U Not Gonna Like This

This terrific post from Heretical Sex gives PART of the root cause as to why fem-o-nasties went after the family:

It was only as a result of second-wave feminism, in the late 1960s, that the feminist attack on the family began. The Cold War was in full swing at this time, and the middle-class young in the Western world became politically engaged with current issues such as Vietnam, and the US black civil rights movement. There was a radical generation gap between these youth and their parents, amounting almost to a state of mutual incomprehension. The youth found nothing in the political culture of their parents which provided them with the kind of answers they sought; indeed the political culture of their parents was often deemed to be the cause of the problem.



The popular songs of the time often reflected these sentiments. The David Bowie song ‘Changes’ includes the lines “What a mess. You’ve left us up to our necks in it”.



Neil Lyndon, in his 1992 book 'No More Sex War', says “we had nowhere to go but East”. Lyndon was perhaps the first to trace the origins of second-wave feminist ideology to Marxism.



In their search for alternative political analyses, the young generation of the 1960s, whom Lyndon refers to as the 'New Left', looked for inspiration to China and the USSR, and adopted Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Marxism was to become the preferred political world-view of many young radicals, feminists included, and Lyndon attempts to trace how this came about.



In brief, Karl Marx described society in terms of a struggle between different economic classes; the powerful factory-owning ‘bourgeoisie’, and the disenfranchised labouring classes of the ‘proletariat’. Marx stated that ‘all history is the history of political struggle’. Thus he saw human society as being essentially characterised by constant conflict between irreconcilable interest groups.



The binary class analysis offered by Marx was framed in terms of economic classes, but this, Lyndon claims, was adapted by the Black Panther movement to become framed in terms of race. Instead of society being a struggle of class against class, the Black Panthers saw it in terms of a struggle of race against race, and this claims Lyndon, was the origin of the fascistic character of New Leftist thinking.



This thinking, in turn, became adopted by the feminist movement of the time. Society was represented by them in quasi-Marxist terms as being an endless historical struggle of sex against sex, in which men are given the role of the powerful bourgeoisie, and women, that of the downtrodden ‘proletariat’.



please go HERE to read the rest of the post. I will make an effort to post and explanation of the rest of the root cause later.

I found this posted on usenet a while back, but lost both the printed and archived copy. So I decided to "google" the female rules and guess what.... [I found 'em.]

This is what you're in for if you decide to date a woman. (Good luck chump.)

The Female Rules

The FEMALE always makes the rules.


The RULES are subject to change at any time without prior notification...by the FEMALE.


No MALE can possibly know all the RULES.


If the FEMALE suspects the MALE knows all the RULES, she must immediately change some or all of them.


The FEMALE is never wrong.


If the FEMALE is wrong, it is due to a misunderstanding which was a direct result of something the MALE did or said wrong.


The MALE must apologize immediately for causing the misunderstandings.


The FEMALE may change her mind at any time.


The MALE must never change his mind without the express written consent of the FEMALE.


The FEMALE has every right to be angry or upset at any time.


The MALE must remain calm at all times, unless the FEMALE wants him to be angry or upset.


The FEMALE must, under no circumstances, let the MALE know whether or not she wants him to be angry or upset.


The Male is expected to "mind read" at all times.


The MALE who doesn't abide by THE RULES; can't take the heat, lacks backbone, and is a wimp!


Any attempt to document THE RULES could result in bodily harm.


The FEMALE is ready when SHE is ready.


The MALE must be ready at ALL times

From the about us page (link):



The Committee For Small Government is a non-partisan, grass roots organization with thousands of generous and enthusiastic volunteers and donors. Their efforts put an End the Income Tax in Massachusetts initiative on the ballot in 2002. It won an unprecedented 45% of the vote - in a state that's a hotbed of Big Government.


There you can take the Small Government Pledge.


Find out everything you need to know about Big Government...




Would you push the button to make government small?

http://centerforsmallgovernment.com/pushthebutton.htm




The Weight Watchers Test...for Big Government

http://centerforsmallgovernment.com/wwt.htm




Smaller Government? Smaller than What?

http://centerforsmallgovernment.com/smallerthanwhat.htm



10 Critical Ingredients To Ignite Small Government Campaigns

http://centerforsmallgovernment.com/boldproposals.htm


Take the small government survey:

What's Your Real Opinion of Big Government?
http://www.centerforsmallgovernment.com/survey.cfm

(My results: Your score is 85. You want small government. A lot.)

And subscribe to thier newsletter:

http://www.centerforsmallgov.com/csg/t3.php



The Center For Small Government

http://www.centerforsmallgov.com

A post from the archives of Male Samizdat:

Ah, the old double standard. Feminism is a champ at enforcing these, and one of the most subtle is the double standard of chivalry towards feminists.

Chivalry, in part, and as usually thought of, is a social contract. Roughly speaking, in return for the submission of women to the leadership of men, men protected and deferred to women, even at the cost of men’s lives.

The feminists recognized the men’s part of the deal, and began work to undermine the system, turning it into a weapon against men. They did this in an incremental manner, ever so slowly demanding the prerogatives of men under chivalry while demanding to retain the concessions made to women under the same system of chivalry.

The incrementalism was necessary to get men to agree to this. As feminists pushed the boundaries, men complied with their side of the social contract, deferring to women, and becoming accustomed to the new equilibrium. Once an area of culture had been overrun, the feminists moved to the next cultural beachhead, still insisting on, and depending on, the deferral to women under chivalry.

Women have now nearly completely arrogated the prerogatives of men, yet still many insist on and invoke the men’s obligation when it suits them (i.e. women). If two parties are in all other respects equal, but one can always call on the other to defer…well, then, you get what the feminists wanted all along. They can now dominate men, without incurring any obligation.

I would like to propose a thought experiment with respect to the last sentence in the previous paragraph. Suppose for a minute the contract of chivalry had been inverted - women had the leadership roles, while men were protected and provided for. While this is against the natural order, it at least has the virtue of equity. The feminists did not turn chivalry upside down. Instead, the feminists changed the social contract and made sure men got nothing in return!

The way out of this is to recognize that the social contract of chivalry no longer exists. Instead, chivalrous behavior should be extended only to women who act like ladies, and to women who are truly defenseless (the elderly, disabled, and handicapped). Those women who insist on being equal to men should not have the privilege of chivalry extended to them. Yes, you read that right. Where obligation does not exist, then favorable treatment lies within the purview of privilege. American women have broken the social contract, which therefore abrogates the social obligation of men.

In other words, when a women does not act like a lady, you are relieved of the obligation of acting like a gentleman. Note that failure to act like a gentleman does not necessarily mean uncharitable, hostile, or violent behavior. It simply means that you treat her like any other man. There is no other possible response that makes sense if you see chivalry as a social contract, and one that is observed more in the breach.

After all, paladins defend the honor of ladies, not whores.

A woman placed an singles ad on Craiglist some time ago and it's now starting to make the news here's the ad I'm credit to both Elusive Wapiti and Pete Patriarch:


Woman seeks rich husband, banker says “crappy deal”

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Deal or no deal? An online exchange between a woman looking for a husband who earns more than $500,000 a year and a mystery Wall Street banker, who assessed her potential for romance as a business deal, has cause quite an Internet stir.

The anonymous 25-year-old woman recently posted an ad on the free online New York community Web site Craigslist, http://newyork.craigslist.org/, appealing for advice on how to find a wealthy husband.

“I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don’t think I’m overreaching at all,” the woman, who described herself as “spectacularly beautiful” and “superficial,” wrote.

“I dated a business man who makes average around 200 - 250. But that’s where I seem to hit a roadblock. $250,000 won’t get me to Central Park West,” she said, asking questions like “where do rich single men hang out?”

The mystery banker, who said he fit the bill, offered the woman an analysis of her predicament, describing it as “plain and simple a crappy business deal.”

“Your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity … in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won’t be getting any more beautiful!” the banker wrote.

“So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset,” he said. “Let me explain, you’re 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!”

“It doesn’t make good business sense to “buy you” (which is what you’re asking) so I’d rather lease,” he said.

While the woman has since removed the ad from Craigslist, it — along with the response — has become a popular email joke that, bank JPMorgan Chase says, led to one of its bankers mistakenly being credited with writing the response.

Brian Marchiony, spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, said the banker did not write the response and that his email signature accidentally became attached to the ad and response when he forwarded it to friends and it then wound up on blogs.

Craigslist was not immediately available for comment, but a spokeswoman told The New York Times that “it does look as if the post was made sincerely.”

I just posted a page full of graphics located HERE. So if you need some graphics for your MGTOW page or web site then you might want to check that section out.

This from the No Ma'am web log (link):



Robert Welch, from a speech at the Constitution Day luncheon of We, The People in Chicago, on September 17, 1961 (reprinted in the June 30, 1986 issue of The New American magazine):




"By the time of the American Revolution and Constitution, the meanings of the words “republic” and “democracy” had been well established and were readily understood. And most of this accepted meaning derived from the Roman and Greek experiences. The two words are not, as most of today’s Liberals would have you believe -- and as most of them probably believe themselves -- parallels in etymology, or history, or meaning. The word Democracy (in a political rather than a social sense, of course) had always referred to a type of government, as distinguished from monarchy, or autocracy, or oligarchy, or principate. The word Republic, before 1789, had designated the quality and nature of a government, rather than its structure. When Tacitus complained that “it is easier for a republican form of government to be applauded than realized,” he was living in an empire under the Caesars and knew it. But he was bemoaning the loss of that adherence to the laws and to the protections of the constitution which made the nation no longer a republic; and not to the f act that it was headed by an emperor.




The word democracy comes from the Greek and means, literally, government by the people. The word “republic” comes from the Latin, res publica, and means literally “the public affairs.” The word “commonwealth,” as once widely used, and as still used in the official title of my state, “the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” is almost an exact translation and continuation of the original meaning of res publica. And it was only in this sense that the Greeks, such as Plato, used the term that has been translated as “republic.” Plato was writing about an imaginary “commonwealth”; and while he certainly had strong ideas about the kind of government this Utopia should have, those ideas were not conveyed nor foreshadowed by his title.





The historical development of the meaning of the word republic might be summarized as follows. The Greeks learned that, as Dr. Durant puts it, “man became free when he recognized that he was subject to law.” The Romans applied the formerly general term “republic” specifically to that system of government in which both the people and their rulers were subject to law. That meaning was recognized throughout all later history, as when the term was applied, however inappropriately in fact and optimistically in self-deception, to the “Republic of Venice” or to the “Dutch Republic.” The meaning was thoroughly understood by our Founding Fathers. As early as 1775 John Adams had pointed out that Aristotle (representing Greek thought), Livy (whom he chose to represent Roman thought), and Harington (a British statesman), all “define a republic to be a government of laws and not of men.” And it was with this full understanding that our constitution-makers proceeded to establish a government which, by its very structure, would require that both the people and their rulers obey certain basic laws -- laws which could not be changed without laborious and deliberate changes in the very structure of that government. When our Founding Fathers established a “republic,” in the hope, as Benjamin Franklin said, that we could keep it, and when they guaranteed to every state within that “republic” a “republican form” of government, they well knew the significance of the terms they were using. And were doing all in their power to make the features of government signified by those terms as permanent as possible. They also knew very well indeed the meaning of the word democracy, and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to avoid for their own times, and to prevent for the future, the evils of a democracy.





Let's look at some of the things they said to support and clarify this purpose. On May 31, 1787, Edmund Randolph told his fellow members of the newly assembled Constitutional Con vention that the object for which the delegates had met was “to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy....”





The delegates to the Convention were clearly in accord with this statement. At about the same time another delegate, Elbridge Gerry, said: “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want (that is, do not lack) virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots.” And on June 21, 1788, Alexander Hamilton made a speech in which he stated: "It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."





At another time Hamilton said: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.” And Samuel Adams warned: “Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’”




James Madison, one of, the members of the Convention who was charged with drawing up our Constitution, wrote as follows: “...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”




Madison and Hamilton and Jay and their compatriots of the Convention prepared and adopted a Constitution in which they nowhere even mentioned the word democracy, not because they were not familiar with such a form of government, but because they were. The word democracy had not occurred in the Declaration of Independence, and does not appear in the constitution of a single one of our fifty states-which constitutions are derived mainly from the thinking of the Founding Fathers of the Republic - for the same reason. They knew all about Democracies, and if they had wanted one for themselves and their posterity, they would have founded one. Look at all the elaborate system of checks and balances which they established; at the carefully worked-out protective clauses of the Constitution itself, and especially of the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights; at the effort, as Jefferson put it, to “bind men down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution,” and thus to solidify the rule not of men but of laws. All of these steps were taken, deliberately, to avoid and to prevent a Democracy, or any of the worst features of a Democracy, in the United States of America.




And so our republic was started on its way. And for well over a hundred years our politicians, statesmen, and people remembered that this was a republic, not a democracy, and knew what they meant when they made that distinction. Again, let's look briefly at some of the evidence.



Washington, in his first inaugural address, dedicated himself to “the preservation of the republican model of government.” Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was the founder of the Democratic Party; but in his first inaugural address, although he referred several times to the Republic or the republican form of government, he did not use the word “democracy” a single time. And John Marshall, who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, said: “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”




Throughout all of the Nineteenth Century and the very early part of the Twentieth, while America as a republic was growing great and becoming the envy of the whole world, there were plenty of wise men, both in our country and outside of it, who pointed to the advantages of a republic, which we were enjoying, and warned against the horrors of a democracy, into which we might fall. Around the middle of that century, Herbert Spencer, the great English philosopher, wrote, in an article on The Americans: “The Republican form of government is the highest form of government; but because of this it requires the highest type of human nature -- a type nowhere at present existing.” And in truth we have not been a high enough type to preserve the republic we then had, which is exactly what he was prophesying.




Thomas Babington Macaulay said: “I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.” And we certainly seem to be in a fair way today to fulfill his dire prophecy. Nor was Macaulay’s contention a mere personal opinion without intellectual roots and substance in the thought of his times. Nearly two centuries before, Dryden had already lamented that “no government had ever been, or ever can be, wherein timeservers and blockheads will not be uppermost.” And as a result, he had spoken of nations being “drawn to the dregs of a democracy.” While in 1795 Immanuel Kant had written: “Democracy is necessarily despotism.”




In 1850 Benjamin Disraeli, worried as was Herbert Spencer at what was already being foreshadowed in England, made a speech to the British House of Commons in which he said: “If you establish a democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of a democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of public expenditures You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence. You will in due season find your property is less valuable, and your freedom less complete.” Disraeli could have made that speech with even more appropriateness before a joint session of the American Congress in 1935. And in 1870 he had already come up with an epigram which is strikingly true for the United States today. “The world is weary,” he said, “of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians.”




But even in Disraeli’s day there were similarly prophetic voices on this side of the Atlantic. In our own country James Russell Lowell showed that he recognized the danger of unlimited majority rule by writing:



“Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.”



W. H. Seward pointed out that “Democracies are prone to war, and war consumes them.” This is an observation certainly borne out during the past fifty years exactly to the extent that we have been becoming a democracy and fighting wars, with each trend as both a cause and an effect of the other one. And Ralph Waldo Emerson issued a most prophetic warning when he said: “Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.” If Emerson could have looked ahead to the time when so many of the editors would themselves be a part of, or sympathetic to, the gang of bullies, as they are today, lie would have been even more disturbed. And in the 1880's Governor Seymour of New York said that the merit of our Constitution was, not that it promotes democracy, but checks it.




Across the Atlantic again, a little later, Oscar Wilde once contributed this epigram to the discussion: “Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people.” While on this side, and after the first World War had made the degenerative trend in our government so visible to any penetrating observer, H. L. Mencken wrote: “The most popular man under a democracy is not the most democratic man, but the most despotic man. The common folk delight in the exactions of such a man. They like him to boss them. Their natural gait is the goosestep.” While Ludwig Lewisohn observed: “Democracy, which began by liberating men politically, has developed a dangerous tendency to enslave him through the tyranny of majorities and the deadly power of their opinion.”




But it was a great Englishman, G. K. Chesterton, who put his finger on the basic reasoning behind all the continued and determined efforts of the Communists to convert our republic into a democracy. “You can never have a revolution,” he said, “in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.”




And in 1931 the Duke of Northumberland, in his booklet, The History of World Revolution, stated: “The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise.” While an even more recent analyst, Archibald E. Stevenson, summarized the situation as follows: “De Tocqueville once warned us,” he wrote, “that: ‘If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event will arise from the unlimited tyranny of the majority.’ But a majority will never be permitted to exercise such ‘unlimited tyranny’ so long as we cling to the American ideals of republican liberty and turn a deaf ear to the siren voices now calling us to democracy. This is not a question relating to the form of government. That can always be changed by constitutional amendment. It is one affecting the underlying philosophy of our system -- a philosophy which brought new dignity to the individual, more safety for minorities and greater justice in the administration of government. We are in grave danger of dissipating this splendid heritage through mistaking it for democracy.”



And there have been plenty of other voices to warn us.



Robert Welch, from a speech at the Constitution Day luncheon of We, The People in Chicago, on September 17, 1961 (reprinted in the June 30, 1986 issue of The New American magazine)

Found yet another little bit of information while browsing the anti-misandry forum it's a link to a web site that list the women who were in the Thrid Reich here:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/women.html

While doing a search for a thread I was involved in at the anti-misandry forum I found this thread:

"Affirmative action has been an administrative revolution imposed by judges and bureaucrats," Lynch writes. Thus it was not easily opposed, particularly because much of it is implemented informally and orally. The secretiveness has only increased with the Reagan-Bush judicial appointments, whose growing influence has threatened the stability of the liberal judicial establishment. But affirmative action personnel openly say they intend to get around any law.

A few of Lynch's male victims were political liberals who felt obliged to rationalize their fate. But most acquiesced with varying degrees of anger. Some changed jobs. Usually totally isolated, these men felt that no one would help them.


They were right. The older generation of white male managers has in effect compromised with quotas, Lynch argues, because they think the impact will fall only on the younger, baby-boom generation. And the EEOC flatly refuses to accept white male discrimination complaints about corporations with approved—i.e., anti-white male—affirmative action plans. Litigation, for those who have tried it, proved expensive, exhausting, chancy, and immensely time-consuming—one case remains unsettled after more than six years. A further factor in the paralysis: the peculiar male personality itself. These victims seem really to have believed that grown men don't cry. A considerable number did not even mention their disappointment to friends, relatives, or fellow-workers.

Their wives almost never felt such inhibitions. "My wife is mad as hell; she's angrier than I am," said one man. Some wives absolutely insisted on being interviewed for Lynch's study. One woman pointed out that discrimination against white males injures not only the men themselves, but their wives and families. "This 'hidden' or latent conflict generated by affirmative action between career women and homemaker wives has gone virtually unnoticed in the affirmative action literature," Lynch notes.

He adds, "Karl Marx insisted that for any sort of class consciousness to arise, there must be communication of a common sense of oppression. With the mass media and the social sciences rarely recognizing the phenomenon, much less portraying it sympathetically, white males have been easily and silently victimized one by one."

The media have been able to ignore anti-white discrimination partly because neither conservatives nor liberals raised the issue. For example, the likelihood that Robert Bork would find quotas unconstitutional spurred the civil rights establishment's fanatical resistance to his Supreme Court nomination. But White House lobbyists said nothing. The media elite's motives are also partly ideological. From J. Anthony Lukas's best-seller Common Groundhttp://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=vdare&l=ur2&o=1 —which dealt with an earlier symptom of race-based socialism, busing—Lynch quotes a Boston Globe reporter: "If they [the Boston Irish] don't like integration, we'll shove it down their throats." And Lynch was unable to find one television show portraying a white male being damaged by affirmative action.

Lynch cites a typical result of this systematic denial of reality: California Democratic Congressman Don Edwards, a mouthpiece of the civil rights establishment, was able to get away with claiming on the New York Times op-ed page that quotas did not exist—within weeks of three Supreme Court decisions about them. [More Racism From the G.O.P. June 4, 1991] And supporters insisted that the (Bush-backed) 1991 Civil Rights Act did not impose quotas, although its key point was to override Supreme Court decisions that rejected the notion of racial imbalance as prima facie evidence of employer discrimination.

The result is a "spiral of silence," whereby people assume their doubts are not shared and suppress them, thus mutually intimidating each other. But opinion polls show quotas are overwhelmingly unpopular, even with the "protected classes" themselves. And when the Democratic party asked pollster Stanley Greenberg to investigate blue-collar defection from the party in 1984, quotas emerged as the crucial factor.[See DEMOCRATIC DEFECTION REVISITED, Stanley B. Greenberg April 1, 1987, PDF] The party promptly tried to suppress Greenberg's report.

Meanwhile, the quota revolution rolls on. Its latest ramification is "diversity management"—permanent quotas, with no pretense that they are remedial or temporary, both for minorities and women, and increasingly for the ongoing wave of non-white immigrants to the U.S.

Quotas are inherently unstable. They inexorably create turf disputes between the various "protected classes." And they inevitably exacerbate racial polarization, particularly as the articulate white middle classes begin to be hit. Which is why Lynch thinks affirmative action is headed for "crisis." This vulnerability accounts for quota supporters' mounting fervor—above all their increasingly wild accusations of "racism." There can be no doubt that, until conservatives break the extraordinary power of this taboo in American debate, they will never get control of the culture.

The rest is http://vdare.com/pb/071015_victims.htm.

While over at MND I browsed the articles of Carey Roberts and saw this piece:

Soon after prosecutor Michael Nifong was disbarred by the North Carolina Bar Association, the National District Attorneys Association issued its take on the case. “Nifong’s case is rarer than human rabies,” claimed Joshua Marquis, vice president of the group. “The defense bar is piling on and trying to claim this is typical behavior,” he bitterly complained.

So was Michael Nifong merely a “rogue” prosecutor, a feckless bad-apple amidst a scented orchard of ethical and civic-minded district attorneys?

and in the comments section:

scottkirk said,

also:

DcFather said,

and:

1. S Baker said,

   This isn't all about the woman folks. Nifong merely used this disgusting slut to gain political traction, or so he thought. No, Nifong's case was not rare, but closer to the norm when it comes to dishonest lawyers. Master Edwards is just a high profile example of a lawyer making millions off of bogus charges of physician induced disease. Another example was the tobacco settlement in Florida under the Clinton rule, when 12 lawyers shared 11 BILLION in legal fees for determining that tobacco causes ill health; a malady noted since the 1920s. Estimates range from 10-20%, the amount of funds lawyers suck out of health care.

   July 25, 2007 at 7:29 am

and:

1. roger said,

   so when does Crystal Mangrum go to jail?

   why can't common citizens DEMAND that she be prosecuted?
   after all - SHE BROKE THE LAW!

   when the police and judges blatantly look the other way, in front of the entire nation, where is the outrage?

   July 25, 2007 at 9:30 am

1. MuchWiserNow said,

   DcFather said,

   "Nifong was just doing what any other prosecutor would have done in his shoes, i.e. take the side of the black female over the white males."

   DcFather,

   It is unfortunate situations like these have to be framed in only racial terms. As a black man who was also falsely & outrageously accused of (spousal) rape, abuse towards our daughter and domestic violence beatings on a daily basis for 29 years, I foolishly believed the "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" propaganda when I got to have my day in court! However, I was rudely awakened to the fact that LIES, DECEPTION and MANIPULATION are important tools used throughout our so-called "?justice?" system by those employed in the abuse indu$try. If one were to go to the Innocence project website and review each case, I would dare say that at least 50% percent of the "victims" of the AmeriKan justice system are black.

   http://www.innocenceproject.org/

   This case could have easily been framed as rich vs poor with an opportunistic Nifong using it as a vehicle to additionally inflame racial animosity and get re-elected. Tactics similarly employed by Sharpton & Jackson in order to achieve their goals. I wholeheartedly agree with your observation of who the real criminals are in the courtroom (judge, prosecutor and defense attorney). After the trial or hearing they all meet in the judge's chambers or the local bar to have a drink and a hearty laugh at those who foolishly believe justice is blind!

   Your other point of prosecuting ten innocent men rather than one guilty woman should be expanded to 100 men. I believe it is totally about gender …all women= GOOD! all men=BAD! Just ask the leading male feminist, Joe Biden.

   July 25, 2007 at 9:40 am

I'll be posting more on this notorious case of injustice later.

Norway's crazy leftist government is threating to close businesses that still don't meet their gender quota for hiring more women on January 1st, 2008. Here's the rest of the story:

Companies organized as "ASA" corporations are required to meet a state-mandated quota that calls for 40 percent of their directors to be women.

The quota was ushered in during the previous center-right government coalition, and has been enthusiastically embraced by the current Labour Party-led government.

Equality minister Karita Bekkemellem told newspaper Aftenposten on Friday that those companies failing to meet the quota will face involuntary dissolution from January 1. Many are within traditionally male-oriented branches like the offshore oil industry, shipping and finance.

"My advice to them is that they take responsibility and find the women they need," she said. She called the law "historic and radical," and said it will be enforced.

It's highly likely since oil is hovering around the $90 mark. Consider getting yourself an electric vehicle.

Current Oil Prices can be found here:

http://money.cnn.com/data/commodities

The price as of right now is either $87 or $88 a barrel.

I found this nice little tidbit while surfing Mens News Daily. It's a story for the AP on Duke's continuing legal saga. This time it's their former Lacrosse coach that's...Well I let you read it..

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. - The former Duke University men's lacrosse coach who resigned last year amid allegations that three of his players raped a stripper has sued the university.

Mike Pressler's lawsuit apparently stems from a financial settlement the school reached earlier this year with him, although school officials did not give details Friday. The players were later cleared of the charges.

The Herald-Sun of Durham reported Friday on its Web site that his lawsuit alleges the university broke the terms of the confidential settlement when university senior vice president John Burness made disparaging comments about him.