BlogWonks

It’s the buzz in the air these days. Democrats are likely to take the House and Senate from Republicans. The media and pundits are quick to ponder what a Democratic Congress would look like. 

Not so fast! The voters still haven’t said their peace yet at the polls.  Republicans shouldn’t think they have the election sewn up and Democrats shouldn’t get all giddy. 

Wouldn’t it be great if there was a shocker at the polls? Where the majority of the American people voted for Independents, or for someone representing other third parties, like the Constitution and Libertarian party? Those candidates are desperately needed right now.  They are needed to take the power out of the hands of 2 parties who think they have a hold on the American electorate. 

Republicans and Democrats have left many disillusioned as they continue to fight over power, thus contributing to the instability of the nation through their lust for control of Congress.   If Republicans want to keep control over Congress, they sure aren’t supporting conservative values that many voters expect them to be strong on.  They are losing their conservative base. 

One race I’ve had my eye on is the Ohio Senate race.  Conservative voters are annoyed of Senator Mike DeWine’s (R-OH) liberal stance on important conservative issues, and the fact that the Midwest’s economy is taking a nosedive.   

Ohio is a battleground state that would help Republicans keep control of the Senate.  Shouldn’t it be of the utmost importance that embattled Senator DeWine would choose to readjust his political sails and commit to a truly conservative platform?  He has not delivered, and his conservative constituents are abandoning him.  But that can also be said of other RINO Congressmen across the nation. Conservatives want leaders who will represent them, not turn with the political winds.  That seems to be the craze nowadays with some Republican Senators. 

The remedy to the situation to get conservative voter confidence back is to turn back to conservative principles.  Why some Republican Senators continue to play political games, wandering all over the map on the issues and allowing corruption to seep in is beyond me. 

The Insanity Continues… 

As I watch the Senate race in Tennessee unfold, the craziness and finger pointing continue. Democrats and the NAACP are bringing up a race issue where there is none.  An ad that ran courtesy of the Republican National Committee airs a blonde baring her shoulders saying, “I met Harold at the Playboy party!” She later winks and says, “Harold, call me!”  What’s the problem? The lady is white of course. And some are crying “racism” that the RNC would put a blonde white lady baring her shoulders in an ad asking Harold Ford Jr. to call her. 

I could care less if she were black or white, it wouldn’t have made a difference. Why must everything be about race these days?  Have we not learned that we are ALL the same inside?  That’s one big problem…some in this country are still looking at matters in terms of race!  I really am tired of hearing the black/white race issue come up!  

Now, to address this ad a bit further: 

Harold Ford Jr. has admitted to attending a Super Bowl Playboy party last year.  

Ford’s words, “I was there. I like football, and I like girls.” 

Ford’s response to the RNC ad?  He simply calls it “smut.” Well, Mr. Ford. Either you went to this Playboy party, or you didn’t.  I believe Harold Ford Jr. should not get upset at what the Republican party is trying to reveal as his side activities when he is trying to come off as a very staunch conservative Christian. 

Harold Ford Jr. also complains that the Bob Corker (his Republican opponent) campaign is attacking his family. That was Ford’s response from an ad that was filmed in Memphis in which Republican volunteers (me included…see “Memphismanonthestreet” ad below) question his background.  One volunteer says, “Our mayor says the Ford family is trying to tie up every political slot in TN.”  Memphis Mayor Herenton has come out in support of Rep. Steve Cohen (D) who is running to represent the 9th District of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives, the seat held by Rep. Harold Ford Jr. until now. Harold Ford Jr.’s younger brother is currently running for the seat against Steve Cohen. 

“I’ve resented for decades the politics of the Ford family. The family seems to think that they should have a monopoly on all elected positions in this state and this county. I’ve always rejected that,” said Herenton. 

In the commercial, I merely ask if Harold Ford Jr. has had a job outside of politics. I mentioned in a recent article of how I’m sick of career politicians and those with name recognition who have gotten comfortable in Washington and are not listening to their constituents. Why should the American people have to put up with more of the same…the incessant politicking in Washington? 

The commercial ad I did featured real people like me, not actors as some may have speculated.  We weren’t paid to do it.  We want “real” folks like us, real conservatives representing us in Washington. 

While I may have problems with how Republicans are behaving at the Federal level, I am still supporting grassroots conservatives who wish to sincerely help bring dialogue and get the ball rolling in Washington.  

Because there are no Independents or few persons running on a third party ticket that have actually stepped into the spotlight, and are barely heard of, I put my energy behind the Bob Corker campaign in Tennessee.  

Yes, it has been an abnormal election season. And it’s necessary to cut through the illusion, the false accusations, and the nastiness to get to the truth. Sometimes pointing out the truth hurts, but it’s necessary if we are to heal our nation. 

Why should those running for leadership positions bring excess baggage with them to Washington and continue to bring our country down? 

It would sure be nice to have a frontrunner from any party other than the dominant 2 parties right now. The Democrats and Republicans need a slice of humble pie. 

Related Reading: 

Controversial “Playboy party” ad (video) 

http://wmctv.com/global/video/popup/pop_player.asp?ClipID1=1020538&h1=New%20RNC%20so%20%22tacky%22%20even%20Corker%20rejects%20it&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=38634&LaunchPageAdTag=News&activePane=info&playerVersion=1&hostPageUrl=http%3A//wmctv.com/Global/story.asp%3FS%3D5569157&rnd=8199876 

Bob Corker “Memphismanonthestreet” ad 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXSPyDP8i3k&eurl= 

Memphis Mayor remarks on Ford family politics 

http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=5375200 

The lamestream media told you:
North Korea has set off its first nuclear explosion, making it the eighth nation in history to demonstrate possession of a nuclear bomb, according to every news outlet on the planet.

North Korea may not have actually set off a nuke, “news” sources continued later. The test may have been a failure. The yield may have been too low to actually count. The attempt was intolerable regardless. “News” sources awaited official word for days, watching the AP wire closely.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Scientists and the governments who run them know instantly when a nuclear weapon is set off, since the seismic characteristics are unique, well known, easily spotted, and monitored constantly by inter-linked seismic stations everywhere, knowledgeable experts confirm.

Breathless reports uniformly failed to note that all the international “reaction” was staged saber rattling, prepared in advance and performed for the cameras.

Diplomats are well aware that North Korea, an independent nation working hard to develop nuclear weapons, is of course going to test the things once it has them. It has been preparing underground test sites for as long as it has been preparing the devices. The State Dept. knows but will admit none of this.

The United States, which has conducted more than 1,000 nuclear tests above and below ground, considers nuclear testing an essential ingredient in weapon development.

The so-called “Reliable Replacement Warhead” program currently underway in the U.S. is highly controversial because, in attempting to comply with the weapons test ban currently in effect, replacements for America’s aging nuclear arsenal would have to be deployed without tests. This is considered absolutely unacceptable by top U.S. nuclear scientists, according to experts speaking on National Public Radio.

U.S. nukes are ‘the most quality-controlled products ever produced,’ and must be, according to military experts. The notion that North Korea or anyone else could make nukes that don’t need testing is just stupid, according to people who know.

“The H-Bomb Secret” was the Progressive magazine article that in 1979 supposedly leaked all the key U.S. nuclear secrets, and federal agents desperately tried to suppress its publication.

It turned out that the government outrage was baloney, since the “secrets” disclosed were public information. No math, formulas, diagrams or blueprints were included, and the difficulty in making reactionable materials was omitted. Containing the nuclear explosives to achieve decent yield is so complex it was also not included, along with any manufacturing guidelines at all. The article was rejected by rogue states and scientists globally as no help, but it set the stage for government posturing for decades to come.

Reported U.S. policy and news about nuclear energy, true nuclear threats, and the nature of atomic weapons has more worthless fat than luncheon meat, experts say. The very real threat of thousands of cold-war nukes that can be stolen or bought from the poorly guarded, corroded walls and underpaid staff at former Soviet Union pestholes was not included in “news” about North Korea’s feeble experimentation.

Images of the suspected North Korean nuclear test included aging non-stop footage of goose-stepping parade-trained pseudo-soldiers, olden displays of truck-mounted non-functional rocket shells, dignitaries paying homage to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il in the distant past, and repeats of the above ad infinitum, without captions. The footage continues to air.

The lamestream media told you:
Spinach is infected with E. coli and could kill you on the spot. The outbreak is a sign of much greater problems with American agriculture, and a lack of regulation on farm products, according to Marilynn Marchione of the Associated Press. The CDC estimates that germs in food kill 5,000 people every year. All spinach should be thrown away.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
A total of one person died from eating spinach due to a locally isolated outbreak of a common bacteria that is usually managed by adequate washing or cooking.

Spinach farmers were financially devastated by the health scare, and join apple farmers, cantaloupe farmers, salad bar restaurants and others in suffering at the hands of the “news” media. No charges against reporters have been filed.

Every time a breathless story about isolated deaths occurs, in the name of protecting the public, public safety is actually compromised, because the real threats people face get ignored.

While 97 people were hospitalized in the recent spinach scare, it’s important to recall that, on average in a year, more than 12,000 people will die by falling down, many in bathtubs, 6,400 will die from non-food poisoning, 4,100 from suffocation, 30,000 from suicide, many in pain and lacking health care, 4,600 from drowning, and the list goes on and on. Statistics courtesy the National Center for Health Statistics.

Note from Alan Korwin: Personal friend and first-rate writer and columnist Craig Cantoni has been turning out Page-Nine worthy articles for years, and with his permission, the Uninvited Ombudsman plan to run and post some in coming months.

Craig does not pull punches, so you may find your ox skewered by his piercing wit and insights. Yes, my metaphor is mixed, but you will find his reasoning anything but mixed up.

By Craig J. Cantoni
October 2006

Call me a curmudgeon, a crank, a moron or something worse, but I don’t understand why a police officer’s death is bigger news than John Q. Citizen’s death.

A case in point: A Tempe, Ariz. police officer died on his way home from work on Sept. 27, when his police motorcycle hit construction debris. The same day, a motorist on his way to work was involved in an accident on another metro Phoenix freeway. When he got out of his mangled car, a tractor-trailer truck ran over him.

Both were tragedies for the individuals and their families, and we should feel sorrow and empathy for their loss. But both deaths were reported quite differently by the local media.

For example, the local FOX News station led with the police officer’s death on its 5:00 p.m. news. For five minutes — which is an eternity for local news — it covered the story as if the young officer had been a hero and died a heroic death. Included were interviews with coworkers and friends, and pictures of police motorcycles outside of the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

At the end of the segment, a passing mention was made that the officer struck the construction debris after he had taken a short cut by driving around barricades on a closed freeway access ramp.

The same station spent only 15 seconds reporting the death of the citizen run over by the truck. The brief segment didn’t include interviews with coworkers and friends, or pictures of family members at the hospital.

The next day, the Arizona Republic ran a 50-column inch story on the police officer’s death, including a way to make donations to the unmarried officer’s family and to post condolences on an online message board. There was no mention about the officer going around the barricades.

There also was no story about the citizen hit by the truck. But it’s a safe guess that the citizen did not have a generous pension, medical insurance or death benefits. Nor will he be buried with bagpipes playing and rifles firing salutes.

Three days after the officer died, the local media is still covering his death.

It is said that police officers are in a dangerous occupation and thus deserve special recognition, regardless of their motives or how they die. But policing does not rank in the top ten riskiest occupations.

Timber cutters, who rank No. 1, risk their lives to provide us with wood products. Fishers, who rank No. 2, risk their lives to provide us with fish. And in descending order of risk, the rest of the top ten is as follows: pilots and navigators, structural metal workers, route sales workers, roofers, electrical power installers, farmers, construction laborers, and truck drivers — all of whom risk their lives to provide us with essential goods and services.

The difference, some say, is that police officers run the risk of being shot in carrying out their job duties. That’s a good point, but it’s also a point that can be made about taxi drivers and convenience store clerks, few of whom have rich benefits or get 50 column-inches of coverage when they die in the line of duty.

Some police officers chose their line of work because they want to help people. Some like the job security and opportunity for early retirement. Some are macho jerks with high needs for status, power and authority. And a few do risk their lives to save others and deserve to be called heroes. To treat all cops as heroes though is an insult to the ones who are true heroes.

But what do I know? I’m a curmudgeon, crank, moron or whatever other insult you want to throw at me for having the temerity to question why a police officer’s tragic death is more important than the equally tragic death of John Q. Citizen.

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Visit his website dedicated to stopping government theft and abuse.

Read a review of his book about government abuse, Breaking From The Herd.

The lamestream media told you:
The fighting and atrocities in Darfur are getting so bad politicians worldwide don’t know what to do. The United Nations would send in troops, but Sudan will not allow them in, presumably so they can continue to rape and execute militias and the people of Darfur. A cry to have U.S. forces summarily invade the troubled region has been ignored by the State Dept. so far, which labels the situation a genocide.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The Muslim government in Sudan appears determined to wipe out the Muslims in the Darfur region, because they hate each other. All the combatants are Black. The racial and religious nature of the conflict has been blacked out in virtually all mainstream news reports, but can be found easily by entering Darfur Muslims into a search engine, further enhancing the web’s reputation for actually delivering news. Reporters either cannot do web searches for unknown reasons, or are suppressing the racial and religious information for unknown reasons.

Muslim nations that proliferate in the area have declined to step in and stop the Islamic warfare, for unknown reasons.

The deliberate suppression of context in the African nation’s troubles might hurt news-media credibility, experts speculate. Because the average news consumer is clueless as to what is really going on, credibility may not be hurt, other experts believe.

The lamestream media told you:
One boy fired one shot from one gun into one ceiling of one schoolroom in one state, Ohio, and his gun jammed, according to CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, MSN, the AP wire, and newspapers nationwide. The tale was repeated for days in every city in America.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
A teenager in Corpus Christi, Texas, saved his mother and himself by killing a knife-wielding intruder in their home, with a single gunshot from his Dad’s sidearm.

Rose Ann Kozlowski had just returned from buying groceries when the man appeared early Monday afternoon. Her son, 14, had come home from school because of illness, the Corpus Christi Caller Times reported, in a story picked up by virtually nobody else. “This is typical behavior for lamestream media,” industry observers noted.

The intruder took Kozlowski and her son to the master bedroom, tied them up and looted the house, loading the booty into Kozlowski’s car.

Kozlowski got loose, gave her husband’s handgun to her son and tried to hold the door against the intruder, who police said “repeatedly threatened to kill them.”

As the intruder forced the door open, the boy fired through the crack, hitting the perpetrator in the head and killing him instantly, Police Capt. John Houston said. “He took a life-saving measure to save his mother and himself,” the police captain said.

News like this is deliberately suppressed, while victimless shootings are maliciously spread, to vilify guns, convince the public that guns have no decent purpose, and promote a lamestream agenda of hopeless victimhood, experts say.

The wildly promoted story of a harmless shot to the roof of a building in Ohio had no victim, no bloodshed, no trauma, no hero, and almost no news value, even near where it occurred.

The suppressed story of a shot to the head of a homicidal maniac in Texas had tense drama, blood and guts, victims who narrowly survived a felony assault, a hero, a dispatched criminal, commendations from the police who in typical fashion only arrived in time to pick up the pieces, American-style self reliance, and all the sensational values lamestream reporters and editors usually say they look for in a story. Knowledgeable observers say they lie.

The lamestream media told you:
The self-proclaimed Minutemen, an armed bunch of dangerous hooligans recklessly taking the law into their own hands, have created turmoil by patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border without permission from the proper authorities.

Claiming a membership in the thousands, the vigilante band of volunteers has aroused the ire of civil-rights groups everywhere, has been condemned by national and local politicians, and are creating hardships for poor desperate needy immigrants from Mexico who are just seeking a better way of life.

Governors in the U.S.-Mexico border states have declared an emergency on their borders due to the high volume of needy immigrants coming in, destroying the environment, increasing crime rates, using up social services and overwhelming hospital emergency rooms. An estimated 5,000 people per day sneak in, despite the Minuteman patrols, the National Guard, and Homeland Security officers.

The Minutemen have not been heard from recently, and no arrests of them for any illegal activity have been made.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Although the lamestream media has clamped a tight lid on any news from the Mexico border in the month of October, hundreds of respectable, law-abiding Americans are serving as volunteer Minutemen on the lines during the month-long border watch with good results.

The volunteers are characterized as vigilantes by reporters, which if true would be illegal. However, for some reason, no charges have been brought and no arrests have been made, casting doubts on the reporters, according to leading experts.

This may be due to the fact, unreported, that the entire project is a strict exercise of the First Amendment only. People are assembling on land where they have a right to be as legal citizens, sitting in beach chairs while observing the terrain, and speaking with Border Patrol agents on cell phone numbers provided by the Border Patrol. Assembly and speech, that is all. Members are strategically stationed, they do not patrol.

No contact of any kind with people observed sneaking into America is allowed. A sole exception is made for medical emergencies, as detailed in the correspondent report filed below.

The reason for the complete blackout of any Minuteman news in the “news” media, which had previously swamped the public with breathless sensational reports on the subject, was unclear at press time.

The following report was filed by Uninvited Ombudsman correspondent Lance Altherr, the Tucson Chapter Leader.

“We have had over 185 volunteers standing post on our lines and we are making a difference.

“This past week was an active one, with many things that highlight what we are doing to help secure our borders. One of the most important things that happened were two life-saving rescues.

“The first came Friday night when a group of 11 illegal aliens ran past one of our posts on the Kolbe Line. The group left behind three females — a 19-year-old, a 22-year-old, and a 4-year-old. The 4-year-old had not eaten in a day-and-a-half.

“They had been forced to walk 38 miles in a day-and-a-half. The 4-year-old was hungry, thirsty and cold, but thanks to our caring Minutemen, we gave them food, water and blankets until the Border Patrol agents arrived. We actually had Minutemen take their own jackets off and let the women wear them until Border Patrol arrived.

“The second incident happened Saturday, when we spotted an illegal along the side of Highway 286. Our State Director, Stacey O’Connell, and one of the Search and Rescue team members quickly came to his aid. He was ready to give up, as his feet were badly blistered and swollen.

“While they waited for Border Patrol to arrive, they gave him water and performed first aid on his feet. There where blisters from his toes to his heels on both feet, and they had burst. His feet were swollen.

“His feet were cleaned by the Minutemen on scene and the wounds were disinfected. This illegal alien was amazed when he learned that is was the Minutemen that were assisting him with his medical problems.

“We learned that he was part of the group that was spotted the night before on the Kolbe line, and was left behind because he could not keep up. He was on his way to Alabama to pick up the drywall job he left before heading back to Mexico for a visit.

“We also learned he had only paid $1,000 to the coyote to make his journey. Just a few examples of how we are helping save lives, and being compassionate, while helping secure our borders.

“The Border Patrol and National Guard are currently running an operation called “Operation Willpower” along the border south of our lines. They are throwing all the resources they have at this area, and yet still the illegals continue to pour across our lines.

“This past week we had numerous illegals spotted on the Kolbe, Alpha, and Bravo lines. To date we have spotted and reported over 285 illegals crossing our lines.

“If you have not yet made it down to stand post on one of our lines, you are missing out. We need your help! Come on down anytime, and help us secure our border. I look forward to seeing you on post.

“Lance Altherr, Tucson Chapter Leader”

Lance also adds a special thank you to all of the great Americans who have come down and stood post with the Minutemen.

Some commentators are convinced that if the lamestream media did its job, reported on the current Minuteman operations, and covered the courageous volunteers accurately, the national perception of the group would be quite different. They consider the chance of this happening unlikely.

Hispanic-instigated riots, death threats and marches against the Minutemen are largely based on the false notion, widely circulated by “news” outlets, that these compassionate volunteers are vigilantes hunting immigrants, though no evidence of this exists.

“News” media personnel should be ashamed of their bigoted, biased, grossly inaccurate coverage, but apparently are not, and could care less, according to the stories they have filed. Calls for comment went unanswered.

Meanwhile, the 5,000-people-per-day invasion of the United States continues unabated.

Some knowledgeable experts credit the Minutemen with single-handedly making the entire nation and Congress aware of the extremely severe situation on the border.

Though editors and reporters have been kept constantly informed of these developments, their silence remains deafening. This may actually be a good thing, since almost everything they write on the subject misinforms the public.

Border Patrol agents, speaking off the record with volunteers on the lines, uniformly commend the Minutemen, and express gratitude for the help they provide. The Border Patrol union has publicly made similar statements, see what they think on their http://www.local2544.org”>website.

Ethics charges against the media would be filed, but there is nowhere to file them.

Picture files and detailed reports of prior border-watch operations are posted http://www.gunlaws.com/Minuteman.htm”>here.

Reach the Minuteman headquarters for more information or to volunteer http://www.minutemanhq.com”>here

One of the major reasons why radical feminism remains such a destructive influence on the lives of Americans is that it claims to speak for women when it really only represents a minute percentage of them. The feminista activist has proved quite adept at obscuring this fact by labeling their critics as “patriarchal, anti-woman” and “sexist.” The irony lost on many is that no social movement in history has so thoroughly undermined the constituency they pretended to represent.

As always, the opinions of males are discounted, and whatever words men write are deemed compromised, so let us be grateful that Carrie Lukas came along. She is an equity feminist in the mold of Christina Hoff Sommers and Daphne Patai, and what many readers already know is that equity feminist is to gender or radical feminist what the Green Berets are to terrorists. Lukas’s new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism, is an insightful answer to the pervasive lies so often told about men. Her main theme is that differences between the sexes exist, and there’s no reason to label them as good or evil. Viva la difference should be the order of every day. By the end, you’ll be pleased that she took the time to pen such an eloquent refutation of the alleged, and fictional, patriarchy.

Lukas rationally cuts through the lies and distortions which so poison our ether. You’ll find skillful refutations to canards like men being the primary cause of domestic violence, that divorce is beneficial to women, and that being born with a particular kind of genitalia enables one to “have it all.” The real problem with gender feminists is that their need to dominate and control others is far more important to them than their supposed goal of bettering the lives of women. Behind their hysterical passion hides a collective of dominatrixes. The only thing that their politics uniformly promote is an increase in their own status and increased feelings of self-righteousness.

On aggregate, Lukas’s narrative voice is outstanding as she is the possessor of an analytical and dispassionate mind. In my opinion, she even provides a more balanced assessment of radical positions than they actually deserve. The only negative thing I can say about this book is that I suspect few women will read it. My guess is that this is due to its not being feel good or warm-fuzzy enough for them. What those who habitually avoid the non-comforting forget is that knowing the truth is an end in itself, and that a hard chair made of wood is still more soothing than one made wholly from imagination.

By Bernard Chapin

Carrie Lukas is the author of an outstanding book called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism and it was released earlier this year. I found the work to be clever, concise, and authoritative. Mrs. Lukas also has a multitude of other publications to her credit such as Dependency Divas: How the Feminist Big Government Agenda Betrays Women and Recess from Reality: The Feminist Failure to Embrace School Choice which were authored in her role as Vice President of Policy at the Independent Woman’s Forum. Mrs. Lukas is an increasingly well-known personality who expresses her views on media outlets like National Public Radio, Janet Parshall’s America, the Glenn Sacks Show, CNBC’s The Dennis Miller Show, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, and MSNBC’s Scarborough Country. The interviewer knows her best from the pieces she posts at the National Review website. She is a holder of degrees from both Princeton and Harvard.

BC: Mrs. Lukas, let me express my gratitude up front for writing this invaluable book. For readers who aren’t familiar with the series, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism is a volume within Regnery’s Politically Incorrect Guide collection. Other editions include works by Dr. Thomas Woods on American history and Tom Bethell on science. First off, let me ask what you would say to those who dispute that such a thing as political correctness even exists?

CL: I would tell them that they haven’t been on a college campus in a very long time!  Anyone familiar with your average college campus knows that some things simply aren’t considered appropriate topics of discussion. Think about what happened to former president of Harvard, Larry Summers:  he merely mentioned the possibility that innate differences could partially explain why there are fewer women at the tops of science than men.  He was censured by Harvard’s faculty and eventually lost his job.  Political correctness is definitely no myth. 

BC: Now with your ideological orientation, am I correct in saying that, just like the interviewer, you are an equity feminist? I know that many men don’t like any association with the F-word, but, according to the distinction made by Christina Hoff Sommers, most of us fall in that category as we believe in equal rights and equal pay for all. Do you like and make use of Sommers’ equity/gender delineation?

CL: Absolutely.  The original goals of feminism were noble, and they have been realized in America.  Just about everyone in this country agrees that women absolutely need to have the opportunity to pursue any career or education that they wish and deserve equal treatment under the law.  The problem is that the traditional women’s groups have abandoned this vision of feminism and instead push big government and a women-as-victim mentality. 

BC: You are the Vice President for Policy at the Independent Woman’s Forum, can this organization be described as an equity feminist group? What exactly does it do?

CL: IWF is definitely an equity feminist group – we are the voice for mainstream women who believe in personal responsibility and who know that big government isn’t the solution to every problem.  We try to educate women—particularly young women on college campuses—about how free markets and less government can improve all of our lives. 

One really important part of IWF’s mission is to advance women’s rights overseas.  Anyone truly concerned about women should focus their attention on the women around the world who are truly suffering.  It’s ridiculous, in my mind, that groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) waste their time on issues like whether ABC is going to cut a television show starring Geena Davis’s Commander in Chief (they seriously did launch a campaign to try to save this show).  IWF is working with women in Iraq—educating them about the principles of democracy, limited government, and private property—so that they are prepared to help build and sustain a democratic Iraq.  The real battle ground for women’s rights isn’t in the U.S., it’s around the world.

BC: Early in your book you make the argument that the sexual revolution was fought and women turned out to be its losers. How so?

CL: During the sexual revolution, many feminists pushed the idea that women and men are the same when it comes to sexuality.  Basically they argued that the social conventions that had made women’s chastity more prized than men’s was a tool of the patriarchy meant to keep women from having fun.  But the truth is that women are very different than men when it comes to sex.  First of all, women are more physical vulnerable to the consequences of sex:  not only do we get pregnant, women are more likely to contract STDs and many STDs have more serious consequences for women.  Women are also more emotionally vulnerable.  Women release different hormones than men do during sex which makes it harder for women to keep it casual. 

BC: We find out in the “Fertility Facts” chapter that many women are quite confused about their own biology. Is this primarily due to their being misled by the media or due to a disinterest in finding out the truth for themselves?

CL: I don’t think the media has purposefully set out to confuse women about their biology, but I definitely think that women often get the wrong impression from what they hear and read.  For example, you often read stories about a 50 year old giving birth or celebrities having babies late in life.  What those stories don’t mention is the extreme measures needed to help these women get pregnant.  There are fertility treatments that can certainly address some problems, but it’s important for women to know that they are often costly and not fool proof. 

BC: In the chapter, “The Myth of Having it All,” you examine why it is that some women have been deceived, or deceived themselves, into thinking they can have it all as if a great family, a great career, a great sex life, eternal romantic love, and presumably free shoes on Tuesdays come as a birthright. Are these fantastic expectations a direct result of our culture actively promoting female superiority and supremacy? When a woman fails at something does she not have discrimination, a glass ceiling, or misogyny to blame?

CL: Certainly much of the media creates unrealistic expectations and a sense of entitlement.  But the problem women face is that we often having conflicting desires.  I talked to a lot of college women in the course of writing my book, and it was very common for these intelligent, ambitious, young women to tell me that they expected to both be full-time stay-at-home moms and CEOs of major companies.  Now, I’m not saying that no woman can accomplished both of these goals, but she’s going to have a tough time doing both of them at the same time.  Often times, women’s studies classes and groups like NOW make it seem as though the problem women face in balancing work and family is caused by bad public policy or men who won’t do their share of the housework.  But the real problem is simply a consequence of being human:  we can’t be two places at once and there are only 24 hours in a day.  That means we are going to face tough decisions and real tradeoffs about how to allocate our time.  

BC: You are a strong proponent of marriage, and present a well-developed case for it in your book; however, in light of the way government has interjected itself into our personal relationships (and effectively chosen sides by punishing men habitually during divorce and custody proceedings) why should the average man even consider entering into the state of matrimony? What is the upside? Why should we buy the milk when we can have the cow for free?

CL: Men get big benefits from marriage. Just like women, men are healthier, happier, and better off financially when they are married.  And most men know this.  Many people are surprised by the fact that women are more likely to initiate divorce than men.  This may in part be due to the fact that men often lose more when getting divorce—in particularly because divorce can mean they lose considerable access to their children.  Both men and women need to hear more about the costs and consequences of divorce.  Until I started researching for this book, I didn’t realize just how often people regret getting divorced. Divorce may seem like a solution to an unhappy marriage, but oftentimes when people divorce they just trade one set of problems for another.

BC: I have to say that my favorite part of your book is the final chapter entitled, “Divorcing Uncle Sam.” It outlines a seldom cited cause behind our ever-expanding Nanny State. You point out that women who don’t marry men sometimes end up marrying the government. For those unfamiliar with your work, why is that the case?

CL: This is one of the primary ways that groups like NOW have really walked away from the concept of true independence for women.  They want to free women from having to depend on voluntary relationships – families and husbands – but want Uncle Sam to take care of them.  Think about it:  NOW wants government-run healthcare, government funding for childcare, more government workplace regulations, and expanded welfare benefits; NOW opposes economic reforms that return control to individuals – they oppose personal accounts in Social Security and school choice; they want higher taxes. Simply put, they want government to control more, and individuals to control less.  That’s really not independence.

BC: Along these lines, what do you think of the idea that women naturally gravitate towards socialism due to its “claim” of taking care of everyone. Despite both of us understanding that socialism is about as useful as owning a timeshare in downtown Bagdad, why might women be more naturally fooled by this fallacious claim than men?

CL: Women tend to be more concerned with making sure that everyone has basic necessities, and can be persuaded that government is the best safety net.  Also, free market supporters often don’t do a very good job explaining how their policies translate into better lives for individuals.  We tend to focus more on the big picture—we talk about economic growth and principles like individual freedom—but fail to highlight the experience of individual people.  I think that we are making improvements though and better showing the costs and consequences of government actions.  Consider the case of welfare. One might assume that the welfare system would appeal to women because it served as a safety net for individuals in need.  But of course, the welfare system was really a poor safety net and instead trapped individuals in poverty.  Women came to understand this and the system was reformed.  I think that many women are increasingly skeptical of government’s ability to solve our problems.

BC: Also, do you think that women tend to be more conformist than men? Personally, I think this is the case. Possible reasons for this could be due to a greater need for social connection, along with higher levels of sociability and extroversion. I understand though if you disagree (as you’re obviously no conformist).

CL: I don’t think that women are more conformist necessarily…. Women are empathetic and more risk adverse.  Anytime we hear stories about a family in trouble, we immediately consider how it could be our family and wonder what we would do, how we would react.  Big government can sound tempting.  That’s why supporters of limited government have to make the case that we are better off—not just richer, but safer—when civil society is more robust and individuals have more freedom.

BC: What are your plans for the future? Do you have another book in the works?

CL: No book in the works right now.  I’m enjoying writing columns and papers for IWF, and am also busy chasing around my one-year-old!  I feel like I have my hands full! 

BC: Thank you very much for your time, Mrs. Lukas.

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago and the author of Escape from Gangsta Island. He is currently at work on a book concerning women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

By Bernard Chapin

Bruce Bartlett is a conservative economist who took degrees from Rutgers and Georgetown before serving in both the Reagan and (original) Bush administrations. Mr. Bartlett has always been associated with supply-side economics. Earlier this year he released Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy which vigorously refutes the notion that our president is a conservative in any meaningful way. Mr. Bartlett has published voluminously and has penned over 900 articles. I usually access his columns by going to townhall.com where there is a permalink to his weekly efforts.

BC: Mr. Bartlett, for those who may not be familiar with your excellent book, could you provide a quick outline of what you have to say and what its central theme is?

Mr. Bartlett: I argue that Bush is not a true conservative, by which I mean a traditional or movement conservative. He is more of a reactionary who opposes liberalism, but without a coherent philosophy to replace it. Consequently, as president he has done many things that are inconsistent with a conservative governing philosophy, such as expanding government spending, imposing steel tariffs, increasing government regulation and other things I discuss in the book.

BC: You know, I just finished it earlier today but wonder if “Imposter” might be a slightly misleading title. It seems to me that “Failure” is more apropos because when a President gets quoted saying something as FDRish as, “We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has to move,” it becomes rather silly to doubt that he is in the midst of a mad affair with statism. Is my supposition wrong? Do you think he’s consciously trying to dupe people?

Mr. Bartlett: I won’t argue with you.  But titles are basically chosen by publishers and I couldn’t think of a better one than “Impostor.”

BC: It would be instructive for readers if you would define what the difference is between a Republican and a conservative. For many on the left they are synonyms, but it seems to me that the disparities are quite pronounced.

Mr. Bartlett: While the Republican Party is the more conservative of the two major parties, its interests are not at all the same as those of the conservative movement.  Republicans, ultimately, are only interested in getting elected and wielding power.  Conservatives see elections not as ends, but means. They are a way of implementing a conservative agenda. But politicians by their nature are risk averse and always fearful of arousing the ire of the electorate. This means that they will always end up disappointing ideologues.

BC: How have your peers on the right reacted to Imposter? Did they accuse you of being a traitor? A paleocon?

Mr. Bartlett: No one has taken issue with my argument. Privately, many conservatives have said that they agree with me, but fear saying so publicly for fear of retaliation. The true believers have mostly ignored me. I know I have been banned from certain conservative radio talk shows where I used to appear regularly.

BC: Why is it that so many Republicans eschew associating themselves with Ronald Reagan? He was arguably the most effective President of the last fifty years yet it seems that nobody wants to have anything to do with him. In the text, a good point is made about sound policy being good politics, and it is a phrase that applies to Reagan more so than any other politician.

Mr. Bartlett: Excellent question. I think there is an opening in the Republican Party for someone to run for president as another Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, at this time, I don’t see anyone willing or able to do it.

BC: Along these lines, why don’t politicians try to cut taxes more? And why does the general population tolerate their not doing so? Based on a piece I read of yours at the National Review website, 90 percent of us believe that no more than 29 percent of our earnings should be paid to the Leviathan. That being said, why is our government so obese?

Mr. Bartlett: There is a limit to how much you can cut taxes when spending is growing at double-digit rates. To get taxes much lower, spending must be cut. But no one wants to do that because it is hard and unpopular.

BC: Among economists in general, have the supply-siders prevailed? Does anyone doubt the existence between government confiscation of wealth and a subsequent decline in prosperity and economic growth? Does a concept like the Laffer Curve remain controversial?

Mr. Bartlett: I think it would be hard to find a reputable economist who thinks the top tax rate ought to go back up to 70%, where it was when Reagan was elected. And most would probably agree that there would be an increase in revenue from cutting the 70% rate to 50%, as Reagan did. But reasonable people can disagree about whether you would get much of a Laffer effect from cutting the 35% rate, which is the current top rate.

BC: One area of the book where you lost me was on page 56 where you criticized Congress for getting rid of the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. Call me a simpleton if you must, but isn’t the reduction of taxes—regardless of what they specifically are for—a good in itself? Certainly in our present, taxation permeating the ether, environment, shouldn’t we be grateful whenever those gluttons concede to cut anything at all?

Mr. Bartlett: You misunderstood what I was saying. I have long advocated getting rid of the corporate and individual AMT’s. But what Congress wanted to do was not only repeal the corporate AMT but in effect refund previous taxes that had been paid. I thought that was a bad idea.

BC: Like you, the same chain of events led to my disillusionment with George W. Bush, but, in my case, it drove me to join the Libertarian Party. What would you say to those thinking of leaving the Republican Party due to its spendthrift ways? Are we right or wrong to do so? Can you think of a reason not to defect?

Mr. Bartlett: In my opinion, the LP is not a viable alternative to the Republicans and Democrats. In fact, I think it is counterproductive in terms of advancing a libertarian agenda. Its main effect is to drain libertarians away from the major parties, thus allowing statists in both parties to have even more influence. Then, when they realize that the LP is inherently unviable, they become discouraged and leave politics altogether. I think it would make much more sense for the LP to completely disappear and be replaced by an interest group, like the NRA, that would lobby within both parties for libertarian ideas.

BC: Well Mr. Bartlett, thank you for your time and I will make a point of recommending your book to my friends and relations.

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago and the author of Escape from Gangsta Island. He is currently at work on a book concerning women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

It’s time to remember what the Democrat party generally seeks regarding guns and gun rights. The list below was widely circulated while Clinton was in power. (This list and more is available at my website, http://www.gunlaws.com.

The democrat-backed Brady group and similar outfits have been quiet about guns because they want to win the election, and impose their goals on your rights –

THE FIVE YEAR PLAN:

1. National Licensing of all handgun purchases.

2. Licenses for Rifle and Shotgun owners.

3. State Licenses for ownership of firearms.

4. Arsenal Licenses (5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition).

5. Arsenal License Fees (at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00).

6. Limits on Arsenal Licensing (None in counties with populations of more than 200,000).

7. Requirement of Federally Approved Storage Safes for all guns.

8. Inspection License. (Gun safe licenses, yearly fee for spot inspections).

9. Ban on Manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 200,000.

10. Banning all military style firearms.

11. Banning Machine Gun Parts or parts which can be used in a Machine gun.

12. Banning the carrying a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in transit from one to the other.

13. Banning replacement parts (manufacturing, sale, possession, transfer, installation) except barrel, trigger group.

14. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.

15. Control of Ammunition belonging to Certain Surplus Firearms. (7.62×54R and .303).

16. Eventual Ban of Handgun Possession..

17. Banning of Any ammo that fits military guns (post 1945).

18. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.

19. Ban the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kg. at any one time.

20. Banning of High Powered Ammo or Wounding ammo.

21. A National License for Ammunition.

22. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.

23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.

24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.

25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.

26. Special Licensing of ranges.

27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person).

28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.

29. Banning Gun Shows.

30. Banning of military reenactments.

PLUS:

Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.

Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.

Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including “air soft” and paintball).

The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance from government programs, the gun manufacturers.

Taxes on ammo, dealers, guns, licenses to offset medical costs to society.

The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made or caliber.

While it’s true Republicans haven’t done very much to defend your gun rights (OK, they have done a little) in six years of control, they offer no support for the anti-rights disarm-the-public plans the left wing will impose on you if they gain power in the next election. It’s your choice. Do you stay home and evaporate your rights, or go out and defend them at the ballot box? Tell your friends.

If you took the bait and voted early, instead of rising up as a whole and voting on election day like you’re supposed to, this message is too late and you got screwed.

Thank you for your eulogy for my father, Jeff Cooper (see “In Memoriam — Col. Jeff Cooper”). We appreciate your words. He had neither a stroke nor a heart attack. What did him in was basically complications from 11 years of battling spinal fractures caused by osteoporosis. A downward spiral of pain, medication for pain, loss of appetite due to pain medication, deterioration of the lungs and heart due to lack of exercise and restriction of the chest cavity. It was painful and painful to witness. Have your bone density checked periodically and take your calcium.” –Lindy

[Please also note that Jeff Cooper received, among many other honors, the St. Gabriel Possenti Society Medallion when in Rome. St. Gabriel is the Patron Saint of Shooters. See “Gun Saint,” about the campaign to establish this patron saint here.

A story detailing charges of racism against Texas gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman (see “Kinky Angers Blacks”) used the so-called “n-word” that sounds like enigma. It turns out many email systems screen every word you receive, and block entire messages if they contain even one black-listed word, which the enigma word apparently is. Many regular Page Nine readers were therefore denied edition 15, and I apologize for my niggling ignorant oversight. I thought I was being clever, using the word “in quotes,” which Afro-Americans use on cable TV constantly, but which the lamestream media carefully skirts. The story is available here.

Re. “Hydrogen Salvation Questioned”: “It takes more energy to separate the water than is returned when the hydrogen is oxidized (burned). Hydrogen is therefore not a fuel.” — Larry Southwick

[REPLY:] Presumably we’ll find a way (though basic physics does not smile on this as I think you know). The real problem — loading the atmosphere with humidity from burning hydrogen, which I singled out, on further thought may be small compared to all the oxygen we’re going to release to get the hydrogen from water. Remember the Apollo capsule fire? Oxygen’s dangerous. If a plant in NJ spews O2 so a car in Kansas can spew humidity, what then? And what about the effect of pumping billions of barrels a day of water out of the ecosystem, instead of oil out of the ground? Isn’t fresh water in tight supply? If you just pump out the oceans, where do you put all the salt? And what about all the huge sucking sounds? Inquiring minds want to know….

The lamestream media told you:
Saying, “It seems unnecessary to us and seems wrong,” Mexico “will try to persuade” President Bush not to sign the bill that would authorize a fence at the border to help keep Mexicans from flooding into the United States illegally, according to an unbylined report from the AP on 9/30.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
All doubts about Mexico’s true intentions are removed with the current diplomatic efforts, say unnamed sources close to the Uninvited Ombudsman, who note, “Mexico is behind the invasion, and is doing everything it can to keep it going strong.”

In other news, it was reported that the big fuss over a proposed 700-mile border fence may be little more than an election-year trick, since adequate funding was not provided to build it. Mexico figured it should complain anyway.

The lamestream media told you:
Pope Benedict XVI invited 20 Islamic diplomats to Rome for talks on rejecting all forms of violence and intolerance, according to Tracy Wilkinson, writing for the Los Angeles Times on 9/26. The Pope expressed, “esteem and profound respect,” for Muslim believers, but some Muslims afterwards complained, “it could be more positive,” and “the Pope spoke about dialogue but it was a monologue.” At least one Muslim, Iraq’s ambassador to the Holy See, seemed more positive, saying it was a major step forward.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Expressing their dissatisfaction with the Pope’s comments about the nature of Islam, two Muslim’s hijacked a Turkish passenger airliner to demonstrate their commitment to peace and tolerance. Military jets forced the hijacked plane to land in Italy.

The lamestream media told you:
Reporting for USA Today on 9/26, Mary Marklein notes that a report notes that college students are graduating without knowledge or appreciation of American history or its institutions. No cause for the problem is identified.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Leftists who have infiltrated and largely taken over the nation’s institutes of higher learning have succeeded in eliminating effective education on American history for students. This is a big plus for socialists working to undermine American independence and establish collectivism in its place.

“We risk a generation of young people not knowing what America stands for,” says Eugene Hickock, a member of the board that commissioned the report.

The lamestream media told you:
Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
A state representative from the Mexican border state of Arizona wants to renew the official federal deportation program from the 1950s known as “Operation Wetback.” Rep. Russell Pearce, a border security advocate described the mass deportations on National Public Radio in Phoenix (KJZZ-FM).

“In 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower put together a task force called ‘Operation Wetback.’ He removed, in less than a year, 1.3 million illegal aliens.”

Local Democrats used Pearce’s remarks in a news release with angry comments from Hispanic activists. They said “wetback” is considered derogatory. Pearce replied that he only used the term in an accurate historical context.

“He (Pearce) is on a constant campaign of demeaning people and creating an imagery of them in the public’s mind as being somewhat less than human,” said Somos America (We Are America) president Roberto Reveles.

Pearce defended his comments, accusing activists of blatantly supporting “lawbreakers.”

“This was a successful program,” Pearce said, “and I’m quoting a successful program for those who continue to tell you it’s impossible to deport them (illegal immigrants) in this country.”

“In the ’50s it was common. In the ’60s it was common. You don’t use it today because people have tried to make it offensive,” Pearce said. “Things change, and you know what? Who cares? Whatever they want to be called, I’m OK with that.”

Somos America failed to mention that the proposal only deals with people who illegally sneak into the country, stay here in violation of law, frequently avoid paying taxes, use social welfare services they are not entitled to, and even vote without being citizens.

The lamestream media told you:
“Congress Is Heading Home With Little Accomplished,” says the headline in a Gannett wire service story by Deborah Berry on 9/30. “Those charges are likely to be part of the partisan drumbeat,” as elections near, with each party blaming the other for the problem, she reports.

Numerous experts are quoted to support claims of a the “do-nothing” Congress, with a list of seven things Congress failed to do, including funding numerous government programs, spending $2 billion on AIDS “victims,” changing ethics rules, and merging offshore drilling bills.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
According to a recent review of national news stories, reporters continue to urge Congress to pass more statutes, bitterly complain that they aren’t passing enough, and discount the gigantic volumes of new laws the Congress is heaping upon the public. Reporters are, theoretically at least, guardians against government spending and encroachment on the public.

In the period recently labeled a “do-nothing Congress,” Americans were actually saddled with at least 288 new federal laws. It is believed that not a single citizen in the entire nation has read every one, and “news” reports have failed to mention nearly all of them, listed here. It is widely known that legislators do not read the bills they pass.

A random sample of five recent bills shows a total of 72,931 new words of federal law. If averaged and multiplied, that’s more than four million new words of law, from a “do-nothing” legislature. This unscientific guesstimate will be replaced with an actual count, if any Page Nine readers are willing to do one. Hey, maybe it’s only a million words. Public money spent in these laws is in the multi-billions of dollars.

With a significant portion of the public convinced that one of the nation’s biggest problems is Congress itself, complaining that they are not doing more may be unethical on the part of reporters and news organizations, but no charges have been filed.

Steve Slivinsky, a scholar currently with the Cato Institute, suggests that gridlock in Congress may be the best protection against rampant government growth, increased spending, and burdens on the public that decrease freedom. He will be speaking at the Goldwater Institute on Oct. 26, details here.

The lamestream media told you:
"Miami — In what the government called ‘the final fatal blow’ to the world’s biggest cocaine supplier, two Colombian brothers who helped found the infamous Cali cartel pleaded guilty Tuesday to drug trafficking, agreed to forfeit billions in tainted assets, and received what could amount to a life sentence," reports Curt Anderson on the AP wire, in a story that ran nationwide on 9/27.

"They sacrificed themselves for their families," said their attorney. In the deal with prosecutors, six of their relatives in Colombia will be protected from prosecution on obstruction and money laundering, and 28 family members will be able to keep some assets not tainted by drug money. The family has invested in dozens of legitimate businesses, including a drugstore chain with more than 400 stores.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The world’s top 25 drug cartels applauded the convictions of the leaders of the Colombian Cali drug cartel, but were disappointed that more than 30 family members were left on the streets, with most of their assets. Who exactly would get the $2.1 billion in assets confiscated by U.S. agents was not disclosed. The worldwide market price of cocaine remained unchanged.

“This is a boost for our business, and an unexpected promotion for everyone in the Cali cartel,” said a top drug kingpin, who spoke on anonymous threat of assassination. “The other families join me in thanking U.S. federal agents for this gift,” he said. Coca farming and processing was unaffected by the court action against the two old Orejuela brothers, aged 67 and 63.

When asked if the war on some drugs is succeeding, when it might be declared a success and cease, or when might it be declared a failure and brought to a close, federal agents declined to reply. In other news Congress considered legislation to increase the number of federal workers employed by the war program.

The irony of a drug cartel owning a chain of 400 drug stores was ironic, but went unmentioned.

The lamestream media told you:
“Democratic Senate challenger Jim Webb declined to say definitively Tuesday whether he had ever used a common derogatory term to describe Blacks,” writes David Espo for the Associated Press on 9/27.

In his defense, Webb said he believed everyone who grew up in the South had probably “had the word pass through their lips,” ducking a definitive response, according to the reporter. Webb’s novel, Fields of Fire, uses the word that sounds like “enigma” as part of a character dialog, but he adds, “I have never issued a racial or ethnic slur.”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Stunned observers are still recovering from the idea that someone from America’s south might not have ever used the word that is similar to the nation of Niger, or that a politician would actually say he had never used an ethnic slur, even after including it in a novel.

“Politicians lie all the time, it’s their job, and the public knows this of course,” said one high ranking official who is not a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “But the hypocrisy now growing in news reports about use of the word that sounds like enigma is just beyond the pale.” Reporters will stop at nothing to invent controversy and promote meaningless attacks for political hacks, he said.

High profile race mongers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are frequently found calling White people racists, for knowing, even without using, the word that is similar to the nation of Niger. Meanwhile, in a quiet controversy omitted from lamestream reports, blackish American comics and entertainers on cable TV call themselves and each other enigmas constantly.

Here’s a Politically Corrected definition of “racism”:

Racism. n. A false charge of devastating power, that can be brought against a person without cause, especially when no real charges are available, to gain advantage in a debate. See also, Political Correctness.

The full Politically Corrected Glossary is here.

The lamestream media told you:
A Syrian director who ran a Ramadan television series on suicide bombers has condemned terrorism by Islamic extremists as a global threat that hurts Muslims, says Albert Aji in an AP wire report on 9/26.

Najdat Anzour, “Syria’s most renowned director,” wants his new series, “to drive home the message that Islam is a religion of tolerance and dialogue — not of violence,” according to the reporter. “We should realize the size of the danger that engulfs the Arab nation,” Anzour reportedly said, casting the entire Arab world as a single nation.

His new series, whose title refers to the 72 virgins that greet Islamic martyrs in the afterlife, attracted tens of millions of viewers, airing to families right after the Ramadan fast at sundown. One of his characters blames terrorism on America, “100 percent.”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
In a story with virtually no recent precedent, a prominent Muslim has publicly condemned the global jihad, though he describes it only by its well known code word, terrorism.

Characterized as Syria’s most prominent director, in a nation that maintains iron-fisted control over broadcasts and allows no religion but state-sanctioned brands of Islam, Najdat Anzour received death threats after his TV series about suicide bombers, and political observers will be watching the obituaries for further news.

The lamestream media told you:
“The election year debate over terrorism has triggered a full-blown spat between the camps of President Bush and former president Clinton, as the two sides trade barbs over who was more responsible for failing to disrupt al Qaida before it could attack the United States on Sept. 11, 2001,” according to Peter Baker in the Washington Post on 9/26.

Bush, Hillary, Condoleeza, Bill and others all had something to say in the growing disagreement, and were quoted, possibly accurately.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
In a writing style becoming increasingly familiar, one of the nation’s leading newspapers has chosen to run a “he-said-she-said” story, which is easy, rather than do real reporting and present facts, which is hard.

Many readers now recognize that what politicians accuse each other of, while interesting, is meaningless, and only serves to keep the public in the dark. Some actually blame the lamestream press for obscuring truth, promoting ignorance, and failing in an ethical duty to uphold their First Amendment role as a watchdog over government, according to polls with a margin of error of 3.2 points. What actually happened regarding al Qaida was not covered by reporter Baker.

The lamestream media told you:
A half-million-dollar monument in the state capitol plaza, paid for entirely with private funds, honors those who died in the 9/11 attacks. Governor Napolitano says it is, “a memorial for Arizona that fully encapsulates the losses that America suffered on September 11, 2001.”

A suspended metal ring called “Moving Memories” has messages cut through it, which cast phrases and dates on the ground as sun shines through.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Americans everywhere were outraged to learn that a memorial supposed to commemorate 9/11, contrived quietly under the influence of Democrats and now on display in public space, features the Gulf of Tonkin incident, an accidental attack on an Afghan wedding party, and admonishes the United States for fighting back against islamofascism.

Glorified by lamestream news reports, the true nature of the travesty has circulated through the blogosphere, and is being forced into the public eye through the Internet.

The Democrat Governor said the memorial, “fully encapsulates the losses that America suffered on September 11, 2001.”

Congressman Trent Franks, a Republican, disagreed, saying, “The Memorial’s reflection of a warped revisionist outlook on history is tragic in that the anti-American sentiments and blatant misrepresentation of facts will be the Governor’s legacy to future generations. Endorsing a deception intrinsic in this memorial is disgraceful and the epitome of irresponsibility in a public official.”

He goes on to say, “I wish the architects hadn’t projected their ahistorical and anti-American prejudices into a space meant for solemn reflection and public mourning.”

Among the many sayings on the sculpture are, “You don’t win battles of terrorism with more battles,” and “Feeling of invincibility lost.” The heroes of Flight 93 are omitted. A poll with comments has been set up by a local newspaper.

The Governor’s spokeswoman attacked the critics for complaining. Meanwhile, talks on tearing down the outrageous political statements are proceeding, and Republican Len Munsil, the gubernatorial challenger in the upcoming election, says if elected he will immediately replace it with a monument that says, “United We Stand” and “Let’s Roll.”

In other news, a 9/11 monument at the Shanksville, Pa., site of the Flight 93 crash is being criticized for being a crescent pointed at Mecca. I am not making this up.