Gun Ban News: Tulane Students Cite "Widespread Rape" in Calls for Security

Tulane's Campus Gun Ban Leads to "Widespread Rape" of Female Students

Tulane University's female students have been among if not the most commonly raped demographic of people in the entire world for at least a decade now. When I was a student at the institution, I took note of this, and being a women's rights advocate did the only rational thing I could think to do: request the school eliminate its campus-wide gun ban in an editorial which was featured I the campus newspaper.
Thinking I'd done a good deed in helping protect the poor women being victimized while leaving campus, you can imagine my surprise the next week when I saw this: http://www.thehullabaloo.com/views/article_5021235c-7d42-56b3-9425-f25942f0800a.html.

The paper received a record 450 responses by the print deadline and countless more afterwards. They dedicated the entire op/ed page to the least vulgar of the hate mail that poured in for weeks afterwards. I received one email from a fellow student who commended me for standing up to the liberal institution and fighting for what is right.

For what it's worth (for those who read the hate mail linked to above), Kira McAllister refused to accompany me on my walk home from campus. I did email her and request that she do so.

The fact that this has gone on for a decade because the criminal waiting two blocks away have guns and the students do not is heinous and I hope that eventually one of those rape victims has the courage to sue the school for the physical and psychological harm she had to endure because Tulane threatened to expel her if she dared protect herself.

For anyone interested, I wrote a more in-depth and more general dissertation of the problem in which I posed the question of whether or not universities are actually encouraging such violence by placing the students at a disadvantage. Anyone wishing to read it can find it here: Do Colleges, Universities Encourage Violence Towards Women?

I think the answer to that question is patently obvious. Please share your thoughts on the matter should you feel strongly enough about the issue to do so.

Please don't take my word for it though. If anyone thinks this is even remotely exaggerated, please see the following, which I had no part of: http://jezebel.com/5877160/tulane-university-students-invoke-widespread-rape-in-calling-for-increased-off+campus-security 


"I'm pretty paranoid in general.  I carry around pepper spray with me everywhere I go,” said Tulane University student Angie Baroffio." http://www.projectnola.com/the-news/news/42-fox-8/177260-off-campus-crimes-have-loyola-tulane-students-on-edge

Gun Control Debate Finally Settled: It Doesn't Work

Gun Control Definitively Proven a Failure, Debate Finally Over

In light of the recent strategy involving yet another school shooting and yet another balls-to-the-wall effort from democrats to exploit the tragedy to advance their gun control agenda, the debate has reared its ugly head once again for the first time since the 2004 election cycle.

Following a NOLA.com story involving yet another Tulane University student being robbed at gunpoint (thank God at least this time the victim was male, and there was no rape accompanying the armed robbery, as is typically the case), a former Tulane student who was enrolled in late 2003 and early 2004, a time period during which rapes and armed robberies of (mostly) female students walking home (or to their vehicles) from campus had reached epidemic proportions, dared to speak out against the violence against women by way of an editorial published in The Hullabaloo, the Tulane student newspaper suggesting his theory as to why so many students were being violently attacked while leaving campus.

His theory: a campus-wide firearms ban prevented students from adequately defending themselves in one of America's most dangerous cities, and one in which the criminals are keenly aware of the fact that these campus-wide gun-free zones exist. He went on to suggest that unless the university did away with the policy either voluntarily or following litigation initiated by the victims of these crimes seeking monetary compensation sufficient to account for damage to person and property, as well as punitive damages; the trend would only continue. He was right.

The week following the debut of his editorial appearing in the Hullabaloo, the paper received a record number of submissions of what ultimately were better classified as hate mail rather than legitimate letters-to-the-editor attempting to refute the student's editorial appearing the week before. An editor for the paper at the time all this was going on reportedly told the student that the paper received more than 600 total letters in response, and 450 or so by the deadline for print the following week. The overwhelming majority contained language rendering them unsuitable for print.

The week following the student's letter suggesting the gun ban on campus was if not the problem at the very least counter-productive towards any viable solution, the Hullabaloo devoted its entire op/ed page to the least vulgar of the letters written in response, published under a page-wide headline at the very top reading "Re: Peter Egan Jr".

Obviously, Kira McAllister, one of the students whose retort was published the following week, had never been raped while walking home from campus. She suggested better alternatives such as traveling in groups. Oddly enough, in an email exchange that ensued, Ms. McAllister denied Mr. Egan's request for accompaniment on his own walk home from class.

Well, with the issue back in the news both because if the attack on the Tulane student, the recent school massacre and the regime's efforts at removing the final obstacle barring the implementation of a full-fledged totalitarian police state, the story resurfaced. First, it appeared on the personal blog of the pro-women's rights student, Peter Egan. Later, a scaled-down version appeared at a social news site called Thruzt, a link to which later appeared on Facebook. It was in this Facebook status update containing the link to the story at Thruzt in which the debate was finally settled decisively, definitively and once-and-for-all.

In the follow-up post to this one, the debate that ensued will be published in its entirety for all to see. In it, each and every argument in any way related to the issue came up and was settled in favor of the pro-freedom crowd --- and by a wide margin at that. Each and every argument used to support arguments in favor of gun control was surgically dismantled with a degree of precision not seen in political communication since the heyday of Ronald Reagan.

In any case, the merits of the issue have now been decided. Anyone who wishes to may see for him or herself the extent to which from a debate standpoint, this one was quite the blowout. Anyone who believes in gun control can easily access facts that more than adequately refute the agenda-driven "studies", illogical and fallacious arguments used to support the systematic dismantling of arguably the most critical component of any free society.

After reading the entire conversation, the only way one could still support gun control is through either A) Blind Faith; B) Belligerence; or C) A desire to disarm the civilian population of a free society in order to transform it into a totalitarian state in which only police are permitted to possess weapons.

Here is the argument that decisively won the gun control debate: http://lamesubdomain.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-discussion-that-won-gun-control.html

Help Restore Louisiana's Wetlands & Coastal Ecosystem

I recently created a petition to the United States Congress (House and Senate) and the U.S. President, asking the respective bodies and the individuals in positions of leadership within those respective bodies to please commit to restoring Louisiana's wetlands and coastal ecosystem.

You can read (and sign) the petition here:  https://www.change.org/petitions/restore-louisianas-wetlands-and-coastal-ecosystem

I would very much appreciate it if anyone and everyone reading this would take just a moment to check out the petition, and if you agree with it, please also sign it. It's pretty hard to envision a scenario in which anyone would have any major objections to this goal.

Change.org|Start an Online Petition »

How Evil is George Soros?

Is George Soros the world's most evil man? The question relates to and includes women too, for whatever it's worth. I have my reasons for phrasing it in an exclusively male context (If you must know... In all seriousness, does anyone really believe that any woman who is not an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend --- your ex-wife or girlfriend to be specific, not just anyone's --- could be more evil than the world's most evil man? . . . I didn't think so).

Is he (Soros) even evil to begin with? Or, is it possible for a person to be as genuinely confused about right-and-wrong as Uncle Soros would have us all believe is the case with himself?

The question unfortunately begs numerous other questions best left to a theologian to answer. Some of these include:

• What is evil?
• Is evil defined by actions, behaviors, words, beliefs and/or some combination thereof?
• Who is to say what is evil?
• Is morality relative? What about ethics?
• Is it possible that some people who are born with fully functioning brains and organs lack what most of us would refer to as a conscience?
• Who am I to judge ("Judge not, lest thee be judged")?
• Can evil exist without the existence of God (a question for athiests and agnostics, obviously)?
• Does evil exist period?

Is there a certain threshold as to what constitutes evil in any sense (actions, thoughts, behaviors, etc.), or is whether or not something "is evil" determined on a case-by-case basis? If so, by whom (another question for non-believers, who for the record I am not judging in any way, shape, manner or form, and against whom I have not one iota of angst)?

I'm not going to attempt to answer any of those questions, but for those who wish to delve into them further, I will provide to the resources I utilize to help wrap my mind around these concepts:

• Regarding Moral Conscience
• Regarding Good and Evil
• Regarding the Nature and Sources of Morality
• Regarding Sin

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other person that is alive at present that I'd consider to be "more" evil than George Soros, at least according to my understanding of evil*. And yes, that includes serial killers, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro (whom I'm still 98% certain died in 2007 or 2008, but is still "officially" alive, so he's included here for the purposes of conversation).
In the case of Ahmadinejad, while he may aspire to kill more Jews than Hitler himself was responsible for murdering, he lacks the capacity to single-handedly orchestrate such a massacre, and could only succeed in doing so with significant help from George Soros --- which he has gotten. That said, Soros has the ability to put a stop to the nutjob in Iran if he wished to do so. Unfortunately, he does not, and in fact has been an integral part of Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons, not to mention the fact that for at least the past three years, Iran's nuclear program has proceeded without a hitch, but with the blessing of the U.S. Commander in Chief, who as we all know was hand-picked by Soros, who propagandized America for long enough to get him elected. Not that he really needed to, Soros' SOS Project (SOS is an acronym for Secratary of State, which makes the complete name of this sinister undertaking by George Soros the Secretary of State Project) has been such an unprecedented success that Obama would only have needed to win about 35% of the popular vote in any of the states he won in order to "win" those states.

For anyone unfamiliar with the SOS Project, Soros funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into statewide elections for the position of Secretary of State. He did this across the entire United States. The mission behind Project SOS is to ensure that in any election between a democrat and a Republican in which the statewide demographics are such that a democrat victory would be anything less than proposerous to even conceive of --- meaning that a vast majority of the voting population would be less than 100% certain of a fraudulent outcome should the democrat emerge on top --- that the democrat wins each and every one of those elections regardless of what it takes to meet those ends.

The responsibilities of the Secretary of State on a statewide level are far different than the position at the federal level. For states, the SoS's job is typically to oversee business and corporate filings, and to manage and coordinate elections for each given state. Relative to any other position in a typical U.S. state government, the SoS has the most power to illegally influence the outcome of an election in a variety of ways, and Soros' minions have figured out all of them, mastering most in the process.

Take the 2010 Nevada election for U.S. Senate between Harry Reid (who has been termed the "Second-Most Evil Man in America") and Tea Party favorite Sharon Angle. All of the polls leading up to and even on election day (exit polls in the case of election day itself) showed Angle with a comfortable lead ranging from 3.5 - 5.5 percentage points. Not a blowout by any stretch of the imagination, but outside the margin of error for all but a few of the more obscure polls that were released. Nevada's Secretary of State, who was effectively appointed by Soros via the SOS Project, contracted with --- of all people --- the SEIU (an uber-liberal, proactive democrat PAC. The name is an acronym for the Service Employees International Union) to manage, maintain and perform "maintenance" on Nevada's electronic voting machines.

This directly resulted in two (2) different types of election fraud. Not surprisingly, both just "happened" to work to Harry Reid's advantage. The two different forms of mass election fraud from Nevada's 2010 race are:

1. Thousands and perhaps even tens of thousands of the machines were pre-programmed to cast votes for Harry Reid. Upon each vote being registered and the voting form cleared for the next voter, the device was set to vote for Harry Reid by default!! Wait, it gets worse. When intelligent and informed voters with stable minds went in to cast their ballots, hundreds of voters observed their vote for Sharon Angle switched at the last second by the machine. The switch occurred after the voter had pressed the "cast ballot" button, but was apparently visible for just long enough for several hundred voters to take notice. We can only guess at how many hundreds or thousands just pressed the button and left the polling place, never even stopping to consider that a United States Senator would resort to such scandalous and illegal tactics for the purpose of subverting the democratic process and the will of the people.
2. In heavily democratic precincts (those most predictable and most likely to favor Reid over Angle by a wide margin based on demographics and past voter behavior alone), numerous precincts submitted more votes than there were registered voters residing within and/or registered to vote within the precinct. For anyone wondering how that happens, there are two scenarios that in all likelihood both occurred. The first involved the same people voting more than once. It's no secret that this goes on in every election involving a democrat without exception, and has ever since the days when the democrat party was heavily aligned with the Klan (sadly, not much has changed on that front), with both organizations' (the democrats and the KKK) primary objective being the subversion of the rights of black U.S. citizens. The second scenario us unfortunately also fairly common in elections involving democrats. This latter scenario involves union thugs simply pulling the lever over-and-over again for Reid after the polls had closed.

When all was said and done, Harry Reid was "reelected" by a slim margin. TRANSLATION: Sharon Angle won the election by 6-10 percentage points, but Reid was reelected anyway due to the rampant fraud that occurred, which was on display for all to see, and of which little attempt was made by the guilty parties to conceal the sinister actions and intents. With a so-called Department of Justice that is in cahoots with Reid, Obama and the democrats, it came as little surprise that there was no federal investigation into these widely documented reports and claims, for which the evidence is so readily available one could fill the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans with all the witnesses and documents supportive of the allegations.

The point of this story is that none of this (Harry Reid's fraudulent reelection) would have been possible if it weren't for a Hungarian-born devil of a man by the name of George Soros.

VIDEO: George Soros Discussing China's
Role in the New World Order





* NOTE: For the purposes of discussion and debate, I am obviously taking a leave of absence from my usual approach of deferring judgment to someone I deem more qualified than myself to judge other human beings (that would be God, for those of you in Eugene, Oregon).

The Best Job in America: Professional Democrat Voter

The United States Ministry of Truth on Saturday released a new report confirming what nearly half of all Americans already knew: That professional democrat voters have the best and most fulfilling job in America. The study observed nearly 300 million Americans over a period of 32 months, and concluded that professional democrats have the best job in the nation by a wide margin.

While at first the results seemed perplexing to some, that's just because they're either Republicans or Tea Baggers, and in either case are too stupid to comprehend the results of the study.

One great example to illustrate why democrat voter is overwhelmingly the best job in America is the Occupy Wall Street movement. By now, we're all familiar with the professional democrat voters who have been occupying the Manhattan thoroughfare. It's no coincidence that Wall Street makes up one of the largest and wealthiest collection of uber-rich crony capitalists who in the months and years leading up to the 2008 election funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Pinocchiobama in an effort to buy the 2008 presidential election. The most significant impact Wall Street's money laundering machine has had on the NYSE's phony occupiers is that by doing its part to get Pinocchio in the White House, the Occupy Wall Street protesters were granted their wildest wet dream in being awarded the right to work for the next four years as professional democrat voters.

With Pinocchiobama's victory, the Occupy Wall Street protesters and slothful drug addicts across the fruited plain won the right to work as professional democrats for the next four years. They were guaranteed a full-time salary for no less than three years (a time period the President of the United States is fighting tooth-and-nail to extend). The job title is somewhat of a misnomer, as the name for it is "unemployment benefits". Obviously, the term "unemployment" was meant to be interpreted in a figurative manner.

The benefits package offered by their new employer includes free food for the duration of their employment. They were issued company credit cards called SNAP, which is an acronym for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The credit cards can only be used for food and groceries, which has led to some controversy among professional democrats who are disgruntled over the fact that their company credit cards cannot be used to purchase illegal drugs.

The job comes with a number of benefits, including completely free healthcare and company-issued housing, which for some comes at a drastically-reduced rate well below market value, and for others is completely free-of-charge. (References: Section 8, Public Housing, Fannie May, Freddie Mac).

Professional democrats and their children also get free education from pre-kindergarten all the way through college.

In order to become a professional democrat, all a person (for lack of a better term) need do is vote for democrats in nationwide elections. While some may be inclined to write this off as an easy job, professional democrats aren't just expected to vote for democrats. They are expected to vote for democrats several times at several different polling locations on election day. This can be very hard work, especially when their government-subsidized vehicles (remember "Cash for Clunkers") run out of gas. The most outrageous part about this is that the company doesn't even reimburse for mileage, forcing some professional democrats to carpool or take public transportation to and from work.

All things considered, professional democrats have it pretty good. They get paid to work one day every two-to-four years, free food, free housing, discounted vehicles and all sorts of other perks. The job can be very stressful with all the hateful racist Teabaggers always criticizing their hard work, but in the end the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

So, if you're a child or adolescent who still isn't sure what you want to be when you grow up, you might want to take a look at becoming a professional democrat. With somewhere between 40% and 50% of Americans currently working as professional democrats, it is by far America's most popular profession. Once the Teabaggers and those stupid Republicans figure out how great it is to be a professional democrat, they'll want to jump on the bandwagon too, and America will finally be united as brothers in Marx.

Lazy 'Occupy Wall Street' Junkies Should Be Allowed to Starve (for the Good of the Country)

The lazy bums loitering in the streets of New York City (Wall Street, to be specific), Atlanta, GA, New Orleans, LA and other cities all across the United States, are an awfully pathetic bunch.  A loosely affiliated mixture of left wing radicals such as communists, anarchists, fascists and other sinister liberal groups, the one common trait shared by all of the Occupy Wall Street hooligans is that they would all prefer to spend their time "protesting" in the street against people who actually have jobs, work for a living and succeed, than get jobs themselves.  Their reason?  Because those people --- the evil Wall Street ne'er do wells --- have more money than they do.

They want everyone else to do all their work for them, as well as give them all the money the people who perform who work earn.  These people (OWS thugs) are a shining example of why food stamps should be done away with.  These lazy junkies should be allowed to starve if they aren't willing to support themselves.

Occupy Wall Street Protesters: Lazy and Stupid

The fact that we as taxpayers are subsidizing these slobs to the point they can afford to remain perennially unemployed, protesting the working man and going weeks in between showers.  They never brush their teeth, have no desire to fit in to society, much less have to work for a living.  Yet they're alive nonetheless.  They don't deserve to be alive, yet they are, and the sole reason is because working people continue to feed them.

It's time to let the monumentally lazy starve.  The benefits of doing so for the country are multi-fold.  First, some of them will eventually begrudgingly get jobs, accepting that the realization of their greatest fear (having to work) is still better than being dead.  This will add to the supply side of the labor equation, which in the macro picture will help to reduce the cost of employing workers for businesses.  When the cost of doing business goes down, businesses are more likely to succeed and by greater margins, which will go a long way toward helping to reverse the Obama recession.

Other communists and anarchists will stay true to their core laziness, opting to die a martyr rather than get a job.  This will reduce the number of democrat voters, which will make it harder for democrats to get elected, which will reduce their numbers in the House and Senate.  Less democrats in Congress means a fast economic recovery, further building upon the gains resulting from the reduced cost of doing business.

The elimination (or at minimum drastic reduction) of the Federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAPS, or "food stamps") will allow for all the billions of dollars required to feed the lazy to be used to help pay off America's debt, lowering interest rates and helping to curb the global financial panic.  This will help usher in a new period of stability in the global markets, and America will be the the leadership role of one of the greatest economic turnarounds in the world's history.

John Edwards Indictment Not Without Peculiarities

While scanning the news headlines this morning, I came across a story about the fiasco involving former Democrat U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate John Edwards' ongoing federal indictment/prosecution. There was nothing in particular about the headline or story that raised my eyebrows. However, there is one key detail about the matter that is very peculiar to say the least.

Specifically, I am referring to the Democrats' history of defending their own against media scrutiny, and propensity to circle the wagons in defense of their own whenever one of them runs afoul of the law, voters, media, etc. To take it a step further, that the mainstream media (which we all know is effectively an extension of the Democrat Party) actively tried to cover up the story for so long indicates to me that there was most likely a request made by one or more high-ranking Democrats that the lurid details of Edwards' affair be kept secret - at least until after the 2008 elections.

Based on the history of similar events in years past, I am hesitant to believe that the Justice Department decided to go after Edwards on its own and without any prompting from someone within the current administration. Assuming that this is correct, it is likewise reasonable to assume that the person who ultimately gave the order was none other than President Obama himself, given that such a brazen request would not have been made by his cabinet without either a direct order from the President himself, or at the very least him signing off on the indictment and prosecution.

I can't help but wonder what Edwards did to piss off Obama, who by all accounts appears to be much more involved in micromanaging the Justice Department than any other President in recent memory. Could Edwards' prosecution be the result of unflattering comments made during the '08 Democrat primaries? Or was it something else potentially involving someone else?

If there's one thing we do know, it's that Democrats don't go after their own unless its personal or in some way related to the advancement of an agenda (such as the Democrat calls for Weiner to resign only came after his scandal kept the attention off of the Ryan Medicare plan for almost two weeks). In this case, there doesn't appear to be any legislative goal, which leads me to believe it is personal retaliation by Obama for some unknown slight.

Every mainstream media organization in America worked tirelessly to cover up the story of Edwards' infidelity for more than a year. They never did release the story. As I'm sure most of you recall, the National Enquirer broke the story after the NYT, LAT, USAT, WP, AP and all the others passed on the opportunity. That very fact alone suggests that somewhere along the way Edwards said or did something that angered Obama enough for him to seek retribution by way of a federal indictment.

Do you remember something that I may have forgotten regarding the relationship between the two men (Edwards and Obama)? If you have a theory about what former Senator John Edwards may have done to invite the wrath of Obama, please be sure to share it in the comments.

If you simply disagree with my theory regarding Edwards' indictment, please feel free to voice that (and/or any other sentiments you may have about the case) in the comments as well.

Obama to Blame for Food, Fuel Inflation

Wal-Mart CEO Bill Simon recently issued a dire prediction for the month of June. Specifically, Simon has gone on record and predicted that the long-anticipated inflation stemming from the Pelosi/Bush bailouts of 2008 and the Obama Stimulus will set in with a vengeance during the month of June.

Inflation is "going to be serious," according to Simon. "Except for fuel costs, U.S. consumers haven't seen much in the way of inflation for almost a decade, so a broad-based increase in prices will be unprecedented in recent memory."

There has been much talk in recent months over the prospect of food prices increasing dramatically. Food prices, like most other prices, are being driven up by inflation first and foremost.

What causes inflation?

Remember all those bailouts? Obama's trillion-dollar stimulus? All the money borrowed from China and printed by the U.S. Federal Reserve?

All of the above drastically increase the rate of inflation. Food and fuel prices are the first of which people take notice because they are commodities that everyone must buy. Most other prices lag behind because people can choose not to buy non-essential items, which causes retailers to lower prices in hopes of stimulating buying by the consumers. While the retailer is feeling the full effects of inflation, competition over marketshare prevents them from immediately passing it along to the consumer. Instead, they keep prices as low as possible for as long as possible in order to try to gain a few percentage points worth of their opponents' market share in hopes of converting that chunk of business into profit at a later date once the economy has recovered and consumer behavior has returned to its normal levels of activity.

That said, eventually retailers, grocers and the various other merchants will have to raise prices in order to meet their costs and hopefully earn a small margin (profit). When that happens, consumers will feel the full effect of the coming widespread inflation.

For a more in-depth explanation of the relationship between Obama's stimulus and inflation, check out this article, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal back in February of 2009.

Worthy Opponent Remembered: Fat Lester's Tribute to JeffK

I know that there have already been several different tributes done since JeffK's departure for the hereafter. While I do not want to be redundant, I think it is only appropriate that I, Fat Lester, publish my own tribute to JeffK (formerly known as "janejas"). 

For one thing, the tribute song chosen for one of the dedications to Jeff was the same song used in a faux tribute to Violet Planet following her banning from Mixx. Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though that cheapens it some when included in a tribute to one of the other three 100k karma Mixxers (no offense to VP, it's the likening of being banned versus the real thing that bothers me). The other thing is that enough time has passed now that I can write the tribute that best commemorates my time here with Jeff without the shock-factor influencing me.

The other reason I decided to go ahead with this tribute is that unlike the authors of Jeff's other candlelight-posts, this one was written by someone on the side of the aisle opposite Jeff. That is significant to me. That someone who spent countless hours arguing back-and-forth with Jeff would take the time to pen a tribute weeks after his passing says something about the kind of man Jeff was. I've debated hundreds if not thousands of different people during my time at Mixx, but none ever challenged me the way Jeff did.

Conservatives tend to classify liberal arguments as being rooted in emotions as opposed to logic and reason, thereby discrediting left-wind arguments on the basis that left wingers don't think logically. While many liberals do indeed wear their hearts on their sleeves, JeffK's logic was as sharp as any conservatives, and he made quite the habit of routinely shredding the widespread over-generalization regarding left-wingers and logic. Defeating him in debate was never easy, and most of our arguments ended with a mutual agreement to disagree for the sake of allowing ourselves enough time to experience worldly things other than Mixx. That isn't to say liberals are right about anything, just that proving they were wrong was far more difficult when Jeff was on the other side of the debate than it would have been with most others.

Jeff and I butted heads more than a few times the first couple of weeks he was a Mixxer. I can recall dozens of heated exchanges between the two of us during the two-plus years I knew the man. However, despite our frequent disagreements over politics and philosophy, the two of us came to develop a relationship based upon mutual respect.

It didn't take long at all for the two of us to realize that the other was not a fool or an idiot, and that our failure to see eye-to-eye on many of these matters was not a byproduct of either of us being an intellectual superior to the other. Essentially, we reached a point where we could accept our disagreements as such without villainizing the other.

Within a matter of weeks after he had joined the Mixx community, Jeff and I had developed a strong mutual respect for each other in spite of the fact that disagreed often about politics, and neither of us was shy about expressing our views about a given subject. We each were able to come to terms with the fact that neither of us were bad people, and that neither of us was severely lacking in intellectual capability. We recognized that so long as our debates pertained to the given issue or topic at hand and did not become personal (meaning neither of us would insult the other despite the extent to which we disagreed on a subject), that our lively debates could be fun, educational and an overall positive contribution to the community.

There was a period of about eight-to-ten months when the discussions at Mixx well far more civilized, intelligent in nature, thought-provoking and educational. For a while there, we really did have the best community of its type on the web, and the ability of Mixxers such as Jeff and myself (and dozens of others - you know who you are) to debate rationally and with respect and civility to all despite our differences that set the example for new users. For a period, that mature and intellectually-stimulating culture was the dominant culture at Mixx.

I was forced to take a five-month leave-of-absence from Mixxing last summer to address some medical issues and later pursue a job opportunity that was prohibitive of my involvement in social media. When I returned, Mixx was not the same place it was when I had left it.

While Jeff certainly didn't have this sort of relationship with everyone he interacted with at Mixx, it was his leadership as an outspoken representative of the political left that helped set the tone for debate and raise the bar on the community standards for interactive conversation. There were some people on both sides of the aisle who eventually made their presence felt in the community, much to the detriment of said community. It was very challenging to have a conversation with some of these folks without insults flying. In most cases, these were the people who lowered the bar for everyone and helped spur the eventual decline in the community and the standards for debate that for years we Mixxers took so much pride in.

If I had to choose a song to represent my relationship with JeffK (aka: "Janejas"), it would have to be "We Just Disagree" by Dave Mason. The words that best express my experiences with Jeff were articulated to perfection by Mason in the song: "There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree."

Jeff, you were the epitome of a worthy opponent, and while I vehemently disagreed with many of your political views, I hadn't the slightest bit of animosity for you whatsoever --- in fact, quite the contrary (as you well know). There are not many people with whom I can have such challenging and intelligent conversations without having to worry about ruffling anyone's feathers. You were a warrior, and your skin was impenetrable by the words of mere mortals.

God Bless you and your family Jeff. Your presence is missed, but I take comfort knowing that you're probably sitting around having a beer throwing darts with Michael and Gabriel, helping the Easter Bunny prepare to kick off the year's most important Holy Day.

I miss you man. Now more than ever. Since I know you're already in Heaven and do not need my prayers in that regard, I instead will pray for your family, that they may come to peace with your departure for the next world. While I admit I'm in no hurry to get there, I hope one day I am deemed worthy of joining you in paradise so we can resume our ideological jousting, ostensibly for all eternity. Until then, you'll not be forgotten.

Lobbyists Gone Wild: D.C. Darlings

Editor's Note: In order to fully experience this post, I recommend clicking the "preview" button on the widget below and allowing the music to play while you read through the post.

Ever wonder what happens when the Washington Monument and the Oval Office get together for a joint appropriations hearing?

IT'S LOBBYISTS GONE WILD! - 'D.C. DARLINGS'

You won't believe the things these crazy guys and gals are willing do to get into bed with congress! This limited edition 'Lobbyists Gone Wild' extravaganza contains two full hours of raw, non-stop footage that will leave you amazed and wanting more.

See what really goes on when you turn out the vote and we turn on the cameras! Watch as these crazy lobbyists try to insert your tax dollars into places you never even knew existed!

If you think you've seen earmarks ---- THINK AGAIN! This video is 100% guaranteed to shock and amaze. In it, you'll find out just how many of these wild and crazy lobbyists can squeeze together inside a single pork-barrel. You'll also find out the real story about what goes on in the nation's capital after dark.

This shocking video is guaranteed to make you question the definition of "is". As we take you behind the scenes, you'll get access to raw, uncensored footage of Uncle Sam sticking Lady Liberty with more pork than Ron Jeremy to Marilyn Chambers in "Janet of the Apes".

When you order your special edition copy of Lobbyists Gone Wild 'D.C. Darlings' FOR ONLY $9.99, you'll also receive your choice between our limited edition Lobbyists Gone Wild: 'Interns Unleashed' video and our brand-new LGW: 'Democrats Exposed' - FREE!

Lobbyists Gone Wild: 'Interns Unleashed' features two intense hours of shocking clips that show what really goes on when interns and lobbyists are left alone in a room with only a bottle of Viagra, a cigar and 2.5 trillion in foreign debt.

Our brand-new LGW 'Democrats Exposed' free bonus video features 30 minutes of never-before-seen footage from inside former Democrat Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards' room at the Beverly Hilton. We'll "escort" you behind the scenes with former N.Y. Governor Elliot Spitzer and show you exactly why former Dem. Congressman Eric Massa is known as "the back-door man". You'll even find out the secret reason why those closest to the DHS Secretary Napolitano know her only as "Janetalia". This video is only available as part of this special TV offer and is not sold in stores!

Call now to reserve your copy of Lobbyists Gone Wild: 'D.C. Darlings' and your choice of LGW: 'Interns Unleashed' or LGW: 'Democrats Exposed'. Don't wait. This offer won't be around long so call now and place your order today while supplies last!

Cost of video does not include shipping, handling or taxes. Customers must be at least 18 years or older to take advantage of this incredible offer.

[ --- DISCLAIMER --- ]

* This offer is only available to citizens of the U.S. and Canada ages 18 years and older.

* Lobbyists Gone Wild accepts no responsibility for the actions of any persons appearing in the film including but not limited to those of Lobbyists, Democrats, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Janet Reno and/or Napolitano.

* LGW does NOT endorse or in any other way support or condone smoking marijuana without inhaling.

* LGW strongly advises that persons intending to view this film first speak with a doctor or healthcare provider about this film's potential side effects. These may include: nausea, vomiting, constipation, indigestion, gastrointestinal upset, diarrhea and temporary dementia.

* The sights sounds and images included with these DVD's does not justify spontaneously moving to Mexico (or Canada).

* Surprisingly (and thankfully), "Janet of the Apes" has nothing to do with DHS Secretary Napolitano.

* Viewer (and voter) discretion is strongly advised.

Education Reform Not About Hating Teachers

I came across a link to a NY Times story while perusing headlines on Amplify the other day about teachers throwing a pity party over perceived scorn by the general public. The headline for the Amplify story read: "Why do Americans hate teachers?".

Since like most liberal propaganda, this story - regardless of where it goes or how it unfolds - is based entirely upon flawed logic. In this case the fallacy is the good ole false premise. True to form, the premise upon which the story and any arguments made therein are based is faulty, and the reader must accept the false premise as being true in order to proceed in logical fashion.

Americans Do Not Hate Teachers

Growing calls for education reform in America have absolutely nothing to do with the perceived "hate" that an apparently paranoid group of American teachers sees as being directed towards themselves.  To equate demands for major education reform and calls for an overhaul of the education system with hatred of teachers is every bit as ridiculous and absurd as crying "racist" against the Tea Partiers for cheering wildly as Herman Cain announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee.

It's not that Americans hate teachers or anyone else for that matter. An increasing number of Americans object to the systematic ideological brainwashing of the nation's youth by way of a government-run, taxpayer-funded education system.

The public is quite cognizant of the fact that for every subversive there is a legitimately good, caring teacher who has no intention or desire to thrust an ideological agenda upon developing minds. However, the public is also well aware of the fact that the problem is severe and must be dealt with sooner rather than later.

Our nation's schools - at all levels, from elementary school right on through college - have been increasingly underperforming while steadily increasing in cost (both to taxpayers as well as private tuition costs) at a rate far in excess of the rate of inflation.

The fact is that the brainwashing taking place throughout both the primary, secondary and higher education systems is largely responsible for the election of Barack Obama, whose destructive policies and agenda has terrorized the American economy for more than two years now. The consequences of inaction have become too severe, necessitating the need for immediate education reform.

One final thought, for anyone quick to dismiss the charge of organized and systematic brainwashing as unfounded or too conspiratorial in nature to be legit, I leave you with the following:

KGB Used (Past Tense?) U.S. Education System and Media to Brainwash Public

FLASHBACK: GOP Will Repeal Obamacare if House Changes Hands

This post was originally published in March of 2010 on another site that is no longer online. It has been slightly modified from its original version.

March 20, 2010

Whatever House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in the House and Senate eventually either do or don't do regarding President Obama's healthcare reform proposal (commonly referred to as "Obamacare") is immaterial as to whether or not the bill (assuming one is passed) is ever actually implemented. The only real vote on Obamacare will take place this coming November, and it will be voted on by the American people themselves.

Consider the following:

In November of 1994 the U.S. House of Representatives saw an 82 seat majority for the Democrats become a 24 seat Republican majority overnight.  The Senate remained at 56-44, but with the respective parties swapping numbers (and control of the Senate).

Even if Obamacare passes, Republicans can kill it at any point upon regaining control of the House by merely refusing to fund it.  All budgetary legislation must originate in the House and the majority party (and/or coalition) must vote to spend everything contained within the Federal budget.

The GOP could just draw up a budget that doesn't include any reference to Obamacare, and the Senate can either pass it and the President sign it; or even better, have it rejected by either the Senate and/or President and stall for as long as necessary before authorizing the government to spend ANY money. The GOP could refuse to pass a budget bill until certain budgetary items have been removed completely from the federal bankroll.

This means that before any bill could be passed, any and all federal funds alloctated to anything even remotely related to Obamacare, ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and other rogue legislation and non-governmental organizations would have to first be stripped from the budget.

Therein lies the beauty of a system of checks-and-balances. Even if the ruling party passes Obamacare against the will of an overwhelming majority of Americans, the electoral punishment will open the door for the Republicans to undo the damage and actually serve the people that elected them rather than subjugate them. That is, assuming they can pick up enough seats to retake control of Congress.

Eventually, the President and the Senate (if the Democrats keep their majority there --- and that's a big "if") would have no choice but to compromise with Congressional Republicans in order to fund any government program.

It will be quite interesting to see how things would unfold with House Speaker Boehner calling the shots instead of Nancy Pelosi. The Republicans must pick up a minimum of 39 seats currently occupied by Democrats and successfully defend their own incumbents as well in order for that (the GOP gaining a House majority) to happen.

The Democrats presently hold a 77 seat advantage in the House and a 16 seat advantage in the Senate, although the two independents both caucus with the Democrats, so it's really more like an 18 seat Democrat edge.

In 1994, the Democrats held an 82 seat edge in the House and a 12 seat advantage in the Senate. While it is feasible that the GOP could recapture both legislative chambers in this November's elections, doing so would require a repeat of the '94 landslide, which was and still is an unprecedented rebellion against incumbents, in this case Democrats.

The Republicans winning enough seats in this year's mid-term election to acquire a majority within the Senate is extremely improbable given the circumstances. It's not an impossible scenario, but realistically the party should not be disappointed if it manages to make a serious dent in the Democrats' advantage, positioning the party so as to be able to make a serious bid at retaking control in 2012, when the dynamics are more in the GOP's favor with more so-called "vulnerable" Democrats such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana will be up for reelection.

As stated previously, if the GOP can just manage to retake the House it can stop Obamacare from ever being implemented in spite of objections from the President and Senate Democrats.

The question is not will the Democrats lose seats in this year's mid-term elections, but will they hang on to enough of them to be able to fund Obamacare (assuming they eventually get a bill passed)? 

On a side-note, even if no bill is passed, it may be too late to undo the damage Obamacare (and the Stimulus bill, the GM takeover and everything else Obama has done while in office) has done to the Democrats chances for reelection across the board, and they should still stand to lose a considerable number of seats regardless of what happens with the healthcare reform bill from this point forward.

GOP Should Focus on Defeating Obama in 2012, Not Before

This post is in response to calls from folks on the right for President Barack Obama to resign, and also to those calling for his impeachment.

Don't get me wrong, I do sympathize with many of these people. I agree with many of the reasons they cite as to why President Obama should resign or face impeachment. I do not necessarily agree with all of them, but with enough that I normally wouldn't go out of my way to argue with them.

However, in this case, I believe the issue is one of strategy first and foremost. From a purely strategic perspective, I think that a Republican electoral victory in 2012 would be far more likely to yield more of the actual desired legislative goals than would likely become reality should the President resign prior to the completion of his term.

For starters, both Obama and Biden would have to resign in order for it to do any good. That scenario is extremely unlikely, as the Democrats would not sit idly while high-ranking members of their party put a Republican in the white house without an election. That said, an Obama resignation without one by Biden means a Joe Biden Presidency, which most Americans should agree is an absolutely terrifying scenario.

The damage the Democrats have inflicted upon America is done, and they're limited in how much more damage they can do before the next round of elections. While we won't be able to undo any of the damage without the Presidency at the very least (although it would still be difficult without the Senate), we can at least do damage control while keeping the issues that contributed to the 2010 GOP sweep on the table and in the forefront.

If Obama is President for the next two years, the Republican-controlled house can pass a new repeal of Obamacare every week until either it passes and the President signs it, or until the 2012 elections take place, whichever comes first.

The GOP can submit budget bills that dramatically reduce the size of the federal budget, forcing the Democrats to veto economic measures that will be wildly popular among the voting public.

They can pass legislation that they know will either die in the Senate or will receive a Presidential veto, solely for the purpose of forcing Obama and Senate Democrats repeatedly take unpopular measures in either the Senate failing to approve the bills or the President vetoing them.

They can only do all of this if Obama is President. Obama's resignation would generate unprecedented sympathy for him, while stifling any and all good will the Republicans have earned from voters in the past few years.

Even if he did resign, would a President Biden really be any better? They'd both need to resign in order for the GOP to gain any governing power from the move. Even still, the Dems would control the Senate and could filibuster anything the GOP wanted to get done.

If the GOP waits until 2012 to unseat Obama, they very well may win the Senate, perhaps even by a considerable margin. This would be crucial if the party seriously plans to repeal as much of the past two years as possible legislatively speaking. Remember, all it takes is 40 Senators or one President to stop legislation from becoming law.

In light of everything outlined above, it makes much more strategic sense to me for Republicans and Tea Party independents to actively work toward 2012 rather than push for a resignation or an impeachment prior to the next election cycle.

While an embattled Obama resigning amid shame and controversy might be enjoyable to witness, it would not necessarily help the GOP accomplish anything legislatively. In order to really repair the damage the Democrats have done since over the past four years, the Republicans will need both the Senate and the Presidency in addition to their existing majority in the House. Emotional gains at this juncture are not worth the potential costs, especially if they distract us from the primary goal, which should be to unseat as many of these Democrats as possible (Obama included) in 2012.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik: The Name Says It All

Clarence Dupnik, the embattled Sheriff from Tucson, Arizona whose hateful and incendiary comments following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords served as the spark that ignited the ensuing firestorm of attacks from both right and left (mostly from the left) that have now led to the politically-expedient calls for unity and for toning down of the political rhetoric that we are now hearing from President Barack Obama and others, is aptly named.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik

Dupnik's rhetoric singularly turned a national tragedy into a massive feeding-frenzy of blame and finger-pointing.  Not long after Dupnik first opened his mouth and began spouting vitriol, his accomplices on the left were working tirelessly to try to link the shooter to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, George W. Bush, the Tea Party and others.

We were told to believe that it was hateful rhetoric coming from the likes of the people listed above that drove the shooter to insanity.  If Sarah Palin hadn't used a "bullseye" metaphor on her U.S. campaign district map, the shooter may never have gotten the idea.

It was Sheriff Dupnik himself that informed us of the link between the shooter and Rush Limbaugh.  Granted, he couldn't tell us how Limbaugh set him off (other than to lament that Limbaugh is on the air for three hours every day), and couldn't recall what Limbaugh said specifically that might have driven the shooter, we were nonetheless supposed to accept as Gospel that Rush is going around saying nasty things that can turn a deranged person homicidal.

Already, there have been increased calls for gun control on the left in the wake of the tragedy.  Democrats in Congress and the Senate are beginning to bring up the "Fairness" Doctrine in a favorable context once again.  The House of Representatives shut down this past week, postponing a plan to bring an Obamacare-Repeal bill to the floor and open it up for debate.

The opportunistic exploitation of the tragedy is in no way limited to the media name-calling and finger-pointing.  As the examples in the previous paragraph illustrate, elected representatives in the United States government were also quick to jump on the tragedy-exploitation bandwagon and saddle it with their own legislative initiatives (some more unconstitutional than others).

In response to this, conservatives have tried fruitlessly to point out that it was Obama who said "if they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun".  The have replayed incendiary remarks by Obama in hopes of illustrating the hypocrisy of the suddenly holier-than-thou President.  They have reminded everyone of all the left's vitriol. All of this has created the appearance that they're as guilty of politicizing the tragedy as is the left.

It might have been more productive to drive home the point that according to his friends, Jared Loughner was a radical left-wing liberal who didn't like the news, didn't listen to talk radio and had been obsessed with Congresswoman Giffords since before the inception of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin's rise to prominence.  I'd like to see a poll on how many people are aware of this fact versus how many believe that heated rhetoric played a role in the shooting.

In any case, all of this was in response to Sheriff Clarence Dupnik's hate-filled, partisan rhetoric in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.  Dupnik's words are what spawned all of that which is mentioned above --- from both sides of the political aisle.  Granted, the question of 'would it have happened had the Sheriff not incited it?' is very much a matter for debate.  I personally don't think it would have been anywhere near as bad had the initial reaction been more respectful of the families of the deceased and less intent on scoring political points.

What's in a Name?

In light of Dupnik's role in the post-shooting chaos that has gripped the nation, I couldn't help but observe that the sheriff appears to have been aptly named for the type of "work" he's currently engaged in (spawning heated, two-way rhetorical attacks in the wake of a tragedy).

You see, Dupnik's name draws from two different words, "dupe" and "nik".

Dupe

Dupe (French), according to The Free Dictionary, is defined as:

1. An easily deceived person.

2. A person who functions as the tool of another person or power.

Nik

Nik (Russian), according to The Free Dictionary, has two definitions as well:

1. One associated with or characterized by

2. Denoting a person associated with a specified state, belief, or quality

I'm going to refrain from explaining the significance of the definitions as they related to the man whose name they make up.  I like to think that you, my readers, are well able to figure that much out on your own.  If anyone really doesn't get it, please request an explanation in the comments and I will provide one.

In any case, everyone be double-sure to obey the laws out there.  There may be a sheriff lurking the streets who is associated with and characterized by his extreme left-wing beliefs, who is very easily deceived, and who functions as a tool of George Soros and the political left.

When Sheriff Dupnik asks for your license and registration, it's your voter registration he's really after.  If you just admit you were speeding, and tell him that it's Rush Limbaugh's fault you were speeding for getting your blood pressure up with his fiery rhetoric, he'll probably just let you go with a warning...