enforcement to crack down on anyone that they believe is running what they consider to be a misleading televison ad, or saying anything that they think is a lie.

Missouri Prosecutors, Sheriffs ‘Target Anyone Who Lies’ About Barack Obama

A St. Louis television station reports — their words — “The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.”

Prosecutors and sheriffs from across Missouri are joining “The Barack Obama Truth Squad.”

They mention Jennifer Joyce, St. Louis Circuit Attorney and Bob McCullough, prosecutor for  St. Louis County in Missouri.

The reporter says, “They will be reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 a year.”

While the report never quite comes out and says that anyone running an ad saying those things would be subject to prosecution, that certainly is the message implied.

Well, since Obama is proposing to raise taxes on most people he’s the one who’s lying.  So according to this story, anyone who dares to point out that Obama is not telling the truth may be prosecuted. Is suppression of different points of view something we  have to look forward to in an Obama administration? Come and get me Barry!

Update (9/27)

It appears the governor of the state of Missouri isn’t too keen on the Obama campaign’s thuggish tactics.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

I can’t really say it any better than that.

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Lawsuits and court cases post-Heller have been piling up. UCLA prof. Eugene Volokh has been keeping track, and tabulating the results. I’ll post a review of the cases soon. An initial glance doesn’t look good — as predicted, bad guys are using Heller to try to skate, and courts are finding that Heller allows them to go to prison, with accompanying language that doesn’t hold rights in very high esteem (even though bad guys do deserve punishment).

The lamestream media told you:

A new biography on Sarah Palin is now available and here’s the book’s author, with some softball questions aimed at her. FOX TV.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

How did anyone get a book out on Sarah within two weeks of her appearance as a VP candidate? Being in the book publishing business, that’s, well, impossible.

The book by Kaylene Johnson actually came out in April, by a small press in Washington state (Epicenter) that specializes in books about Alaska. The 7K run of the hardback was called, “Sarah: How a Small Town Girl Turned Alaska’s Political Establishment on Its Ear.”

After the announcement, the book went through a facelift and was rushed out over the Labor Day weekend by a print-on-demand outfit (Lightning Source) that paid workers overtime to work the holiday weekend, and “Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska’s Political Establishment Upside Down” was now a 40K-unit paperback available nationally. Tyndale House took over distribution and put 250K copies into print. That’s how. Thanks to the Southern Review of Books for the details. Other Palin books are reportedly in the pipeline.

My latest book, “The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed!” is due off press this week and has attracted no attention from lamestream media, though large advanced orders have been placed by most major gun-rights groups in the nation, and is still available at a pre-press discount.

A little tip for the Barack Obama campaign: when the most liberal major newspaper in the country is complaining about how dishonest  Obama’s ads are, you’ve got a serious problem.

A radio advertisement running in Wisconsin and other contested states misleadingly reports that Mr. McCain “has stood in the way of” federal financing for stem cell research; Mr. McCain did once oppose such federally supported research but broke with President Bush to consistently support it starting in 2001 (his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, does not support it).

A commercial running here on Thursday morning highlighting Mr. McCain’s votes against incentives for alternative energy misleadingly asserts he supports tax breaks for “one source of energy: oil companies.” Mr. McCain’s proposed corporate tax break would cover all companies, including those developing new sources of power.

A new television advertisement playing in areas with high concentrations of elderly voters and emphasizing Mr. McCain’s support for President Bush’s failed plan for private Social Security accounts misleadingly implies Mr. McCain supported “cutting benefits in half” — an analysis of Mr. Bush’s plan that would have applied to upper-income Americans retiring in the year 2075.

A much criticized Spanish-language television advertisement wrongly links the views of Mr. McCain, who was a champion of the sweeping immigration overhaul pushed by Mr. Bush, to those of Rush Limbaugh, a harsh critic of the approach, and, frequently, of Mr. McCain.

The advertisement implies Mr. Limbaugh is one of Mr. McCain’s “Republican friends,” and quotes Mr. Limbaugh as calling Mexicans “stupid and unqualified.” Mr. Limbaugh has written that his quotes were taken out of context and that he was mocking the views of others.

In all, Mr. Obama has released at least five commercials that have been criticized as misleading or untruthful against Mr. McCain’s positions in the past two weeks. Mr. Obama drew complaints from many of the independent fact-checking groups and editorial writers who just two weeks ago were criticizing Mr. McCain for producing a large share of this year’s untruthful spots (“Pants on Fire,” the fact-checking Web site PolitiFact.com wrote of Mr. Obama’s advertisement invoking Mr. Limbaugh; “False!” FactCheck.org said of his commercial on Social Security.)

Of course, most people who read the New York Times probably don’t care that Obama’s a liar, but still. If the Times is getting ticked off, then you know other people are picking up on it as well. Meanwhile, today the Washington Post called out Joe Biden for lying to an audience in southwestern Pennsylvania about McCain planning to raise taxes on the middle class.

Democratic vice presidential hopeful Joe Biden claims that middle class Americans will be slapped with the “largest tax increase in American history” as a result of the McCain health care plan. It is true that McCain has proposed taxing the health-care benefits that Americans receive through their employers. However, Biden conveniently overlooks the fact that the Republican nominee is offering tax-payers a credit that should cover the cost of going out and buying insurance.

John McCain wants to drastically overhaul the health insurance system in order to encourage Americans to go out and buy their own health care plans rather than relying on employer-based plans. To achieve this, he plans to tax employer-provided health benefits and provide a $2,500 tax credit ($5,000 for families) toward the cost of health insurance.

By most independent calculations, the McCain plan will leave most taxpayers better off in strictly financial terms, at least until 2013. After 2013, the benefits will begin to diminish. By 2018, taxpayers in the top quintile will be slightly worse off, but middle-income taxpayers will either break even or be slightly ahead. According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the McCain proposals will result in a net benefit of $1,241 to the average tax payer in 2009, $895 in 2013, and $386 in 2018.

“It is not fair to pull out just one part of the McCain proposal,” said Eric Toder, a TPC analyst. “It is a package. They are giving back more than they are taking away.”

It’s sad to see to what extent Obama and Biden are willing to go to win this election.

Well, we found out last evening one good reason why the bill to help address the ongoing financial crisis has fallen apart, and it certainly has nothing to do with John McCain.  The congressional Democrats want 20% of the money raised from the deal to get siphoned off and put into the “Housing Trust Fund”. Read up on the Housing Trust Fund and you’ll understand why this deal needs to be renegotiated so that not a single penny of our money goes into that entity.

Just heard from several readers that Lindsay Grahamnesty told Fox that the Mother of All Bailouts includes a reported $100 million more in funding for the left-wing housing entitlement thugs and heavily tax-subsidized fraudsters at ACORN. Under the original bailout proposal, apparently, a large portion of any repayment of the $700 billion would go to Barack Obama’s good friends at ACORN with a smaller allocation to debt repayment. Readers heard him say it was 20 percent.

Told you not to trust Hank Paulson.

And I repeat: Fiscal conservatives need to be looking out for us tonight as they try to ram this thing through with a plethora of goodies for liberal shakedown artists.

***

Update: A Freeper writes, “Senator Graham is referring to Section 5 of the Dodd counter-proposal to the Paulson Plan. To summarize, it promises a minimum 20% of the ‘profits’ from the Treasury’s sale of assets to The Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund.” See here.

So, the House Republicans were absolutely right to oppose this Paulson plan as it now stands. It would be outrageous to expect the U.S. taxpayers to have their hard earned money go to fund radical organizations such as ACORN. But, if the Democrats get their way, that’s exactly what will happen. Meanwhile, Ed reminds us that since the GOP is the minority party it’s impossible for the House GOP to block this plan. Just something to keep in mind as the Democrats try to spin this whole debacle as the fault of the Republicans.

CBS News is reporting that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson  asked for John McCain’s help  getting a financial plan in place to help alleviate the ongoing crisis. Paulson needed McCain to help work out a deal that would be acceptable to fiscal conservatives who were balking at the plan in it’s existing form.

John McCain got involved in the bailout negotiations after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Sen. Lindsey Graham yesterday that the bailout plan would fail unless McCain came in and brought balky Republicans aboard.  That’s what Bob Schieffer reported on this morning’s Early Show.  Schieffer’s account stands in stark contrast with the allegation by Dems like Barney Frank and their MSM cohorts that McCain’s moves of yesterday were nothing more than a political “stunt.”

So the claim  by the Democrats that McCain temporarily suspending his campaign and asking Obama to delay their upcoming debate is all just political grandstanding is complete nonsense. McCain was asked for his help and leadership, and he put his political aspirations aside so that he could provide it.  And, when McCain asked Barack Obama for a little help so he could work on this very pressing problem,  Obama told him to take a hike.

The lamestream media told you:

Dennis Miller, speaking on FOX, thinks he’s pro-gun, and that everyone should be able to get a gun permit, but it should be as hard to qualify for as a pilot’s license.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Of all the elitist claptrap I have to put up with in preparing these reports, this just beats all. The testing for a pilot’s license is extreme. The idea that exercising your rights should require an extreme test or else you forfeit your rights is bizarre, and Mr. Miller just babbles on thinking he’s bright. Note that CCW permit holders, many of whom must endure a lightweight test before they can exercise their rights, are five times below the national average for committing crimes.

The lamestream media told you:

Very little about the candidates position on RKBA, besides exclaiming that Sarah Palin is a moose hunter.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The Democratic National Committee official party platform on its position on gun control is not far from Obama’s:

“We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common sense laws and improvements — like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban …”

The Republican National Committee party platform position on gun control is different world, here’s a piece:

“Gun ownership is responsible citizenship… We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment. We recognize that gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens, and that such proposals are ineffective at reducing violent crime.”

In other news, pro-gun Democrats must have a conflict between their stance on human rights, and the Dem party rules for Town Halls, where “Submissions must not… (iii) contain profanity, pornographic, or sexual content, content promoting alcohol, illegal drugs, tobacco, firearms, or weapons, hateful content of any kind (including racism, sexism, etc.), content that promotes violence or harm to another living creature, or any other offensive, obscene, or inappropriate content….”

The lamestream media told you:

There are many good ideas for cutting “gun deaths,” according to a Freakonomics quorum run by The New York Times. “Let’s put aside for a moment the standard discussions about the right to bear arms,” quotes the piece, which goes on to discuss novel ideas — but not the demographic reality that 80-90% of gun deaths (omitting suicide) are related to the War on Some Drugs, making them actually war deaths.

Among the suggestions: rewards for snitching on illegal possession, increased parental involvement, garnishing wages to pay victims, elect gun-death-reduction politicians, tipping the Supreme Court away from its current pro-rights stance, and other ideas.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Anti-gun-rights crusader and Brady gun-ban hero David Hemenway, a Harvard professor of “health policy,” has developed plans for gun bans and rights restrictions that will skirt the Heller gun-rights findings and attack the rights of the public, with little or no effect on crime. He is being hailed as a champion in some dark circles opposed to the right to keep and bear arms. The plan is fiendishly simple:

Create the National Firearm Safety Administration, which could quickly occur if anti-rights candidate B.H. Obama wins the presidency (see Obama’s unbroken anti-gun-rights voting record). It would mimic the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in some respects, with stunning power in a loosely controlled agency’s hands.

Massive funding would be poured into the new agency to study crime, firearms injury and deaths, and “public health problems due to firearms,” with no mention of self defense, crime prevention, legal justifications or lives saved. Hemenway draws analogies about air bags and seat belts for proposed requirements on firearms “for safety.” The agency, he says, should have a broad “mission to reduce the harm caused by firearms” while ignoring the good that guns do.

Hemenway says, “The agency should require safety and crime-fighting characteristics on all firearms manufactured and sold in the U.S. It should ban from regular civilian use products which are not needed for hunting or protection and which only endanger the public. It should have the power to ensure that there are background checks for all firearm transfers to help prevent guns from being sold to criminals and terrorists.

“The agency needs the resources and the power (including standard setting, recall, and research capability) for making reasonable decisions about firearms… Similarly, each specific rule regulating the manufacture and sale of firearms should go through a more scientific administrative process rather than the more political legislative process. It’s time to take some of the politics out of firearm safety.”

The cleverly crafted plan would move the constitutional right to keep and bear arms out of the legislative process and representation of your elected officials, where your voice can be heard, and into the hands of bureaucrats and agenda-driven insiders immune to your desires or fundamental rights.

The Democrat party, frustrated in its constant failed attempts to eradicated your rights, once again is handed a deceit-driven scheme for accomplishing their nefarious, freedom-defeating goal.

Off the radar but still on the drawing boards, Dennis Kucinich’s proposed U.S. Dept. of Peace would likely get new life under Obama too, along with a $10 billion budget, hundreds of permanent new federal bureaucrats, and control over everything from animal “rights” to women’s issues and firearms, along with sinister influence over the U.S. military.

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

BATFE has announce a plan to allow licensed firearms dealers to maintain their required “bound book” record of all gun sales electronically (in computers). On one hand, this is a relief from the stone-age approach of handwritten records dealers are burdened with by law, will save time, and reduce the likelihood of errors, a frequent government excuse for attacking gun dealers. On the other hand, the potential for gathering the now-computerized data into centralized federal registries of gun owners is a potentially catastrophic abuse of gun rights, and a goal feds have been seeking unsuccessfully for decades.

Although some industry leaders are praising the development, alert gun-rights activists are not so sure. The software approved for an electronic “Acquisitions and Dispositions” book must satisfy “certain ATF requirements set forth in the ruling signed by Acting Director Michael Sullivan,” according to NSSF, which said in a statement, “NSSF would like to congratulate ATF, and in particular the leadership of Acting Director Sullivan, on helping to reduce the paperwork burden on industry.” The true contents of software programs cannot be discerned by average computer users.

The stated requirements in the program include the ability to search, and out-of-business records will fall into the hands of BATFE as they do now. Dealers have in the past been able to request electronic record keeping, now it will be simply available.

At the urging of industry leaders, BATFE plans to launch an “E-Form 4473,” heightening activists’ fears, and presumably easing the collection of data by the feds. No word on safeguards or concerns over the potentials for abuse has been made by any of the usual suspects. Gun Owners of America has informed the Uninvited Ombudsman they are looking into the matter.

Barack Obama’s new campaign ad completely distorts John McCain’s position on stem cell research.  While it is well known that McCain has supported embryonic stem cell research for about the past seven years, Obama claims that McCain opposes it.

SCRIPT: Jody Montgomery: My name is Jody Montgomery and my daughter Maddy was diagnosed with Type I Juvenile Diabetes at age 3. Six times a day, I take her blood. Six times a day, I pray for a cure. Researchers are working hard to do just that. Our best hope is stem cell research, and that&#