BlogWonks

The lamestream media told you:

Nine-year-old Bindi Irwin, the adorable daughter of slain “Crocodile Hunter” Steve Irwin, melted hearts at a press conference at the Washington, D.C., National Press Club this week. She wants to help save animals just like her daddy did, who appeared on TV with all sorts of creatures in their wild habitats until one of them, a stingray, heartlessly killed him by stabbing him in his heart.

Asked what her favorite animals were, Bindi gushed, “Crocodiles and snakes, because they’re loving and caring,” which brought oohs and ahhs from the entranced reporters. The jam packed conference was carried by the networks, cable channels and print media virtually everywhere.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

A news conference three weeks ago in the 14-story National Press Club building, which houses or is within walking distance of hundreds of Washington, D.C. journalists, featured representatives from some 60 organizations opposing the planned North American Union (NAU).

The NAU plan is to eliminate effective U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada, establish appointed panels to regulate trade, set up trade courts superior to national courts, build a superhighway three football fields wide with dedicated lanes both ways for cars, trucks, trains, utilities and data, through Texas and up to Canada with a Mexican-territory terminal in Kansas, establish illegal residents as “trusted travelers,” and more, in little more than a decade, under programs already underway and designed by the Council on Foreign Relations and others.

Only one traditional TV station had a single camera crew present, and the rest of the lamestream media chose not to cover the event, which was obviously less important than nine-year-old Bindi’s opinion of loving caring snakes.

Google “North American Union” to shock yourself good, then ask your local media why they haven’t covered this yet.

Korwin’s new superhero idol, Counterintuitive Man, says:

Yes — Felony convictions are good — no?

Many of our greatest idols have them — James Brown, Mike Tyson, G. Gordon Liddy, Billy the Kid, Martha Stewart, Jesse James, Robert Downey Jr., Mark Fuhrman, 17 Congressmen in recent years, 13 of them Democrats, Frank Abagnale (lookitup), many more!

Once convicted, you can just continue your behavior as long as you’re not caught again!

Congress even gives its members a full pension after they get their felony!

Congressman Shadegg has introduced a felon pension ban every year, but Congress scoffs at him and ignores it, to help perpetuate felonies! They’re Congress, they must know what they’re doing!

How else could we prevent one black man out of seven from voting, if not for felonies?

Felony threats help keep gun dealers in line!

The threat of a felony helps keep everyone in line!

Felonies give legislators great new ideas for new laws every session!

Courts would be out of business if it wasn’t for hundreds of thousands of felonies committed a year!

So would bail bondsmen, truckloads of attorneys and most police!

Why, government itself would have much less to do if it weren’t for making up and enforcing felonies!

And gangs would have little to bond them together if it wasn’t for felonies!

Many felonies don’t even harm anyone, like owning a smoking pipe or prohibited plants, arranging for sex, skipping some taxes, missing deadlines, or making paperwork mistakes!

Yes — felonies serve a valuable societal purpose we all want — no?

This article was originally published Decemeber, 2003 at Ifeminist

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1216blumhorst.html 

A militant feminist catch phrase I keep hearing repeated in various permutations these days is, “Men (male activists) are trying to roll back the hard fought gains women have made.” One must ask the most logical question that comes to mind when reading such a statement, “Are gains by any means, at any cost, at any time justified?” Have today’s American women been so badly deprived and disadvantaged that they can, “carte blanche” use any methods, or break any rules, until the militant feminist version of parity (total power and control) is reached? Have American females of my generation truly known that great of an oppression? Judging by what I’ve seen over my life time this liberated male would have to say, “That is clearly not the case.” However, when fair minded people call for accountability and try to reconcile many of the wild claims made by militant feminists, that same old tired catch phrase keeps being trotted out, “Men are trying to roll back the hard fought gains women have made.”

Without the checks and balances of an equal number of men’s commission, to bring some balance to the gender agenda of America’s militant feminists, the over 270 women’s commissions in America have run amok. Today there is only one men’s commission in America that I know of (New Hampshire).

With so much horrible social engineering, and so many misandrist policies and laws having come about through unchecked militant feminism, the next commission that should be formed, in my opinion, is one to address the constitutional violations of male’s rights. That commission should investigate the dishonesties propagated and disseminated by militant feminism and consider bringing criminal charges on those advocates for women’s gains who used false information, statistical fabrications, or just outright lies.

Militant Feminist, hate propaganda has been preached in the legislatures and courts of America with an ad hominem zeal that defies the egalitarian equal justice and equal protection that both sexes have always had an equal right to under our constitution. The militant feminists’ prejudiced, vilification of males has been relentless and tyrannical in its destruction of men and families. The time must come soon, when men and women of goodwill audit all the actions of the militant feminist movement, if anyone is to escape its destructive ensnaring tentacles.

When will the drive to bring accountability to out of control militant feminists begin, and must men of good will face such an unenviable task alone? Not only does it appear the task has already begun, it very much appears that men have not been left solely to their own means to defend their dwindling rights. A small, but growing, alliance strives to change laws and policies that heretofore sought only “gains for women.” Fortunately for men, women of good will are advocating for a true balancing of the scales of justice. Women of good will are saying that there should be equal justice and equal protection for men as well as women. A new paradigm is confronting the menace of militant feminism, with women of good will saying, “We too have had enough of the hate propaganda and destructive social policies of militant feminists.” The daughters, sisters, mothers, grandmothers, and 2nd wives of men, who have been cannibalized by the rabid depravity of the militant feminist movement, are outraged and exhibiting a defiance towards militant feminism that even targeted men are unable to express. It is through the united good will of these thrown together, disenfranchised citizens that all the people may yet come to know the fresh air of freedom and fairness that once filled our “noble” halls of justice.

We men are not trying to take back the just gains that women have made, and we continue to support all women in their valid goals. Common sense will tell those who know what common sense is, that men and women of good will are merely trying to turn back the unjust tyrannical laws and policies that so many men have suffered under for so long.

Yes, many good women and men of noble integrity have attained many good, and hard fought gains for women. I have supported, and will continue to support women in their just endeavors, but those individuals who have instituted oppressive sexist laws against males under the jack boot tyranny of lies and aggression, I will not support. I will oppose such tyrannical advances adamantly, because those hard fought gains are no more valid, than those by any other out of control fascist who storms into neighboring territories to pillage and lay waste to the innocent occupants living there. The most insidious and despicable of such tyrannies, that is foremost in my mind, is the militant feminist movement, that today plagues so greatly the entire western world. Gains won at the cost of slavery to others (males) are not gains, rather they are a dictatorship.

RE: Rebuttal to Bernard Chapin by Steve Guess
Hi Steve,

I’m doing a chapter today called “What is a Real Man?” which Mike LaSalle will be turning into a “VOICE OF THE GREAT AND NOBLE MIKE LASALLE MND podcast” once I’m done so this will have to be it. I can’t say much more until I’m done which may not be until Tuesday. How I envy you academics! If only the rest of us didn’t have to work. Oh well!

1. Radical feminism is what I critique. Actually, I am an equity feminist who is little different in viewpoint from Daphne Patai, Christina Hoff-Sommers, and Carrie Lukas not to mention the whole gang at IWF and ifeminists.com. Wendy McElroy rocks by the way.
2. Yes, radical feminism is “an intolerant, hateful, useless ideology” and they are little different from the Nazis. Just as with the Nazis they are Manichean thinkers who blame one source for all their troubles. With the Nazis it was the Jews and with the feministas it is white men—if not men in general depending on the works of what particular ignoramus you happen to be reading at the time. Take out the word “Jew” replace it with “man” and the worldviews are exactly the same. Why would a radical feminist USA spare men once it was established? They certainly would not and I provide an illustration of what such a state would look like in my seldom read, and largely forgotten-lol, Napalm is the Scent of Justice. They are socialists and totalitarians just like the Nazis but the lone difference is that they’re internationalists as opposed to nationalists. They also seem to not fit into uniforms as well.
3. I agree that “Feminism is really an APPROACH and technique of ‘‘deconstruction’” but it is also “a particular belief system.” I agree that they certainly are a confused bunch with differing opinions on many things. That is to be expected as their minds are disorganized and corrupt. Most really would be incapable of any kind of productive work were they to be uprooted from their socialist non-profit and federally financed positions, and the great majority of them certainly are irrational, spiteful, haters of both men and women. They hate us but they hate women just as much otherwise they wouldn’t try to order and micromanage their lives for them. They may “offer services for women, including counseling and access to medical services” but it comes with a price which is being exposed to their propaganda. Furthermore, why are we paying for these services to be offered to one sex and not the other?
4. There’s plenty of room for radical feminists in my version of the world. They’re evil inspires and strengthens me. I’d want to take away their state funding but that would be true of many other expenditures in the libertarian utopia which I never will have a chance to erect.
5. Look Steve, I bear you no personal ill will. You’re taking the time to argue and debate. That makes you okay in my book; you’re vastly preferable to the average feminista. Guys like me have no choice but to respect diversity of opinion and, like I said, it makes us stronger. Frankly, I just heard the term “mangina” yesterday and am now having a bit of fun with it. If you say you’re not one then I believe you. You say your “straight” but that question never even crossed my mind. Regardless, I believe you anyway. Why wouldn’t I? Who cares? I only heard the term yesterday from the eminent blogging hero, ChristianJ. I didn’t know that it had any sexual connotations. I thought it just meant a submissive male. Anyway, do what you want. It’s still a free country…for now.
6. Whether particular radical feminist groups claim to be “Marxist” is immaterial. I’ve never seen one who wasn’t a socialist. They look to the government to solve ever problem. Daphne Patai in her Heterophobia makes this point brilliantly by illustrating the “there ought to be a law” mindset. Which radical feminists do you know who aren’t socialists?
7. Glad we both agree that we’re not speaking hatefully to one another.
8. Women are not oppressed. If they don’t make up a majority of the country’s rulers you should ask them why they don’t run for office. It is in their answers that you will have your answer. However, men will always strive for power for a basic biological reason which is that women find powerful men attractive. Powerful men are the ones who obtain the best females ask Henry Kissinger. Although powerful women are not repulsive to men, their power is a trait which is immaterial. Example: Hillary Clinton is just an old lady on top of all her other flaws. That she’s famous, rich, and about to perhaps be President cannot make up for her kankles and repulsive shape. Those last few sentences may teach you more about life than everything you have learned at Berkeley.
9. Many women CHOOSE to be single mothers and the socialist interventions of government allow them to make this CHOICE. I’ve known many of them over the years.
10. Feministas have ruined college athletics by insisting on an equal number of male/female athletes. Surveys have shown that more men want to play sports than girls. That you’re proud to see wrestling, baseball, and swimming programs axed is a testament to how much you’ve been indoctrinated. As a kid, wrestling was an endless source of EARNED self-esteem for me and it’s sad that other boys will be denied what I had as the sport is dying.
11. I use far more proof and citations in my articles and upcoming book than any radical feminist out there. Besides, they deny needing any proof as “The Master’s tools will never dismantle the Masters house.” Many also believe there is no such thing as objectivity.
12. Women should do as they please. If they want to work they should. If their husband can bankroll them, or they are rich already, then they should stay at home if they want to. That’s their choice not ours.
13. You’ll find that I know a lot about these people. I do a pretty good job of taking apart their ideas, but, admittedly, I’m no David Horowitz or Roger Kimball in terms of talent. However, on the left of me I am now stuck with a bookcase full of books that I can’t stand which were acquired solely for the purposes of giving my next book (and the one following that) added legitimacy and power. You can fully review it once I complete it in June or before then if I’m lucky.
14. No “real academic” could rip apart my positions. They’ve been so weakened by ideological conformity and PC that they can barely stand to listen to their students question them nowadays.
15. Lastly, I will give you the last word from here on out as I believe you’ll get responses from everybody else anyway. Regardless of our differences, good luck to you sir, and thanks for debating with me. I sincerely do appreciate it.

Classical liberals need not apply

By Craig J. Cantoni

An ideology is a set of values, beliefs and philosophies. A political candidate who claims to be non-ideological is either lying, brain-dead or devoid of values, beliefs and philosophies.

The Founding Fathers thought of themselves as classical liberals — limited government, free markets, individual responsibility — no connection to what the word liberal means today (generally the opposite of those values).

Because the Democrat and Republican parties have merged into a combined party of big government, party labels no longer indicate ideology. Thus, to know a candidate’s ideology, it’s necessary to ask questions such as the following:

1. Is the primary purpose of government to protect our life, liberty and property, or to give us free stuff, wipe our noses, and tell us what we can do in our bedrooms?

2. Is it unethical, immoral or improper for individuals, groups or businesses to take money that taxpayers put into the public treasury, in the form of handouts, subsidies, grants or tax breaks?

3. Should riders of public transit pay the full cost of their ride at the fare box, or should they be subsidized by tax-paying non-riders; should patrons of the arts pay their full cost at the ticket window or should they be subsidized by tax-paying non-patrons; and should private owners of tax-subsidized sports teams be blasted as moochers or honored as visionaries?

4. Are businesses in the free market better at economic development than the government? If yes, why do both parties support constant intrusive government controls on free enterprise? If no, isn’t that the central planning of socialism, which we know doesn’t work? Isn’t government, which produces nothing, totally dependent on businesses for economic development?

5. Is it wrong for government workers to have better pay, medical insurance, pensions and job security than private-sector workers who pay for those government-worker benefits? Similarly, is it in the public’s interest for firefighters, police officers, school teachers and other public-sector workers to form unions when they already have massive civil-service protections?

7. Would moral citizens help the poor without being coerced to do so by the government? If government takes money from one person, and gives it to another it deems “worthy” or “needy,” isn’t that theft? Where in the Constitution is that sort of redistribution of wealth authorized? If it’s not, does voting for such handouts violate your oath of office?

8. Do you prefer the philosophies of John Locke, Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, or the philosophies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Georg W.F. Hegel and Franklin D. Roosevelt? Do you know the difference?

Few candidates can answer these questions (if they did so truthful) relying on the “classical liberal” ideology of our Founders. Accordingly, they would have no chance of being elected to mayor, dog catcher or any political office in today’s USSA (United Socialist States of America).

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

The lamestream media told you:

A review of records conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics found a decline in cancer deaths for the second year in a row. This is “real progress” according to wire service reports that ran nationwide, “confirming that a corner has been turned.”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

While a two-year drop in this medical field is heralded as tremendous progress, last year’s announcement that it was only the third hottest year on record was featured as a terrible sign that global warming is rampant.

Why a two-year decrease is good but a three-year low is bad was not explained. Critics charge the news media is inconsistent because it follows a pre-set agenda, regardless of facts.

New reports now claim last year was the hottest on record. A reason for the discrepancy was not provided, and the discrepancy was not even mentioned.

News that cancer treatment is improving is good.

One of the most impressive ideas I’ve ever heard was put forth by Christopher Hitchens in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian. He believes that we always profit from debating our opponents as the act of responding to one another propels us towards the ultimate truth. Based on my experiences, Hitchens is absolutely right. Just as doing sets of bench presses cause our muscles to grow, the mind is strengthened by the process of intellectual exchange. Interaction with our enemies makes us fitter.

All of this is undeniable and essential to the marketplace of ideas, but, sadly, the situation today is far different than it was in the past. Political correctness has eroded both civility and the possibility of dispassionate contention. Should one contradict the inflexible views of the cultural Marxist, then one is dismissed as a spouter of “hate speech” as opposed to someone who may have a legitimate point-of-view. There’s little likelihood that this will ever change as unfettered response negates the possibility of indoctrination which is exactly why PC became practiced in the first place. Only by labeling their foes with a name—such as hater, racist, homophobe, sexist, and/or misogynist—can leftist anti-liberals win the moral high ground allowing them to overlook the arguments made against them. The tossing of isms is a horrific replacement for logic and accuracy because they are rehearsed and tell us nothing about real people. Resorting to such a tactic only illustrates weakness; a weakness of which we on the other side have long been aware.

Their strange perception of the world is rarely an outcome of reality or reason. I think that a lot of their positions satisfy psychologically for one reason or another. Their skewed predilections supply them with a crutch throughout life. Spinning webs of conspiracy and fable alternately stimulate and sooth, and also are a way in which to control their environment. For this reason, we can never hope to convince them of anything at all. Our battles are chiefly of indirect benefit alone. They are a way in which to persuade intentional or unintentional observers as to the rightness of our cause. Hearing us or seeing our words may be the only intellectual diversity to which some students every encounter. We should not blame younger people for repeating mindless non-sense if mindless non-sense is the only information they have ever received. We offer them an alternative; without it, they’ll think that submission to white guiltists, female supremacists, emotioniacs, socialists, racists, and those who think that Majdanek is a synonym for America is their only option.

In no area is debate more tenuous than with the feminists and their coveted myth of women’s oppression. Their privilege renders them far above any fray. We make logical arguments while our foes brand us as woman haters and sexists. Our responses to isms are ignored as they continue to go about the business of remaking the justice system, society, and our personal relationships. Yet, like most other situations, there are always deviations from the set pattern. One such irregularity occurred today when I got a response to a piece that I wrote about the ridiculousness of regarding women as oppressed. I have no idea who or what the person is, but one of the guys termed him a “mangina”[i] which is probably true enough. At any rate, I thank him for his rejoinder because his words helped crystallize my positions and I’ll respond to him momentarily.

Ironically, the idea that women are not oppressed received independent confirmation from the Baltimore Sun. If there were any truth to the idea that men sit atop the social hierarchy then one would not expect them to have published Ms. Dombrowski’s scathing criticism of the patriarchy, but they did. My response, however, was rejected. The editor told me, “Thanks for the offer, but I can’t use this on the op-ed page.”[ii] Shouldn’t my genitalia have opened the door to privilege?

Are Women Objectified?

Let’s go over this again: women are not objectified by men…period. We know this to be true as men do not gaze or interact with women in the same manner they do objects. Allow me to ask my brothers reading this as to what objects they affix their “male gaze” as they do women? I am sure the answer is none. Men behold women in a fashion unlike anything else on earth. One examines the fairer sex differently from the way one studies a monitor, an oven, a refrigerator, a hose, a book, a building, and a car. No, women are clearly not objectified by men. No object absorbs a man’s attention like a woman. One becomes habituated to many things but never women. Objectification is an argument so poor that it cannot even stand up to a puppy’s first breath.

The argument was raised that women looking at pictures of themselves in magazines is also a form of objectification [I know, I can’t believe it either] but this is false as well. Those women who gaze at other women are perfectly aware of their being flesh and blood as opposed to objects. For whatever reason they may come to ogle a picture, their eyes do so with the realization that what’s on the page is a person and not a thing. Being a compulsive shopper or consumer is certainly is shallow in my estimation, but one does not become an object by participating in such activities.

If we define objectified as meaning “appreciated for” then we can find some common ground on the topic. Men appreciate women for their youth and beauty, but they are not dehumanized by our doing so; no more than men are dehumanized by women appreciating them for their wealth, status, and security.

The Comfy Patriarchy Means…

That there is no patriarchy. Radical feminists pathologically refuse to acknowledge how blessed and easy their lives are, but, when pressed, they occasionally admit that the patriarchy is not an oppressive system in any of the traditional meanings of the word. One made mention to me that we do not live in a Planet of the Apes society but remain a patriarchy nonetheless. If the patriarchy commits crimes that we cannot see, hear, or catch then it isn’t much of a patriarchy at all. One cannot be oppressed in a society in which one has been given an infinite number of rights and benefits. If it looks like the good life, feels like the good life, but one’s own internal inadequacies prevent them from enjoying it, then it remains the good life. These feminists should learn to be more critical of themselves and take it easier on those around them. They’ll be much more happy and productive if they do.

Some, like Susan Faludi, have argued that men are harmed by the patriarchy, but this cannot possibly be true for the reasons she outlined. Pressure to conform to the standards of masculinity is something that troubles few men. What we really long for is the right to be ourselves which is exactly the opposite of what Faludi and many others hold. Competitiveness, vigor, valor, and responsibility are manly virtues even if they are found in women as well. With therapism and emotion celebrated over bravery, honor, and effort, our society has become the complete antithesis of a patriarchy. That our society is closer to being a matriarchy than anything else is a very real cause of frustration to many men.

The Real Misogynists:

That women wish to raise children is not a social construct. It is an effect of biology shaping personality. This was known to Simone de Beauvoir who said: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”[iii] Things haven’t changed since she died and they won’t for as long as we remain humans. Linda Hirshman wrote Get Back to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World in which she insists that women stop putting their own needs and desires before her leftist-socialist ideals. Here we see once again why “feminazi” is such a rich and valuable term of description. When women, or anybody else for that matter, disagree with these totalitarian types they are quick to dismiss their opinions as arising from false consciousness. It’s their way or you’re an ism. Why can’t they just respect other people’s diversity? Thinking that women don’t know what’s actually good for them is the height of condescension and misogyny. That they need imbalanced feministas to make their decisions is absurd. In this way, feminists, the self-proclaimed protectors of women, are the oppressors. Free men, who only expect women to be no more or less responsible than ourselves, are falsely accused in the hopes of obfuscating the issue. If women want to stay home or work they should make the decision for on their own, and not out of a concern for what the media, society or some pathetic harpies think.

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

On Thursday, members of the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles flew and drove to Sacramento to attend a trial in Superior Court on Friday.  The lawsuit was addressing areas of California law, where it alleges California discriminates against men in domestic violence law, and in programs & services available for Mothers (but not Fathers) in CA prisons. Here is a link to a story that ran in the Capitol weekly.

http://www.capitolweekly.net/news/article.html?article_id=1246

The reporter appears to have stated some info incorrectly, but overall it appears fairly accurate.

Also, here’s an online link to the lawsuit.

http://www.mensbiz.net/subpage%20woods%20neff.html

Here’s a photo taken of a truck, belonging to one of NCFMLA’s members, as the truck was setting in front of the State Capitol on Thursday.  As you can see in this, and subsequent photos, it was somewhat overcast on Thursday and Friday.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/SacramentoDVtrial/P1250018a.jpg

Here’s another sign that was shown to the public and politicians in front of CA’s State Capitol.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/SacramentoDVtrial/P1250021a.jpg

Several people from the Capitol building came up and talked about the meaning of the truck sign and the men’s issues it addressed.  They also took NCFMLA fliers that explained the organization’s perspective on men’s issues.

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

Friday morning, the NCFMLA member’s truck was parked in front of the Superior Court bldg. on 9th street from about 7 - 9:30 A.M. - just before the trial started.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/SacramentoDVtrial/P1260031a.jpg

A lot of people looked at the display, and some who looked, stopped and stared curiously. Here’s what they saw from the steps leading to the Superior Court bldg.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/SacramentoDVtrial/P1260034a.jpg

The National Coalition of Free Men was certainly presenting itself in a diplomatic and informative manner, yet trying to convey men’s issues in a realistic light.  Some might say the “victim card” was being played, yet many passers by appeared pleased to see men’s issues being presented so honestly and openly in California’s capitol.

The 375 miles up to Sacramento on Thursday, and 375 miles back to Los Angeles on Friday, was a whirlwind trip, but one well worth making.  It was a trip that most likely needs to be made again, and again, and again, ad infinitum, considering the decades that gender feminist biases have been enshrined into California’s laws.

Although the trial is still ongoing, perhaps California will begin to write a new chapter in its history (with the help of the National Coalition of Free Men, and its friends and supporters).   Perhaps that chapter will be one that truly enshrines gender equality and gender fairness into law, instead of the misandry that California, in recent decades, has become so infamous for.

The lamestream media told you:

Boys are imitating the Saddam hanging by hanging themselves, according to widespread Associated Press and other wire service reports: “They don’t realize it’s dangerous,” according to the news, and they just mimic what they see with deadly results.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The lamestream media steadfastly insists that popular entertainment they eagerly promote, including violent American TV programs, death-filled Hollywood films, blood-lust home video games and vicious gangsta rap music, have no effect on boys or our lifestyles, and efforts to control such things are just a sick plot by morally defective right-wing Christian zealots. Go figure.

The lamestream media told you:

Democrats congratulated themselves on passage of their six top-priority bills in their self-imposed 100-hour sprint for the 110th Congress. Whether the bills will pass the Senate, or survive a veto from the president, who is not a member of their party but is not very bright, is unknown.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The House introduced a mind-numbing 658 resolutions in the first 100 hours of congressional floor time, unreported by the “news” media.

All of the language appears to have been written before the session began, mostly by unelected teams of democratic operatives outside public view, presumably as part of the Democrats’ promised ethics reforms.

For the six passed bills, the committee process, floor debate, floor markups, amendments, deletions, rules and procedural questions were avoided as part of new ethical policies. This eliminated from the process rank and file congressmen, including eager freshman legislators from both parties, none of whom were interviewed on how they feel about that.

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the highly admired first woman Speaker of the House, has called the new approach, “open, fair and full debate,” and “open, honest and ethical government.” She was not questioned on the discrepancy by the unbiased media.

No reporting covered the 658 resolutions, which are intended to become laws, and covered for example a Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, a Bring The Troops Home Act, a Coal to Liquid Fuel Promotion Act, and a NICS Improvement Act, H.R. 297, which affects national firearms background checks for the public. The reason for the “news” media blackout were unclear.

“The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007″ H.R. 256, has no details posted at this time. A toy gun ban, H.R. 428, involving the Consumer Products Safety Commission, has no details posted at this time.

The “Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007,” H.R. 96, is listed but no information is currently available. The previous and poorly named gun show loophole act, sponsored by Sen. John McCain, was designed to close down gun shows completely. That bill was thoroughly examined at gunlaws.com.

[Note: Because the Gun Law Update and Page Nine lists overlap, you may have seen some of this info already.] Under the original draft, currently legal gun shows are outlawed without prior federal permission. Gun show promoters must agree to warrantless searches in order to operate, and may be arrested if private citizens talk at the show about gun sales they wish to complete away from the show. I did not make that up. The right to assemble peaceably at a gun show or even plan for one, carries stiff prison terms unless federal licenses are issued in advance.

Massive new bureaucracy is created because all shows and their exhibitors must be registered 30 days before the show, then again 72 hours before the show, and again five days after the show. That’s in addition to registering anyone who walks in, plus “any other information” the Secretary of the Treasury decides, by regulation, is necessary on vendors, attendees, and the show itself.

Critics pointed out that none of this deals with the criminals, or background checks, and the rest of the bill just gets worse.

See the 658 bills your House of Representatives introduced and that the lamestream media failed to tell you about here, by clicking “110″ and “All” and “House Bills Only.”

The cost of the bills is unknown. The amount of tax increase included is unknown. The unpaid Uninvited Ombudsman cannot possibly spend the time to do that research, and invites readers to try. “News” outlets avoid that work because it is no longer their job to inform the public. About 49,000 words of new law passed the House.

“News” reports did include the votes on the six bills that passed, like ball scores, but following standard procedure did not provide the bill numbers, which would allow the public to look up the bills themselves.

The lamestream media told you:

Four Tennessee National Guard soldiers abandoned their post on the Arizona/Mexico border on Jan. 3 and retreated for cover when four men apparently carrying rifles approached their position from Mexico, from about 100 yards away.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

On Jan. 20, government officials responding to outrage from members of Congress and the public, clarified this tale by claiming six to eight men, “wearing bullet proof vests and carrying automatic weapons” approached the observation post and, having split into two teams, came within 20 yards of the Guard troops.

How four men became eight was unexplained by the “legislative liaisons” for the Guard and Border Patrol who delivered the prepared statement. How they determined the bulletproof nature of the clothing of the apparent intruders, or that their weapons were full auto was unexplained. Why the troops believed they could safely run from machine-gun wielding invaders who faced them nearly point blank on U.S. soil was not explained. Why the story changed was not explained, which, unlike the public, reporters didn’t question. No shots were fired in the current version of the story.

Cynics believe it’s business as usual, as the real details are materially suppressed by people in charge. National Guard Maj. Paul Aguirre said, “We truly consider it a professional response.” No reporters asked how many invaders the guard would have to run away from before it was not a truly professional response.

Arizona Governor Napolitano’s spokeswoman said the troops, “followed the rules of engagement precisely.” No one in the public sector has any idea of what those rules are, or if the Guard actually followed rules of disengagement.

The current story is in direct conflict with the previous story, but papers issued no correction of their previous reports. “We accurately reported what the government told us, so no correction is needed,” a reporter was overheard mumbling.

One National Guard officer known to The Uninvited Ombudsman, who served on the border recently, said he carried his loaded rifle and ammunition the entire time.

And in other news, Tennessee Adjutant Gen. Gus Hargett announced he will travel to Arizona to present a commendation to the four National Guard men who retreated from their post. “Who are these people?” members of the public wondered.

The soldiers’ names have not been released.

So think about this — how will these men brag about what they did for their new award? It’s hard to imagine how they will explain away the commendation to their kids and grandkids. Go ahead — suggest an appropriate design for this award. A squad pictured from behind?

The lamestream media told you:

Guns are bad, and more people shot other people than usual recently. Observers have observed a noticeable uptick in guns-are-bad stories in the press since Democrats took control of Congress, which will hopefully convince those legislators to, “do something.”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

This year’s Shooting, Hunting and Outdoors Trade (SHOT) Show in Orlando encompassed 656,000 square feet of exhibit space, a gain of 40,000 over last year, with 1,870 exhibiting companies, up from last year’s 1,846.

According to preliminary figures, SHOT attracted 20,390 commercial buyers, 1,342 members of the industry’s trade press, 19,990 exhibiting personnel and 494 guests for a record total attendance of 42,216. Few lamestream reports came out on the massive business event for an unknown reason.

A news search on Google reveals more than 100 SHOT Show articles already published online, and one business segment scheduled on CNBC, confirming critics fears that the web carries news and the news carries nothing.

American consumers purchase between five and nine BILLION rounds of ammunition every year, according to an unpublished study done by the Uninvited Ombudsman for a think tank.

When the SHOT Show was held in Orlando in 2003 it spanned 511,600 square feet of exhibit space and drew 27,500 total attendance. The 2007 show is 28 percent bigger, with 53 percent more attendees.

Is there any greater act of cowardice than ignoring the opinions of your foes? Pundits who set up straw men, pretend that their opposition does not exist, and/or shout down their peers, do not so much as win arguments so they do in promote mass confusion. If you want to find truth and persuade others then you should study and vigorously refute the works of your opponents. This is particularly true with the bugbear of women’s (supposed) oppression in America. Even though it seems bizarre for anyone to survey the landscape and regard women as disfavored, the positions of feminist critics must be taken seriously. Jenny Dombrowski, in an article[i] recently penned for the Baltimore Sun is one such commentator. In a piece called “There’s Still Plenty Left for Women to Fight For,” she spouts positions that are fairly standard and commonplace among the nation’s grievance mongers:

If indeed the women’s movement is over, then why are women still treated as objects in our society? We are inundated with images of perfection at every turn: from the check-out line of the grocery store to the movie theater to the billboards along the highway. We’re informed how to slim our thighs. We’re made the object of ridicule and rescue in most films. Then there’s the overwhelming presence of pornography. A simple Google search for “porn” elicits more than 85 million hits. What this leads to is the most sweeping social issues of our society: eating disorders, poor self-esteem, sexual harassment, violence and abuse. Every two minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in America. And women still make 74 cents for every $1 a man makes, according to news reports. How’s that for “women’s lib”?

Although her accusations are quite preposterous, I will live up to my burden of rejoinder by analyzing them because crazed feminists multiply and become more powerful when good men think they’re above responding to them.

Are women treated as objects in our society? Of course not, the only justification for such thinking arises from their often being handled like religious relics. Pleasing them and meeting their needs is now the basis of our societal structure along with our domestic laws, consumer goods, and perhaps television in general.[ii] They are the lords and masters of the land. Ms. Dombrowski would be wise to look up “equitable paternity”[iii] or a host of other inequitable decisions within the legal system if she truly has any interest in ascertaining the nature of Woman’s true status. It seems that nothing will ever satiate the activist’s desire to unbalance the playing field as they have “championed blatant favoritism toward mothers in child custody disputes, often to the point of vilifying fathers” which has resulted in a stance best described as “maternal chauvinism.”[iv] The Duke lacrosse case, in which feminism mixed with the media’s acquiescence to the edicts of political correctness, nearly had dire consequences for the young men cast as villains by the authors of that PC fairy tale. In North Carolina we learned that women certainly do lie about rape and that there is no shortage of men who will believe them.[v]

Concerning imagery, if women are so inundated with snapshots of perfection in check out lines then they need look no further than to themselves for the placement of blame. Women, as opposed men, are the major purchasers of publications featuring the likes of Jennifer Lopez, Brittany Spears, and Christina Aguilera. Does anyone truly believe that Cosmopolitan, The Star, The National Enquirer, and Shape are written for a male audience? This is merely yet another example of feminist mental concreteness. They are so low functioning they suspect that their peers will binge and purge or suction down a bottle of Prozac every time they see a starlet in a leotard. People just aren’t like that. Most women are either motivated by or indifferent to visual representations. Were they not, there would not an obesity problem. They could just flip through Women’s Health and never eat pizza again. Sadly, most feminists no more know their constituents than they do the decade in which the First World War broke out. Lastly, if women are informed of ways to slim their thighs it’s because they asked to be; if they didn’t, then the glossies wouldn’t sell. It is fortunate that they do because excess fat weakens the joints, the heart, and the skin while a lack of exercise retards the brain.

Ms. Dombrowski also does not like the way in which women are represented in film. I have to agree with her here as it seems to me that women are inordinately depicted as heroines and champions while men are portrayed as wimps or psychopaths. Apparently though, she does not see movies I do and brings up the phantom bogeyman of ridicule. I guess she has never heard of Oxygen or Lifetime, cable channels devoted entirely to presenting women as empowered superheroes—a perspective that can be ironically juxtaposed with the channels’ actual viewership which consists of irritable, discombobulated, depressioniacs.

The notion of women being rescued also bothers her. I guess she’d be happier if they were shown getting snuffed out and their bodies left in ditches. This would allow for true equality as more women getting whacked on TV would convince young impressionable minds that sleeping with the fishes isn’t something reserved for men alone. In all seriousness though, any discussion here is immaterial as the individual perspectives of filmmakers have nothing to do with the stance of the state. The only remedy for her claim would be government censorship. I have no doubt that corrupt senators like Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy would be happy to “man” such a committee, but I do hope that they’ll consider adopting my suggested name for it before beginning their inquisitions: “The National Association of Zeitgeist Interrogators” is not taken as far as I know and would make for an acronym which reveals both their personal dispositions and domineering domestic agenda.

How unfortunate it is that Ms. Dombrowski brought up a word like “rescue” in her harangue because her stated rationale for writing the piece elucidates her being a person very much in need of deliverance—at least professionally. She is a graduate teaching assistant at George Washington University (presumably), but the job appears to have done little to bolster her abilities. She is so emotionally and intellectually fragile that she once had to flee the classroom rather than listen to a student contradict her about the need for a men’s movement. These must be heady days for women if disagreements with others provide them with a legitimate excuse for walking off their jobs. Here we have an individual so privileged that she can make her intolerance, cowardice, and incompetence publicly known without fear of reprisal. Clearly, being a leftist academic is nice work if you can get it. Ms. Dombrowski possesses the life of leisure, luxury, and the warm fuzzies which emanate from the diminishment of your students’ knowledge base.

Then we come to porn [with these people, what doesn’t begin with porn?]. It seems that lurid imagery is ubiquitous nowadays which means…nothing. Her argument is a non-starter. Erotica doesn’t oppress women. It generally doesn’t do much more than allow one to get some extra sleep. Many people purchase or freely obtain pornography and the act of doing so does not lead to the pathologies she outlines. Clearly, with such a wild accusation, the burden of proof lies on the side of the claimant, and this claimant has offered us none. If Ms. Dombrowski does not like raunchy flicks and pics then I suggest that she not watch them. Otherwise, she should offer up some support for her quips. Of course, we know that porn is not anti-woman because, if it were, then a large chuck of the market would not be devoted to the entertainment of gay males. No doubt that these fellows would be mightily disappointed should their cherished steroid freaks be replaced by 40 DD silicone queens. The plain fact is that women aren’t oppressed by people looking at nude representations and neither is anyone else. Generally, most feminists try to separate themselves from the magically insane world of the, now deceased, Andrea Dworkin, but I guess Ms. Dombrowski remains interested in subletting a bit of space upon that twisted archipelago.

As for the maladies she describes, there is no causality between them and her previously mentioned complaints. Anorexia is a serious psychiatric condition and one with a high co-morbidity[vi] with other disorders. It does not come about as a result of looking at magazines or understanding that fat is a cardio-vascular, rather than feminist, issue. By implying otherwise, she demeans those women afflicted with it; the same women with whom she pretends to take an interest.

Concerning psychopathology, it is present within a small minority of humans across all populations. Cruelty and sadism are not manufactured in a printer’s shop; nor are they an outcome of using “he” instead of “he or she” in daily speech. Sexual harassment is one of the areas in which feminists are known to lie the most,[vii] but we should expect this given the subjective and non-substantive nature of the “crime.” Within the Sexual Harassment Industry, all the outrageous bias, dishonor, and mendaciousness of the feminists is prominently on display—a rotten infrastructure which Christina Hoff-Sommers labeled: “Ms. Information.”[viii] The appalling unfairness of their positions is evident in the response a feminist professor gave when accused of sexual harassment. It seems she kissed her students upon a podium and then announced, “graduate students are my sexual preference.”[ix] Once caught, she argued that no charges against her were possible by definition alone as “[f]emale sexual harasser seems like a contradiction in terms…feminism invented sexual harassment…[it] is a way men obstruct women from doing work.”[x] Luckily for the country, semantics has yet to officially replace fact as a determiner of guilt.

Then we come to the “pay gap” complaint which illustrates that a lie remains a lie no matter how many times you repeat it. No proof is offered for her 74 percent figure and that’s because there is none. Interestingly enough, at work I saw a government poster citing this same exact figure but no evidence or rationale is provided upon it either (but it does show how much our state is guided by activists). When single women are compared to single men, “the gap” between them is only 5 percent.[xi] The presence of married women in the configuration increases the disparity as many of them decide to put their energies into their children and family rather than careers.[xii] The job I currently hold is one such example as I was my employer’s second choice. It was offered to someone else first, but she declined it due to the position being full-time. Millions of men wish that they had her choice; we work all day or we die. Feminists like Ms. Dombrowski avoid nuance altogether when discussing the wage differential. That women take more time off, avoid jobs requiring relocation or travel, work for fewer hours, and shun high risk jobs are major factors behind the insignificant chasm.[xiii] Varying priorities, as opposed to discrimination, is its root cause.[xiv]

What’s the solution to all this whining disguised as argumentation? Ms. Dombrowski knows:

A good first step would be standing up and demanding that Congress pass the Equal Rights
Amendment, which was first introduced in 1923 and has yet to pass. Why the fuss? Because the ERA
plainly states: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
by any state on account of sex.”

Of course, Ms. Dombrowski is totally wrong because such a law is already on the books. In this statement we witness the radical feminist incapacity for abstract thought along with their complete lack of education. The Equal Rights Amendment wasn’t passed for a variety of reasons, but none was more convincing than the fact that it was completely superfluous. Discrimination based on sex has been prohibited for over 40 years due to the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It states repeatedly throughout its provisions that it is unlawful to discriminate based on an “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…”[xv]

Since 1964, women have possessed exactly the same rights as everybody else, so how’s that for women’s lib? They came, they saw, they won, and now they act as if it never happened. Kenneth Minogue said it best: Feministas are “intellectuals without an intellect.”[xvi]

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island, and is currently at work on a book concerning women. This is a four page excerpt from a chapter he just finished on women and supremacy. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

Korwin’s new superhero idol, Counterintuitive Man, says:

Liberals say, “Cut down no more trees,” a totally conservative approach!

Conservatives say, “Cut the trees down faster,” a very liberal approach!

Liberals say, “Stop drilling for oil,” which is total conservation!

Conservatives say, “Drill everywhere, right now,” a totally liberal drilling policy!

Liberals say, “No one should have a gun,” as conservative as you can get!

Conservatives say, “Every home should have guns and ammo,” a completely liberal sprinkling of firearms!

Liberals say, “Keep religion out of everything,” thoroughly conserving the spread of godliness!

Conservatives say, “Wear your religious beliefs on your sleeve,” to liberally spread godliness everywhere!

Liberals say, “You should give up what you have (like your money through taxes) for everyone else’s benefit, or you’re heartless,” a totally conservative approach to your life (and money)!

Conservatives say, “You should keep all your money (like with steep tax cuts) to use as you see fit for charity or your own benefit, and not be a bleeding heart,” a totally liberal use of your life (and money)!

Liberalism, “the left,” is a euphemism for socialism — the arch enemy of the American way, and it’s “bad”!

Conservatism, “the right,” is a euphemism for fascism, also the arch enemy of the American dream, and it’s also “bad”!

Lefty socialists seek collectivism and communal benefits, the opposite of individual freedom to do as you please!

Righty fascists seek state control and authoritarian rule, the opposite of individual freedom to do as you please!

The left and right promote Orwellian tyranny and should be flatly rejected as a matter of policy!

Religion, morality, low taxes, limited government powers, an armed public, married families, free markets, free enterprise, secure borders — these aren’t right wing (or left wing), these are CENTRIST, the core values that have made America great!

Calling America’s core values one-sided is a deceptive effort by America’s enemies, foreign and domestic, to unbalance the country!

Yes — it’s not the left vs. the right, it’s the state vs. you — no?

While the news media gushed about Democrats passing six bills in a mere 100 hours (without committee hearings, floor debate, markup or rules), they failed to mention the party introduced 658 resolutions for new laws they plan to enact.

Four new gun laws proposed:

“The NICS Improvement Act,” H.R. 297. NICS is the national firearms background checks for the public required by the Brady law.

“The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007,” H.R.256.

“The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007,” H.R. 96.

A toy gun ban, H.R. 428, involving the Consumer Products Safety Commission.

Though the bills have been introduced and are presumably written and ready to go, the party has posted no information on them at this time. I’ll be watching closely and will circulate details when they become available. Tell your friends to sign on to these reports if they want early news of the attack on gun rights now being planned. Send an email to alan@gunlaws.com and indicate if you’re in Arizona for special local updates too.

The unethical travesty of focusing attention on six bills, while introducing hundreds of others, will be addressed in an upcoming Page Nine report from The Uninvited Ombudsman. Sign up for that the same way as above.

The previous and poorly named gun-show loophole act, sponsored by Sen. John McCain, was designed to close down gun shows completely. That bill was thoroughly examined at gunlaws.com.

Under the original draft, currently legal gun shows are outlawed without prior federal permission. Gun show promoters must agree to warrantless searches in order to operate, and may be arrested if private citizens talk at the show about gun sales they wish to complete away from the show. The right to assemble peaceably at a gun show or even plan for one, carries stiff prison terms unless federal licenses are issued in advance. I am not making this up.

Massive new bureaucracy is created because all shows and their exhibitors must be registered 30 days before the show, then again 72 hours before the show, and again five days after the show. That’s in addition to registering anyone who walks in, plus “any other information” the Secretary of the Treasury decides, by regulation, is necessary on vendors, attendees, and the show itself.

Critics pointed out that none of this deals with the criminals, or background checks, and the rest of that bill just gets worse.

See the 658 bills your House of Representatives introduced and that the lamestream media failed to tell you about here, by clicking “110″ and “All” and “House Bills Only.”

The lamestream media told you:

“Democrats think the government should leverage Medicare’s 43 million beneficiaries to win steep discounts from drug manufacturers. Republicans, ever wary of big government, think competition among private drug plans would keep prices down,” writes Tony Pugh for the McClatchy Newspaper chain, one of the nation’s media giants.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The insidious nature of media bias has gotten worse, as reporters find new ways to subtly twist stories to avoid detection.

“If you’re going to use a disparaging phrase against one party (”Republicans, ever wary of big government”), you should use something similar against both (”Democrats, rarely shy about using the coercive power of government”) the Uninvited Ombudsman says. “Better yet, don’t use them at all,” he says.

The Uninvited Ombudsman campaigns against blatant news spin, bias and deception, an unpopular position in the “news” industry that wins him few friends there.

“And if you’re going to use positive present tense (”to win steep discounts”) for one plan, don’t use doubtful conditionals for the other (”think competition would”), unless your goal is to be biased, and mislead gullible readers into believing your world view is correct and should dominate.

Contrary to some unflattering reports, The Uninvited Ombudsman is a moderate.

The lamestream media told you:

Carbon dioxide, produced from the burning of fossil fuels, is the primary greenhouse gas. U.S. emissions of this gas have increased an average of 1% per year since 1990, according to H. Josef Hebert writing for the Associated Press. No source for the information was provided. Limits on U.S. industry will be needed to save the earth, and are being planned, he reports.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Carbon dioxide, the gas all people exhale when they breathe, is being blamed for an increase in earth’s temperature, but this human component is never discussed.

The amount of carbon dioxide emitted by six billion human beings must be having an effect, since they breathe non-stop 24 hours a day, but only industry, transport and the economy are being attacked for their emissions.

Since humans average one-third of a day sleeping, using almost no transport, energy or economy during that time yet continuing to breathe or even snore, their contribution to global warming, if real, may be more significant than previously believed.

Communist China, with more than one billion breathers, would be the world’s largest single contributor to the problem, if real.

Anyone who can estimate the amount of CO2 gas emitted by humans should contact The Uninvited Ombudsman with that information.

By Bernard Chapin

It’s 2007 A.D. and most of us are aware that a major part of the population no longer believes that marriage should be confined to the practice of one sex marrying the other. In fact, it may soon become a fundamental right of citizenship for any person within the diversity spectrum to receive the state’s imprimatur after pairing off with whoever or whatever they want. So, imagine my surprise, given the nature of our society, to discover an article in The New York Times which seemed to indicate that the decision to get married was one made entirely by women. Its title is “51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse,” and it happens to be the Times most popular article at this moment.[i] In its paragraphs, the reporters refuse to examine the attitudes of men alongside those of women which results in it providing a false description of reality. This is intentional, of course, as it furthers the paper’s implicit goal of pursuing female empowerment at all costs.

That the story was placed in the “National” section is rather odd as there really is nothing newsworthy about it. For many years we have known that the marriage is rate is declining so its central theme—that more women live without a husband today than ever before—is perfectly obvious. There’s nothing novel here, but its purpose is not to inform but to persuade. The angle allows the paper to imply that fewer women are married to men and that they are better off because of it. Please take note of the biased word selection in these sentences:

“At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods. At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting [my emphasis] in their newfound freedom.”

“Delighting” is a most unusual, and clearly conscious, choice. The reporters have to be this heavy-handed as joy is the plotted message so it is immaterial that rates of depression are increasing dramatically as is the fact that women are twice as likely to suffer from it than men. A more accurate word would have been “lamenting” or “despairing,” but that would have imploded the reporters’ pre-determined conclusions.

Like with many other journalistic endeavors, random persons are selected to bolster the story’s veracity, yet the sample demographics are totally skewed. All of the seven voices from the street are female, and, predictably, they are uniformly enthusiastic about their unmanned state. Not a one expresses the slightest trepidation or regret about their situation or the future which made these columns read like a fable. The opinions of normal men were excluded entirely. Thus, we learn nothing about marital relationships as they are symbiotic in nature. The truth can never be known regarding marriage if one only analyzes the opinions of one sex.[ii]

“Several factors are driving the statistical shift” is mentioned, but none of these include male choice. Perhaps the authors believe that men have no choice and that we will pant like jackals at whatever soft and relatively hairless specimens are put before us. Either way, the very real possibility of fewer women living with husbands due to fewer men wanting to marry them is never examined. I am certain, as are others, that such a conclusion is far closer to the truth than this Valentine to the sistahood. Although, even as a love note, the piece fails to fulfill its objective. One woman’s views are slightly comical: “‘Marriage kind of aged me because there weren’t options…There was only one way to go. Now I have choices. One night I slept on the other side of the bed, and I thought, I like this side.’” [Well, you could always…no, why bother.] Another woman was a fount of unwitting hilarity due to the way she was photographed. Emily Zuzik is going sans mate and living the high life—which would have been more believable had she not been shot alone on the couch stroking her cat. Actually, it’s tough to write satire that good. Such a camera angle would be more appropriate for The Onion than the self-titled paper of record. Another source was highly compromised. “Professor Coontz” is mentioned three times in the report due to her writing a book called Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage. What the reporters neglect to mention is that she is a radical activist who is on the advisory board of a publication called Against the Current which is published by the “independent socialist organization,” Solidarity. A plank in their mission statement reads:

“We fight for women’s liberation, and for women’s equality today. The oppression of women within the family and in society divides the working class, keeps women’s wages low and burdens women unequally in the task of social reproduction.”

“Within the family” sort of stands out here, might she have a hidden agenda? Rather than Professor Coontz, perhaps a better moniker would be Ms. “Oppressed Proletarian spying on capitalists and just faking the life of a wealthy, privileged academic.”

This piece, like so much else appearing in The New York Times, belongs in the Op-Ed section because it is nothing more than advocacy journalism. The attempt to cajole women into abandoning marriage for the cat-life will fail, however. Most of their target audience is far too lucid to confuse the Taj Mahal with Treblinka. Western marriage offers women a maddening array of legal, social, and personal entitlements. That so many radical feminists and their fellow traveling journalists miss this point is a testament to their being deluded by their own propaganda.

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

The lamestream media told you:

The Congressional Black Caucus held it’s photo-op swearing in ceremony, for its 43 black legislators, right after the real swearing in ceremony on the floor of Congress.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Few people got to see the ceremony since it occurred in the middle of a business day, but the good news is I was there to watch it for you and shed some light on what this part of Congress is like. The large and predominantly black audience let out gasps that went unreported in the “news” but could be heard off-camera on C-SPAN.

Emcee Dr. Michael Eric Dyson introduced his favorite female Congresswoman as, “Ebony ecstasy in coffee flesh.” The Reverend Jesse Jackson could not be reached for comment, to see if he agrees, but the audience seemed to be taken aback.

When the least black representative stood for his introduction the audience let out surprised gasps, to which emcee Dyson responded, “He IS a brother! I know ya’ll was wondering… y’all thought the CBC had affirmative action going here!” I am not making this up.

When Keith Ellison was introduced — the Muslim who took his oath on the Quoran which calls for Sharia law to come before all other law — the emcee noted the fact by improvising, “Praise be to Allah,” which drew groans and sounds of discomfort from the audience out of the camera’s view.

Dr. Dyson responded by remarking, “People who swear on the Bible be lying all the time anyway. If you lying the book don’t matter,” which led to quiet booing.

The program ended with a call-and-reply gospel-style pep speech from CBC leader Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Mich.) who said they were doing God’s work, and she had to leave for her committee assignment so she could, “Bring our money home to our 40 million black constituents,” which got soft cheers. She said she hoped she got a committee with $100 billion so she could do some good.

William Jefferson, who is under investigation for $90,000 of suspected bribe money found by the FBI in his freezer, got a standing ovation.

Except for the ovation, news reports failed to mention any of this, for reasons which remain unclear. The CBC is officially non-partisan.

The lamestream media told you:

The Democrats very first agenda item for the 110th Congress is ethics reform. They plan to implement a near-total ban on lobbyist-funded meals, vacations, event tickets, gifts, parties, research trips, golf, private airplane flights and other forms of corrupting influence that are routine in Congress. This admirable goal will level the playing field, restore integrity, show good faith, deny power to the powerful, and prove Democrats are better than Republicans.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Lobbyists everywhere were ecstatic about the so-called ethics reforms proposed by Democrats, because the massive savings will go straight to their bottom lines.

Freed from Congressional pressure to provide gifts, junkets and junk, lobbyists will continue to wield stunning influence on members of Congress without the need to directly provide cash incentives.

Top lobbyists were laughing at reports that “K Street” was now out of business, and several immediately implemented hiring campaigns with the extra money.

Groups as diverse as energy companies, food producers, chemical makers, drug companies, high tech, heavy and light manufacturers, importers, the military industrial complex, and even government entities like NASA, the nation’s cities and PBS-TV do not expect their ability to sway Congress to change. It will just cost them less than it used to.

Rumors that lobbyists were privately thanking their friends in Congress for the financial break, by making promises for after their terms in office expire, could not be confirmed.

Lobbyists will still be able to sponsor and pay for gigantic lucrative fundraisers for politicians, which is all that matters — so the window-dressing loss of free food and junk is immaterial. Direct lobbyist campaign contributions are also unaffected. Lamestream outlets generally failed to mention these small points.

Tags: Congress, lobbyists, ethics reform

The lamestream media told you:

“Dire warnings are being issued by the National Rifle Association as the Democrats prepare to take control of Congress this week,” reports Jeffrey Birnbaum in the Washington Post.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In a story dripping with sarcasm and stereotypes, and working from documents it admits are stolen property, the Post gave voice to what most people already know — the new Congress is controlled by the most anti-gun-rights zealots in America. The word “rights” does not appear in the article.

The highly respected NRA lobby is called “famously combative” a force to “snuff out” hopes, encouraging members to “fits of paranoid rage” and its $100 million dollar defense budget is described as a $20 million fund.

Mindlessly characterizing the upscale headquarters as highly unlikely “to be burgled,” implying gun-toting nuts patrol the corridors, the reporter freely admits he is working from documents stolen by a mole who gained access to the building. The NRA HQ is no more or less likely to be ripped off than any of thousands of corporations in the crime-infested D.C. environs, who are frequently victims of criminals.

Birnbaum labels Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and similar others as “supposed anti-gun figures,” in the story, which ran in the news section.