Virginia womens college to admit men this fall

This from Yahoo News:

Board votes to make women's college coed By SUE LINDSEY, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago LYNCHBURG, Va. - Amid boos and shouts of "traitors!" Randolph-Macon Woman's College officials announced Saturday that men would be admitted to the 115-year-old institution starting in 2007.

In the eyes of the board of trustees, going coed could help stabilize the school's finances as interest in all-women schools wanes. But when officials floated the idea last month, it drew a sharp response. Online petitions and campus protests decried the move, angry e-mail flooded in and one alumnae group even hired a lawyer to try to discourage the board by citing legal concerns.

Saturday morning, an agitated crowd of some 400 students, alumnae and their supporters greeted the board's announcement by drowning out trustees president Jolley Christman as she tried to explain.
"Today we begin to heal. We begin to write the next chapter in our history," Christman said, barely audible over the shouting. Christman said the 27-2 vote — she wouldn't say who the dissenters were — followed 2 1/2 years of study.

The board determined coeducation was the best way to preserve the school's mission of high academic standards for undergraduate students and said a coed version of Randolph-Macon Woman's College would emphasize glo
bal honors programs.

Interim President Ginger Worden told the students and supporters, "Do not, I implore you, turn your back on this college," but many in the crowd swiftly turned their backs on her in response. "I'm sad. I'm really sad," said Gabriella Medina, a freshman from Puerto Rico. "If we can't reverse this, I guess I'm going to transfer."




Before Saturday's vote, supporters of single-gender education gathered on campus, many wearing yellow T-shirts distributed by the students' Coalition to Preserve Women's Education. A red-brick campus wall was lined with bedsheets turned into banners, one reading: "115 Years of Women Can't Be Wrong."

College officials expected resistance but said the move was necessary. Enrollment this fall was about 700, down from a student body of nearly 900 in the 1960s.


Worden said the school has had to dip into its $140 million endowment for operations because of the large financial incentives required to attract good students. The retention rate has been about 61 percent.


Nationwide, only about 60 women's colleges remain, from nearly 300 in the 1960s, according to the Women's College Coalition, a national association of women's schools. Virginia is home to three others: Sweet Briar College, Hollins University and Mary Baldwin College, and two of those, Hollins and Mary Baldwin, admit men to some programs.


and my response to this story......



Latin Americas Socialism

Part of an article from Brazzil.com:

Richard Nixon famously remarked, "As goes Brazil, so goes Latin America". Perhaps he was right. Lula's brand of socialism is becoming a role model for the entire region. Analysts consider Nestor Kirchner's Presidential election victory in Argentina a boon to Mercosul (the customs union between Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay) and a serious setback for the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) negotiations with the US.

In fact, the entire South American continent may be getting off the train. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced he is not going to resign peacefully; Rebel leader Evo Morales may stage a coup or at least keep destabilizing the Bolivian government; FARC and ELN narco-terrorists are besieging Colombia's government; and leftist regimes are in power in Chile, Ecuador and spreading fast.

Fidel Castro's wildest revolutionary ambitions are being fulfilled right under the nose of the Bush administration. As Castro once said, "The US can't attack us if the rest of Latin America is in flames." It's time to put out the fire and restore faith in free markets and democracy in the Americas.

Feminist Hypocrisy

This story was linked at Men's News Daily it comes from the American Chronicle:

Nancy Levant
September 6, 2006

I begin by quoting myself from a previous article:

“Try disagreeing with a political feminist and discover what a dumb ass your free will has become. Try disagreeing with anything a political feminist has to say about anything. You would get the same attitude and look from a radical environmentalist – no compromise, no reflection, no regard or respect for the opinion of another - no deals. Feminists are unapproachable, arrogant, and believe themselves to be intellectual elites…”

If never ceases to amaze me how “feminism” insults and degrades women. Either you accept and forward political feminist doctrines, or you are an idiot. As such, one cannot help but to consider the world history of women. It has been, in so many respects, a terribly sad history and one in which the personal opinions of women were mostly disregarded. This strange and bizarre standard continues in many, many nations all across the world. Think of it – half of the world’s population over written history - one of two genders - and the systematic denial of their brainpower, their capabilities, their opinions, and their contributions to cultures and mankind. And now, in the 21 Century, women themselves have organized to further this bitter history. Worse yet, contemporary women fell hook, line, and sinker into another enslavement trap. Now the feminist movement crafts our opinions for us and leaves us with no options minus those of their invention.

Political feminism, in this writer’s opinion, has again degraded the brainpower and contributions of women. I think it is fair to say that American women have become enslaved to moneymaking, money spending, the “health” and “beauty” industries, and to pathological vanity. And as such, motherhood and marriage have become enemies of womanhood. But how can I make such a blanket summation?


You can read the rest of the atricle HERE.

Liberals to use strategic blogging to protest ABC 9-11 Film

This from The Rogue Jew at Men's News Daily:

Democratic-Underground.com have urged every Democratic blogger to post identical entries after the movie airs, all featuring the film’s title, so that any Internet search for the movie will turn up a liberal blog highlighting what they say are multiple inaccuracies in the film.

If the plan works, bloggers say they’ll be prepared to utilize the technique “at every turn” between now and November.

Simply put, Liberal Democrats plan to use Cyber Terrorism to fix the November elections. I’m really curious about the ACLU’s opinion on this attempt to squash Freedom of Speech.

the article continues:

Sens. Reid, Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer, and Dorgan sent a letter to Disney today issueing a veiled threat:

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. […]

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

But they had no problem with “Fahrenheit 911

These Liberal Democrats are such freakin’ hypocrites. I don’t remember any of these schmucks threatening Michael the Mooron because of his crockumentary. So typical of this First Amendment yahoos who wax so eloquently about free speech WHEN ITS SOMETHING THEY AGREE WITH.

Read the rest of the article HERE.....

The Fairness and Accountability in Broacasting Act

This from the Accuracy In Media [AIM] web site on the "Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act," bill, by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D):

Targeting Conservatives


Nationally, of course, the liberals were already in charge. The Big Three broadcast networks took their cue from the New York Times, which was read by the writers, reporters, anchors, and the higher-ups. The big three held "story meetings" early in the day to decide what would be on the evening news and what will be left out.


Conservatives had a national media voice only through radio and because of this they were targeted. John T. Flynn in While You Slept (1951) reported that the radicals of that day boasted they would force national conservative commentators such as Boake Carter, Upton Close, Henry J. Taylor, and Fulton Lewis, Jr. off the air.

Carter solved their problem by dying. Henry J. Taylor and Upton Close disappeared, though Taylor reappeared briefly later on. Fulton Lewis survived only by inventing a format that encouraged local sponsorship. Robert F. Hurleigh moved from CBS-owned WBBM in Chicago to the Mutual network, where he adopted Lewis's format.
It is interesting to note that Senator Jesse Helms, who would later wage a campaign to "become Dan Rather's boss" by encouraging conservatives to buy stock in CBS, started out as a local radio commentator in North Carolina.

Chilling Effect


But the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine" had a chilling effect on these local broadcasters. If they wanted to take a conservative editorial position on a hot topic, they were discouraged.

Government-enforced "fairness" decreed that air time devoted to one point of view had to be matched by "equal time" for the opposing position.


It sounded reasonable. Any programmer could theoretically put a conservative on the air for three hours. But the station would then be pressured to put on a liberal talk-show host for another three hours, even if that liberal host could not attract advertisers. If the station manager couldn't afford to run three hours commercial-free, he was told, in effect, "Too bad. Put a liberal on the air or you're in violation of the Fairness Doctrine." As a practical matter, station managers usually decided that conservative commentary wasn't worth the hassle.


The Kennedy Administration pursued this approach. Kennedy Assistant Commerce Secretary Bill Ruder was quoted as saying, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." That strategy was recommended by longtime United Auto Workers president Walter Reuther.


Liberal Talk Radio?


The Fairness Doctrine effectively met its demise at the hands of President Ronald Reagan. Once again, the Gipper—derided by one establishment liberal as "an amiable dunce"—knew how to let the left-wingers keep underestimating him as he handed their heads to them.


A federal court had ruled in 1986 that the Fairness Doctrine lacked the force of law. So Congress passed a law giving the doctrine some teeth. President Reagan vetoed the law, anticipating that getting the government out of the media business would open up more alternatives. Congress did not override the veto, the FCC junked the policy altogether, and a media revolution was underway.


Since then, Americans starved for a multiplicity of voices have found refuge in federally licensed over-the-air broadcasts, and also through new outlets with content legally beyond the reach of the FCC—i.e., cable TV, cable radio (which regularly broadcasts George Putnam), satellite radio, and the Internet. Slowly—but steadily—the old-line media are losing their clout with the public, with fewer listeners, viewers and subscribers. Nonetheless, they remain dominant. The leftists are not satisfied with that. They want total control, apparently believing that given free and open discussion, their view will not resonate with the public.


Liberals, like conservatives, are free to promote their views. The reason, however, that liberal talk shows such as those on Air America cannot attract a significant number of listeners or advertisers is that the public has had its fill of the liberal line handed down on high from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, National Public Radio (NPR), PBS television, the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek, and the formerly conservative U.S. News and World Report.

Liberals know that there are far more conservatives than liberals in American society, and that the conservative viewpoint is increasingly popular, as reflected in the rise of talk radio and Fox News. That is why liberals in and out of Congress are working to stifle conservative commentary on the air—not only by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, but also by using the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to regulate and silence the media for "contributing" to one campaign or another.

Slaughtering Conservatives


Rep. Louise Slaughter's "Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting" bill would bring back the Fairness Doctrine for over-the-air radio and television. But she has talked about applying its provisions to cable-TV as well.


She has bluntly stated—in an interview with commentator Bill Moyers—that the right of individuals simply to turn off a program they don't like "is not good enough" and that politicians have to enforce "the responsibility" of broadcasters "to use our airwaves judiciously and responsibly and call them to account if they don't." That euphemistic language spells government censorship, regardless of how Rep. Slaughter tries to dress it up with high-sounding ideals.

Slaughter's fellow New Yorker, Maurice Hinchey, a member of the House Appropriations Committee that decides such issues as how much money to give the FCC, has sponsored another pro-Fairness Doctrine bill that he calls the "Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005." He has hosted a Capitol Hill showing of the leftist film, "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism," which insists that Fox News is too conservative.

War against boys paved the way for Islamist

This from the Brussels Journal:

How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam

Some commentators like to point out that many of the most passionate and bravest defenders of the West are women, citing Italian writer Oriana Fallaci and others as examples. But women like Ms. Fallaci, brave as they might be, are not representative of all Western women. If you look closely, you will notice that, on average, Western women are actually more supportive of Multiculturalism and massive immigration than are Western men.

I got many comments on my posts about Muslim anti-female violence in Scandinavia. Several of my readers asked what Scandinavian men are doing about this. What happened to those Vikings, anyway? Did they drink too much mead in Valhalla? Despite the romantic mystique surrounding them today, the Vikings were for the most part savage barbarians. However, I doubt they would have looked the other way while their daughters were harassed by Muslims. In some ways, this makes present-day Scandinavians worse barbarians than the Vikings ever were.

One of the reasons for this lack of response is a deliberate and pervasive censorship in the mainstream media, to conceal the full scale of the problem from the general public. However, I suspect that the most important reason has to do with the extreme anti-masculine strand of feminism that has permeated Scandinavia for decades. The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia, and perhaps Western civilization as whole.

The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes. The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male parties, while those who praise the Multicultural society are dominated by feminists. And across the Atlantic, if only American women voted, the US President during 9/11 would be called Al Gore, not George Bush.

The standard explanation in my country for this gender gap in voting patterns is that men are more “xenophobic and selfish” than women, who are more open-minded and possess a greater ability to show solidarity with outsiders. That’s one possibility. Another one is that men traditionally have had the responsibility for protecting the “tribe” and spotting an enemy, a necessity in a dog-eat-dog world. Women are more naïve, and less willing to rationally think through the long-term consequences of avoiding confrontation or dealing with unpleasant realities now.

Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because they wouldn’t sacrifice their own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what they are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow?

Another possibility is that Western feminists fail to confront Muslim immigration for ideological reasons. Many of them are silent on Islamic oppression of women because they have also embraced “Third-Worldism” and anti-Western sentiments. I see some evidence in support of this thesis.

[paragraph skipped]

the article continues:

Totalitarian feminists in Norway are threatening to shut down private companies that refuse to recruit at least 40 percent women to their boards by 2007, a Soviet-style regulation of the economy in the name of gender equality. I have read comments from Socialist politicians and leftist commentators in certain newspapers, such as the pro-Multicultural and feminist — critics would say Female Supremacist — newspaper Dagbladet, arguing that we should have quotas for Muslim immigrants, too.

What started out as radical feminism has thus gradually become egalitarianism, the fight against “discrimination” of any kind, the idea that all groups of people should have an equal share of everything and that it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that this takes place. A prime example of this is Norway’s Ombud for Gender Equality, which in 2006 became The Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud. The Ombud’s duties are “to promote equality and combat discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability and age.”

Western feminists have cultivated a culture of victimhood in the West, where you gain political power through your status in the victim hierarchy. In many ways, this is what Political Correctness is all about. They have also demanded, and largely got, a re-writing of the history books to address an alleged historic bias; their world view has entered the school curriculum, gained a virtual hegemony in the media and managed to portray their critics as “bigots.” They have even succeeded in changing the very language we use, to make it less offensive. Radical feminists are the vanguard of PC.


Swedish Marxist politician Gudrun Schyman has suggested a bill that would collectively tax Swedish men for violence against women. In a 2002 speech, the same Schyman famously posited that Swedish men were just like the Taliban. A male columnist in newspaper Aftonbladet responded by saying that Schyman was right: All men are like the Taliban.

The irony is that in an Islamic state similar to the one the Taliban established in Afghanistan, certain groups of people, in this case non-Muslims, pay a special punishment tax simply because of who they are, not because of what they earn. Radical feminists such as Ms. Schyman are thus closer to the Taliban than Western men, although I’m pretty sure that irony would be completely missed on them.

Schyman’s battle cry is “Death to the nuclear family!” I have heard the same slogan repeated by young Norwegian feminists in recent years. Schyman seethed that today’s family unit is “built on a foundation of traditional gender roles in which women are subordinate to men. The hierarchy of gender, for which violence against women is the ultimate expression, has been cemented.” “Conservatives want to strengthen the family. I find this of grave concern.”

In the year 2000, Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel and the action group Unf**ked Pussy entered the stage during the live broadcast of the Miss Sweden contest. She also wrote an article called “I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man,” for a major Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, in 2004. Rytel explained why she hates white men — they are selfish, exploitative, vain, and sex-crazed — and just to make things clear, she added, “no white men, please… I just puke on them, thank you very much.”


There's much more to this but I don't want to give the whole thing away. Go read the entire article...

Liberals are winning the Culture War

As this post from Men's News Daily explains:

Termites in the Foundation: How the Intellectual Left Came to Rule Over America

June 01, 2006
By Kent G. Bailey, Ph.D.

True members of the American intellectual Left number in the thousands but their radical view of the world dominates the print media (led by NYT), the television media, the movie industry, the law schools and the courts, and the educational establishment from kindergarten to the most elite universities. With only the so-called Religious Right offering any resistance, the mainline churches are slowly falling in line as well.

Indeed, the intellectual left is winning on all fronts as the family is reeling under the “progressive” onslaughts of abortion, feminism and gay marriage, as Christianity and its beliefs and symbols are relegated to the silent periphery of society, and as the borders are opened wide to illegal aliens who seek only a ride on the Good Ship Lollipop and not a new country to love and cherish. When did we begin to lose our children and how and why have they become more and more like “them” and less and less like “us.”

How can it be that such a paltry few blue-state radicals, socialists, and neo-Marxists have managed to insinuate themselves into positions of power and influence so as to neutralize, dominate, and brainwash a once proud and powerful Christian majority that has defined the essence of America since its birth as a nation?


First, it is important to distinguish between the true left- the generals who orchestrate the cultural wars perched high and safe on the mountain- and their suggestible, naive, ill-informed, parent-hating and country-hating masses of foot soldiers.

As I have argued elsewhere (MensNewsDaily, September 14, 2004, Part II), the typical rank and file American “liberal” is, in fact, a behavioral “conservative” who pursues life goals of prosperity, happiness, and success just like everyone else. He or she may mouth liberal platitudes, protest the day long, and vote for liberal candidates, but they are not “true” liberals committed to, first, re-defining America from top to bottom, and then replacing traditional Christian America with a Marxist state or some variant thereof.

The forefathers of modern true liberals exulted in France being turned upside-down in the French Revolution and they were then inspired to foment revolution in Russia where they succeeded in bringing down the Tsarist monarchy and aristocracy and installing a Communist regime- one that enjoyed a brief moment in the sun before falling into the dustbin of history with a little help from Ronald Reagan. In my view, we are on a similar road to ruin in the United States of America.



We are clearly living within a post-traditional, post-Christian, and, indeed, post-American society where the ideologies of disguised Marxism manifest themselves in craven worship of the First Amendment and the manufacture of “rights” ad infinitum, cultural nihilism as expressed in an obsessive protest and victimization ethic, gender warfare and denigration of the traditional family, the nullification of moral imperative through blanket ideologies of “tolerance,” the marketing of “multiculturalism” as a means of diluting and neutralizing majority rule, the seduction and exploitation of future generations via the music and entertainment industries, the enslavement of the weaker members of society to crass materialism, drug abuse, sexual addiction, pornography, and violent video games, and so on, ad nauseam.


The Marxist says that each American has a “Constitutional right” to all of these depravities, but say a single prayer at a school luncheon or wear your silver cross a little too much in view and see what happens. You think you live in the land of the free…dream on.

The Marxists that control education, the media, the publishing industry, and the flow of information in general decide what freedoms you may enjoy. Moreover, they are now engaged in the process of determining exactly who will populate your country in the next few decades. Who your children and grandchildren will go to school with, who they will marry, and who they will see on a trip to the mall in 2050 is now being determined more by true liberal Marxists than by any other segment of American culture, including the President, the Congress and the American public.


The true Marxist liberal is warrior intellectual who is patient, smart, savvy, and who thinks years ahead. He knows that how people think about themselves, others, and the world will determine how they vote, how they conceptualize issues like abortion, affirmative action, gender roles, the family, religion, freedom, rights, and the like, and how they define themselves as human beings. For 50 years, the Christian majority has been told repeatedly that they are rigid, up-tight, “ultraconservative” boobs such as Archie Bunker or Robert Barone’s in-laws on Everybody Loves Raymond, that they are superstitious religious zealots, intolerant to the core and, basically, just bad people.

I call this the “Wagon Train Syndrome.” Go back and watch a few episodes of the Wagon Train series in the 1950s and note how many times “the good people” (read Christian majority) are the villains who hate and discriminate against anyone who is “different” including young girls pregnant out of wedlock, well-meaning Indians, dance hall girls with hearts of gold, and so on.


Indeed, the unremitting assault on the Christian self and soul has been around for quite some time and has been one of the most devastatingly successful ploys the intellectual left has used to gain control of American culture. Sadly, the American people- including conservatives who should know better- seem blissfully unaware as the intellectual termites continue to gnaw away at the traditional American way of life.


In four short decades, the American people have let their culture slowly slip away under the influence of those who detest them for their apathy, stupidity, gullibility, and child-like naivete, and who care nothing about them whatsoever.

As a native West Virginian who agonizes over the progressive and unremitting degradation of “my people,” I see first hand with every visit back to my home state the moral and cultural collapse of a once hard-working, God-fearing, family-centered, and America-first people. The people are still warm and outgoing, they still work hard for their little pay, and they still go to church, but there is a crisis of the soul that no government largess or better-paying job can salve.

One day while doing a bit of research I came across a simple one paged web site that explained the situation perfectly. It said that America only managed to defeat socialism as a military force and not as a social force. And this webmaster was dead right... As you can see by the post above socialism is still alive and well not only as a way of governing people [think: Bolivian president Evo Morales, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, and Spanish Prime MinisterJosé Luis Rodríguez Zapatero] but as a social force as well.

New Browser offers more security

This story via Cooltools4Men:

A web browser that leaves no trace of a user's online surfing habits on their computer has been released.

Browzar, as it is known, automatically deletes all records of the pages a person has visited when it closes down.


Most browsers, including Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Apple's Safari, allow users to do this manually.


The developers of Browzar say that it will be useful for people who want to protect their privacy on work PCs or when using shared PCs in net cafes.


"We've had downloads from over 200 countries," said Mr Ajaz Ahmed, founder of internet service provider Freeserve and the man behind Browzar.


"All sorts of people are using it: teenagers, mums and grandparents. Many don't realise that their browser doesn't offer them privacy and they learn the hard way."


On the Browzar website Mr Ahmed has been collecting stories of people who have been caught out by their browser.


Stories include people who learnt about their parents divorce or their partner's pregnancy by looking at what had been searched for on the computer.

Some experts claim they have already identified flaws in the new browser.

More ANWR Facts

Didja know that.......

ANWR Oil maybe worth $111 BILLION in Taxes and Royalties?


Washington - Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) of the House Resources Committee released figures on ANWR oil revenues to the Federal Government this week stating that a Congressional Research Report analyzing tax and royalty revenues from oil and gas production in the 10-02 Area of ANWR would raise $111 billion over 30 years for the Federal Government.

That’s over $10 million injected into federal coffers everyday for over 30 years with zero cost the public.


The Congressional Research Service (CRS) based its figures on the median prediction of 10.3 billion barrels of oil the USGS stated in its 1998 study of potential 10-02 Area reserves. Over $76 billion in income taxes would be levied on oil companies and $35 billion raised in royalties and bonus bids. At $60 per barrel (the current and predicted average price for oil this year) the CRS estimates $89 billion could be raised in income taxes. $111 billion dollars would be most probably the largest tax windfall the US Government would receive from a single source in its history.


The CRS report went further in predicting revenues if the oil from the 10-02 Area of ANWR reached 16 billion barrels as the USGS report possibly states it could. At this amount the US Government could raise $118 billion in corporate income taxe and $55 billion in royalties. Oil from the 10-02 Area of ANWR is expected to reach a peak of 1 million barrels per day and keep the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in operation (which has a capacity of 2.1 million bpd) for over 30 years.


Even at its lowest potential estimate of 5.9 billion barrels predicted by the USGS the 10-02 Area would contain the largest oil field found in the western world in over 30 years.

Chairman Pombo stated about ANWR that, “The ANWR energy issue has been a cash cow for environmental fundraising groups and obstructionists in Congress for two decades. Enough is enough! Its time to make this resource a cash cow for each and every American taxpayer.”

Ohio law brands you as criminal even if youre not one.

My only suggestion to men living in the state of Ohio:

LEAVE FOR MEXICO NOW!!!

Article published Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Plan gains to publicly identify accused
Ohio panel backs registry proposal

COLUMBUS - An Ohio legislative panel yesterday rubber-stamped an unprecedented process that would allow sex offenders to be publicly identified and tracked even if they've never been charged with a crime.

No one in attendance voiced opposition to rules submitted by Attorney General Jim Petro's office to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, consisting of members of the Ohio House and Senate.


The committee's decision not to interfere with the rules puts Ohio in a position to become the first state to test a "civil registry."


The concept was offered by Roman Catholic bishops as an alternative to opening a one-time window for the filing of civil lawsuits alleging child sexual abuse that occurred as long as 35 years ago.


A recently enacted law allows county prosecutors, the state attorney general, or, as a last resort, alleged victims to ask judges to civilly declare someone to be a sex offender even when there has been no criminal verdict or successful lawsuit.


The rules spell out how the untried process would work. It would largely treat a person placed on the civil registry the same way a convicted sex offender is treated under Ohio's so-called Megan's Law.


The person's name, address, and photograph would be placed on a new Internet database and the person would be subjected to the same registration and community notification requirements and restrictions on where he could live.


A civilly declared offender, however, could petition the court to have the person's name removed from the new list after six years if there have been no new problems and the judge believes the person is unlikely to abuse again.


The attorney general's office said it continues to hold discussions with a group representing day care operators about one of the rules pertaining to what such facilities would do with information they might receive pertaining to someone on the registry if that person is living nearby.

Translate Page Into Your Language

Image Hosted by UploadHouse.com



Image Hosted by UploadHouse.com









del.icio.us linkroll

Archive

Counter

Counter

web tracker

Widget

Site Meter

Blog Patrol Counter