BlogWonks

Where are the leaders who have the Reaganesque tenacity to face down terrorism and evil, call it what it is, and say “We won’t tolerate it” and MEAN what they say? Where are those bold people?

Certainly, allowing the leaders of rogue countries on American soil to spew their hatred does not fit the bill of a bold person.

Former US President Ronald Reagan was famous for this quote: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

I believe that Mr. Reagan would have said to Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez…”Gentlemen, you will take NO step on this blessed land!” And Americans would have applauded him.

President Bush allowed Hugo Chavez to come to New York and address the UN Assembly and call him the devil in front of a laughing and agreeable crowd. These are people who are enjoying the perks of the US while making light of the President of the United States. Such behavior is despicable! I think it is long overdue for the UN to exit the US. To me, they are comprised of nothing more than a bunch of countries that look the other way in reigning in terrorists, and appear to be sympathetic to their cause. The waning action of the UN to confront terrorism is the smoking gun.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s address to the UN Assembly revealed to be contradictory in so many ways. Ahmadinejad starts off with a prayer:

“…O God (Allah as he believes), hasten the reappearance of the Imam of the times and grant to us victory and prosperity. Include us among his followers and martyrs.”

Further in his speech, the Iranian President says these words:

“The youth have a right to seek justice and the Truth; and they have a right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing. ”

Ahmadinejad speaks of victory and martyrdom in his opening prayer, and then speaks of Muslim youths building their futures on “the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility.” Those are conflicting statements.

Even more conflicting is the fact that in the recent past, Ahmadinejad has said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” Iran has provided training and weapons for terrorists who are attacking US troops in Iraq, has helped arm terror groups like Hezbollah, and continues to charge toward its nuclear goals, despite rebuttals and threats of sanctions from the UN. Now, he is trying to appear as the peaceful and innocent one.

His speech further spoke of the “occupiers” and the supposed oppression of those in the Muslim world. One other comment from Ahmadinejad raised my eyebrows:

“…Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship? I emphatically declare that today’s world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.O, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.”

Is that a sneaky way to call others to convert to Islam; to convert to the monotheistic belief in his god? Because he SURE wasn’t talking about the return of Jesus, as he referred to Jesus in his speech as “a prophet.”

If people are truly free, then they will be able to exist and worship as they please, living in respect of the religion of others.

President Bush ignored the Iranian President, but NBC’s Brian Williams scored an interview with him, perhaps to further nauseate the American public? Again Ahmadinejad tried to come across as the lamb, the innocent one when in fact he is like a lion ready to snap.

In the NBC interview with Brian Williams Ahmadinejad continued to play the innocent man role, a far cry from the man who earlier mentioned Israel should be wiped off the map:

Williams: If your goal is dialogue with America, and the American president says, “It’s OK, keep your nuclear programs and keep your homes warm. Stop enriching uranium toward weapons.” How do you react?

Ahmadinejad: Who is the right judge for that? Any entity except the IAEA? Reports indicate that Iran has had no deviation. We have said on numerous occasions that our activities are for peaceful purposes. The agency’s cameras videotape all the activities that we have. So I ask, did Iran build the atomic bomb and use it? Who are the ones who are testing the third generation of nuclear bombs? All bombs with micro-agents or chemical agents. You must know that, because of our beliefs and our religion, we’re against such acts. We are against the atomic bomb. We believe bombs are used only to kill people. And we are against killing people….

…Williams: The question on the cover is what war with Iran would look like. How do you think the discussion has been allowed to get that far, that we’re discussing possible war between the U.S. and Iran?

Ahmadinejad: … Why the U.S. government so against our people? They speak of war so easily, as if it’s on their daily agenda. We never speak of war….

…Williams: And you talk about children. You and I are both fathers. Recently in your country, thousands of people have signed up to be part of suicide brigades. How would you feel if your own children chose to do such a thing?

Ahmadinejad: Well, what is your feeling about that? Think if America is attacked. What would you like your son to do? Do you want him to defend America or not? I think you would like your son to defend America. It’s the same with our son. When you don’t have arms, when you don’t have power, what can you do? You will sacrifice yourself for your country. It’s not a bad thing. Although we are against war. We hate it.

Does he hate war so much that he would abandon all talk towards the destruction of Israel? The UN has deemed Iran dangerous enough that they have threatened sanctions on the country if they don’t stop their nuclear quest. So the “defense” talk by Ahmadinejad is getting nowhere.

In watching all of this unfold, I am longing for the days when men showed true strength and leadership in our country. Men like Ronald Reagan.

Reagan’s enemies would not have dared to challenge him to a debate. Reagan stood strong and showed the world that he meant business. Everyone respected him for that.

I am looking for President Bush to take on the characteristics that Reagan exhibited during his time in office and demand the respect he deserves. The US cannot be everyone’s friend.

Being tough on terror doesn’t mean that one is an isolationist, but it shows the grit and dedication to defend our country. It shows how serious one takes the issue of terrorism.

After all, Reagan was not soft on Communism. And he backed up his words with action, including beefing up the US military. Shouldn’t we do the same today?

“Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.”–Former President Ronald Reagan

“We are especially not going to tolerate these attacks from outlaw states run by the strangest collection of misfits, Looney Tunes and squalid criminals since the advent of the Third Reich” — Ronald Reagan

Let’s take a cue from Reagan, shall we?

Related Reading:

At U.N., Chavez calls Bush ‘the devil’

President Ahmadinejad’s (Iran) address at UNGA

President Ahmadinejad interview with Brian Williams

The annual, International Conference of Family Violence took place this past week (Sept. 14 thru 19) in San Diego, California. http://www.ivatcenters.org/conference.htm

I was not able to attend every day that the conference was open, but made it for the entire day on the 18^th.

How much taxpayer money was used by participants, and, or exhibitors, in the furtherance of this event is anybody’s guess, considering what a business minded person would describe as “questionable VAWA accounting methods.” In my opinion, it appeared that a very significant number of people in attendance where people who have directly benefited from the billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money that has funded VAWA over the years.

The Conference consisted of numerous exhibition booths set up in the hotel’s Grand Ballroom, and break out workshops in other meeting rooms. The workshops addressed various issues surrounding family violence.

The National Coalition of Free Men, San Diego (NCFMSD), and NCFMLA (Los Angeles) once again had an exhibition booth at the event. Giving credit where credit is due, Harry Crouch, NCFMSD did by far the lion’s share of the work to make the NCFM booth a reality. His efforts to gather and set up educational material, posters, handouts, etc., etc., etc. must honestly be given credit for the primary reason this men’s issues effort was as successful as it was. During a lull in visitors to our booth, when most people had vanished into workshops, I took the opportunity to take this photo of our exhibition. booth. http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/Protests/P9180006.jpg

While NCFM was grateful to be permitted to display at this event, again, the mood of the event was still less than what I would describe as a “male friendly environment.”

Silhouettes of family violence victims have been displayed at various Family Violence events in San Diego for a number of years. Here is one located in the main hall at this year’s ICFV. http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/Protests/P9180098a.jpg

The first time I ever saw the red painted silhouettes was at least five years ago, and at that time all, the silhouettes were female. A couple of years ago, a couple of male victims were added to the inventory, and this year, apparently household pets (a dog and a cat) have been included. http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/Protests/P9180052a.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/Protests/P9180053a.jpg

Women, dogs, cats and men were all on display at the ICFV this past week in San Diego, and in that order, in my opinion.

The President of NCFMLA was the first to notice the disparity in the “placing” of the silhouettes, and called the disparity to the attention of one of the conference’s planners. It appears both male silhouettes were originally placed at the end of a long, dark hallway that no one had reason to go down. After the complaint, one of the male silhouettes was placed at the entrance to the Grand Ballroom (exhibition room). http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/Protests/P9180078a.jpg

The other was placed outside the door to the men’s restroom. There was no corresponding woman’s silhouette outside the door to the women’s restroom. Both women’s silhouettes were located in more respectable settings. http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/Protests/P9180067a.jpg

The female silhouettes, the dog silhouette, and the cat silhouette did not need relocating from their original, prominent positions in the main hallway leading to the Grand Ballroom.

Yes, there were red silhouettes on display at the International Conference on Family Violence for women, dogs, cats, and even men, but curiously, no silhouettes were present for CHILDREN. Given that Health and Human Services reports slightly more child fatalities (neglect and abuse) every year then there are women who die of domestic violence, it seemed odd to me that CHILDREN were not given even a single silhouette. Is it possible the International Conference on Family Violence didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that the largest group responsible for killing those children was biological Mothers (38.8%)? Compare that statistic to biological Dads at just 18.3%. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure3_6.htm

For next years booth I think I’ll personally make a red plywood cut out of children from Southern California who were killed by their biological Moms.

During the course of the day, I had opportunity to stroll through the exhibition room, and talk with some of the exhibitors. Although some progress was apparent in regards to recognition of men as victims of domestic violence and women as perpetrators, one needed only scratch the surface to discover many pre-existing gender feminist biases, still touting the same old gender bigoted propaganda casting the man as “the batterer” and the woman as “the victim” (woman good/man bad). http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/Protests/P9180032b.jpg

At one point as I was browsing through some family therapy literature, I got into an interesting discussion with the woman part of a husband-wife team exhibiting their Family Therapy program. Refreshingly, the woman approached the dynamics of family dysfunctions not following the standard gender feminist model, but instead followed more closely human motivational factors. The big workbooks on display at this booth were labeled, “Men’s Tools” and “Women’s Tools.” Upon running across the standard domestic violence industry, Duluth, Power and Control wheel. http://www.ncdsv.org/images/PowerControlwheelNOSHADING.pdf

I pointed out to the man that the page followed the gender biased, gender feminist model in as much as all the “he” and “him” pronouns referred to the batterer and all the “she” and “her” pronouns referred to the victim. “Ah,” said the man, “you are looking at our workbook for the man. We have it just the opposite in the ‘Woman’s Tools Workbook.’” On that note, I put down the “Man’s Tools Workbook,” and picked up the “Woman’s Tools Workbook.” I turned to the corresponding page. Sadly, the same gender biased Duluth, Power and Control Wheel was there with all the “he” and “him” pronouns always referring to “the batterer” and the “she” and “her” pronouns always referring to “the victim.” “We are going to change that in our next printing,” the man replied after I pointed this out to him. I sincerely hope that happens as the couple otherwise seemed very professional and understanding of men’s issues. I guess this experience just goes to underscore how much biased, gender feminist language has infiltrated literature surrounding domestic violence issues.

After lunch as I was again browsing through the displays, I found this document prominently displayed at the entrance to the exhibition room. http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/Protests/P9180083a.jpg

I could only wonder how long it had been allowed to be there. “Why,” I asked myself, “was this exhibiter allowed to display so prominently such a glaringly undocumented statement?” The undocumented statement (in quotes below) appeared to me to be nothing more than verification of domestic violence industry “myth making” in action, to wit: “Less than 10% of child sexual abuse is ever reported to law enforcement and few abusers are ever held accountable for their actions.”

Later in the day, I talked with one of our NCFMLA group who had attended a workshop that was going to address male victims of domestic violence. In a nutshell, the attendee said that the issue was raised, along with the issue of women as perpetrators of domestic violence, but then it was all just quickly glossed over with minimal discussion. “Sounds like male victims just got marginalized again,” I said. “Yea, that was about it,” replied the workshop attendee.

To end on a positive note, NCFMSD and NCFMLA were a presence noted by all who attended this conference. Through NCFM’s exhibition booth, our members, and some very professional guests, worked hard to raise awareness about family violence issues regarding male victims and female batterers. http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/Protests/P9180031a.jpg

Ray Blumhorst is member of the National Coalition of Free Men. He is retired, after working almost 31 years in California public schools. In addition to his day job, he worked for 8 years as a part time teacher in California public schools in the evenings. Ray is a Vietnam Vet. Ray is also a victim of domestic violence and a victim of the anti-male prejudice of America’s domestic violence laws.

[Fellows, I’m hard at work on a book about women. I thought you guys might like this subsection as an MND post concerning this ridiculous radical feminist toxic sludge.]

Susan Jane Gilman, the author of Kiss My Tiara: How to Rule the World as a Smart Mouth Goddess, manages to accomplish two very unique things in these 23 chapters. First, her insight about how women should live their lives is an unintentional best practice guide for how to “lose friends and alienate people.” Second, the recommendations made are so glaringly unsubstantiated by fact that they border on being sinister so it will ensure readers of martyrdom as the only place it will lead them is into the abyss.

The book is actually radical feminist theory thinly disguised as self-help. Gilman is a committed activist who once taught poetry and women’s studies at Georgetown as well as publishing in Ms. Magazine (NOW’s pop outlet). As one would expect, rather than help women, the author disseminates propaganda instead. She bashes Republicans repeatedly, warns women not to sleep with them, and states that voting for them is a synonym for masturbation. Of course, we know that thirty-some percent of the population is not evil and that there’s nothing wrong with desiring government to be limited in size, but, to a fascist, this is the stuff of fascism—at least they have to pretend that it is.

As far as her recommendations go, they do anything but enlighten. Gilman shares analysis that is so ignorant it is a wonder that a major operation like Warner Books would see it printed. It seems that women in America today have been empowered to say just about anything they want to regardless of how foolish it may be. Honestly, most of the guys I worked with at Long John Silvers in high school possessed superior understanding of the birds and the bees than does this Brown and Michigan graduate. Speaking of my old job, Gilman recounts a story, as a means to corroborate the need for affirmative action, of a freshman class[i] she taught wherein 98 percent[ii] of its members got their jobs due to connections rather than merit. This is completely ridiculous. You don’t need connections to get a job when you’re in high school. You merely need documentation that you’re not a drop out. For me, my first four high powered jobs were at LJS, A&P, Arbor Drugs, and DialAmerica. I did not obtain them as a result of who I knew or my skin color. I was hired after walking in and applying. I didn’t need an “in.” It was much the same for everyone I know. In fact, the old fish-a-torium gave practically every applicant—regardless of sex or race—a chance as long as they showed up on time and didn’t steal. We can be sure though that radical feminists got their jobs due to conspiratorial connections because nobody else in their right mind would hire them.

In terms of relationships, one would be hard-pressed to dream up more counter-productive advice than Gilman’s. Rather comically, she admits to not really understanding men at all[iii] which makes the rest of the work all-the-more tragic. Gilman claims that women really don’t have to worry about being beautiful because it is not very important to men. Who knew? Furthermore, it seems that what we really want are girls we can feel comfortable with who allow us to pass gas around them.[iv] We also aren’t concerned about a woman’s age which glaringly clashes with the whole of human experience. Did you happen to know that “women who eat are sexier”?[v] I didn’t either, but Gilman jumps to the conclusion due to our not liking anorexics. Well, no logical leaps there. In the final analysis, women just shouldn’t worry about male opinion because “men will f*** anything.” Is this true? Nope. That doesn’t matter though because stereotyping and lying are perfectly justified when one’s goal is to make women feel good about themselves. Gilman also confuses the word nymphomaniac as being applicable to both men and women, but this could simply be due to the writing programs at Brown and Michigan being above such distinctions.

How should a woman get ahead in life? Interpersonally, they’d be wise to “Really b*tch,”[vi] and refuse to calm down once they become angered. It seems that virtue and niceness are overrated[vii] while “PMS is a Power Tool.”[viii] There really is a great deal here that is unintentionally hilarious. This self-proclaimed queen informs us, without a hint of irony, of a man’s proposal to her consisting of: “‘I can support you while you write your feminist discourse.’”[ix] Is she appalled by her suitor’s patriarchal attitude? Did she scream, “Never! I’ll work until I’m dead!” Hardly, she’s hot for the deal because a chump is a chump, but what queered it was that the fellow hadn’t known her for long enough. On aggregate, the book isn’t as offensive as it is pathetic. Its narration is a testament to the type of ignoramuses produced by today’s politicized universities. Everything your eyes and ears document as reality is wrong because theory and dogma offer up a more soothing and empowering interpretation.