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 »

Wishful Thinking: The Anti-Soros

The Emergence of the Anti-Soros

As much as I'd like to say otherwise, I am not aware of anyone who appears to be maneuvering him or herself such that one day that person could serve as a counter-influence and check on George Soros' power. Not even myself :-( . Hey, a guy can have dreams though, right?

I'm going to divulge little bit about myself here for those of you readers visiting this blog for the first time, or who are simply unfamiliar with me in general, and thus are unaware of the context most readers of this blog know by way of past experiences with me.


I work about 80 hours a week on average, and sometimes more. Sure, I would like to one day be as wealthy as George Soros. While I have no doubt that should I achieve my financial goals or anything even close, I would thoroughly enjoy the money (a yacht with a harem of topless women feeding me grapes and strawberries in the Caribbean sun comes to mind), the primary reason I strive for such riches is so that I can become - for lack of a better term - the Anti-Soros.


Please do not mistake me for believing I am or ever could be Jesus Christ or his reincarnation (or ever be even 1/7777777 the man he was and is). That said, if I were to do as much good in the world as one would have to accomplish in order to earn even remote consideration for a title such as the "Anti-Soros", I'd feel much better about my chances for receiving forgiveness for my own worldly sins, which are many.


That said, I'm not an evil person, and I do have a good heart, flawed as I am. It would be nice though to be able to invest $10,000,000 into developing SmokersVote.org (a yet-to-be-established political PAC I intend to develop into an organization that at this point would best be described as the "NRA of and for Tobacco", as well as anyone else who believes in freedom-of-choice and personal responsibility.


It would also be nice to be able to take $500,000,000 and donate it to the campaign fund of GOP Presidential frontrunner Herman Cain using anonymous overseas donations of less than $200 (which is how Soros circumvented U.S. campaign finance law when he contributes roughly half of Obama's 2008 war chest).


I'd love to be able to contribute millions of dollars to Pro-Life candidates for the Unites States House of Representatives, U.S. Senate and state Governorships in hopes that someday, the right side will finally win large enough majorities in the federal lawmaking chambers and/or win the governorships of enough states to either have a law made outlawing abortion outright, have the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the unprecedented historical tragedy of Roe v. Wade, and/or accomplish the same end by way of a Constitutional amendment (which if my memory serves me correctly would require 37 states to sign on).


I'd thoroughly enjoy buying or founding my own nationwide and/or worldwide newspapers, cable networks and institutions for higher learning --- even if the investments yielded a perpetual negative return monetarily speaking which of course I would be easily able to sustain given my wealth --- for the sole purpose of attempting to revive the terminally ill profession of news and journalism, and bring it back to the fundamentals of Who, What, Where, When, Why and How, with the facts of the stories being covered actually being factual in nature, with personal and political opinions confined to the OP/ED page.


My schools would teach history (which has been absent from course curricula in America for generations across all levels of the education/propaganda system). For example, in Econ 101 at UFL (University of Fat Lester), students would be asked to write their final term paper on John Maynard Keynes and his theories regarding economics. Students who would fail to point out in said term paper the fact that "Keynesian Economics", while fundamentally-sound on its surface and in theory, and perhaps even altruistic in nature in terms of the motivation underlying Keynes' thinking (and that of the political figures throughout history who have applied Keynes' economic principles), has failed miserably in each and every single example of its actual application as a mechanism for economic planning and governance, would receive an "F" for the paper and no credit for the course.


Nature's Law of Supply and Demand would be introduced in elementary school and would be a yearly recurring theme until high school, during which it would be taught in Physics class as well as in Biology, Civics and American History. The reason being that Supply and Demand is every bit as much of one of the few natural laws which govern the universe as are the Law of Gravity and the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. The only difference between the laws from the standpoint of a physicist is that the latter two require no life, while the former must have life present in order to be applied and recognized. It is a common misnomer that the Law of Supply and Demand is exclusive to human society. In fact, this is the law that governs all life on earth, from the tiniest single-cell organisms to the most complex beasts nature has to offer, and everything in between.


Evolution is fueled by Supply and Demand. As environmental conditions (including supplies of food and the demand thereof - i.e. "competition") change over time, life forms (including plants, animals, bacteria and so forth) either evolve so as to continue to survive in an ever-changing environment or become extinct. It is this, the most natural of all the laws which govern nature and the natural world, from which the economic system known as Capitalism is modeled. Obviously, Capitalism must be slightly modified to meet the needs of a civilized human society (you can't just kill your next-door neighbor and steal his potatoes because you're hungry). However, in terms of its viability as a system providing all of the necessary components for long-term success and prosperity for nearly all involved parties - including but not limited to its own built-in system of checks-and-balances - it is unparalleled. This is especially true when compared directly with the system envisioned by Keynes, which contradicts virtually every aspect of human nature, and --- dare I say --- nature itself.


Students attending the schools and universities controlled by my hypothetical future money would be taught facts like these beginning at an early age. A tremendous emphasis would be placed on teaching students how to think (for themselves) as opposed to what to think (as most schools and universities are oriented toward). However, students who reject indisputable fact and fail to substantiate their dissenting position(s) with a logical argument that exposes one or more flaws in the established thinking would be required to spend additional time learning the principles of logic, reason and critical thinking - perhaps the most glaring deficiency of all in today's American education system, which for the past 70 years or so has been unanimously dominated by the liberal establishment (with substantial influence and significant contributions by the Soviet KGB - * see video at bottom of page if you decide to click the link).

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.

Obama's Troubles the Result of His Policies, Not His Approach

I recently came across a Bloomberg commentary piece written by a man named William Pesek. The article was loosely structured around a premise asserting that U.S. President Barack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard have much in common.

While I do not necessarily dispute the premise in and of itself, the author's reasoning could not have been more off-the-mark. The main argument in the piece was that neither Obama nor Gillard are "radical" enough to overcome cynical detractors in opposition parties whose only goal is to derail the political ambitions of the two respective leaders.


The author cites GOP opposition to Obama's "Jobs Bill", in particular his unsubstantiated proposal to cut payroll taxes. What Pesek conveniently fails to mention are the accompanying tax and spending increases that render the proposal a net increase in the size and scope of the U.S. federal government.


The following passage from the article best synopsizes the author's misguided logic:

"The only answer for Gillard and Obama is to get radical -- be bold, think big and fight for your ideals. Neither leader seems set to do that, or able to sell their messages."

William Pesek obviously isn't all that attuned to U.S. politics. Obama is by far and without question the most radical president in the history of the United States. Republicans oppose his policies not because they want nothing more than to obstruct him, but because his policies are genuinely bad ideas that have already been tried (two stimulus bills, cash for clunkers, auto and bank bailouts, etc.). The reality is that to Obama, "economic stimulus" translates to "multibillion dollar slush fund for violent union thug donors".

He is the most hyper-partisan president in the nation's history, and indisputably the most corrupt --- and by a wide margin. Never before has a president tripled the nation's debt for no purpose other than to redistribute trillions of dollars in confiscated wealth to campaign donors and political allies. Obama has done so at the direct expense of the American economy.

Most Republicans are not saboteurs, and thus are not motivated to destroy the country and its economy. Anyone who doubts that Obama's treacherous policies and initiatives are designed to do just that is either naive or badly uninformed.

San Francisco Judge Gives Smokers One More Reason to Vote

A radical left-wing activist judge in San Francisco has upheld a discriminatory and unfair 20-cent per-pack tax on cigarettes, providing one more reason to smokers in the City by the Bay to start voting. Specifically, the judge provided San Francisco smokers with an extremely good reason to band together and vote out the thieves and swindlers who enact this sort of discriminatory legislation.

What would voters say if the judge had upheld a $3500 tax on gay marriage that didn't apply to heterosexual marriage? In San Francisco, if that were to happen there would be riots.

Why then does the public turn a blind eye and pretend it's okay to issue taxes on specific people according to their lifestyle? If it's not okay to tax homosexuals for activities that heterosexual people are not taxed for, then it is absolutely and unequivocally unacceptable for governments to tax smokers for cigarettes without taxing non-smokers an equal amount for not smoking.


The launch date for SmokersVote.org draws nigh. I am still planning to have the site fully operational by the time the 2012 Presidential election really starts to heat up. Hopefully, some of the Nazis in the United States government and local and statewide governments across the country will fall victim to an electoral backlash against politicians who tax smokers.

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.

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.

Atlas Shrugged the Movie (Part 1) Now Playing in Theaters

Part one of the Atlas Shrugged movie is now playing in theaters across the country.  I've been waiting a decade (since I first picked up the book) for this movie to debut.  And what do you know, but the timing of this movie's release couldn't have been any better.  Atlas Shrugged is the closest thing to an official Tea Party charter as exists, and with a looter government in Washington rapidly confiscating wealth by way of inflation (and taxes), but especially inflation, it almost seems as if this movie was more than a half century in the making by design.

In any case, I this will be the first movie I've gone to see at a theater since April of 2005.

The official movie trailer can be seen below.

Why Newspapers Won't Report Jennifer Rexford's Claims

Those of you who have been following the Jennifer Rexford agitprop scam are in for a real treat in this post.  Now might be a good time to go get some pretzels and a cold soda and get comfortable so you can maximize the enjoyment of watching as I demonstrate exactly why no news agency is willing to print Jennifer's "story" in their newspapers, discuss it on their television programs, radio shows, websites, blogs and any other medium you can think of that I might have missed.

In response to those who have privately questioned why I would even give her story the publicity it is receiving by appearing three different times on this blog, the answer is that I felt it was important that the record show that the woman claiming to be Comrade Rexler's story is complete and utter bullshit, and that she was publicly given a chance to prove otherwise and failed to do so.

The person claiming to be Jennifer Rexford left almost two dozen combined comments on the previous two posts.  The following is my response to those comments:

Re: Comrade Rexford

Comrade Jennifer, I am going to ask you to provide some specific information about your purported story.  If indeed your story does check out, I will do the following:

• Remove the previous two posts addressing this topic
• Issue a formal and public retraction and apology
• See that the story gets picked up by a major national or regional newspaper as well as wire services within not more than 72 hours following my receiving the information
• Establish a charitable fund in your name to help with your medical expenses and make a $100 opening donation

If, as I am expecting, you will be unable to pass the upcoming credibility test, public record will show that your story was debunked beyond the possibility for interpretation.

Please provide the below-requested information which can be submitted privately by using the form found here (use the "domains" field as you would the "message" or "body" field on a standard form).  If you wish to publicly show that you provided the information requested, you may do so in the "comments" field below.

Please provide the following information:

• The date at which you began performing Gulf oil spill cleanup restoration efforts
• The date at which your employment cleanup-related employment ended
• Your employer (the name of the firm)
• The name of your immediate supervisor (the one directly above you whom you answer to daily)
• The name of any other lower, mid and upper level managers/supervisors employed by stated firm involved or associated with the project(s) on which you allegedly worked
• Your job title
• Your job responsibilities
• Specific job duties that placed you most at risk of physically handling oil and oil-related byproducts with your skin, and job duties that placed you at risk of breathing in unhealthy contaminants that you claim caused your litany of medical conditions
• State of employment
• Parish or county of employment
• Name and clinic/work phone number of physician who will state on record that he or she agrees with your stated assessment of your purported conditions and their respective cause(s)
• Name, floor and unit of the supposed nurse mentioned in your allegations and in your vidoes
• Hospital in which said events were filmed
• Name of a physician with whom you had an in-office visit 12-24 months ago
• Signed waivers (one per person) to be sent via certified mail granting your permission for every medical profession whose name is requested above to speak on-record about your condition (I will pay all costs associated with shipping them)

If you're telling the truth and you really want to let the world know just how badly BP screwed you over, you should have no trouble providing me with the requested information.  Use the form linked to above to send me a private email address at which I can send you a mailing address for the waivers. If you are telling the truth, I will keep my word and uphold the promises listed above.

However, I'm not expecting to receive any much less all of the information needed to verify your claims.  You had asked why I didn't bother contacting you before annihilating your unsubstantiated allegations.  The reason is because you aren't going to send me that information and your claims will never be verified --- the same reason no one else will touch your story with a ten-foot pole.  Your accusations reek of unsubstantiated hearsay.  You have a chance here to prove otherwise, but I'm not holding my breath and neither should anyone else.

I am so confident that you are a disgruntled commie environmentalist wacko who fabricated a story full of nothing but lies and distortions intended to inflict damage to the one region of the country you and your comrades deem the biggest obstacle to your dream of an all-out dystopian socialist takeover that I was willing to place my reputation and social media following on the line and risk being viewed as a bully who picked on the sickly volunteer woman who is suffering symptoms including "severe neurological damage, paralysis, internal bleeding and death" in order to establish for all to see that you are a phony, a fraud and a scam artist.

This is your chance to prove me wrong.  The information needed for independent sources to verify your claims has been formally and publicly requested.  You can publish the requested information here on this blog and across the web proving me wrong and revealing me to be a heartless, soulless defender of big oil.

What if you send me the information but I refuse to publish it and claim not to have received it?  Publish the answers to your questions and a photograph showing that the certified mail was indeed received and another photograph showing the completed waivers along with the alphanumeric sequence 19U&IOF%F818@#7!1$24451L9GH4-23-88YUI71$ contained within the main content area of the page to any other page on the web (blogger, wordpress, tumblr, posterous, amplify and other services offer free blogs and have community features that allow you to quickly build a couple of links to your page/post from elsewhere on the site to ensure it gets indexed by search engines - for example, this would entail clicking "like" on someone else's post at Amplify, or leaving a comment or two).  Readers from this post can search for the specified character string and if you did indeed provide the information anyone reading this post will be quickly able to find it with a quick check of Google.

I've given you every opportunity to prove the validity of your claims and get your story out there.  Will you do the unimaginable and actually prove your accusations; or will the record show that your claims and of yet unsubstantiated allegations be shown to be false beyond any stretch of the imagination or any reasonable interpretation?

In the event of a dispute over whether or not the information was provided:

Search sequence for confirmation of certified shipment of signed waivers: 19U&IOF%F818@#7!1$24451L9GH4-23-88YUI71$

Search for the above sequence of alphanumeric character in the absence of evidence either in the comments below this article or in a future post confirming the truth or falsity of the purported claims by Rexford. The absence of information in the comments section of this post or in a post appearing on this blog seven or more days following this posting can be interpreted as an announcement by myself that she had failed to confirm the details of her story. I've already done three posts on this subject, so unless she surprises me and produces some verifiable facts I'm going to assume it's because her story is bullshit.

However, if she does provide the info, I will uphold my commitments outlined above and retract my two previous posts while issuing a formal apology.

Therefore, if you don't see or hear anything else about this story here on this blog, search for the string of characters.  If you find a page created by the purported Rexford claiming to show confirmation of certified delivery of signed waivers but find nothing on this blog confirming nor denying such a delivery, please notify me in the comments section.  If necessary, the USPS can ultimately state who is telling the truth and who is lying if the delivery were to be contested by either party.  POINT BEING, if this issue finally ends here, that means she failed to provide the info.  If she claims she provided the evidence requested and has proof of certified delivery of the signed waivers on a webpage not on this blog, it means she's likely hoping to claim I received the information but would not acknowledge doing so.  In such an event, the USPS will have proof either way whether or not something was shipped via USCM from her to me, and I will have videotaped recording of me opening envelope/package upon receiving it from her to verify its contents.

It won't matter.  Her story is a steaming pile of bovine excrement and it's not going to check out when given the credibility test.  If she does try to lie about providing the info, someone please inform me so that the authoritative and decisive documents eliminating all doubt can be requested.

NOTE: In the ostensible event that your described medical condition is accurate (as is proven through correspondence with your medical caretakers and verification of their identities and contact information), albeit not a result of Gulf cleanup work, I will still establish the charitable fund and make the $100 donation --- IF --- you do the following:

A) Admit you lied and made up the part about your medical condition (if that even checks out) being related to the Gulf oil spill or the ensuing cleanup efforts - both here in a guest post on this blog as well as on your own site and in a YouTube video
B) Apologize to the people of the State of Louisiana, the Gulf Coast region, BP and anyone else who may have read your claims and/or watched your videos
C) Delete all Youtube Videos alleging your condition is related to Gulf cleanup work and any websites and/or blog posts claiming likewise
D) Agree to use social media more responsibly in the future

Granted, I still have serious doubts about Rexford's purported medical condition that are every bit as significant as my other doubts about her wild and until yet unsubstantiated claims. We shall find out though, as her actions will leave no doubt about exactly which if any parts of her story hold water and which (if not all) do not.

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

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...