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

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).

Deterioration of Children's Television and the Moral Decline of American Youth

Growing up with Pokemon, Power Rangers and MTV instead of Mr. Rogers, Captain Kangaroo, Reading Rainbow and Sesame Street is hard for me to even imagine.

I regret that if I ever have kids of my own that they won't be able to get to know Mr. Rogers the way I did.  The same goes for Mr. Greenjeans, Oscar the Grouch, Cookie Monster and the Count as well.  I was never too fond of Big Bird, Elmo, Grover, Ernie or Bert, although my phlegmatic attitude towards them has nothing to do with the fact that Bert and Ernie are a same-sex couple and Big Bird, Elmo and Grover are so effeminate it makes one wonder if Sesame Street is located in San Francisco. No, I never cared for any of those characters because they simply aren't interesting enough to captivate me.


Moving on, four and five year old children now days watch violent animated cartoons with poor graphics, no plot to speak of and nothing whatsoever about the programming that would qualify as even being within the same ballpark as the word "wholesome".  The stuff that by today's standards is considered wholesome is so bizarre and creepy (that's right, I'm talking about you SpongeBob, Teletubbies and especially Pokemon) I'd have to sit down and put some serious thought into whether or not I'd even allow my hypothetical child to watch such downright weird and freakish characters.

I certainly wouldn't want my hypothetical child to start to identify with those creepy fictional characters that undoubtedly originated as the products of either a very sick mind or a very intoxicated mind, and I ain't talking about a couple of beers or even your more common hard drugs.  No, whoever is responsible for unleashing SpongeBob and Pokemon on society must've been dropping acid like AT&T drops calls.

Even if we had cell phones at 13 years old the way kids do now (I got my first one at age 19 my sophomore year of college), I seriously doubt my generation would have had these issues with "sexting" and "cyber-bullying" the way kids today do.  For one thing, the girls would make us "go out" with them for months before we'd even get to second base.  Sex was rare, and even then usually only for the handful of the most popular students in school.  I'd like to think it was because the girls back then had self-respect, but I learned that was definitely not the case once they got to college.

"Sexting" would never have taken off among my generation even if we had the technology.  The last thing any of us would have ever wanted was naked pictures of ourselves or our romantic interests being distributed to the entire school and God-knows who else.

In my estimation, the technology itself is not to blame for the ways in which children are using/abusing it.  Part of the problem is that parents are leaving it up to the schools (and to television) to instill values, morals and the explanations for why these concepts are eventually embraced by virtually all functional members of society.  That is not to say teachers don't care or make no effort to teach these things.  However, it is the parent's duty to teach those matters to children --- and not just the bottom line of right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable behavior --- but also the "why" behind it.

Children are far more likely to be obedient and well-behaved if they understand why their parents want them to behave in a certain way.

The other part of the problem is that children today are growing up watching Pokemon and a host of other programs about which the term "mindless entertainment" would be far too generous a description.  Twenty-five years ago, children grew up watching Mr. Rogers, Sesame St, Captain Kangaroo, the Smurfs, the Transformers, Looney Toons and other cartoons that were entertaining, had storylines and didn't make fight-to-the-death combat the focal point of the programming.  Compared to what they're seeing today, I worry about how the generation of Americans that are young children now will turn out as adults given the radical shifts in the nature of children's programming combined with (in many cases) the declining role of parents in establishing moral and ethical boundaries with their children while placing extra emphasis on the explanation of "why".

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