I confess that I did not catch the whole piece, but it became quite clear that an American police officer was arguing for the increased use of the death penalty when it comes to child rapists and murderers; and also to “cop killers”. Further along the line, the police officer argued that the range of murderers who should more often get the death penalty should extend to those who murdered medical staff, firefighters and, indeed, to anyone who murdered government workers who “put their lives on the line in the call of their duty.”

Well, in brief, here is my response to these proposals.

1. We are already well on the way to giving far too many special privileges, pay handouts and protections to government workers, and this idea that murdering government workers is, somehow, more heinous a crime than the murdering of anyone else pushes government workers even higher up the pedestal – the pedestal of life itself – something which is clearly very dangerous indeed judging by the history books.

2. Why should the life of a police officer – or any other government worker – be considered to be more valuable than the life of, say, your daughter, your mother, your father, and so on?

3. In addition, if the state accepts that the death penalty is legitimate for the murder of certain people – such as government workers – then it will not be too long before people are demanding the death penalty for the murders of members of other groups; such as ‘women’, ‘homosexuals’ etc. etc.. And it will surely end up being the case that it is only for the murder of white heterosexual men that the death penalty will NOT be forthcoming.

Furthermore, even where such demands were resisted successfully, it would still be the case that people would feel very aggrieved that the murders of some people (especially those of their own loved ones) did not attract the death penalty while others (such as ‘government workers’) did.

The upshot would be a permanent state of fury and anger being directed not only at the system – and those who seemed to benefit from it – but also at those who had, indeed, committed other forms of murder.

Indeed, even abortion is the murder of children – for some people.

Imagine how these people are going to feel towards women who have had abortions if they are indoctrinated into believing that the death penalty is a legitimate punishment for murder.

Even if these people do not actually feel that women who abort their offspring should receive the death penalty, the point here is that they will still likely feel far more malevolent towards them.

And this leads me directly to my next point …

4. The more that we justify the death penalty for others, the more violence among ourselves do we justify within ourselves.

In other words, our tendencies towards violence are ratcheted upwards.

Is this what we really want?

5. It was suggested that government workers who ‘put their lives on the line’ were in need of the ‘greater protection’ that the death penalty would bring them, because the death penalty would help further deter criminals from taking the lives of such government workers.

Well, the notion that the death penalty acts as a good deterrent, in practice, is not very well supported by the evidence, but, for the moment, let us just assume that the death penalty does, indeed, help to deter murderers.

Well, if this is the case, then this takes us all the way back to point 1 – and to all the points that follow it.

In other words, why should we deter more the murderers of some people, but not the murderers of other people?

Why should some people be seen as ’special’ when it comes to deterring murderers?

6. Some time ago, I took a look at the mugshots and the profiles of the inmates of Death Row inside an American prison.

I can summarise them thusly.

They were mostly black, decidedly unintelligent, mentally challenged and, I imagine, never had much of a chance in life.

Furthermore, these individuals mostly had criminal histories that ran to pages upon pages.

And so what we really see going on here is a complete failure of the government to deal with the circumstances, genetic and environmental, that led these murderers to do what they did.

And arguing for the death penalty is just one of the ways in which the politicians and their agencies can pass the buck.

“Nothing to do with us,” they can say. “These murderers are ENTIRELY responsible for what they did.”

Well, I suggest that you, yourself, do a Google search, and so see for yourself the type of individual who typically ends up on Death Row. I think that most of you will see that these individuals had a history that could have been dealt with quite effectively, in most cases, many years before they ended up murdering anybody.

Hence, if government workers such as police officers are so concerned about murder then, perhaps, rather than taking us all down the horrible pathways through which the death penalty leads us, they should seek to persuade the government to adopt policies that would reduce the likelihoods of people becoming murderers in the first place!

For example, reducing the number of single-mother households would reduce the number of murders – as well as the general crime rate – quite significantly.

Bringing more discipline into our schools and on to our streets would also help a great deal.

Reducing excessive immigration would also cut the homicide rate.

There are many, many things that the government could do to reduce the numbers of murders if it really wanted to reduce them.

But governments benefit hugely from murders and from serious crimes, and so they will do very little to decrease their number.

What they will do, however, is forever try to put the blame elsewhere.

7. Of course, we often feel that cold, callous murderers do ‘deserve’ the death penalty. And, in my view, some of them actually deserve far, far worse than the death penalty.

But, in practice, and as indicated above, the death penalty simply poisons us all by increasing our desire for violence across all other circumstances. The evidence does not suggest that it reduces the murder rate. And the death penalty allows the government to keep on passing the buck and to avoid having to address those policies of theirs which lead to a higher murder rate.

Finally, I am not intending to suggest that all lives are equal in value to society. Indeed, this is clearly very much not the case, in my view.

Some human lives are definitely more worthy than others. And some people are just scum.

But my claim is this.

The death penalty poisons us all in very many serious ways; and we would all be much better off without it.

This might not have been true 100 years ago, and it still might not be true in certain countries today.

But, in western countries, at this point in time, I can see no benefits accruing to society from the use of the death penalty, but I can definitely see numerous very serious disadvantages arising from it.

As such, I believe that we should be sentencing those who ‘deserve’ the Death Penalty to life imprisonment – which, in many ways, for many convicts, is probably a stiffer punishment to deal with.

It is common for these terms to be used as synonyms for “left” and “right” and for those terms to be automatically associated with the Democratic and Republican parties. No matter how far the two parties shift along the political spectrum together, or where they go, this common semantic error leaves the impression that our current politics are still rooted in the Constitutional definition of our republic. Politicians and their “mainstream” media constantly conjure the illusion that “moderate” politics results from compromise between the two parties.

If you can control the language, you can control the people. And the people, too often, accept the use of language offered to them without considering whether it lies. If you think it doesn’t matter, consider the young voters; who go to the polls without the benefit of a decent civics education, historical perspective, or instructive life experience. Have you called Hillary and Barack “liberals” and voiced your disdain for “liberalism”? According to The Random House Dictionary, you have said that you oppose individual freedom and that Hillary and Barack support it. No wonder so many of our naïve youth call “conservatives” Nazis and fervently support the far left!

What terms do fit our modern Political Class has been the subject of some discussion, while the public is at least beginning to make its own informal search. Are they “illiberal statists” as Mike S. Adams (Townhall.com) suggests? Marxists? Communists? Socialists? Nazis? One-world Government Dictators? Or will history give them a new name, and we should be content for the moment to refer to them more generically, as the “Political Class” and simply continue discussion of their deeds and intentions?

Where is the modern American Political Class on the political spectrum? One question being raised in political discussion is whether or not we are too late to save the nation. The fact that the question is being raised corresponds to the sudden awakening to huge and rapid changes that many never before thought could happen in the USA. The current state of affairs is not the result of a single election or of one or more crises forcing, or perhaps seeming to force, extreme measures. To believe so, we would have to ignore Al Gore and the outpouring of international support and prestige given in honor of his global warming hoax. We would have to ignore the fact that the United States has had the mechanisms for universal health insurance for more than a half century.

Our current predicament involves a history of changes largely ignored. Next: How America was Destroyed– The Rise of Big Lie Politics

Liberal-progressives estimate that 46 million people, 15% of the population, lack health insurance. In order to provide them insurance, liberal-progressives intend to force each of us to forgo any vestige of individuality and to accept a prison-like regimentation of our healthcare.

When Hillary Clinton was working in 1993 to impose socialized medicine upon us, the Washington Monthly, one of the purest strains of socialism within the liberal-progressive, mainstream media, editorialized forthrightly that a fundamental aim and benefit of Hillary Care would be forcing business leaders to sit for hours in crowded doctors’ waiting rooms to receive medical care. There is more than a bit of nastiness in this liberal-progressive urge to smash what others have built and to drag people down to their level.

Why stop at health care? If Lyndon Johnson’s equality-in-fact is the aim, the best way to attain it is to put everyone in prison. Everyone then would have tasks assigned by the political state’s intellectual czars, along with identical clothing, housing, bedding, food, and drink.

As history shows us, that is the end point toward which all liberal-progressive governments proceed. Most people will not willingly give up what they have worked all their lives to attain. Force of law, and ultimately of arms, is required to take from some to give to others. Some governments, the United States among them, have not yet traveled too far along that path, but all have the shining example of the Soviet Union to guide them.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

My freedom is yours.

You won’t be free unless you help me to get my freedom. Don’t remain silent while in the dark of night you hear screams of mothers for the lives of their kids. Don’t cover your ears when you hear the cries of the children for their mothers and fathers who have been shot by hooligans. They’re trying to silence them and me and take away the thirst for freedom when they are done with us they will look for you.

Yes, my friend, my freedom is your freedom. Therefore, I beg you, to please post on this site any media that can show injustices to freedom fighters. – Jabi, on Facebook

For the Iranian people everything begins on June 12, 2009, with their 10th presidential election since the 1979 Islamic Revolution: the challenge was between the outgoing president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the opposition’s leader, Hossein Moussavi. Their decision today is largely whether to keep hard-line president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power for four more years, or to replace him with a reformist more open to loosening the country’s Islamic restrictions and improving ties with the United States. Another candidate, Mehdi Karroubi, is more closely associated with the core causes of the Iranian reformist movement, including the freeing of political prisoners and women’s rights, but, as a former prime minister in the 1980s, Mr. Moussavi is given great credit for having managed Iran’s economy effectively during the war with Iraq.

We are hearing reports from Iran that text-messaging has been blocked all over the country. Independent observers are not allowed to be present at the voting. Results are expected to come in early on Saturday in Tehran. Mr. Moussavi’s supporters say they remain concerned about the possibility of fraud, but a determined campaign, led by Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a two-term former president and one of Iran’s richest and most powerful men, has kept that issue in the public eye. In an extraordinary public letter on Tuesday, Mr. Rafsanjani urged Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to prevent any fraud, and on Thursday he met with the ayatollah for three hours. “If the system cannot or does not want to confront such ugly and sin-infected phenomena as insults, lies, and false allegations made in that debate, how can we consider ourselves followers of the sacred Islamic system?” Mr. Rafsanjani wrote.

On June 13th, the Interior Ministry, controlled by Ahmadinejad, announces that he has been elected in the first round with 62.6 percent of the vote, compared with less than 34 percent for Moussavi. Turnout is an extraordinary record: 86 percent of the 46.2 million eligible voters. But the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran reports that, according to the Iranian filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, officials from Iran’s Interior Ministry would have contacted Mr. Moussavi after the polls closed on Friday night, saying that he would have won the election, and asking him not to make any announcement.

As vote-rigging often leaves traces in the results, let have a look at some interesting items:

After a legal and controlled investigation, Iran’s senior panel of election monitors says that, in 50 cities, the number of votes cast exceeded the actual number of voters;
Even if candidates usually win in their home districts, especially where their ethnicity should help them, Moussavi, an Azeri, lost in Azerbaijan and Karrubi won only 5 percent into his native district, with a 10th part of his 2005 votes;
With paper ballots, a speed count is suspicious, but for this election the Interior Ministry declared victory for Ahmadinejad only two hours after polls have been closed and results were immediately authorized.

The disbelief on the part of the international community is shared by many Iranian citizens. And while the defeated candidate launches a legal appeal, what ensued on the streets of Tehran,is the largest public demonstrations in the Islamic republic’s 30-year history. There are now hundreds of thousands of people protesting in the centre of Tehran. Security forces — who vastly outnumbered the small group of demonstrators — beat the protesters gathered on Tehran’s Baharestan Square with batons and fired tear gas canisters and rounds of ammunition into the air.

All three Ahmadinejad’s challengers in the election have made public allegations of fraud after results showed the president winning by a 2-to-1 margin, so, on June 16th, the Guardian Council, made up of clerics and experts in Islamic law and closely allied to Mr. Khamenei, having the apparent authority to nullify an election, is called to certify the results. Meanwhile, Reporters Without Borders, a media rights group, is urging nations not to recognize the results of Iran’s presidential election, citing censorship and a crackdown on journalists.

Some days later, the Guardian Council announces – in a rare acknowledgment – that there have been voting irregularities in 50 districts, including local vote counts that exceeded the number of eligible voters, but that, however, these discrepancies are not widespread enough to affect the result.

The Guardian Council warned that some material on the web is ”creating tension” and must be removed to avoid ”legal consequences.” After confining foreign journalists to their hotels, bloggers are the new target of the regime. The Guardians of the Revolution consider the web as a threat and to keep images and stories on events in the country from being published on the Internet, the regime has threatened those who use social networks to spread information. Blogs and social networks have been and are crucial for the Iranian opposition to let the world know what is happening. Facebook and YouTube have been playing an important role in this too, with the former hosting longer manifestos and idea exchanges, and the latter hosting grainy film of protests and police attacks captured on cell phone cameras. But for “front line” news bulletins, Twitter has emerged as the preferred mode of clandestine communication.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday Ahmadinejad visits Russia – which has long-time political and economic ties with Iran, where it is building a nuclear power site at Bushehr. The Foreign Ministry in Moscow declares he respects the election result: disputes about the vote “should be settled in strict compliance with Iran’s Constitution and law” and are “exclusively an internal matter.”

In New York, UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon urges an “immediate stop to the arrests, threats and use of force.”

On June 19th, the U.S. House of Representatives passes 405 to 1 the following bipartisan resolution, introduced by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.6) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-Cal.28), to support Iranian dissidents and

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cell phones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections

Lastly and most importantly, the resolution expresses Americans’ unqualified support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law.

America is freedom and in this cause the American people will not be silent. There is no intention here to pick sides in the Iranian election, but to simply stand by those who stand up for freedom.

Monday June 22nd will go down on history for Neda Agha Soltan’s death, whose video circulated worldwide, with her proud wonderful eyes. What we have seen through her last glance is a powerful desire on the part of the Iranian people to be free.

Caspian Makan, her boyfriend, said the 26-year-old woman had not been deterred by the risk of joining protests. She was a philosophy student and loved poetry: Iran’s Rumi and America’s Robert Frost were her favorites.

He told an Associated Press reporter during a telephone call that “she only ever said to want one thing: democracy and freedom for the people of Iran.” Iran state radio blamed civilians’ murder like Soltan’s on “saboteurs” – not the pro-regime Basij militiamen who have been beating the protesters. To verify reports on demonstrations, clashes and casualties is quite impossible: Iran has ordered reporters to stay in their offices, barring them from reporting on the streets. Reporters Without Borders put at 34 the figure of reporters detained since the protests began. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said 13 are still in custody. State radio reported today that Iranian authorities arrested at least 457 people after post-election clashes that left 10 people dead, as the nation’s clerical leaders battled to contain the worst crisis since the Islamic revolution.

Perhaps detaining journalists for reporting news and commentary indicates the government has something to hide?

Only on June 23rd, eventually, in response to critical comments from Sen. John McCain of Arizona and other Republicans, President Obama condemns the Iranian government for its crackdown against election protesters and accuses Iran’s leaders of fabricating charges against the United States. If only he would have read the new nationwide public opinion survey of Iran conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow – The Center for Public Opinion (“TFT”), the New America Foundation, and KA Europe SPRL (“KA”), he would know that Iran has been deprived of the benefits of globalization such as the import of new ideas, technologies and practices. Inside their houses, the lifestyle of Iranians suggests that they are following almost every contemporary trend, from fashion to the use of technology, above all in Teheran, but, as a student wrote on Facebook, Iranians don’t want to have to worry about too many rules: “We want the rest of the world to be open to us too. Ahmadinejad doesn’t think bigger than Iran, he thinks that Iranians will be happy if he gives us a bag of potatoes. But we want more.”

More than 70 percent of Iranians also favor Iran providing full inspections and a guarantee not to develop or possess nuclear weapons in return for outside aid and investment. In another consistent trend over the past two years, 77 percent of Iranians back normal relations and trade with the United States. Sixty-eight percent also favor Iran working with the United States to help resolve the Iraq war, while 60 percent back unconditional negotiations with the U.S. The Iranian people have proven that they desire a free, democratic society and due to social sites such as Twitter, Facebook and Youtube the world can no longer ignore them.

Slater Bakhtavar is president and founder of Republican Youth of America, a frequent commentator and respected analyst on foreign policy issues, an attorney with a post-doctoral degree in International law, General Counsel of a national corporation and Attorney at Bakhtavar & Associates, PLLC.

Western efforts to reach out to Islam are increasing. However, many Muslim states want to end all Western criticism of Islam. At their behest, last November the United Nations General Assembly denounced the “defamation” of religions, complaining that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” Nations were enjoined “to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs.”

Let us stipulate that some U.S. government policies (many of which I have criticized) offend Muslims. And that most Muslims do not support terrorism.

Nevertheless, rather than promoting religious tolerance, most Islamic governments routinely persecute minority faiths.

For instance, six of the ten top persecutors making up the “Hall of Shame” created by International Christian Concern (ICC) have largely Muslim populations. Of 27 countries targeted for religious persecution by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 17 had Muslim majorities.

Islamic states are not monolithic, but those which largely leave religious minorities alone are the exception. Of Morocco, reported the State Department last year: “The Government places certain restrictions on non-Islamic religious materials and proselytizing.” State added that “There were reports of societal abuses or discrimination toward those with different religious beliefs, and converts from Islam to other religions.” Moreover, the regime “generally confiscates Arabic-language Bibles and refuses licenses for their importation and sale despite the absence of any law banning such books.”

Last year the State Department reported on Jordan’s declining religious liberty, reflected in “The government’s handling of apostasy cases, expulsion of approximately thirty foreign Christian religious workers, and instances of individual and organizational harassment based on religious affiliation.” Moreover, “Members of unrecognized religious groups and converts from Islam face legal discrimination and risk the loss of civil rights, including threats to their person and/or family.”

Last month President Obama visited Turkey, where two years ago Islamic extremists tortured and murdered three Christians. The State Department warned: “Violent attacks and continued threats against non-Muslims during the reporting period created an atmosphere of pressure and diminished freedom for some non-Muslim communities.” Converts from Islam “sometimes experienced social harassment and violence from relatives and neighbors.”

ICC places Egypt in its Hall of Shame, noting pervasive mistreatment of Coptic Christians, who “are widely discriminated against as a result of the discriminatory policies of the country and the bias of Muslim officials. There have been many instances in which, in some localities, Muslim extremists looted and burned down Christian owned businesses and homes, maiming and killing Christians.”

In Afghanistan discrimination and persecution are increasing. USCIRF warns that “Conditions for freedom of religion or belief in Afghanistan have become increasingly problematic.” Three years ago a Muslim convert to Christianity, Abdul Rahman, barely avoided execution.

Pakistan treats Christians “as second-class citizens,” reports ICC. State said: “Law enforcement personnel abused religious minorities in custody. Security forces and other government agencies did not adequately prevent or address societal abuse against minorities. Discriminatory legislation and the Government’s failure to take action against societal forces hostile to those who practice a different religious belief fostered religious intolerance, acts of violence, and intimidation against religious minorities.”

In Iraq “there have been alarming numbers of religiously-motivated killings, abductions, beatings, rapes, threats, intimidation, forced resettlements, and attacks on religious leaders, pilgrims, and holy sites,” explains the USCIRF. The smallest religious minorities have suffered the most. Roughly half of Christians have been driven from their homes.

As for Iran, the State Department reported that “Government rhetoric and actions created a threatening atmosphere for nearly all non-Shi’a religious groups, most notably for Baha’is, as well as Sufi Muslims, evangelical Christians, and members of the Jewish community.” The USCIRF reports on deteriorating religious freedom, “including intensified physical attacks, harassment, detention, arrest, and imprisonment.”

State explained that “There is no legal recognition of, or protection under the law for, freedom of religion, and it is severely restricted in practice” in Saudi Arabia. The Commission says that the Saudi government has been “engaging in systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief.”

The list goes on.

Obviously the president cannot center U.S. foreign policy on promoting religious liberty abroad. But the freedoms of conscience and religious faith are critical aspects of human rights. Any genuine dialogue with Islamic states must address the fact that many of them routinely and sometimes savagely repress religious minorities.

Let’s encourage dialogue with Muslim nations. But let’s put all issues on the table, including religious persecution.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is a member of the Economic Theory & Policy Working Group with the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College and the author of Beyond Good Intentions: A Biblical View of Politics (Crossway).

The Department of Justice conducted its tepid investigation, and endeavored to whitewash the whole incident, no doubt in deference to George Bush’s “new tone.” Nevertheless, as a result of the few facts that did emerge, the only plausible conclusion was that Berger was attempting to obliterate historical evidence of the numerous failings of the Clinton Administration, and its ultimate culpability in leaving America vulnerable to the predations of Islamic terrorists.

Nevertheless, though the incriminating specifics of Clinton malfeasance may have been successfully eradicated by Berger’s actions, the entire Clinton presidency was an inescapable indictment of the dangers reaped from national leadership bent on a liberal agenda, instead of responsibly serving the country. Clinton’s terms in office were an ongoing succession of foolhardy ventures, ultimately subordinating the well being of the nation to the lunacy of his “politically correct” staff.

From the misdirection of government agencies such as the FBI and IRS to assail political enemies, to the deliberate compromise of vital security protocol in exchange for dubious campaign donations from the Communist Chinese, to the repeated fumbling of evidence that Islamic terrorist operations clearly pointed to a burgeoning threat, the Clinton agenda placed the advancement of liberalism as its primary goal, while presuming such ineptitude could continue indefinitely with no negative consequences.

Eventually, America paid an enormous price in blood for the games Clinton and his enablers played with matters of national security. Yet neither Clinton, nor any of his high-level minions including Berger, were ever held properly accountable for the damage they inflicted on this country. Thus it could be assured that whenever a like-minded administration came into power, the abhorrent pattern would be continued.

It would be bad enough if the abominable “Rightwing Extremism” report, released recently by the Department of Homeland Security, were evidence of only that. But the truth is far worse. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in concert with Barack Obama, is laying the groundwork for a far grander and more sinister plan, which if suggested only a few years ago would have been instantly consigned to the realm of paranoid conspiracies. Such transparent deflections notwithstanding, the evidence is far too extensive to allow for deniability. This is the menacing reality of the Obama White House.

Obama has made claims of wanting to “unify” the nation. Yet few have properly grasped the actual intention, and thus the enormous danger posed by his goal. Unlike great former presidents, such as Ronald Reagan, who sought to bring the nation together by uplifting and inspiring, Obama seeks to ramrod his thoroughly leftist and countercultural agenda, while marginalizing and eventually silencing any opposition. Herein lies the “unity” under a tyranny.

That this “report” was conceived as a weapon to advance a Marxist political agenda is undeniable. The Obama/Napolitano cabal clearly crafted it for just that purpose. Contrary to their feeble attempts at defending the document, political conservatism is treated in a wholly different manner than any actions emanating from the left. From its opening statement, the Homeland Security report yields glaring evidence of such.

Among other weak efforts to minimize its significance, high officials have pointed out that a “similar” document exists, which offers a seemingly comparable admonition of threats from leftwing extremists. Yet right from the introductory paragraphs of each document, the stark contrast in their perception and characterization of the groups in question becomes readily apparent.

For example, in the analysis directed at “leftwing extremists,” those of concern are clearly described as subgroups of animal rights, environmental and anarchist movements “that promote or have conducted criminal or terrorist activities.” Yet right wing organizations are painted with an all-encompassing brush. No supporting evidence is sought or offered. Instead, seditious behavior is presumed as a result of ostensibly violent adverse reactions to everything from the current economic situation, to the anti-life, anti-Christian predisposition of the Democrats, to Obama’s race (of course).

In short, any governmental scrutiny of left-wing extremists studiously adheres to the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” while the examination of conservative America is flagrantly couched in the liberal mindset that those on the right are, by definition, “guilty until proven innocent.” Sadly, this situation has been allowed to ensue for so long that even now, rather than simply confronting the atrocious nature of this DHS “analysis,” many conservatives feel a need to simply defend themselves on terms dictated almost entirely by the left.

Thus does Obama, abetted by Napolitano, plan to tighten the noose around real America. Those who believe in the Constitution, the Second Amendment, or even the biologically undeniable reality of the humanity of the unborn, now represent a “radicalizing” element within which this government finds a threat.

Barack Obama, who genuflects to a Saudi king and grovels before third world tinhorn communist dictators as they verbally assail and castigate the greatness of this country, sees his real enemy in the people of the heartland. He denies every worthy vestige of the nation’s history in the presence of foreign leaders who disdain its very existence, striving to gain their approval by sacrificing the former standing of his country.

Likewise, on a short leash that Obama obviously holds, his Homeland Security Secretary is busy looking out for the “rights” and “dignity” of illegal aliens, while categorizing the good people of this country as would-be terrorists, and downplaying the ever-encroaching and real threat of more attacks from the Islamists. Neither of them, nor any high-level official of this administration, has produced a single shred of proof that they are vigilant of the real dangers that loom.

Like Russian roulette, this is a game that cannot be played indefinitely. America’s enemies, including those who now backslap the egotistically blinded Obama, will seize their opportunities presented by his myopic governing philosophy. But even that danger is secondary to the threat posed by a government that regards as hostile, imminently dangerous and thus in need of suppression, the free and open expressions of sincere disagreement from its honorable and impassioned citizens.

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Speaking of Israel is Speaking of the Middle East: Leette Eaton- White

I gave you my personal perspective of the current situation in Israel in a very pro-Israel way in my last article for HipHopRepublican.com. Now I will continue my Pro-Israel lean but now I am going to give more reasons why I feel this way. Get ready because we will enter into politics, and this article will pretty much sum up my opinion of the Middle East and our involvement there. There are several reasons that only the enemies of Israel can bring peace, and there are several why that will never happen and I am going to tell you how we are compromised by trying to deal with Israel’s enemies in the fashion we have for the whole of the 20^th century.

Number one: All of Israel’s enemies only want Israel and all Jews to not exist. Yes its really that simple. They want the state of Israel gone and the Jews gone with it. You can’t negotiate with that mentality. The USA and Israel have been trying desperately to negotiate for the sake of appearance and it has never and will never work in the long term. PERIOD. END OF STORY!

Number two: We try to make good with various nations in the Middle East because of oil. We need oil, as our economy depends on it for various reasons and so, because the democrats have been blocking pro-drilling legislation in this country for about 35 years, we do our absolute best to play nice with those in the Middle East. There of course is a simple solution: we need to drill here where we have plenty of oil. Some estimates say we might have three times as much oil under American land and off American shores than the whole of Saudi Arabia, the number one exporter of oil in the world. We may have three times as much oil than Saudi Arabia!? Is that what you said Leette? Yep folks, that is what I said. The USA could be self sufficient in oil usage and the number one exporter in the world if only the Dems would allow us to drill where the vast amounts of oil are. And not only would our economy rebound but we would stop entangling ourselves in the dangerous game of dealing with enemies of Israel within the Middle East. PS: There are environmentally sound ways to drill for oil; that should silence any envirowackos.

Number three: The Plight of the Palestinians. Now no one in their right mind would dare say that the Palestinian people don’t suffer. They do. But they are not proactive in ending their own suffering. One way they could do that is by not democratically electing terrorist groups to lead them! Hello folks, if you don’t want people to be hostile to you stop electing people who want to commit genocide. DUH! If the suffering Palestinians really wanted prosperity and peace they wouldn’t have terrorists speak for them. The fact that they elect terrorist means they support the terrorism and the sanction the actions of said terrorists. They make it really hard to support their cause when they make moves like that. Who wants to help a “victim” that insists on fighting dirty?

Number four: Tactics of Hamas. Now this is really important. So often Islamic terrorists use their own homes and places of worship which makes seeking them out incredibly difficult and it compromises the safety of civilians. So when Israel strikes against Hamas often “innocent people” get a bomb in face too. And guess what… tough truth warning… that is the fault of Hamas; and further than that, its what they want. They want Israel to look as bad as possible. And nothing makes people angrier than hearing about children in the line of fire. The problem with these terrorist groups it that they hate the enemy more than they love their families. And that is apparent by the fact that they choose to hide behind the people they claim to be protecting. The tactics of the USA and Israel are very different. “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”G.K.Chesterton. Very true indeed.

Number five: The Vast Terrorist Network Conspiracy. Simply put, all Islamic Terrorist groups have one thing in common: the destruction of Israel. They want nothing more than to obliterate it. So when possible they band together and help each other in their jihadist genocidal cause. Iran has flat out said they are helping to instigate in the ongoing conflict in Israel, including providing suicide bombers. They have about 70,000 Iranian student volunteers. WOW. They really hate Israel. That is impressive. 70,000 sent to kill, not to protect. This says a lot about their version of integrity folks. And lets be clear, any state that sponsors terrorism is an enemy of this country. And most of the middle east implicitly supports such action against Israel, some countries are just smarter, or more covert, about taking action or making moves against Israel and (by extension or directly) the US. Don’t forget this nifty little fact, the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia- a country we rely on for oil. Note how we try not to ruffle their feathers, even though we know about the social involvement in The Vast Terrorist Network Conspiracy. After all we are blocked from getting our own oil. That’s a sad sorry state to be in; at the whims of terrorism and its means of profit.

Number six: World Opinion. We for some reason seem to have an investment about what other countries think of us. So we try in vain to do what everyone else wants us to do. But as my mom used to say to me, “Just ‘cause everyone else is doing it doesn’t mean you should”. The international community is obsessed with documents and treaties and bureaucratic bull. The UN wants to play nice with every serious threat instead of taking the threats on and its own corruption compounds its dangerously ineffective approach to world issues. Trying to impress leaders that do that is wrong and stupid. Yep I said STUPID. We put ourselves and others at risk by trying to negotiate with those who are hell bent on not negotiating. It doesn’t matter what everybody else thinks. The issues we face shouldn’t be about being popular. We should be more concerned with doing what is right.

Now as I said before and in my last article Israel’s enemies have the responsibility to end the violence. The problem is they don’t have the desire. Like my aunt says, “If Israel laid down its weapons, they would be destroyed. If Israel’s enemies laid down their weapons, there would be peace.”

]]> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/01/07/speaking-of-israel-is-to-speak-of-the-middle-east/feed/ 0 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/12/26/president-bush-signs-victims-protection-act-to-combat-human-trafficking/ http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/12/26/president-bush-signs-victims-protection-act-to-combat-human-trafficking/#comments Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:48:47 +0000 Jim Kouri, CPP http://mensnewsdaily.com/?p=83858 On December 23, President Bush signed into law a bill that enhances measures to combat human trafficking.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Assistant Secretary John Torres were among 16 federal agency and private organizational leaders in the Oval Office who witnessed the signing of H.R. 7311, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.

Elyse Smith, daughter of Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), also attended the signing event. The bill, which was passed by voice vote in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate on December 10, authorizes appropriations for FY 2008 through 2011 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.

The legislation enacted today is in keeping with the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (which amended the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) to direct the United States Agency for International Development, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense to incorporate anti-trafficking and protection measures for vulnerable populations, particularly women and children, into their post-conflict and humanitarian emergency assistance and program activities.

Prior to the signing, White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto, said that the bill “has been a priority issue for the administration in preventing the trafficking of persons around the world. So this is a piece of legislation we’re very proud to sign.”

The trafficking bill signed today was named after English abolitionist William Wilberforce, who led the Parliamentary movement against the British slave trade in the early 19th century.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest investigative agency in the Department of Homeland Security, has responsibility for enforcing laws related to human smuggling and trafficking. As a result, ICE plays a leading role in The Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center (HSTC), the federal government’s primary tool in the fight against human smuggling and trafficking.

The HSTC was formally established under Section 7202 of the Intelligence Reform Act and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The secretary of state, the secretary of homeland security, the attorney general and members of the national intelligence community jointly oversee the HSTC through a high-level interagency steering group.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

White, who was also recently indicted in the Northern District of Illinois for soliciting the murder of a former federal juror, was charged with five counts of communicating threats in interstate commerce, one count of communicating an extortionate threat in interstate commerce, and one count of witness intimidation.

According to the indictment, from late 2006 through mid 2008, White targeted individuals with whom he disagreed on either racial issues, or, in one instance, for personal reasons.

The indictment alleges a pattern of communications which resulted in the victims fearing for their personal safety. These alleged communications included late night telephone calls to the victims’ homes, during which he would identify himself as the leader of a white supremacist group; emails to the victims in which he would make threatening statements; and posting the victims’ names, addresses, phone numbers, and other personal information on neo-Nazi Web sites, sometimes accompanied by language advocating the murder of the targeted victim.

In one instance, White allegedly sought a personal financial benefit from his threats. In another instance, he allegedly sent letters to the homes of individuals involved in a federal housing discrimination suit. These letters allegedly included racial epithets and caused the victims to feel that they may suffer dire consequences for their participation in the lawsuit.

If found guilty of communicating threats in interstate commerce, White faces a maximum punishment of five years in prison for each count of the indictment. If found guilty of communicating extortionate threats in interstate commerce, White faces a maximum punishment of 20 years in prison. If found guilty of witness intimidation, White faces a maximum punishment of ten years in prison. Each of the aforementioned charges also entails a potential fine of up to $250,000.

The case was investigated by Special Agent David Church of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in conjunction with Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Bondurant from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and Special Legal Counsel Barry Kowalski and Special Litigation Counsel Paige Fitzgerald from the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

How could this be? Republicans, and particularly conservatives, we are incessantly told, have been politically exiled since 2006 and are in complete disrepute these days. More often than not, Chambliss is considered a reliable conservative. Worse yet, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, whom the media characterizes as a political pariah, vigorously and visibly supported him, especially in the last few days of his runoff campaign.

In contrast Barack Obama, fearing the symbolism of a public rebuke of his empty “change” rhetoric,” never went to Georgia to campaign for Martin. Since Obama did not carry Georgia in the general election, the prospect of supporting a losing candidate posed a definite risk to the “messianic” facade that he has cultivated so meticulously during the past few years.

Instead, he once again essentially voted “present,” producing a commercial or two on behalf of the Georgia Democrat while remaining safely outside of the state. But it is widely known that Obama, as well as the House and Senate Democrats in Washington, held out great hopes of the filibuster proof Senate majority that a Martin victory might have helped facilitate.

These unfolding events are confusing and inconsistent, at least to those who accept the opinions of the “mainstream” Democrat and Republican punditry. According to the “conventional wisdom” of Washington insiders from both parties, John McCain would have done better to ditch Sarah Palin whom they believed to be a drag on his ticket. But in a seemingly contradictory fashion, Chambliss involved Palin heavily, while McCain was only nominally visible. As a result, Chambliss won his race, and with a far wider margin than McCain accrued on Election Day.

Meanwhile, from token “Republican” David Brooks of the New York Times, to his ideological counterpart Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post, presumed experts on Republican Party strategy have been busily deriding Palin during and after the 2008 presidential campaign. Their verdict: Immediately expel her and her kind for the good of America and the party.

It is no surprise that Beltway Democrats would loudly promote a losing Republican “strategy” of watering-down and ultimately abandoning conservatism, since such a tack can only improve Democrat fortunes. But it is somewhat puzzling that “Republican” political hacks would journey down the same path.

In complete defiance of their “wisdom,” both prior to November fourth, as well as during the Georgia contest of the past few days, Palin attracted far larger and more enthusiastic crowds than Chambliss could ever have acquired on his own. Few among the political mainstream would dare suggest a comparable public reaction, had Vice-President elect Joe Biden, the candidate of the winning Democrat ticket, attempted a similar campaign stump for Martin.

Such an exuberant response to the losing vice-presidential candidate would, according the D.C. wizards, seem totally contradictory to their regular forecasts of what America wants. In the wake of each Republican setback the “experts” incessantly advocate “moderation” and “moving to the political center.” Yet it is they, and not the straightforward conservatism of the Chambliss campaign, who have been consistently wrong for over three decades.

In the aftermath of the presidential election, McCain staffers leaked derogatory stories about Governor Palin, in a transparent effort to derail any political future to which she might aspire. Yet the reality is that her antagonists were revealing much more about themselves, and the fatal flaws of the McCain political apparatus, than they were about the conservatism of Sarah Palin.

Noisy declarations of the “need” for the GOP to eject its conservative element, and in particular the maligned “religious right,” predictably erupt after every election in which Republicans lose ground. Yet these are regularly contradicted by events such as the December 2 election in Georgia, where both conservatism and the issues of importance to the Evangelicals with whom Palin is closely identified, were forthrightly validated.

By providing the contrast necessary to delineate between traditional Republicans and Democrats, Palin generated an enthusiasm for the McCain ticket that had been completely absent prior to the announcement of her as his running mate. And while her presence on the ticket was not sufficient to neutralize voter disillusionment with McCain, she unquestionably displayed the ability to enhance the standing of an established conservative like Chambliss.

This lesson, so crucial to the future of the GOP, needs to be grasped and learned once and for all. Conservatism, real conservatism, resonates with heartland America, and wins elections. The people of this country have little interest in a Republican party that seeks to define itself as a milder and cheaper version of the societal dissolution and erosion of American greatness offered by the opposition. If voters really want that, they can get it in its undiluted form from the Democrats.

Saxby Chambliss correctly grasps the situation, crediting Palin as the individual whose support and involvement “fired up” the base. He further admonished recalcitrant Republican “moderates” of the need for the GOP to return to “those basic core values” of Reagan conservatism.

In Georgia at least, Chambliss restored the traditionally conservative image of the GOP, thus cementing a resounding victory. And no amount of biased media coverage, contrived financial calamity, or voter fraud from ACORN could derail his effort. The viability of the Republican Party depends on its willingness to adopt this approach to modern politics as the key to its future.

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

It’s a measure of the enemy in Afghanistan that Taliban terrorists attacked girls walking to school in Afghanistan on Nov. 12 by throwing acid in their faces, a senior Defense Department official said today.

“It was obviously a despicable attack,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. “It’s a reflection of the brutality and backwardness of the enemy we’re dealing with here. I certainly hope this is not any trend of tactic that the Taliban have, because it is a truly despicable act.”

Three girls were seriously injured in the attack.

“The Taliban’s continued terror attacks threaten the progress that has been made in Afghanistan,” first lady Laura Bush said in a statement released by the White House.

When they were in power in Afghanistan, the Taliban forbade women from attending school or even going outside. Women doctors were forbidden from practicing, and no woman was allowed to serve in political office.

Bush noted how that has changed since Operation Enduring Freedom began in October 2001. “Today, Afghan women are attending school, running for political office and serving as police officers,” she said. Afghan women are 28 percent of the country’s legislature, and almost 2 million Afghan girls are now in school, she added.

“The United States and our allies are working with the government of Afghanistan to build more schools where children can learn, open additional roads so that commerce can grow and provide basic health care for the Afghan people,” she said. “These cowardly and shameful acts are condemned by honorable people in the United States and around the world.”

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

First and foremost, feminism is about various groups seeking to acquire power and money, and to build huge self-serving empires in which millions – literally millions – of people nowadays have a vested interest – a vested interest that is, in fact, highly detrimental to those societies in which these people operate.

To see how their game is played, I just want you to imagine a society – a somewhat idealised society – wherein the women are happy to spend their days being closely associated with their homes and their children, while the young men and the fathers are reasonably happy to troop off to the workplace – wherever this might be.

And, further, I want you to imagine that most of the people in this society are mostly quite content with their situation.

In other words, it is a reasonably happy place.

And now the question that I want you to contemplate very deeply is this one.

What’s in it for government?

How can government – and government workers – benefit from having to exist within a society of people who seem to be quite happy and at peace with each other?

On what grounds can the government say to the people, “You need more government. Give us more tax money.”

Well, clearly, in such an idyllic society, it would be very difficult indeed to persuade the people to part with more of their own resources – acquired through their own labours – in order to fund ‘more government’.

However, if this reasonably happy society can be disrupted by some force or other – some force that induces ‘disharmony’ within the population – an increase in crime, say – then the government will find it much easier to extract a bigger piece of the society’s pie. For example, if there is an increase in crime, the people will far more readily agree to fund a bigger police force. If the men and women start fighting against each other, and begin to split apart, with married couples getting divorced, then the government can justify extracting further resources from the people in order to create a larger social services workforce to look after the women and children who are now on their own.

And the point that I am trying to get across here is this.

Governments benefit not by the people being at peace with each other, but by them being at war with each other in some way.

Of course, governments can benefit from many other things too, but the point here is this. Governments clearly benefit from what I shall henceforth simply call ‘disharmony’ – societal disharmony; such as crime.

And because governments have massive power in comparison to ordinary individuals, they will tend to use this power to create more and more societal disharmony – with much success. Of course they will do this. Why? Well, because governments, and millions of government workers, benefit from disharmony, and they are not going to use their huge collective force to undermine themselves – which reducing ‘disharmony’ would do.

At the very least, government workers do not want to lose their funding, their jobs, their security, their pensions etc etc etc. And so they need to be perceived to be needed.

Better still for them, are bigger empires with bigger salaries, and much more status and power.

After all, in this respect, they are no different from anyone else!

And, collectively, by hook or by crook, these government workers can, and will, create the most monumental force in order to get these various benefits for themselves; a force that the people simply cannot counter.

Indeed, it would be bordering on the preposterous to believe that such an enormous body of government workers would not exert a force in a direction from which they, themselves, would benefit.

After all, these people are not gods. They are human beings!

In a nutshell: These government workers want bigger empires with bigger salaries and bigger pensions. They want more status and more power. And, collectively, they will exert such a huge force that no-one can actually stop them from getting these things; as the monumental growth in government over the past 120 years or so in the west has clearly shown. (Central governments have grown more than one hundred-fold over the past 120 years.)

Now, because the main aim of feminists is to create as much disharmony as possible between men and women in order to fund their own empires, governments just love them; because, remember; for governments, the more disharmony, the better.

So let us return to our rather over-simplified society, and see what happens when married couples with children within this reasonably-happy place start more often to divorce and to separate.

Well, typically, the men will go off and live on their own somewhere, but they will continue working. The women, however, will have to choose some combination of going out to work and staying at home with the children.

If the women decide to stay at home, then they must be given a source of income by the government. This means that the government must take away money from others in order to fund them. And, already, this means creating a whole system of laws involving lawyers, judges, administrators, social assessors, financial offices and various allied bureaucratic systems.

In other words, divorce and separation provide a whole plethora of benefits for governments and their workers.

Furthermore, of course, no-one in the population wants to see women and children left destitute, and so government now gets the benefit of some further popular support for its endeavours. Thus, the government also wins on this score.

And, of course, the women who are put into this position with their children are now at the mercy of the government.

In other words, they become dependent on the government; which is also great for government.

“If you women do not vote for us, then you will get a smaller income from the government!”

Now, of course, women who have divorced – whether or not they have children – might instead decide to go out to work; in which case the government wins yet again – because it now has more workers from whom it can take money through the tax system.

In other words, encouraging divorce and separation is a winning strategy for government.

Indeed, it is win-win all the way.

And, most importantly, this remains true whether or not the women have children, and whether or not they go out to work. It is the growing division between men and women that is the key to the government’s winning strategy.

In summary, therefore, government has an enormous amount to gain by increasing the divide between men and women, because this enables government workers to justify the creation and the controlling of many large empires, they can more easily extract higher taxes, they can tax more people, they can make more people dependent upon them, and they can gain themselves some extra popular support.

But this is just the beginning.

Many, many further benefits accrue to the government when the close relationships between men and women are broken apart. For example, the negative social consequences of not having strong fathers around their children are positively huge. These tend to impact most directly on boys, but the repercussions reverberate across the whole of society – for decades. For example, youngsters – both girls and boys – without fathers in the home are far more likely to …

… live in poverty and deprivation, … be troublesome in school, … have more difficulty getting along with others, … have more health problems, … suffer from physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse, … run away from home, … get sexual diseases, … become teenage parents, … offend against the law, … smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs, … play truant from school, … be excluded from school, … behave violently, … give up on education at an early age, … make poor adjustments to adulthood, … attain little in the way of qualifications, … experience unemployment, … have low incomes, … be on welfare, … experience homelessness, … go to jail, … suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems, … engage only in casual relationships, … have children outside marriage or, indeed, outside any partnership.

Indeed, a whole cascade of social problems – i.e. a great deal of ‘disharmony’ – is generated by the effects of youngsters not having fathers around.

But, clearly, governments benefit fantastically from this; because governments can use these enormous problems to justify even further increases in both taxes and power.

After all, the people want to be protected from all the negative social consequences of fatherlessness – and, of course, the victims themselves could clearly do with a bit of extra help.

And so governments can justify (and, hence, finagle and extract) much more money from the people in order to acquire more police officers, more prison officers, more probation officers, more welfare officers, more lawyers, judges and other courtroom staff, more psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, doctors, nurses, social workers, remedial educationalists and, indeed, even more street cleaners! – and, of course, many, many more bureaucrats to monitor and to exert control in all of these areas.

And the increases in taxes and power that governments can suck up to themselves as a result these negative social consequences really are huge.

And, if you can believe it, I have not yet even mentioned all those lawyers, judges and bureaucrats who are part of the divorce system itself; together with all those professionals who have to get involved in matters to do with alimony, child custody and child support. Indeed, even if we forget about all the numerous social and personal problems mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the divorce industry itself is, nowadays, a multi-billion dollar industry.

Furthermore, of course, as far as life in the later years is concerned, breaking down the relationships between men and women ensures that old people and sick people are less likely to receive help from those who are close to them, because, quite simply, fewer people end up being close to them. And this often means that these vulnerable people are either abandoned to waste away on their own, or they are put into care homes and hospitals – often run by government – where the staff tend to treat them with, at best, clinical disinterest. (Indeed, a recent report in the UK stated that the most common problems for old people stem from loneliness and from living alone.)

Thus, one can summarise the situation as follows. Breaking apart the relationships between men and women creates an absolute gold mine for government. From childhood to old age, relationship breakdowns cause numerous problems for the whole of society, but they give rise to numerous benefits for government.

Now, all this is not to say that everything that the government does is bad – particularly at the micro level.

Not at all.

For example, it is clearly the case that some men and women do need to be kept away from each other. We do need our governments to help women and children who are on their own. We do need care homes and hospitals for old and sick people. We do need police officers and prisons. And so on.

But none of this alters the fact that the more do the relationships between men and women break down, the more does the government benefit. And it benefits hugely – as per above.

And you really would have to stretch your credulity to ridiculous levels to believe that the millions of workers who are employed by government are beavering away to destroy the huge ’social/personal/legal/financial industries’ from which they, themselves, have so much to gain.

Furthermore, we have clearly seen western governments – particularly left-wing governments – using their enormous power over the years to encourage people’s relationships to break down.

Indeed, these governments have left almost no stone unturned in their quest to damage people’s relationships.

They have spent billions of dollars flooding the population with false statistics concerning ‘relationship abuse’ of various kinds, with the legal language being purposely distorted to make out that women are perpetually being violated by men in some way. For example, they have fudged the definitions of various types of ‘abuse’ to such a ludicrous extent that, for example, criticising a woman’s mother can nowadays be seen as an act of violence – ‘domestic violence’ – calling someone ‘dear’ as an act of sexual harassment, and engaging in consensual sex which is later regretted as an act of rape. (The idea behind all these things is to stir up both hatred towards men and a fear of men, and it is also designed to encourage as many women as possible to make false allegations of ‘abuse’.) They have spent billions of dollars funding numerous victim groups that seem to spend more time dispensing anti-male propaganda than helping any alleged victims. They have engaged in and/or funded numerous media campaigns designed to portray all men as being likely to be abusive towards women and children in some way. And governments continue to offer to women numerous incentives – financial and otherwise – to make false allegations.

They have spent even more billions on ‘welfare’ to make men as redundant as possible when it comes to women and the family. They have purposely debased and feminised the educational system so that our young men achieve much less educationally than do our young women – something that stymies future relationships on a massive scale given that women tend to prefer partners who are more educated than them. They have been discriminating against men in the workplace at all levels (to reduce the value of men) under the spurious grounds that women themselves were being discriminated against by men. They have reduced the pay of men in numerous jobs controlled by government simply on the grounds that men tend to be drawn to those jobs more so than are women, and they have done the reverse for those jobs to which women tend more to be drawn. (The ridiculous argument currently being tested out on the population is that, “productivity, hard work and profit are ‘old-fashioned’ ways of assessing what someone should be paid.”) They have corrupted the law to such an extent that all men are now at the mercy of their partners when it comes to false allegations of ‘abuse’, child custody issues and ridiculously high alimony payouts – the idea being to tempt women into breaking their relationships because they have little to lose and often very much to gain by doing so – and, of course, to make men fearful of even embarking on any long-term relationships. They have corrupted the justice system to such an extent when it comes to the relationships between men and children that it is now extremely unwise for men to have anything to do with children.

And, in our schools, children even as young as eight are being indoctrinated with the feminist-inspired nonsense that men have oppressed women for thousands of years.

Indeed, it is also now being argued – with much success – that intimates should treat each other as if they were complete strangers. For example, Stranger Rape is now said to be just as bad as Relationship Rape. Photographing your own child being breastfed is said to be producing child pornography. On and on it goes.

And it seems quite clear to me that the ultimate aim is to force people to treat each other as if they were complete strangers by putting them at some kind of significant legal risk if they do not do so.

Indeed, I cannot think of any law enacted over the past three decades that impacts upon people’s close relationships – either directly or indirectly – that has not been designed to encourage those relationships to break down.

And, essentially, governments have been breaking down the relationships between people so that they can elbow their way deeper and deeper into the connections – social, personal and financial – that once bonded people together.

Furthermore, if one stands back to look at the overall picture that has been emerging over the past few decades, two things become very clear.

Firstly, the motives of government workers in this area have precious little to do with increasing the welfare of the people. On the contrary, these motives are often malicious, and they are mostly to do with government workers seeking to serve themselves in some way by causing ‘disharmony’; with the phrase “divide and rule” encapsulating much of what has been going on. (Indeed, one only has to look at how western governments have been at the forefront of encouraging fatherlessness – and, hence, the numerous consequent social problems mentioned above – over the past four decades to see just how malicious they have been.)

Secondly, western governments are now so large (employing directly or indirectly some 20% of the entire population) that government workers, themselves, now represent the most enormous political force for ‘big government’; which, essentially, means left-wing government. As such, we really no longer live in ‘democracies’.

For example, when left-wing US politicians like Joe Biden pump billions of dollars into groups associated with VAWA, he is not just handing enormous amounts of our money over to services that provide aid to victims of domestic violence. He is, in fact, handing out this money to numerous groups of government workers across America who rely on this money for their jobs and their pensions, and who will, unsurprisingly, give their political support to Joe Biden.

And, of course, there are millions of other government workers (school teachers, social workers, academics etc etc) who are also going to support left-wing government for precisely the same self-serving reasons.

(As just one example of this, academics who rely on government funding are going to drum up evidence to support the government’s point of view, or their funding is going to disappear.)

And, just as importantly, these millions of workers will also provide and promote political propaganda that is designed to serve themselves; with these government workers now so entrenched in almost every area of life that their propaganda nowadays pours into the minds of the population from almost every information source imaginable – even at school.

(Furthermore, of course, many billions of these dollars go directly into providing social welfare of some kind; thus ensuring that the millions of people who benefit from this will vote for left-wing government.)

The upshot is that the population is mostly nowadays very heavily infected with the view that policies that promote bigger and more powerful government are the best policies for the people; and so, of course, the people tend to vote for them.

But the people are being hoodwinked, because they are not being told the truth. They are being deluged with self-serving propaganda from many self-serving sources, and the evidence that these sources are deceiving them on numerous fronts, and in very many ways, is just irrefutable.

Indeed, I am writing this during a time in which the entire world is facing an enormous economic crisis, and the world’s leaders have just decided to bail out various banking and financial systems with two trillion dollars of taxpayer’s money. Now, apart from the huge burden that this will place on the taxpayers, and on future taxpayers, the economic downturn is going to result in the loss of thousands of jobs, the pensions of those who work in the private sector are going to be slashed – for many years to come – and many businesses are going to flounder and fail.

But if you look at what most of the politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are doing in order to help alleviate this situation, there is one feature that stands out rather starkly. And it can be encapsulated in a phrase that has been used recently by politicians time and time again across the western world: “We must not cut public services in these most difficult times.”

Well, this is just another way of saying that, no matter how bad are the economic circumstances for everyone else, government services (i.e. government, and government workers) must not be allowed to be affected by them. In other words, government and government workers must be insulated from all the economic problems. It is those who work outside of government who must bear most of the costs.

In other words, government workers now clearly form a new protected and privileged aristocracy – an aristocracy that is to be protected even from the most devastating of economic circumstances.

No matter how big the crisis – and the current one is huge – their jobs and their salaries must not be cut, and their pensions must be guaranteed through thick and thin – regardless of the cost to everyone else, and regardless of how much everyone else is struggling to make ends meet for themselves, for their families, and for their futures.

But who can oppose this enormous beast of government? – this self-serving organism?

After all, the government has hundreds of billions of dollars at its disposal – every year – vast bureaucratic empires that invade every corner of our lives, and millions of organised people working for it. Furthermore, it is the government that makes the laws.

So, who can compete with it?

And who can compete with the vast resources of government when it comes to ‘debating the issues’ and putting across a particular point of view?

Well, there is no other organism that comes even close to being able to compete with this governmental beast.

A hundred years ago, western governments were very small indeed when compared to today. And, loosely speaking, the right represented the wealthy and the ever-growing number of powerful industrialists and businessmen, and the left represented the ordinary working people and the impoverished.

Those on the right reckoned that the people would be better served by allowing them to get on with the job of creating wealth and power, while those on the left reckoned that government should intervene more directly, and more often, to help those who were the most in need.

Translated into today’s world, this could be loosely described as the big, powerful businesses being represented by those on the right, and the ordinary people themselves being represented by those on the left.

But times have changed quite dramatically since those far-off days; and there is now a new kid on the block.

Government itself.

And this new kid is now far more powerful than ‘the businesses’ or ‘the people’ – by a very long way.

Indeed, not only does this new kid have the muscle power, the organisational power, the financial power and the legal power to get what he wants, he also has the propaganda power to persuade the people of his point of view.

And it is absolutely clear that this new kid has been using this enormous power to serve himself.

Just take a look at how western governments have grown over the past 100 years – or even over the past 10 years. Look at the ever-increasing tax take. Look at the ever-increasing numbers of people employed by government. Look at the thousands upon thousands of laws, regulations, restrictions and directives that are annually being imposed by western governments on their own peoples.

These governments just grow and grow and grow – not only in terms of size, but also in terms of power and wealth. And they are infiltrating themselves into every aspect of people’s lives; controlling, monitoring, regulating, directing, stipulating, coercing – always to an ever-greater extent.

But who can stop them?

For example, who can compete with the billions of dollars that the left-wing Joe Bidens of this world pour into left-wing causes, left-wing jobs, left-wing benefits and, hence, into left-wing propaganda and left-wing votes for even bigger government?

Who has the money to compete with this?

No-one, and no organisation, has a hope of competing with such a force.

Indeed, and for example, despite the fact that Americans are renowned the world over for their almost manic belief in small government and individual liberty, this has not stopped their federal government from growing and growing and, indeed, from walking all over them.

And the reason for this is because western governments have grown far too powerful.

But who can be surprised by this given that millions of government workers with huge resources and millions of benefit recipients will tend to promote their own interests rather than those of ‘business’ or ‘the people’?

A hundred years ago it was all different.

The government tax take was miniscule, the rules and regulations were few, and the numbers of government workers and benefit recipients were both small, and so, for example, when the government handed out money to its own workers in order to pursue some agenda or other, the efforts of these workers, their ability to influence people, and the number of votes that the government workers, themselves, were able to cast in elections were all relatively small in comparison to what ‘the people’ could do in such areas.

But now, these government workers have around 20% of the vote, and they also have resources that are absolutely unassailable.

Indeed, in order to drum this point home, just imagine if you had one billion dollars annually to distribute to whomsoever you wished. And, further, imagine that, every year, you distributed this one billion dollars to people whose work supported the men’s movement. You can surely imagine just how large would be the impact that the men’s movement would then be able to make, right across the country.

Just one billion dollars will do!

But the Joe Bidens of this world nowadays distribute hundreds of billions of dollars every year to government workers and to benefit recipients who are bound to support ‘the government’ in order to benefit themselves.

(And, of course, there is no other group that can possibly compete with a left-wing government’s power to, quite frankly, ‘bribe’ a few million voters with benefits.)

And the upshot has been that western governments have been able, very successfully, to bamboozle the public into believing in – and ‘voting’ for – those ideas and notions that, in fact, are mostly of benefit to government, rather than of benefit to the people; the purposeful breaking down of relationships being just one example of this.

Indeed, when it comes to men’s issues, we have seen western governments of all persuasions lying, fudging, deceiving, ignoring, blocking and cheating in so many areas – always in a direction of causing more problems for men, women and children when it comes to their relationships – that it is simply impossible to escape the conclusion that damaging people’s relationships is a major aim of western governments.

And the reason for this is very clear.

As I mentioned earlier in connection with our fictional idyllic society, damaging the relationships between people creates an absolute goldmine for western governments. It is a perpetual lottery jackpot win.

And, of course, there are many other ways through which governments can encourage relationships to break down – ways that go beyond those to do with close personal relationships. For example, encouraging excessive immigration causes relationships within communities to become far more tenuous and uncertain. And, of course, the government will benefit from this as a result of the increasing disharmony and uncertainty that this brings about. Furthermore, the government will benefit whether the immigrants are productive or disruptive. If they are productive, the government gets more tax dollars. If they are disruptive, then the government can justify more taxes and more power to deal with the ensuing problems.

Thus, excessive immigration is also win-win all the way for government.

And then there are the various laws to do with hate speech and with ‘offending’ people. These tend to distance people from each other because these laws encourage certain types of people to use the law in even the most trivial of circumstances.

The whole idea is, clearly, to break apart as much as possible any strong sense of cohesion and/or security that people might have with each other.

Indeed, the ways in which this perpetual lottery jackpot win can be collected is becoming increasingly recognised and appreciated by governments all over the world – which is why feminism, and feminist policies, are now being taken up so avidly by them – and so quickly.

Time and time again, you can hear one politician promoting some new feminist-inspired notion in the USA on Monday, and by Wednesday the same notion is being proposed by another politician somewhere in Europe or Asia.

And this is because seasoned politicians and activists know very well indeed from where their power comes. And millions of them now know that every notion – every rule, regulation, policy or law – that encourages people’s relationships to break down always brings them extra benefits; whereas anything that will encourage people to stay close to each other is likely to push government – and, hence, government jobs – out of the window.

A good example of this can be seen in my piece entitled Feminists Destroy the Planet wherein it is noted that the UK’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, has introduced a whole raft of policies to help reduce carbon emissions in order to combat global warming -  allegedly, “the most important issue of our times” – but not even once does he address the fact that the increasing tendency for people to live alone is having a large negative impact on the environment – in many ways, not just through the resulting higher carbon emissions.

And the reason that Gordon Brown will not do anything to encourage people to live together – either through his rhetoric or through his policies – is because he knows full well that the more do people live securely together, the less will they want government.

And this is the real reason why western governments love feminists and feminist ideology.

In summary:

1. Relationship breakdowns are a goldmine for government and for government workers. Feminism is, therefore, an ideology that serves the interests of western governments and their workers very well indeed.

2. Governments are now hugely powerful, with politicians able to give billions of dollars every year to millions of government workers who will be very keen to promote their own services – which they will be able to do with much success – particularly if they adopt the feminists’ main aim of breaking apart people’s relationships.

3. It is inconceivable that these government workers will not use their enormous influence to serve themselves.

4. It is absolutely undeniable that western governments and government workers have, over the years, poured an enormous amount of their energy, and expended billions of dollars worth of our resources, on creating and promoting laws, policies and propaganda that are specifically designed to make close personal relationships difficult to create and difficult to maintain.

Indeed, the UK’s current deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, has openly stated that marriage is ‘irrelevant’ to public policy, and she has actually described high rates of relationship breakdowns as a ‘positive development’. (Like most feminists, she believes that stable inter-gender relationships oppress women.)

And the only realistic conclusion that one can make is that, when it comes to people’s relationships, western governments and government workers are purposely seeking to damage these relationships as much as possible.

END NOTES:

1. MRAs often suggest that there are other factors that cause feminism to be so prevalent nowadays; e.g. corporations, chivalry, a desire (no matter how misguided) for ‘equality’; and so on.

Most of these suggested factors do, indeed, have something to do with the promotion of feminism.

But the point of my piece is to demonstrate that unless one understands just how monumental is the power of the state these days, and just how positively enormous are the benefits that accrue to those in charge of this monumental power if they do promote feminism, then, in my view, one is probably missing the most important factor of all.

2. MRAs often find it difficult to believe that government workers could be so malicious toward their own people by supporting policies and notions that will harm them.

And there are two things to be said about this.

Firstly, there is no question in my own mind that many of the people at the top of government and at the top of government departments are malicious – coldly, callously malicious. And they often know full well that what they are doing is harming their own people. But this is of no real significance to them. In other words, they do not care. Their only concern is to serve themselves in some way.

A good example of this is the way in which so many politicians and government workers – who should know better – have avoided discussing the issue of fatherlessness for so long despite the heavy toll that it has clearly been taking on so many people and on society as a whole.

This heavy toll clearly does not matter to these people.

And why should it? After all, it gives them jobs, money, pensions etc etc etc

Another example would be the way in which educationalists have chosen over the years to teach children to read using one of the most inefficient methods imaginable – a method that was known to disadvantage both our boys and our girls when it came to reading, but which was also known to disadvantage the boys much more. It is inconceivable to me that educationalists in the higher echelons were unaware of the degradation in reading skills that was taking place over the years as a result of using inefficient teaching methods (i.e. the ongoing degradation was being covered up) and it is also inconceivable to me that they were unaware that their teaching methods were, in fact, inefficient; particularly for the boys.

In my view, the method of teaching reading – together with a host of other educational initiatives that have taken place over the years to the detriment of boys – was actually designed to undermine the educational progress of the boys relative to the girls.

And if this is hard to believe, then please bear in mind that these same educationalists, who were for decades so concerned about the lack of female role models in the workplace, are now saying that role models for boys in the educational setting (e.g. having more male teachers in schools) are of no importance at all.

Furthermore, here in the UK, we have had both left-wing politicians and left-wing teachers recently saying that nothing should be done to help our boys catch up with the girls. Even the so-called Equal Opportunities Commission is saying this.

And the question that I keep asking myself is how much more evidence will it take before MRAs wake up to the fact that western governments – particularly left-wing governments – are doing all that they can to undermine their own societies – particularly their own men – and that they are doing this to benefit themselves.

Now, I could give you many more examples which – to my mind at least – provide incontrovertible evidence that many of those people who work for government are malicious and self-serving, but I think I will stop here, and just point out that the lack of concern of western governments over fatherlessness and over the poor education of boys cannot be described as anything other than ‘malicious’ when it comes to assessing their true attitudes toward ‘the people’.

Furthermore, the cost to us all of failing to do anything to solve these two particular problems amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars every year across the western world, and it amounts to a huge amount of unhappiness for millions of people.

Governments, however, benefit hugely from these things. And those at the top know very well that this is the case.

(For further evidence that government workers are very often deceitful and malicious, see my piece entitled Do Not Respect Them .)

Secondly, it is also almost certainly true that the vast majority of ‘government workers’ will have no idea what harm they might be causing to people by supporting and promoting ‘government’ – particularly corrupt government; which is what we mostly seem to have nowadays Their views tend to be very restricted, and they tend only to know what they need to know in order to do their own particular jobs.

However, there will also exist hundreds of thousands of workers in the higher ranks who will just push a little bit here and a little bit there in order to gain some advantage for themselves.

For example, senior police officers will wish to impress their political overlords by gaining as many rape convictions as possible. They will want to earn more brownie points by proclaiming hither and thither that more must be done to catch more rapists. And they will forever argue for more and more resources.

And these police officers are not going to admit openly to the public the fact that, in practice, the vast majority of rape allegations made to them are actually false; because to do so would undermine their own positions.

And so across the western world, with thousands of senior police officers wanting to impress their masters, and with thousands wanting more resources for their departments, the effect of them pushing a little bit here and a little bit there (e.g. exaggerating, misrepresenting the facts etc etc) always in the direction of wanting a little bit more for themselves, amounts to a very large force indeed.

And this large force can be so detrimental to society as a whole, or to a particular group within it, that its nature can be very ‘malicious’ even though the individuals who are creating this force (in this case, senior police officers) are not necessarily intending to be malicious. They might simply be serving themselves by, let us say, putting a certain spin on various issues.

In summary; there will be those at the very top who are well aware of the harm that they are causing to people by, for example, knowingly encouraging fatherlessness (i.e. they are malicious) but there will also be hundreds of thousands of people, slightly lower down the chain, who will be pushing a little bit here and there in the same direction (encouraging fatherlessness) simply in order to maintain their empires – the empires that the malicious people above are promoting and funding.

The result is a huge force that is very decidedly malicious.

3. My own view is that if we take a look at the power currently being wielded by government, by business and by ‘the people’ at this moment in time, we will see that ‘the people’ have a very small voice indeed – with ‘men’ having almost no voice at all. And the following graphic probably represents much better than does the graphic above how the forces from these three groups are currently matched.

Government now has the biggest voice, and the people have the smallest. (For the sake of simplicity, I have not mentioned the mainstream media but, by and large, the output from the mainstream media is still very heavily coloured by government and by business.)

Now, given that government mostly serves itself, and given that government has virtually unassailable resources with which to do so, and given that there is, quite clearly, so very much that government can gain (and hold on to) by continually breaking down people’s relationships, and given that we now have so much irrefutable evidence demonstrating quite clearly that western governments are, indeed, doing their very best on many fronts to break down people’s relationships (a ‘positive development’, according to Harriet Harman) it seems to me that MRAs must do their very best to undermine the power of government.

And the simplest way to do this is to support only those politicians who promise unreservedly to reduce the tax take, and to oppose most vehemently those politicians who are likely to increase it.

This typically means supporting the right rather than the left, but, unfortunately, matters are not so simple, because times have really changed. And there are nowadays very few politicians indeed who have much concern for ‘the people’. Those on the left are, in my view, mostly corrupt through and through – always seeking to empower themselves and their cronies through the further expansion and empowerment of government regardless of the cost to the people – and those on the right are very often pandering to the wishes of big corporations and powerful businesses. And so there is no longer any strong voice within government circles that represents real, ordinary people.

And perhaps the most worrying part about all of this is that  any politician – left or right – who dares to stand up for ‘the people’ in any meaningful way will be pushed quite quickly into relative obscurity by the other politicians who will be receiving massive support from very powerful brokers whose only concern is to promote the interests of big business or big government.

(For example, if my memory is correct, trades unions representing government workers in America poured some 100 million dollars into supporting Obama’s campaign for the presidency; i.e. into supporting big government.)

And so, all in all, it seems to me that there is no real representation of ‘the people’ within government (and there is certainly no representation of ‘men’ within it) and, further, that any representation of ‘the people’ that occurs outside of government is nowadays mostly swamped by the huge amount of self-serving propaganda (particularly from government workers) that pours out in favour of ‘big government’. And, unfortunately for us, this deluge of self-serving propaganda is coming from people who benefit very handsomely indeed from breaking apart and undermining people’s relationships.

Their overall strategy is, quite clearly, to ‘divide and rule’ …

… which is one of the oldest and one of the most effective tricks to be found in the handbook of those who wish to empower themselves at the expense of others.

4. Given all the above, how can ‘the people’ possibly counteract the huge forces that pour into the political arena in favour of business and in favour of government? And, in particular, how can ‘men’ ever develop any kind of voice at all? – let alone summon up the resources to counter the hundreds of billions of dollars that seem to be set against them every year.

Well, there is only one solution that I can envisage.

And this involves taking over the consciousness not only of those who rule but also of the general population.

And, basically, this means attracting the attention of millions of people and changing their minds.

And this is exactly what sites like MND and Angry Harry are attempting to do.

So, MRAs, please, please, please, give all our men’s websites all the support that you can.

Without such websites, you have not got a hope of ever taking on those huge self-serving groups that seek to profit from all the problems that they, themselves, are causing you.

Angry Harry is a social critic and Men’s Rights Activist based in the UK. For more scintillating commentary, be sure to visit his site at http://angryharry.com .

The spokesmen for the pirates, believed to be members and associates of Al-Qaeda, were contacted via satellite communications. They confirmed that they were surrounded by three foreign warships off Somalia’s central coast and said that the captured freighter’s crew was “safe and not harmed.”

Ali admitted that the ship was surrounded, but he said the pirates would not surrender.

“One of these ships is from the United States and the other two are from European Union countries,” he said, without naming the European countries.

In spite of the news media distancing this recent attack on a ship off the coast of Somalia from global terrorism, intelligence experts believe this is just the latest operation initiated against the United States and the West by Al-Qaeda.

Recently a failed assassination attempt on the prime minister of Somalia, as well as the attempt to hijack a luxury American cruise ship, has intensified apprehension and fear that the shaky Somalian government is losing to Al-Qaeda and Wahhabi terror groups.

Three people were mortally wounded in a terrorist attack on the Prime Minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi,while he was visiting the war-torn capital of Mogadishu. He survived the deadly encounter which entailed an explosion set off near his convoy, according to security experts. Mr Gedi was merely visiting since his government is in quasi-exile in Jowhar. The danger in the Somali capital is so great that the transitional government must avoid setting up their headquarters there.

Since 2003, Somalia has witnessed the growth of a brutal network of Jihad with strong ties to Al-Qaeda. In fact, when the US forces faced a bloody battle in 1995 during what became known as the Black Hawk Down incident, it was Al-Qaeda joining with a local warlord who killed and wounded US special operations soldiers.

Somalia has been without a functioning national government for 14 years, when they received their independence from Italy. The transitional parliament created in 2004, but has failed to end the devastating anarchy. The impoverish people who live in the ruined capital of Mogadishu have witnessed Al-Qaeda operatives, jihadi extremists, Ethiopian security services and Western-backed counter-terrorism agents engaged in a bloody war that few support and even fewer understand.

In an incident that gained some American press attention, Somali-based terrorists armed with rocket-propelled grenades launched an unsuccessful attack on Seaborn Spirit as it rounded the Horn of Africa with American, British and Australian tourists on board. For unexplained reasons, the attack is being treated as an isolated incident and the terrorism link is being all but ignored by journalists. The term “pirates” is routinely used with only a few reporters calling the attackers “terrorists.”

The ship came under attack during the early morning hours when the heavily armed terrorists in two speedboats began firing upon the ship with grenade launchers and machine guns. They assailants were repelled by the ships crew who implemented their security measures which included setting off electronic simulators which created the illusion the ship was firing back at the terrorists..

According to passenger accounts of the attack, there were at least three rocket-propelled grenades or RPGs that hit the ship, one hit a passenger stateroom without inflicting injuries.

There are now some counterterrorism officials who wish to deploy a naval task force to try to prevent attacks, and kill or apprehend these modern-day pirates in Somali waters. Most travel advisories issued by nations throughout the world recognize this area as being among the most dangerous in the world.

There are some who oppose this combative approach fearing the opening of a new front in the war on terrorism. But these opponents of using force have no suggestions for dealing with these dangerous terrorists and thugs who prey on people on land or at sea.

During the 1990s, a group of Saudi-educated, Wahhabi militants arrived in Somalia with the aim of creating an Islamic state in this dismal African country. Also, the renowned Al-Qaeda established an operations base and training camp. They would routinely attack and ambush UN peacekeepers. In addition, they used Somalia to export their brand of terrorism into neighboring Kenya.

Leading members of Al-Qaeda continue to operate, mostly in secrecy, in Somalia and have built up cooperation with some of the warlords who control food, water and medicine. And the people of Somalia starve, mourn and die.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

The fact that many of these types of campaigns struggle to come up with alleged “deadbeats” who have an education or a middle-class job might give less zealous public officials cause to stop and pause. Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data shows that two-thirds of those behind on child support nationwide earn poverty level wages; less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by those earning $40,000 or more a year. According to the largest federally-funded study of divorced dads ever conducted, unemployment, not willful neglect, is the largest cause of failure to pay child support.

The “Most Wanted Deadbeat Parents” lists that are put out clearly illustrate this problem. Far from being lists of well-heeled businessmen, lawyers, and accountants, the vast majority of the men on these lists do low wage and often seasonal work, and owe large sums of money which they could never hope to pay off. Even a person with a college degree is a rare find on these lists. Nevertheless, the powers that be who create these lists say that the men on the lists are singled out for their “ability to pay”.

Virginia’s “Most Wanted” list was topped by a laborer, a carnival hired hand, and a construction worker. These men collectively somehow owed over a quarter of a million dollars in child support. A plumber topped the Texas “most wanted” list as the highest wage earner. Kentucky’s list sported only one obligor with an education, and the most common designation for occupation was “laborer.” Near the top of Arizona’s list was a maintenance man who owed $90,223 and, best of all, a roofer who owed $240,581. One wonders what the financial condition of those who weren’t “singled out” for their ability to pay is.

How did men of such humble means end up owing so much money? The arrearages are likely created in large part because the child support system is often mulishly impervious to the economic realities working people face, such as layoffs, wage cuts, unemployment, and work-related injuries. According to the Urban Institute, less than one in 20 non-custodial parents who suffers a substantial drop in income is able to get courts to reduce his or her child support payments.

Some of the fathers on Illinois’ Department of Healthcare and Family Services’

“Wanted” list got there in the following manner—the wife or girlfriend ended the relationship, left with the kids, and then went to the state to get public assistance. Illinois DHFS then went after the father for child support to repay the cost of the assistance. The father–against whom no wrongdoing has been charged—has likely been deprived of custody of his kids and may not even have any visitation rights, and might not even know where his kids are.

While paying the state, the father also has to hire an attorney and fight his way through the courts just to attempt to see his children. Even if he is awarded visitation rights, recalcitrant mothers often flout these orders with impunity. Low and moderate income fathers frequently must choose between paying for legal action to obtain contact with their children and risk jail time for not paying child support- or paying child support and losing the ability to have contact with their children. These men are hardly “walking away” from their “families and responsibilities.”

Sometimes a father in this situation has been paying the teenage children directly because the mother has been using the child support for everything but the children. Nevertheless, the father is saddled with arrearages and declared a “deadbeat.” When he presents his stack of cancelled checks, the state says, “Sorry that money you paid is a gift—you still owe us child support to reimburse the cost of the public assistance.” It is irrelevant that the money was used by the children to buy food, clothing and the necessities of life.

Even though dads are often the only ones targeted and criticized, according to US Census data, noncustodial mothers are actually 20% more likely to default on their child support obligations than noncustodial fathers. This is despite the fact that noncustodial mothers are less likely to be required to pay child support, and those with support obligations are asked to pay a lower percentage of their income in child support than noncustodial fathers.

While each of these “deadbeat” lists undoubtedly has men on them who willfully dodge their responsibility of child support, the larger problem lies not with non-custodial parents, but instead with the child support system. Arresting low-income parents or parading their names and faces in highly publicized media blitzes is neither fair nor useful. What’s needed instead is an overhaul of the system, so that blue-collar workers aren’t turned into criminals because they’ve failed to pay obligations which are beyond their reach.

Jeffery M. Leving is a nationally renowned attorney and fathers’ rights advocate. He is the author of “Fathers’ Rights” and “Divorce Wars” and the founder of dadsrights.com. Mr. Leving is also the Governor appointed Chairman of the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood.

Farmers in a country that ranks among the poorest in the world, Mullen said, have little choice but to cultivate poppy to sell to insurgents, who turn profits from opium trade on the black market despite Afghan drug laws and national drug controls.

“[Narcotics trade] is the engine that’s running Afghanistan’s insurgency,” the admiral said. “And the extent of that is killing its people.”

Part of the solution has to be to replace the poppy crop with another means of revenue immediately, Mullen said. Otherwise, farmers most likely will continue to work for terrorists to support their families. He said the issue is not within the responsibility or capacity of the military, but rather is a matter for the entire group of nations working there to figure out.

“We just can’t keep looking the other way,” he added.

Another problem, the chairman said, is that as al-Qaida loosens its footprint in Iraq, officials have noticed more foreign fighters moving into Afghanistan from safe havens across the country’s border with Pakistan.

“Al-Qaida in Iraq is on the run,” Mullen said, and U.S. officals are concerned about new groups of foreign fighters infiltrating from Pakistan’s border regions.

Security improvements in Iraq are allowing the United States to commit more troops to Afghanistan, Mullen told the group. An additional Army brigade combat team and two Marine battalions have been added to the rotation in Afghanistan, an increase of more than 5,000 troops.

Militarily, the Afghan army has become a credible force, Mullen said, and a good connection has developed between Afghan and American troops. But the Afghan police have a long way to go and need some improvements, he acknowledged. Still, he said, better security in the country is in the foreseeable future, and the Afghan government is taking steps in the right direction.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

The Saturday, September 13, 2008 edition of The Boston Globe reported that Senator Biden and his wife, last year (2007) claimed $995 in deductions for charitable giving, out of a reported adjusted gross income of $319,853. How much of that went to domestic violence charities we are not told, but it is certainly equal to, or less than $995.

As an example of what an one average America gives in a year to charity, last year, I claimed charitable donations to a domestic violence shelter in the 4-digit range, out of a reported adjusted gross income not even close to Senator Biden’s 6-digit neighborhood. Although I don’t own a clothes dryer, or a fancy business suit like United States Senators wear, I still try to do everything I can to help victims of domestic violence (both male and female) from my personal finances, apparently unlike Senator Biden.

http://tinyurl.com/6cgt6c

Biden and his wife, Jill, earned $319,853 in adjusted gross income and paid $72,787 in federal taxes last year, including $2,721 in alternative minimum taxes. They claimed $995 in deductions for charitable giving, about triple what they deducted in any of the nine previous years. Over the past decade they reported giving an average of $369 to charity.”

“Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, the Democratic nominee for vice president, and his wife reported giving a fraction of 1 percent of their income to charity during the past decade, below the national average, tax records show.

Driven by gender feminist ideology, Senator Biden’s lack of commitment to all victims of domestic violence (male as well as female) is not a new revelation. Biden’s domestic violence legislation has purposefully, systematically, excluded male victims of domestic violence for years. I find his most current lack of personal giving even more hypocritical than the Senator Biden I’ve already come to know. On the one hand, Biden has repeatedly bragged about all he has done for domestic violence victims, spending billions in taxpayers’ money exclusively on female victims, but now, on the other hand, we see a Senator Biden who’s unwilling to put his personal money where his mouth is.

In the Boston Globe story, “A Biden spokesman said the couple has given more to charity than they claimed on their taxes.” Well, guess what Senator Biden, most of us have done that. Why, Senator Biden, am I to supposed to assume you are more generous in that category than I, and others, have been? While domestic violence programs across America scream out, “There’s No Excuse for Domestic Violence.,” a spokesman for Senator Joe Biden makes excuses for the apparently miserly and hypocritical way Biden personally contributes to a cause (domestic violence/the Violence Against Women Act) that he loves to brag is “his baby.” Please Senator Biden, spare the men, women and children of America your disingenuousness. We already know how misandirst, ineffective and uncaring you are about truly resolving the issue of domestic violence in America – from the record.

“In my house, being raised with a sister and three brothers, there was an absolute – it was a nuclear sanction, if under any circumstances, for any reason, no matter how justified, even self-defense – if you ever touched your sister, not figuratively, literally. My sister, who is my best friend, my campaign manager, my confidante, grew up with absolute impunity in our household… And I have the bruises to prove it. I mean that sincerely. I am not exaggerating when I say that.”

Like so many chivalrous male victims Biden defends his abusers even having suffered “nuclear sanction”. I say “abusers” because someone in his immediate family other than his sister must have rendered the mushrooming catastrophic punishments.  Even so, Sister Valerie Biden Owens had “absolute impunity” giving her license to abuse at will without fear of penalty.

Valerie’s “absolute impunity” tragically lives through VAWA. For example, now infamous Mary Winkler recently escaped the death penalty and long term imprisonment murdering her husband Mathew by shooting him in the back.  Wrenched with pain it took Mathew 20 minutes to die. Mary watched, made no effort to call 911, and later played “the abuse excuse” card, even though other than her testimony there was no evidence to support her claims of being abused. Matthew Winkler’s oldest daughter, Patricia, said her father was a good man and did not abuse her mother. Now free, the Courts even gave Winkler custody of her children, thereby denying their understandable wish to live with their grandparents rather than the woman who murdered their father in cold blood.

Valerie has to be a driving force behind Biden’s obsessive championing of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Not only because of questionable values learned during childhood, but she also serves as a “ volunteer political trainer for Women’s Campaign International, a non-profit organization dedicated to the empowerment of women in the world’s emerging democracies, and she currently serves on the national board of the DNC Women’s Leadership Forum ”.

Regardless of danger victims of Sweden’s 1973 Norrmalmstorg bank robbery showed loyalty to their hostage-takers, a psychological process now known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Long after Patty Hurst’s abduction by the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) she told Larry King during an interview that,

“You have been so abused and so robbed of your free will and so frightened that you believe – you come to a point where you believe any lie your abductor has told you.”

Could it be that Biden is a sympathetic hostage turned true believer to an abusive past exploited by those he considers like-minded allies; here, trusted family members and misandric, ideologically driven, Domestic Violence Industry (DV Industry) stakeholders dependent upon VAWA dollars and other taxpayer funding?

Errin Pizzey is generally credited as the founder of the domestic violence movement, as well as opening the first women’s shelter, the Chiswick Women’s Refuge, in London in 1971. She soon realized there were as many violent women as there were men, a fact now proven by a plethora of worldwide research, as found in California State University’s Professor Martin Fiebert’s bibliography of over 170 academic studies and published papers. There is no reliable data to the contrary – none, regardless of DV Industry propaganda.

Three years before President Clinton signed Biden’s VAWA bill into law Pizzey explained in David Thomas’ book Not Guilty: the Case in Defense of Men (1993) the reason the women’s movement resists recognizing abused men:

“There’s a lot of money in hating men, particularly in the United States–millions of dollars. It isn’t a politically good idea to threaten the huge budgets for women’s refuges by saying that some of the women who go into them aren’t total victims.  Anyway, the activists aren’t there to help women come to terms with what’s happening in their lives. They’re there to fund their budgets, their conferences, their traveling abroad, and their statements against men” (Thomas, pp. 186-87).

Coral Davenport, Staff Writer for CQPolitics wrote in Healing Clinton-Obama Rift Just Not About Bad Feelings , that “ Together, EMILY’s List , the Feminist Majority , the NARAL political action committee, the NOW political action committee , Planned Parenthood and Women Count have raised over $27.5 million for Democratic candidates thus far in the election cycle,” all examples of innumerable wealthy VAWA support organizations, some of which may receive huge public subsidies conceivably used for illicit campaign contributions and political pandering.

In one of my recent e-mails a DV Industry victim put it this way when explaining to another DV Industry victim how things work under VAWA and his continuing DV Industry saga,

“You are beyond that point and the Court System/Victim Industry is completely sold out to women’s advocates, you (as a man) have no sanctuary or friends in the SYSTEM, not even the ones you hire.  No “therapist/counselors” make enough money doing evaluations to keep their BUSINESS going.  They are all members of the United Way/VAWA/DV feed trough…..  Any buckling with that party line and that therapist would be kicked to the curb faster than John Edwards after a hot date.”

VAWA largess feeds tens of thousands of attorneys, including even public defenders creating an instant conflict of interest. The money directly or indirectly creates thousands of extremely well paid, comprehensive benefits, early retirement, soft-jobs in Family Justice Centers, child support services conglomerates, child visitation centers, child abuse consortiums, animal shelters (for victims with pets that witnessed the alleged abuse), juvenile dependency courts, police departments, and a plethora of other employers, largely governments and nonprofit organizations, all dependent upon buckling to the party line.

So, (1) by his own admission Biden may have grown up in an abusive home (2) his sister had impunity from any abuse she committed (3) she is one of Biden’s closest advisors and high ranking feminist operative (4) VAWA and the Domestic Violence Industries are primarily driven by the quest for more money – power and control (5) there are arguably as many or more abused men than women (6) someone’s lying.

Lie : “ false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.”

DV Industry operatives knew early on that as many or more men were abused by women than women by men. Yet, imperative to the success of the feminist movement was the lie that all men were perpetrators and all women victims.

Lesbian researcher and scholar Janice Ristock in her landmark work “ No More Secrets: Violence in Lesbian Relationships ” (2002) noted that “…we were often worried about causing more harm to lesbians and to feminism by speaking about the issue to publicly.” Sixty-six percent of the lesbians in Ristock’s survey responded that they knew lesbians who had been in abusive relationships. (Page X). Ristock observed that,

“Within the women’s movement, there have been two main forms of resistance to examining abuse in lesbian relationships: one stems from the desire to keep a focus on male violence, thereby minimizing women’s violence; the other arises from the fear that this issue will create a backlash against feminism and lesbians. The ideology that only men were violent was adopted by the radical feminist culture of the 1970’s… Perhaps the biggest source of resistance from feminist communities in general is that acknowledging lesbian abuse will threaten a dominant feminist analysis of violence against women in intimate relationships, which most often assumes a male perpetrator…” (Pages 3-5).

Obviously women-to-women violence brings into question radical feminist theories blaming everything from scratchy toilet paper to global warming on patriarchy and misogyny.

Aside from fears of revealing lesbian-on-lesbian violence radical feminists had to silence activists like Errin Pizzey. In 1982, Pizzey and Jeff Shapiro coauthored the book Prone to Violence , about abusive and violent women.  Pizzey reported that the book enraged feminists to the extent that her life was threatened.

Dr. Richard Gelles is one of the world’s premier family violence researchers. In The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence: Male Victims , originally published in The Women’s Quarterly, 1999, Gelles wrote,

“Two years after my initial study of family violence, the American Sociological Association included a session on ”Family Violence” as part of the association’s annual meeting program. This was the first time this scholarly association had devoted precious meeting time and space to this topic… uninvited, I went to the session anyway… Much of the session focused on the application of feminist theory, or patriarchy theory, to explaining the extent and patterns of violence towards wives… eventually someone raised the question of whether men were victims of domestic violence. The session leaders and many others in the group stated, categorically, there were no male victims of domestic violence… I explained that I had indeed interviewed men and women who reported significant and sometimes severe violence toward husbands…

In order to build a more solid knowledge base and understanding of family violence, my colleagues Murray Straus and Suzanne Steinmetz and I conducted the First National Family Violence Survey in 1976. The survey interviewed a nationally representative sample of 2,143 individual family members… The most controversial finding… was that the rate of adult female-to-adult male intimate violence was the same as the rate of male-to-female violence. Not only that, but the rate of abusive female-to-male violence was the same as the rate of abusive male-to-female violence. When my colleague Murray Straus presented these findings in 1977 at a conference on the subject of battered women, he was nearly hooted and booed from the stage… my colleague Suzanne Steinmetz published a scholarly article, ”The battered husband syndrome,” in 1978…

The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present. Suzanne received the brunt of the attacks—individuals wrote and called her university urging that she be denied tenure; calls were made and letters were written to government agencies urging that her grant finding be rescinded. All three of us became” non persons” among advocates. Invitations to conferences dwindled and dried up. Advocacy literature and feminist writing would cite our research, but not attribute it to us. Librarians publicly stated they would not order or shelve our books.”

Clearly, the preservation of the myth upon which VAWA was based – only men perpetrate violence and only women are victims – was so central to DV Industry and radical feminist operatives that they committed terrorist acts against those expressing contrary views. Additionally, these violent operatives well knew that woman-to-woman violence was common.

L ie in one’s throat or teeth : to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one’s teeth .”

To believe that Biden and his staff did not understand the truth prior to championing VAWA in 1994 is to believe that they are not just ignorant, but stupid, which they are not. He and his staff have received hundreds if not thousands of letters, e-mails, and other communications from respected individuals, scholars and organizations explaining that both men and women can be perpetrators and victims of domestic violence. Associates of mine have told me about private conversations with Biden concerning VAWA and abused men. One associate was even in the Constitutional Law class Biden taught at Widener University School of Law in which related issues were discussed . Educational materials have been hand carried to Biden’s Washington D.C. offices. So, if Biden’s not ignorant or stupid what is he? And, why is he so strongly against helping abused men? Why does he perpetuate the lie, even if only by omission and misrepresentation?

Could it really be as simple as growing up in an abusive home? If so, who in the home delivered the “nuclear sanctions”? Is he projecting some hidden shame? Is it mere chivalry? Is his sister pulling his strings re VAWA? Like Patty Hearst has he been brainwashed to believe the lies of his youth and political captors? Or, along with one or more of those possibilities is Biden simply a political opportunist who sold his soul a long time ago to radical feminism in return for their support to higher political office than the Senate? Who knows? I don’t, but he clearly has little or no regard for the untold thousands of families, men, women, and children devastated by arguably one of the most debilitating pieces of legislation ever signed into law, VAWA, even if he’s a true believer in DV Industry hyperbole.

Conservative columnist Carey Roberts in The ABA Goes to the Dark Side wrote,

“The domestic violence industry is one of the most corrupt and unaccountable enterprises in modern-day America. Every year it sucks over $1 billion from the federal treasury and ships the money to a variety of radical feminist organizations dedicated to revamping the family unit… the Violence Against Women Act, domestic violence programs encourage women to file false allegations, strip fit fathers of their natural right to parent, and doom kids to live in a single-parent household…”

Robert’s sentiments are confirmed by a host of others including the highly regarded international organization Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR) and it’s over 70 co-sponsoring organizations from around the world. For over two years RADAR has been investigating and reporting on VAWA and the devastating impact of this truly ill conceived and corrupt legislation.

In a series of investigative reports RADAR found that (1) VAWA funds immigration fraud costs the American taxpayers $170 million a year (2) VAWA funded programs were riddled with malfeasance and mismanagement with some workers earning well over $100,000 per year (3) over a million false restraining orders are issued each and every year – the latter of which turns untold numbers of extended families into wrecking ball rubble.

Professor Stephen Baskerville in his 2002 article Fathers Under Siege: No Restraint on Restraining Orders wrote:

“The real purpose of restraining orders is not so much to prevent violence as to eliminate one parent during divorce proceedings. This is now common knowledge in legal circles.”

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, writes that

“[A]llegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage” in divorce courts and that restraining orders are doled out like candy. Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply… the facts have become irrelevant.”

Just this year RADAR’s “ Reform VAWA Now ” campaign was instrumental in stopping one of Senator’s Biden’s most recent assaults on the family, men, women, and children – the National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Act (NDVVAA).

The NDVVAA would have provided tens of millions of dollars to DV Industry operatives for training 100,000 attorneys to help abused women; that is, instill into the attorneys psyche anti-male radical feminist ideology. Fully supported by the horrendously pro-women and anti-male American Bar Association the NDVVAA would have been a huge boon to DV Industries, including creating jobs for new feminist warrior attorneys armed with undergraduate degrees in women studies; or, more aptly, WoMEN StuDIEs .

It was reported by a Congressional staffer to RADAR representatives that the defeat of the NDVVAA was a first; that generally any pro-women legislation sails through with overwhelming partisan support.

Thanks in large part to radical feminism’s war on men and politicians like champ Biden the DV Industry is now one of America’s biggest exports. In England women who kill abusive partners in cold blood could escape a murder conviction with yet another abuse-excuse if they prove they simply feared more violence, but not men. Sociologist Jiri Burianek, co-author of a domestic violence survey and head of the sociology studies at Prague’s Charles University Faculty of Arts, said “… surveys conducted abroad showing that both genders have more or less equal experience with domestic violence have been warning us for a long time men are often more vulnerable than women since there is actually nobody to help them, while women have dozens of non-profit organizations to protect them… Men have nobody to turn to…” In Britain the Ipswich Evening Star reported a 20% increase of abused men . This year the Subcommittee on the Family Crisis in Israel ignited a stormy clash between government representatives and rights groups. In India men’s rights groups say they are tormented by vicious and vengeful women misusing pro-women laws. Sweden, Denmark, Norway all have commissions to abolish domestic violence against women, but not men. Thorkild Vestergaard-Hansen, who heads Mandecentret said, ” It’s crazy that the men’s crisis centres don’t receive the same amount of subsidies as the 40 or so women’s shelters. ” In Costa Rica a man can be tossed out of his own home by his wife or girlfriend merely alleging abuse, like raising his voice. A police officer said: “Women in Costa Rica are taking advantage of this new law. They throw out their boyfriend and then steal their things and leave” – just like Anywhere, America, no evidence required. Among many other countries, Ghana has “Domestic Violence Victim Support Units” , but this third world country seems to be getting it right. When asked if the Domestic Violence Bill has helped, a program representative said, “[Y]es and no because the bill is gender neutral so it is there to protect everybody, but without resources like education and money, the office can do little to make a real difference for victims of domestic violence…”

The situation in the Czech Republic reminded me of attending volunteer training for President Bush’s first Family Justice Center which opened in San Diego a few years back. About a dozen senior Czech judges were touring the new facility.  I believe Ms. Gael Strack, Center Director, chaperoned. She began introducing the various judges to the several of us in the training session as well as to the trainers. I was last to be introduced. Gael cleared her throat, thought how best to introduce me, and said something like, “And this is Harry Crouch – men’s rights advocate, and President of the San Diego Chapter of the National Coalition of Free Men .”

The one male judge in the group said something indiscernible in Czech, developed a tremendously broad smile, rose on tiptoes high above his shorter female counterparts, extended his arm as high as he could stretch it, enthusiastically waived back and forth a thumbs-up like he’d just discovered a long lost best friend was still alive, and loudly proclaimed, “RIGHT ON!” Everyone gasped, chuckled, laughed, and for the briefest of time our opposing views wondrously blended with humanity across geographic and ideological boundaries.

Moving on, if Biden has his way gender inclusive programs like Ghana’s will be dead before they have a chance to spread meaningful solutions throughout the world. Last year Biden introduced the “groundbreaking” International Violence Against Women Act offering to export even more destruction.

Biden is passionate about his blatant gender bias. Listen to his “End Domestic Violence” speech found at the bottom of the page at “ On a more personal note ” in which Biden loudly babbles,

“If I could change the attitudes of anyone I wouldn’t change the attitudes of men – but women, to understand that no man has the right to raise his hand to any woman under any circumstances – any, none, none, none, NONE!”

I’d like to see Biden explain that to the abused men I work with almost every day, including a man who was getting ready to go on a motorcycle ride with his brother, sister-in-law, and friend when his Karate trained wife stormed in with closed fist and landed a haymaker to his chin, pushed him against a wall, kneed him five times in the groin, and left deep cuts and welts on his neck and face when trying to gouge out his eyes. Culturally brainwashed like Biden and the rest of us guys, he did not hit her, though had he done so he may not have been so seriously injured. She was arrested, not prosecuted, and received no sanctions whatsoever – typical. The San Diego City Attorney’s Office found witness declarations not credible. Both his brother and sister-in-law are highly respected medical doctors. His brother also has a law degree. Both witnessed the beating and submitted their “not credible” declarations. Had the roles been reversed the husband might now be in prison, all thanks to VAWA and ilk.

While it’s a stretch, under the circumstances I wonder how Biden would feel about a male soldier taking down a female suicide bomber to stop mass murder, a worse form of domestic violence for sure.

How about woman-on-woman violence? If you read Ristock you discover such wicked women are really creative in their forms of abuse, disgustingly so. How come we don’t hear Biden passionately saying “… no woman has the right to raise her hand to any woman under any circumstances – any, none, none, none, NONE!” Or, no woman has the right to raise her hand to a man, a child… How come he doesn’t talk about that if he’s truly interested in ending domestic violence? How come, indeed?

Shouldn’t we change the attitudes of everyone – men, women, Biden and ilk – to understand that no person has the right to raise his hand to anyone else except in self-defense, regardless of gender? Indeed, we should.

Oh, and the National Organization of Women’s (NOW) Defense and Education Fund, their legal advocacy organization dedicated to advancing the rights of women and girls, along with NOW proper, apparently wrote VAWA. Biden championed the monster after his staff drafted the misandric work into a piece of legislation. He is not the author of VAWA as he claims; only the royal messenger turned chivalrous champion; or, fool, to the substantial detriment of humankind.

Fool -noun (1) a person who lacks judgment or sense (2) a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone (3) an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm: He’s usually a dancing fool.

Biden doesn’t get it – violence is not gender specific. And, he may yet become President. Dance on Mr. Biden, dance on…

The US Congress directed the Government Accounting Office to determine the number of A-3 or G-5 visa holders who have alleged abuse by foreign diplomats with immunity since 2000 and to review the US government’s process for investigating these allegations.

The GAO was also directed to assess how the State Department ensures that its policies for issuing A-3 and G-5 visas are implemented correctly and consistently. The GAO analyzed documents, interviewed officials, and conducted fieldwork at four consular posts that issue large numbers of A-3 or G-5 visas.

The GAO identified 42 household workers with A-3 or G-5 visas who alleged that they were abused by foreign diplomats with immunity from 2000 through 2008, but the total number is likely higher. The total number of alleged incidents since 2000 is likely higher for four reasons: household workers’ fear of contacting law enforcement, nongovernmental organizations’ protection of victim confidentiality, limited information on some cases handled by the US government, and federal agencies’ challenges identifying cases.

For example, the State Department has several offices that receive allegations of abuse by foreign diplomats, but no single office maintains information on all allegations. The US government’s process for investigating alleged abuse of household workers by foreign diplomats is complicated by three factors.

First, immunity can pose constraints for law enforcement in collecting evidence. Second, the status of foreign diplomats can heighten their workers’ sense of vulnerability, causing the workers to fear cooperating with investigators. Third, the length of time it takes to obtain a legal opinion from State on the permissibility of using certain investigative techniques can hamper investigations.

According to the State Department, although some techniques are clearly prohibited by international law (such as searching certain diplomats’ residences), the permissibility of others under international law is less clear. In advising on the use of investigative techniques, the State Department considers legal and policy issues, such as reciprocity–assessing how US diplomats abroad might be affected by actions taken toward a foreign diplomat on US soil.

State Department officials may ask the Justice Department to provide information to help determine the permissibility of certain techniques, but the process of obtaining this information can be difficult and time consuming for Justice officials.

Although both State and Justice Departments have discussed creating a process to avoid delays, no formal actions have, thus far, been taken to establish one. Weaknesses exist in State’s process for ensuring correct and consistent implementation of policies and procedures for issuing A-3 and G-5 visas.

The GAO’s review of employment contracts submitted at four consular posts by A-3 and G-5 visa applicants showed that they often did not include State’s required components, such as a guarantee of the minimum or prevailing wage.

The GAO also found that officers at the four posts were unclear about or unfamiliar with certain aspects of State’s guidance. Few of the officers were aware that they should inform A-3 and G-5 visa applicants of their rights under US law during their interview. Some officers at the four posts also were uncertain about the reasons for refusing A-3 or G-5 visas. State is considering adding provisions to its guidance that would more clearly stipulate reasons for refusing these visas, such as if an A-3 or G-5 applicant seeks to work for a foreign diplomat who is linked to a pattern of employee disappearance, abuse allegations, or other irregularities.

However, the State Department has not reached internal agreement on these provisions and has set no timetable for doing so. State headquarters officials said they rely on individual posts to monitor implementation of A-3 and G-5 visa policies and procedures and do not routinely assess posts’ compliance

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri

Jesus Perez-Laguna, a citizen of Mexico, was sentenced in federal court in Columbia, S.C., on charges stemming from a sex trafficking ring involving at least one teenage girl. Perez-Laguna was sentenced to over 14 years imprisonment and ordered to pay $52,500 in restitution to his victims. After his release from prison, Perez-Laguna will be on federal supervised release for the rest of his life.

As a condition of supervised release, U.S. District Judge Joseph F. Anderson ordered that Perez-Laguna be surrendered to immigration officials for deportation proceedings and further ordered that Perez-Laguna not return to the United States while on supervised release.

In April, Perez-Laguna’s co-defendant, Ciro Bustos-Rosales, was sentenced to 70 months in prison, ordered to pay restitution, and ordered to comply with similar terms and conditions of release as those included in Perez-Laguna’s sentence.

During their guilty plea hearings in September 2007, both men admitted that they were involved with transporting a 14-year-old girl across the border between the United States and Mexico and the border between North Carolina and South Carolina in order for the minor to engage in prostitution. Additionally, both men admitted that they harbored illegal aliens for the purpose of prostitution.

“Sex traffickers prey on young girls and vulnerable women who are brought into the United States, kept far from home, and forced into prostitution,” said Grace Chung Becker, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Court’s sentence demonstrates the Justice Department’s commitment to prosecuting those who exploited this young victim, who hopefully can now move on to a better life.”

“This is a fitting end to a disturbing case. Mr. Perez-Laguna had no regard whatsoever for the young girls he enslaved and victimized,” stated W. Walter Wilkins, U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina. “I applaud the dedication and hard work of the investigative agents who exposed this ring and the prosecutors who ensured the convictions.”

“Sex traffickers represent one of the most disturbing segments of organized criminal activity,” said Gretchen C.F. Shappert, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. “The damage they cause to their victims is incalculable. We are grateful to our colleagues in state and federal law enforcement who have brought these predators to justice.”

Perez-Laguna and Bustos-Rosales are two of three defendants indicted in August 2007 by a federal grand jury in Columbia following a federal sex trafficking investigation. The third co-defendant, Guadalupe Reyes-Rivera, also known as “Mama Martina,” is a fugitive.

Because the illegal activities uncovered in this investigation involved incidents in both South Carolina and North Carolina, cases related to this investigation were jointly prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Mark C. Moore and Tara L. McGregor from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina, Civil Rights Division Trial Attorney Ryan McKinstry, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kimlani M. Ford and Kenneth M. Smith from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us

A US Army contract translator was sentenced today to 121 months of imprisonment for illegally possessing national defense documents, and using a false identity to procure his United States citizenship and to gain access to classified military materials. In addition, the court issued an order stripping the defendant of his United States citizenship on the basis of his conviction for unlawful procurement of citizenship.

The proceedings were held before United States District Judge Edward R. Korman at the US Courthouse in Brooklyn, New York.

Previously, on February 14, 2007, the defendant, whose true identity is still unknown and who goes by various names including, Abdulhakeem Nour, Abu Hakim, Noureddine Malki, Almaliki Nour, and Almalik Nour Eddin, pleaded guilty to the unauthorized possession of classified documents charge, and on December 20, 2005, pleaded guilty to the false identity charge. The government’s investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF).

In August 2003, the defendant used a false identity to apply for and gain a position as an Arabic translator for the L-3 Titan Corp., which provides translation services in Iraq for US military personnel. He then used the same false identity fraudulently to obtain “Secret” and then “Top Secret” security clearances. Subsequently, during assignments in Iraq, the defendant took classified documents from the US Army without authorization.

While assigned to an intelligence group in the 82nd Airborne Division of the US Army at Al Taqqadam Air Base, he downloaded a classified document and took hard copies of several other classified documents. The documents detail the 82nd Airborne’s mission in Iraq in regard to insurgent activity, such as coordinates of insurgent locations upon which the US Army was preparing to fire in January 2004, and US Army plans for protecting Sunni Iraqis traveling on their pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, in late January 2004.

During a later deployment to a US Army base near Najaf, Iraq, the defendant photographed a classified battle map identifying US troop routes used in August 2004 during the bloody battle of Najaf, where the US and Iraqi security forces sustained serious casualties. In September 2005, the JTTF recovered these classified documents during a search of the defendant’s Brooklyn apartment. One of the documents remains classified and is not described here.

“Those who would compromise military plans and intelligence will be met with aggressive investigation and prosecution,” stated United States Attorney Benton J. Campbell. Mr. Campbell extended his grateful appreciation to the FBI, the New York City Police Department, and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for spearheading the government’s investigation, and thanked the US Department of Defense for its assistance.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us