If you’ve ever met a “Mens Rights Activist” you’ve probably learned rather quickly that they are fixated on the idea that women beat up men as often, if not more often, than men beat up women in relationships. They further posit that feminists are conspiring to hide this from the general public. I must admit when I first heard the claim that women committed acts of violence against men in proportion to men I was skeptical. Considering the source, I dismissed it as being part of another far-right wing reaction to feminism. However, after doing some research, I did find that some of the information these individuals were pushing was true, although it did not seem to support the conclusions they demanded.

If you have ever met a feminist, especially one of the male variety, you’ve probably learned rather quickly that they are fixated on the idea that women are somehow morally superior, and perpetual victims. Thus, when confronted with evidence to the contrary their first reaction is to dismiss the evidence, and then to try to *EXPLAIN* it away.

Most of the data which supports the Men’s Rights position on domestic violence comes from the research of Martin S. Fiebert, Professor of Psychology at CSU Long Beach. Time and time again his research is used to suggest it is men who are the victims of relationship violence, not women. Even a cursory look on the internet finds his research is used internationally by men’s activists to justify attacks on feminism. It is true that Fiebert’s data suggests that women are as aggressive, if nor more aggressive, then men are in the context of domestic abuse. But what men’s rights activists continually misinterpret is the nature of that aggression, and Fiebert’s own view of Patriarchy and the interpretation of his data.

Correction – the Fiebert list is not research in and of itself, but a collection of statistics gleaned from literally HUNDREDS of other studies.

In a 2002 interview with the LA Times, Fiebert was quoted as saying that part of the reason society thinks men are not abused by women is because men are afraid to come forward and admit they’ve been beat up by a woman.

Note that “PART” of the reason….

“That comes from a culture of patriarchy,” Fiebert argues, “In western society, [men are] in charge of the family, and the economics and the power of the family. Therefore when it’s demonstrated that the person in position of power doesn’t have the power, it’s an area of ridicule and humiliation.”

…Quickly becomes the whole of the reason.

Quick – for 20 points, name that logical fallacy!

Fiebert’s analysis is certainly in line with many prominent feminist theories on the subject. In her short essay, Supremacy Crimes, Gloria Steinem suggests that masculinity is built on the assumption “that males are superior to females, that they must find a place in a male hierarchy, and that the ability to dominate someone is… important.” If Steinem’s view is correct, then a woman who is able to dominate a man is considered humiliating from a masculine point of view since it inverts the hierarchy and makes a female physically superior to a male.

*IF* Steinems view is correct. Which it is not.

Contrary to Gloria’s – and most feminist’s – warped view of reality, the very vast and very overwhelming majority of men – hell, people – will generally turn only to violence out of a last resort. I am quite capable of breaking any assailant in about 1.2 seconds flat. In my days as a bouncer, I was known to do so in the line of my job. In my private life, I am much more likely to “just hand over the wallet.”

What the real problem is centers around the fact that if a man does come forward, the probability is almost certain that nothing will be done unless such evidence exists as can’t be pooh-poohed away; that if something is done, it will be a mere token admonishment, and that in all likelihood it will be him who is punished instead under feminist-lobbied-for “primary aggressor” doctrines.

Both Fiebert and Steinem are saying what Men’s Rights Activists won’t: a patriarchy suppresses or ridicules stories about violence and rape committed against men because they portray women in a dominant role. In fact, an organization devoted to battered men writes, “Domestic violence against women is not socially condoned. Men who do beat women typically feel shame and try to keep it a secret. Most men have little respect for a man who “beats his woman.””

This is a half truth, at best. In a REAL patriarchy, the law and culture would give carte blanche to a man keeping his woman in line; hence, if one’s wife were to assault or otherwise defy her social master, he could discipline her with the full blessing of law and society. You can see real patriarchal cultures in the Muslim world where this is so.

In 1997, Fiebert found that the most prominent reason why women attacked men without regard to their safety was “I believe that men can readily protect themselves so I don t worry when I become physically aggressive.” In other words, the perception of men as the more powerful figure was one of the main reasons why women felt they could attack their husbands or boyfriends.

Here’s where the bullshit starts rolling in.

Three words: Little Man Disease.

This is the phenomena whereby a scrawny little runt feels they can walk up to the biggest guy in the bar and begin abusing him. He knows he can’t lose. If the big guy backs off – he’s a pussy. If he doesn’t, his usual posse will stand up saying, “Hey, you big bully, pick on someone your own size.”

Same thing. And it arises from the same lack of moral character when such women do that.

Blaming the victim, Steven. Bad troll. No biscuit.

While his study did suggest that women are more likely than men to use household objects as weapons in domestic violence cases, Fiebert never suggested that men suffer more injuries than women as a result of their violence. In part then, the assertion then that women are more dangerous than men in society is patently sexist.

Claptrap and codswaddle, in that order. Neither Feibert nor Men’s Activists claim a greater incidence of injury, Steven. It is still criminal. If one drives drunk and doesn’t get caught, one is still a criminal, the same as if they do get caught and “nobody was hurt” or if they run down a 10 year old. “No harm, no foul” is crap – and you know it.

Second – to say that a woman with a weapon swinging isn’t dangerous is also bullshit. I may be a monster of a man with a collection of black belts and have small risk to all but an ambush, but put a club in anyone’s hand, and they are indeed dangerous. Even if they are female.

Your claim that they are less dangerous – because they are mere women – is the sexist claim, Steven.

And yet, Men’s Rights Activists turn the issue against feminists, suggesting that it’s feminism which teaches that violence committed against men is unimportant or nonexistent. Daran, writing from Creative Destruction, writes that feminism. “looks at female oppression through a microscope, and male oppression through a telescope.” The overarching message is that both men and women are oppressed by society, and that feminism cares only for female oppression and not male oppression. This fits into the idea that feminism is “whitewashing” the violence women perpetrate against men and other women, while vilifying men as being the big bad rapist. Of course, it is difficult to make a case for inequality while arguing that both men and women are equally unequal.

Duluth Model, Steven. Erin Pizzey, Steven.

The perception that feminism is the reason society is not sensitive to the needs of men is quite backward. According to feminism, society is purposely not sensitive to the needs of men as a right of passage, calling on men to dominate their rivals or face humiliation, to be a provider and not need the help of anyone. This is a major reason why men would not wish to come forward to talk about their experiences out of shame and humiliation. It is the perception of men as the protector, the provider, rather than the nurturer and healer, which accounts for much of the social organizing and family disputes which assign gender roles that many men and women rightly view us unfavorable to their preferences and needs.

Back to the whole “Patriarchy” crap.

Steven, your statements are so patently untrue I will call them for what they are - bald faced lies and propaganda, as only can be spouted by a kool-aid swilling true believer. The fact of the matter is that most men would come forward – many do, and it is only after being treated like crap by the system, and seeing other men treated like crap by the same system, that men don’t.

Riddle me this, Batman: Why is it that FEMINISTS are the ones complaining when police abandon psychobabble nonsense, and start arresting women for DV? Why are FEMINISTS arguing that men should have to privately fund shelters for men, for fear of taking away “women’s” share of the pie? Why when you propose some rectification of this is it that FEMINISTS are the first to bitterly complain, and advocate maintaining the status quo? Why did FEMINISTS oppose the creation of the New Hampshire Commission on Men?

What feminists DO speaks so loudly, I am afraid, that what they say gets lost. Mainly because it shows that they really don’t believe what they say.

No, I am not accusing feminists of hypocrisy, but of mendacity.

Contrary to the assertion of Mens Rights Activists, many feminist organizations and individuals have begun talking about the objectification, exploitation, and oppression of men. One group, CAFRA, writes:

the objectification of men’s bodies is associated with the emergence of a new consumer culture. Men have long held the power of ‘the gaze’ over women’s bodies and still do. With the growth of men’s style magazines and male modeling, men are being subjected to ‘the look’ of both women and men. This is exemplified by the range of new body-sculpting magazines and exercise machines that are being promoted. Men are being encouraged to have “rock hard abs” and a totally toned physique (a hard body) Also, men are proving to be almost as susceptible as women to a loss of self-esteem and dissatisfaction with their body image. The male image is increasingly being sexualized, eroticized and so feminized.” But while many feminists are willing to take on part of the issues raised by Men’s Rights Activists, they fall short of wanting to call back progress made on women’s liberation.

The last line says it all. Feminists are willing to make a show of ineffectual hand wringing and false concern. They are not willing, however, to actually DO anything about it. Women first.

Feminists consider men to be potential victims of the Patriarchial society in addition to women. But as Keith Nurse, a feminist writer for CAFRA, correctly points out “the men as victims argument is associated with a counter movement to reassert the dominance of men and masculinity.” To portray women as dominating society and men as suffering is a complete distortion from reality.

I repeat, for your answering, a challenge issued years ago. Ready?

• Name one way that western society oppresses women that is socially condoned.

To be socially condoned a oppressive meme, law or social bias has to be one of several things:

1. Invisible with no high profile, government funded groups educating the public about it.

2. Visible but socially acceptable with no high profile government funded groups or enforced laws attempting to eliminate it.

3. Visible and socially promoted with high profile government funded groups or enforced laws upholding it.

Conditions

1. Which gender enforces the meme, law or social bias has no bearing. (If it did then female genital mutilation would not be oppression suffered by women in developing countries since it is mandated and carried out most often by other women.)

2. To be oppressive the meme, law or social bias merely has to restrict the choices and freedoms of one gender without corresponding restriction on the other. (For instance citing the restriction of females to certain roles would not count if males are likewise restricted to certain roles.)

Until, Steven, you can answer this, your whole “Patriarchy” claim is an unproven assertion and unfounded premise.

Given the evidence, and given the feminist research on these issues, I think it’s only fair that Mens Rights Activsts be more honest about domestic violence issues instead of misinterpreting data and laying the blame for insensitivity towards men on feminists rather than the Patriarchy feminists spend their time talking about.

When we have prominent feminists in good standing who talk about how valuable an experience it is for men to be raped, or falsely accused of rape, I think that shoe fits nicely, Steven.

The words of your side. Not ours. I only quote them.

If you don’t like it, I suggest you do one of two things: Clean your house, or find a different place to live.

Mexico demanded U.S. prosecute sheriff, agentsThe Mexican Consulate played a previously undisclosed role in the events leading to U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton’s high-profile prosecution of Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who are serving 11 and 12 year sentences for their role in the shooting of a drug smuggler, according to documents obtained by WND.

And Mexican consular officials also demanded the prosecution of Texas Sheriff’s Deputy Guillermo “Gilmer” Hernandez, who subsequently was brought to trial by Sutton, the documents reveal.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas – among a number of congressman who have fiercely opposed the prosecution of Ramos and Compean – told WND he has “long suspected that Mexican government officials ordered the prosecution of our law enforcement agents.”

“Mexico wants to intimidate our law enforcement into leaving our border unprotected, and we now have confirmation of it in writing,” Culberson said.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, was equally outraged.

“The Mexican government should do more to keep illegals from Mexico from crossing into the United States, especially drug dealers, rather than be concerned about our border agents,” he told WND. “The U.S. Justice Department should not be working for the Mexican government.”

The White House and Sutton’s office in El Paso, Texas, did not respond to calls from WND asking for comment.

Hernandez’s attorney Jimmy Parks of San Antonio, Texas, told WND the documents “prove that it is wrong for my client to be in jail.”

“The prosecution of my client sends a wrong message to criminal illegal immigrants who are being tempted to cross our borders with impunity,” he said.

Mexico intervenes

WND has obtained a copy of a letter written April 18, 2005, by Mexican Consul Jorge Ernesto Espejel Montes in Eagle Pass, Texas, demanding Hernandez be prosecuted for injuring a Mexican national, Marciela Rodriguez Garcia.

[Page 1 of the letter can be seen here and page 2 here.]

The first two paragraphs of the letter set out the facts of the case as understood by the Mexican consul. The letter is reproduced here as written:

I am addressing to you, regarding the case of the Mexican national, Ms. MARICELA RODRIGUEZ GARCIA (DOB 4-11-1979), who based on the information obtained by this Consulate, received a gunshot wound by an agent of the Sheriff Department of Edward County, that caused injuries in her face.As far aw we know, last April 15, 2005, the Mexican national was transported in first insistence to Val Verde Hospital in Del Rio, Tx, and then to San Antonio, Tx., where she was attended at the University Hospital. Today, Mr. Gabriel Salas a member of the staff of this office had the opportunity of interviewed Ms. RODRIGUEZ who confirms the facts of the incident.

The final two paragraphs contain the demands of the Mexican consul:

Based on the Consular Convention between Mexico and the United States and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Consulate of Mexico is entitled to represent, protect and defend the rights of Mexican nationals in this country. Therefore, I would like to point out, that is the care of my Country that this kind of incidents against our nationals, do not remain unpunished.According to the information provided above, I would appreciate your kind assistance, so this Consulate can be informed of the current investigation, and your support, so you present and file a complaint with the necessaries arraignments.

WND has learned the Mexican consul addressed separate copies of the letter to the following parties:

• Don Lettsinger, Sheriff, Edward County, Rocksprings, Texas
• Norman Townsent, Supervisor Senior Special Agent, FBI, Laredo, Texas
• Bobby Smith, Texas Rangers, Del Rio, Texas
• Fred Hernandez, District Attorney, Del Rio, Texas
• J.A. Garcia, Attorney at Law, San Antonio,Texas
• Lieutenant Gerónimo Gutiérrez Fernández, Subsecretario para América del Norte
• Minister Miguel Gutiérrez Tinoco, Director General de Protección y Asuntos Consulares
• Emb. Arturo Aquiles Dáger Gómez, Consultor Juridico
• Emb. Carlos de Leaza, Embajador de México, Washington, D.C.
• Emb. Martha I. Lara, Cónsul General de México, San Antonio, Texas

WND also has learned that on April 29, 2005, Sheriff Lettsinger in Edwards County advised that the Texas Rangers met with the district attorney in Del Rio and was told the state of Texas had been removed from the Hernandez case because the FBI and the federal government were taking over.

The Mexican national Rodriguez was in a Chevrolet Suburban van full of illegals that attempted to run over Hernandez after he had stopped the vehicle for running a stop sign April 14, 2005, in Rocksprings, Texas. Firing his weapon at the rear tires, a bullet fragment hit Rodriguez in the mouth, cutting her lip and breaking two teeth.

Hernandez, convicted of felony civil rights violations, is incarcerated in a Del Rio prison waiting sentencing.

In the case of agents Ramos and Compean, WND has obtained notes made by a congressional staff member who attended the Sept. 26, 2006, meeting with three investigators from the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General’s office.

The staff member’s notes indicate the Inspector General’s office briefed the congressmen that the Mexican consul had also intervened in the Ramos and Compean case.

According to the notes obtained by WND, the congressmen were told:

Several weeks later (after the February 17, 2005 event near Fabens, Texas), the Mexican Consulate contacted the U.S. Consulate in Mexico saying that they have a person who claims to have been shot by a Border Patrol agent. On March 4, 2005, the U.S. Consulate contacted the U.S. attorney.

DHS investigative reports filed by Special Agent Christopher Sanchez document that March 4, 2005, is the date on which DHS initiated the Ramos-Compean investigation.

WND can find no evidence the Border Patrol, DHS, or U.S. Attorney Sutton had started any investigation of Ramos or Compean concerning the events of Feb. 17, 2005, prior to March 4, 2005.

‘Dictating’ policy

“The Mexican government should not be dictating United States border policy,” Poe told WND after learning of the Mexican consul’s involvement in both cases.

Culberson agreed.

“We have it in writing,” he told WND, “a letter from the Mexican Consulate in the case of the deputy sheriff from Edwards County and verbal confirmation of the Mexican Consulate’s complaint in the case of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean.”

Culberson told WND it is “outrageous and unacceptable that our government is prosecuting U.S. law enforcement officials at the request of the Mexican government.”

The congressman said the revelations suggest national security may be at risk:

“U.S. national security interests in the war on terror must determine how we protect our border, not the opinions of the Mexican government,” he said.

Culberson called for a congressional investigation, telling WND, “We’ve now got to find out how many other Mexican government complaints have led to the prosecutions of our law enforcement officers on the border, and this intimidation must stop.”

Previous accounts in question

Sutton’s claim he learned about the identity of the drug smuggler in the Ramos-Compean case, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, through consular contacts originating in Mexico apparently contradicts his explanation in an exclusive interview with WND Jan. 19, Sutton said his office learned the identity of Aldrete-Davila from a lawyer in Mexico representing the drug smuggler.

WND: So, Aldrete-Davila ran away, and as you say, at the time you didn’t have any basis to know who he was and there were no fingerprints. But yet, you found the guy. If you found the guy to give him immunity, why couldn’t you have found the guy to punish him?SUTTON: The way we found him is that he came forward and was in Mexico with a lawyer. So, the only way to get him to testify was to give him immunity from being prosecuted. He wasn’t going to agree to come to the United States, he wasn’t going to agree to talk, unless he had some kind of immunity from being prosecuted for that load. So, that puts the prosecutor in the terrible choice of everyone goes free, we got no case against the dope dealer, we cannot make a case against the dope dealer because there’s no evidence, thanks to agents and other factors.

Sutton’s account also appears to contradict the March 14, 2005, memo from Special Agent Christopher Sanchez which claimed the government learned Aldrete-Davila’s identity from Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez in Willcox, Ariz.

As WND reported, Christopher Sanchez’s memo had claimed Rene Sanchez and Aldrete-Davila grew up together in Mexico. Rene Sanchez, the memo said, learned Aldrete-Davila was the drug smuggler involved in the incident with agents Ramos and Compean after his mother-in-law had a phone call with Aldrete-Davila’s mother in Mexico.

The memo also indicates the shooting was reported to the Mexican Consulate.

Rene Sanchez said that his mother-in-law Gregoria Toquinto went to Mexico to help her friend Marcadia take her son Osbaldo to the Mexican Consulate to report the shooting incident. However, Osbaldo declined to go. Marcadia advised Toquinto that Osbaldo did not want to report the incident, because he had actually been transporting a load of marijuana and was afraid the Mexican and/or U.S. authorities would put him in jail.

Staff notes WND obtained from the Sept. 26, 2006, meeting Poe, Culberson and two other Texas Republican congressmen had with three investigators in the Inspector General’s office indicate the Mexican Consulate knew all about Aldrete-Davila. That conflicts with Sutton’s claim the drug smuggler was so concerned about prosecution he was afraid to talk to the Mexican Consulate.

It also contradicts the DHS Report of Investigation released by Assistant Inspector General Elizabeth Redman to Congress in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Poe. On a page numbered as “4 of 33,” the DHS report appears to have a heavily redacted version of the Rene Sanchez mother-in-law story.

Redman was one of three DHS investigators who attended the Sept. 26, 2006, meeting with the four Texas Republican congressman. The other two investigators were identified to WND as Tamara Faulkner and James Taylor.

As WND reported, DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner admitted under oath Feb. 6 that Redman and the other investigators had misled the Texas congressmen. Skinner was responding to questioning by Culberson before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

Skinner admitted, contrary to previous claims, DHS did not have investigative reports that would prove Ramos and Compean were rogue Border Patrol agents who told investigators they were “out to shoot some Mexicans” the day of the incident with Aldrete-Davila.

Culberson since has called for the resignation of the investigators.

Ramos-Compean trial

The Mexican consul’s role in revealing the identity of Aldrete-Davila also conflicts with prosecutor Debra Kanof’s opening statement to the jury in the Ramos-Compean trial.

According to a copy of the statement obtained by WND, Kanof explained the following to the jury Feb. 21, 2006:

Rene Sanchez is stationed in Willcox, Arizona. He’s actually from El Paso. And sometime in the last couple of days of February he got a phone call from his mother-in-law. And his mother-in-law lives in Mexico, in a little town on the outskirts of Juarez. And she told him that she had been talking to a friend of hers, a girlfriend of hers, and that that girlfriend had told her that her son, the girlfriend’s son, had been shot in back by a Border Patrol agent outside of El Paso, Texas, somewhere near San Elizario.

From there, Kanof explained how Rene Sanchez investigated.

So Rene Sanchez investigated. He made some phone calls to people he knew in El Paso and asked if there was a shooting.First he needed to find out, however, when that occurred and approximately where it occurred. So he immediately reported it to his supervisor in Willcox, Arizona, who told him to get more information, which he did by calling his mother-in-law. And he instructed his mother-in-law to take a cell phone – his mother-in-law actually lives in El Paso – to take a cell phone to Mexico, give that cell phone to the individual who was shot, and have them call me, so I can get some facts. And that, he did.

The individual who shot is an individual by the name of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. And Rene Sanchez spoke with him on the phone, and he gave him information about what occurred that day.

Kanof said nothing to the jury suggesting the information about Aldrete-Davila actually came from the Mexican consul, who contacted the American Consulate in Mexico, who in turn contacted DHS and prosecutor Sutton’s office.

While Ramos and Compean are in federal prison, Aldrete-Davila has found an American lawyer and plans to sue the Border Patrol for $5 million for allegedly violating his civil rights.

So what are the lessons learned from the Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan debacle?

Well, I can tell you certain ones are obvious, and probably already known - namely, politicians shouldn’t hire people because they are somehow trendy or edgy without checking them out first. This is lost on people who value symbolism over substance, by and large, though. I imagine there are people on the left still shaking their heads and wondering, what in the name of secular humanism went wrong?

No, even a beating with Gonz’s patented Clue-by-Four O’ Doom isn’t going to help this lot.

Nor, I am afraid, is it going to help the perpetually useful idiots who classify themselves as liberal and so-called Christians. You know the type, I am sure. “I’m a Christian. But those Ten Commandments - well, they are a little out of date, more suggestions really. And God was kidding about the whole sexual morality issue. Hell is just symbolic. Jesus claiming to be God incarnate - he who has seen Me has seen the Father - not so much. No one comes to the Father except by Him - a little - well - intolerant? Virgin Birth? Resurrection? Miracles? How amusing. Judgement? That’s so judgemental. But other than that, I am *SO* a Christian!” Repentance and faith are optional. But Good Works, in the name of - well, in the name of nothing because that could offend someone - there’s salvation!

For those of you who catch the irony, I will pause for the chuckles to subside. For those who don’t - don’t worry. Lots of people have computers smarter than they are.

I’ve noticed a lot of those people being puzzled that anyone could be offended by Amandagons bigoted tirades against religion in general, Christians in particular, and Catholics in specific. I’ll just observe that it’s pretty hard to be offended about something that you only pay lip service to in any event. Not that I pay much attention to being offended, myself. It’s Amanda Marcotte for pity’s sake. Long ago I learned to only bother to be upset by people of consequence - and the beginning of her slide into obscurity has surely commenced.

Hell, you don’t have to go far to find evidence of just what the left wing really thinks of religious folks - right here on MND you’ll find someone who would have no problem with nationally televised sodomy, but regards Tony Dungy thanking his Creator for his success as a horrid breach of manners. At best, such people regard religion as a dirty secret best kept in your closet - and many have advocated taking away rights to vote, to hold public office, to raise one’s own children - the list goes on.

A lot of liberal “Christians” would more than likely be the ones who burned the incense and ate the sacrifices in Rome. After all, Caesar said to, and he is our Great Leader, isn’t he?

Yeah, I know some of you asswipes think I am being harsh on ya’ll. Well, you vote for these libtards, don’t you? I mean, don’t take my word - go read for yourself. You tell me your erstwhile allies aren’t all but ready to toss you into a camp for your religion. Hell, in Canada they are talking about removing the official legitimacy of any church that doesn’t toe the “progressive” line. I don’t see any of your progressive buddies giving a thoughful pause and saying, “That’s a bit extreme.” I notice more than a few applauding it.

You really gonna tell me there is absolutely no danger of having one of their jackbooted goons telling you one day, “Your beliefs don’t meet government approval. Submit to re-education or submit to registration and start wearing a yellow cross on your chest.”

I mean, Robert Paul Reyes, on these very pages, has pretty much said he’d like to stamp out religion. You think he’s going to give up that goal if “sweet reason” won’t prevail? What if him or his kind get in power? Think they’ll just go - “Gee, whiz - we tried! Oh well!” and let it drop?

Yeah. We have a Constitution. So did the Weimar Republic, and the Elections of ‘32 changed that in no time flat.

You think you are somehow excepted from their contempt for faith just because you vote Democrat?

Yeah, you’d speak up before it went *that* far. Tell that to the Christians in Red China. At least the ones who haven’t been bulldozed into mass graves and paved over. Your left wing buddies have a real stellar record of just how reasonable they are when uppity religious people question their sacred “State.” But I am sure it is going to be “different” with you. You just keep telling yourself that, pal. I’m sure when they are talking about mother-f*ck*ing, jeebus-worshipping, christofascist godbags they are also saying “Except for that ____________(insert your name here), and friends; they’re different.”

The lesson here to be learned for you people, after John Edward’s weak denunciation of Missy and Mandy, and the silence from the left, is that if you call yourself a Christian - let alone religious - and specifically if you’re Catholic, you’re as dumb as a sack of hammers to pull any lever for a Democrat, or any of the other left wing parties. You can be best likened to a Jew voting National Socialist, or a black guy voting for David Duke.

They have shown their colors. This is what they really think about you. And you can go look up what Amanda and her kind have said about you - as a Christian - and do my grandpappy’s old test - substitute “black” in place of whatever group they are talking about, and see if it is offensive.

And religious black people - I will just refer you to Bob Parks, and maybe you will believe him:

“Hollywood liberals love to bash Republicans and religion in public and in their media. Christians, in particular. But if these same civil rights minded limousine liberals were to traverse the inner city, they would find more places of worship per square block than anywhere in the world. But their apparent subconscious disrespect for black people is manifest in their glee in insulting all things we consider religious. Yet, we idolize these people, and purchase products from companies and executives that portray black people as Ebonics-talking, hip hop dancing, basketball playing pets. And yet, we embrace them.

“Yes, that’s right. I said it. Pets.

“If your cat urinates on the carpet, you don’t get mad at the cat because it doesn’t know any better. So when certain black people go astray, liberals in the media find the anointed black “leaders” to tell the world what made them do what they did and blame it on society’s inequities. It’s never our fault. It’s the socio-economic conditions, it’s racism, it’s Reaganomics, and it’s always understandable.”

And since I have enough Indian in me to be a minority, I’ll say it: These annointed black leaders are just Liberal, Democratic house niggers. This is the same party that wanted you kept in chains, and fooled you into thinking they liked you because they decided to turn you into dependants, destroy your families, and sit here and encourage you all as your culture falls into gang warfare, drug use, illegitimacy, illiteracy - Margaret Sanger, one of the annoited Saints of Liberals and Feminists was promoting a “Final Solution” for you long before Adolf Hitler came along. And given the abortion rate of black people, a lot at the hands of Planned Parenthood - an organization she founded for Pete’s sake - it’s progressing nicely. And all the time, they nod their heads, applaud, and tell you to “keep going - self-destruction is your cultural HERITAGE!”"
Look at how they go after - absolutely SAVAGE - any black person who dares to step off the liberal plantation. These are your friends? You VOTE for them? And white people, and people on the right, who want you to go to school, get educated, get jobs, get rich, own businesses, and own property are your racist enemies?

How is that again?

Let’s hope to hell we have some lessons learned.

Me, I’m not going to sweat it.  The Catholic Church was founded in persecution.  We could go underground *snap* like that.  Almost a century behind the Iron Curtain - you think the Vatican doesn’t have the notes on “How to Survive and Prosper Underground?”  You think they don’t have operatives ready to come in and help organize?  We came out of some of these communist countries stronger than we went in.  And a lot of your Protestant “Fundies” who operate missions in such countries could just as easily do it here, too.  It’s you all, who always kowtow to the secular authority, who would be lost and clueless.

Your call - and your lesson to learn or not.

The national counsel for the N.O.W. Sez:

Happy Valentine’s Day — Let’s Get Divorced!!

Valentine's Day is the Most Popular Time of Year to Seek a Divorce Attorney

BOSTON, Feb. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Valentine's Day. Some say it's the most
romantic day of the year. Others dismiss it as merely a commercial scam.
Still others find themselves dateless and depressed. But it could be worse;
according to Forbes, the day of love is the year's most popular time to
seek a divorce attorney.
It seems Valentine's Day may be a dual holiday for lovers and
leavers... New York City Divorce Attorney Sherri Donovan, in her new book
HIT HIM WHERE IT HURTS: The Take-No-Prisoners Guide to Divorce - Alimony,
Custody, Child Support, and More offers advice for women in their moment of
realization -- that on this day of romance they have none...and their
decision to jump ship. "You may simply decide that you can't face another
Valentine's Day living a lie," Donovan says. "But don't throw those
drugstore chocolates in his face and storm out quite yet. Do your homework
first -- or you could end up broke and bitter by the next time February
14th rolls around."
The numbers echo Donovan's cautionary warning. Eighty-five percent of
the time, it is the woman who initiates the divorce. Amidst the staggering
emotional turmoil, they too often make hasty decisions and "play-nice" to
get the proceedings behind them. The result: They get screwed. How screwed?
Consider this:
* The average woman experiences a forty-five percent drop in her
standard of living after divorce
* Eighty-five percent of custodial parents are mothers and, of those
female-headed households, forty-five percent exist at or near the poverty
line
* Only fifty percent of custodial parents are awarded child support,
and of those granted support, only forty-five percent receive the full
amount on a regular basis
Clearly, women preparing to go through the nightmare of divorce need a
game plan that ensures they get what they deserve. "You don't want to end
up like these women," says Donovan. "Ultimately, your divorce can be a
liberating experience that jumpstarts a better, happier life for you, but
only if you're prepared for the worst that can-and too often does-happen."
HIT HIM WHERE IT HURTS: The Take-No-Prisoners Guide to Divorce - Alimony,
Child Support, and More by respected NYC matrimonial attorney Sherri
Donovan is a must-read resource (a guerilla guide of sorts) for any woman
about to leave a bad marriage behind.
SHERRI DONOVAN IS AVAILABLE FOR INTERVIEW

              To arrange, contact Beth Gissinger @ 508/427-6757

Hmmmm.  Speaks for itself, eh?

Mark this day on the calender, folks.  A lefty has been principled, and not hypocritical.  Blogmistress Amanda Marcotte has resigned from the Edwards Campaign, along with her partner in crime, who writes: “This is a win for no one.”

Ah.  You know, it has been my fervent wish to see one - JUST ONE - of these jackasses named Jane.  Why?  So I could respond, “Jane, you ignorant slut…”

I’ve always wanted to do that

Just because it will piss off Steven Guess…

You know, I’m pretty tolerant of Catholics, and…

Ho! Whoa! Hold, wait, wait, waitwaitwait - GONZ! Flag on the play. You are Catholic. You’re so Catholic, I’ve heard you occasionally call Benedict XVI too liberal. How the hell can you be “Tolerant” of Catholics? You agree with them You’re ONE of them. You make no sense!

Ah. Caught out. Let me try again.

You know, I’m pretty tolerant of Protestants….

No objection? Yeah, I guess I can be tolerant of Protestants. I don’t agree with them. Hell, some of them even hand out tracts talking about how I am going to hell, and am a servant of Satan for “Worshipping the Pope.” Of course, I don’t associate with the latter kind. Don’t go to church with Protestants, though I will go to weddings, funerals, etc.

Of course, I think they are heretics. I think some of them have some whacked out and twisted beliefs. (Let’s not get into “Predestination.) But I am everything from Good Buddies with Protestants, all the way down to people who would like to see me strung u. We disagree. But I tolerate that.

It’d be pretty hard for me not to tolerate something I agree with. The idea of “tolerating” something I practice is ludicrous. Tolerance must come about in an environment where you do not practice something, or do not agree with it. Or both. Liking it isn’t the point. Live and let live is the point.

Liberals tend to abuse the notion of tolerance. But we knew that. Sometimes, though, it is the obvious which bears being said outright, as it is often overlooked. Liberals tend to conflate the notions of tolerance and acceptance with “embracing” and “celebrating” and nothing could be further from the truth. I tolerate my son’s choices in music, as did my own father before me. I hardly celebrate or embrace the noise that emanates from his room.

Because something is legal, it has government mandated tolerance - but it does not make it moral or right necessarily. There are a great many things which are ostensibly legal, and should remain so. If I rent my property to someone, a legal process exists for me to evict them. If they do not pay rent, I may do so. If it turns out that I will be putting a family out on the street due to a run of hard luck, this may not be moral for me to do. If, however, I am finding trash cans full of expensive booze, it sheds a different context on this.

If a gay couple moves in down the road, we rightfully expect people to tolerate them. To not commit crimes against their person or property.  To not slander them, or libel them.  To not interfere with their access to courts, or other public facilities.  It does not, however, oblige anyone to invite them to the Sunday barbeque.

And that is alright, because it works both ways.  The gay couple can have their own Sunday barbeque.  And they can exclude the “m*th*rf*ck*ng fundie Xtian godbags” as Liberal John Edwards chief blogger, Amanda Marcotte, would so delicately put it, if they wish.
(Guess that is some of that wonderful Liberal Tolerance, eh wot?)

Business as usual, though.  One standard for the left.  Another standard for everyone else.  But that is another - and more perpetual - topic.

“My writings on my personal blog, Gonzo’s Bar and Go-Go Grill, are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone is personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact, and that I hold a deep respect for diverse beliefs. It has never been my intention to disparage anyone, and I’m sorry if my words are taken in that way.”

Now, next time some jackass takes me to task for something I have posted or said, I am going to trot out this trite little blurb, and I fucking jolly well expect it to be taken at face value, and I will fill ambulances on my way to the auto-de-fe if I am not immediately behind Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, capice?

But, just so there is no doubt, my intent is to discomfit and offend as many jackasses as I possibly can; and if they are liberal jackasses nothing would make me giggle more than to cause them to have a stroke or a massive coronary. Few things are more dear to my heart than the image of some left-wing sack of shit reading what I write, and popping Tums like they were M&Ms. I believe everyone has a God-given right to be both wrong as the sun rising in the west, ans as butt-stupid as a sack of hammers, and I have the right to point and laugh at their dumb asses. And until you liberal rat-bastards finally get your concentration camps built and lock me away, I am going to keep after you hammer and tong.

And that might not even stop me. You better just kill me. And bring body bags. Lots and lots of body bags.

From Hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.

Bet ya never saw that one coming, did ya?

Seriously. What did you expect? Yeah, I know, Amadagon and her clone are anti-Christian, anti-male, and all - but did you really, honestly expect John Edwards to fire them?

Let us just look at political reality. Forget Barak Hussein Osama - er - Obama. He’s a novelty candidate. He has what? Two years in the limelight? He’s black. It’s all he has going for him. If he were white, he’d be laughed at. VP - maybe. MAYBE. No. The two gorillas in the democratic race right now are Hitlery and Edwards. Hitlery is copying Bill and trying to tack to the center - she figures the moonbat fringe is lost, and will pick up more votes from moderates, disaffected Republicans, and Republican Feminists who would vote for a woman if she had three sixes glowing on her forehead. Edwards is the left-leaning candidate. Remember, he was put on the Kerry ticket to give the Liberal Senator from Taxachusetts street cred with the left.

So, Johnny did what any politician would do. He waited a couple days, stuck his finger in the wind, saw where his base was at, took the twins out to the woodshed, and made them write apology notes, then shortened their chain. Mandy and Missy have their little tushies smarting now, and are itching at the new muzzle. It’s not rocket science. Pretty much what I thought. Firing them would have done nothing but piss off his liberal base. Well, even worse than he has, a lot of them see this for what it is too. That’s okay, they won’t be jumping off the USS Edwards, hell, even if he was caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. (Yeah, I’m a necrophobe and a pedophobe too. Hang on - mmmm - sorry. Tried really hard to care….)

Notice the BLMSM (Biased Liberal Main Stream Media) barely touched this. It was a blogger thing that was all over this like ugly on a Marco - er - ape. (Yeah, I’m ugly too - also foul mouthed, mean as a snake, and not stupid enough to get involved with a major campaign, not that I respect most politicians enough to endorse, let alone whore myself out to for pay.) Edwards is counting on this to pass out of the minds of the sheeple - and it probably will. Bloggers, of course, will have the Microscope inserted up Mandy & Missy’s rectums, so you can probably expect them to fly very low until November 2008. I imagine they will annouce they are taking a hiatus from their blogs, put someone else in charge, pop in every now and then to post how wonderful Johnny is, and other than that have someone else ghost their venom on their behalf while keeping their hands seemingly clean.

Also predictable. Again, not rocket science. It’s in the script. Amanda and Melissa’s apologies are about as sincere as my Grandma trying to convince you she ain’t got nothing in her hand while you are deciding to call, fold, or raise. Read their blogs - or at least the unsanitized archives and you’ll see the two of them are about six inches away from calling for a “Final Solution” on “Xtian Scum.”

They are small potatoes, anyway. While I will confess to a bit of schaedenfreude, and find it most entertaining to watch them grovel, writhe on the floor and lick Johnny Eddie’s boots (I will let the disturbing part of that remain in the mere periphery of my mind’s eye - don’t make me get the mental floss, people), Amandagate is not a campaign killer, and never was.

It is an important lesson, to wit:

The right wing is not our friend. But we knew that.

The left wing - as evidenced by the clasping of two venomous vipers of feminism to their bosom - is our enemy, though.

And if you think I understate the case, go read Pandagon and Shakespeare’s Sister for yourself. I’m not going to do your homework for you. Far too many people tell you what to believe and what someone said. Read for yourself.

I have put up with a lot of absolute, slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging nonsense over the years. There are times, my brothers and sisters, when I know to my bones that the old definition of stress as “the mind suppressing the natural desire to just slap the snot of of some dumb jackass who desperately needs it” is as true as if it is writ large, in great, big, quivering, neon capital letters in God’s own pocket dictionary. The whole idea, though, that the left wing is anywhere on the side of Men’s or Father’s rights, though, is the nadir of wishful thinking at best - dumb as a bag of hair is more like it. It is appallingly stupid.

Can a thinking person seriously - with a straight face - look at crap like this, and tell me that a vote for John Edwards or his ilk is anything but a blow against the FRM/MRM, and a step back?

You can talk all you want about what the rhetoric is from the left, and what they say. Well, I find it hard to hear what they say, myself.

What they DO is speaking far to loudly for me to hear over it.

Recently the pages of Men’s News Daily has been graced by the presence of several members of what I shall refer to as the disloyal opposition.  I’ll not go down the litany of names, but they include feminists, liberals, Islamofascists, and conspiracy theorists.  This has been greeted with measures of dismay, to say the least.

Ease your troubled hearts, my brothers and sisters.  Rejoice.  Indeed, join me in welcoming these folks here.

By all means, (metaphorically) assist them in such body modifications as will give them a choice of orifices from which to defecate, but give a hearty “Hail and well met!”  Slide your chairs over.  Make room.  Far, far better it is to have them hear.  As I look at it, why let your opponent remain silent and be thought an idiot when you can give them a forum by which they may speak freely, and remove all doubt?

Or, in other words, and echo chamber can be a bad thing.  Yeah, I know.  Occasionally we all need a place to go where one has a vacation from abject stupidity and the vapidity of “Progressive Thought.”  (There’s an oxymoron if I have ever heard it.)  However, the internet is a big place.  GoDaddy is cheap.  And Men’s News Daily need not be that place.  Construct those places away.  Retire there to refresh yourself, and you feel the need.

Ladies and Gents, it is a sign we are winning.  One of the reasons we are winning is because we do have such things as logic and truth upon our side.  Those, my friends, are powerful weapons.  You don’t need fear even an erudite ignoramus.  If they spout baloney, it will be seen for what it is.  Rest assured that the Brain Trust here at MND is more than adequate to the task; I have seen spontaneous tag-teaming on a grand scale here.

Back before the internet, their ilk controlled the media, and information .  And lo, the Lord saw that it was vomitous, and he said “Let there be Rush Limbaugh.”  And so, talk radio was born.  Whatever your opinions on Rush, he exploded in popularity, because he was something NEW.  A voice which had never been heard.  People saying “He’s one of US.”  Liberals hated him.  They tried to silence him, drive him off the airwaves, and all their efforts just made him the more popular.

The age of the Computer BBS came and went, with people talking on FIDONets and other such things.  CompuServ. Prodigy.  AOL.  Then came the World Wide Web.  The genie was - and  is - out of the bottle.  The Lefties are trying desperately to put it back in, trying to claim we are part of a political machine, trying to censor us with the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” again.  Their efforts are doomed, though I have to say their antics are most entertaining to watch.

Fortunately, over the internet at least, it is difficult for them to fling poop.

I’d gone back to college during the rise of Political Correctness.  Well do I remember how fascist it is, well do I share the frustration of being silenced, of having my grade lowered for Thoughtcrime. I was tempted on more than one occasion to wish the little Torquemadas a taste of their own Star Chambers.  Maturity brings wisdom, though, and as a nearly fully vested Olde Pharte, may I just pass on a little of it, to wit:

Laugh at their silly asses.

Yeah, I know.  They have a site, you go there, and you get hounded, edited, deleted, and chased off, and it is a big echo chamber.  Aggravating, ain’t it?  Know why they do that?  Know why they have a big bunker mentality?  Know why they don’t like their views subject to analysis and reason?  Cnsider for a moment that their doctrine can’t stand up to scrutiny, and you have made the first step to enlightenment, grasshopper.  When you get frustrated with it, imagine them stomping their lil’ foot and declaring, “My mind is made up, you right-wing meanie, how DARE you try to confuse me with facts?”

Don’t be drinking coffee when you do.  You have been warned, and I hold myself not responsible for monitor screens.  Probably the only occasion you’ll get a laugh from them, too.  They are a humorless and bitter lot, eh wot?  Not nearly so agreeable as my own gentle brand of mirth, I must say.  We’re funnier than they are.  They attract the faithful and True Believers, and otherwise preach to their choir.  By all means, let them.

Long ago, a wise sage once gave me a bit of wisdom, that can be condensed to “Play to the Lurkers.”   I harbor no illusions I am going to convert even one doctrinaire femherroid.  You, gentle reader - well, I hope I entertain you.  But I am not really telling you anything you don’t know, am I?  Let’s not beat around the bush.  If I am trying to convert you to a position you already hold, this is as big a case of keyboard masturbation as has ever occured.

The lurkers, though.  The ones who read, but don’t speak.  They have their fill of one-sided discussions and straw-men anywhere they look.  Go to any of the major lefty sites, and you will see the same POV spouted over and over, followed by the obligatory hug-fest, self congratulatory backpatting, and choruses of “Yeah, what he said!”  Red Kos or Pandagon for a week, and you have read it in its entirety.   We put it here - well, same thing, only different.

What is new, and refreshing, is when you can contrast between the two.  When some Libtard can get up and drool nonsense, and be thoroughly fisked - well, that speaks volumes.  Just for starters, it shows we don’t fear the arena of thought and the marketplace of ideas.  You’re not going to find that in Liberal Unicorn Land.  They don’t want it, whatever their rationalization, and they don’t want it because they get the short end of that stick every stinking time.  As my New York Cousin is fond of saying, “They ain’t got nothing.”  This is why leftist enclaves resemble gulags; they are on a par with other totalitarians complete with iquisitions and re-education classes.  The difference between one of them, an Islamic Terrorist, and some uneducated peasant screaming “She’s a witch! Burn her! Burn her!” is merely one of circumstance, and position in the space-time continuum.

By all means, let this be demonstrated.  And let it be a pattern of welcoming acceptance of their … um … unique .. points of view.  Because sooner or later the gang that is around will become weary of serving as the logical whipping boys, if they don’t have a stroke at the consistent demonstrations of what they see as “mean-spiritedness,” or have their heads implode when an undeniable truth penetrates the event horizon of their worldview. And we’ll then need more of their missionaries to come and try to edumacate us poor, benighted, heathens.

So, roll out the welcome mats, and let it ring loud and clear to all of Liberaldom, “Send more.  The last ones were DELICIOUS.”

How sweet it is.

I have some bets to collect on, now.

Oh - That’s MISTER Manning, now.