USA Online local classifieds

Community - politics classifieds in new york

<![CDATA[or any other terrorist, dictator, or U.S. enemy]]>

<![CDATA[Is it possible? With McCain's young wife's millions, could he be tied to the criminal oppressive Islamic regime in Saudi Arabia? The one that has our gas prices so high and limits the freedoms of people, stripping them of liberty? Is McCain healthy? Alzheimers? skin cancer? uncontrollable temper on the button? Why doesn't HE wear a flag lapel pin? What gives here? Ok your turn. Let me guess. Obama is a manchurian candidate of Farrakhan right?]]>

<![CDATA[angelo <angelo@gis.net> What a clever email I got from him. Wow, he pointed out to me that Obama is a "coon". Coon? hmm. That's the best you can come up with? You're not really trying. Don't forget commie, white hater, wimp, "n" word, spade and surely you've got more to share. Oh,,,,I know ultimate fighting is on and your micro waved cheese whiz is getting cold.]]>

<![CDATA[It's what I've been pointing out to people, the more you dig into McCain, the less there is to like. Or respect. He runs on being an awful pilot that all his superiors did NOT think much of and being shot down and tortured. How sad. Obama's going to CRUSH! him in Nov.]]>

<![CDATA[Appeasment has always been a dangerous policy, and direct talks with Adolph Hitler. would not be good judgment. Obama has not shown good judgment thus far, with his 20-year relationship with the Radical anti-White Preacher Jermey Wright before he suddenly realized the preacher was a racist. Better to elect a President with good judgment, one who is not an anti-White Racist, and one who would not hold direct talks with Adolph Hitler.]]>

<![CDATA[Hey Rush you old whore been screwing kids in central America again? You evil Mason Zionist prick. I can't help you were abused as a kid, I never had that problem so I don't share your history. Hey nothing wrong with Operation Chaos, It served my purposes perfectly. You helped me kick the ass of your brothers and sisters. Bet you got a lot of heat for it. What a chicken shit you are putting this on an out off the map like this. Ashville where? Just wait for what I have next for all you sickos. Your downfall has just started. The beauty of it is that no matter what happens to me I still WIN!!!!!!!!!!!! I bet you are getting a lot of hate mail these days. You asked for it by you genocidal behavior all these centuries. BE DESTROYING YOU ALL AGAIN VERY SOON AND WORSE THAN THE LAST ONE. You all might as well bend over and kiss your phony brotherhoods with a hoods asses, GOOD BY BABY!!!!!!! Oh by the way! Guess who started and supported you nazi's all those years ago? The Mason Zionists some of whom were Jews to steal all the wealth of the Eastern European Jews for themselves!!!! You all were very good bitches for them, weren't you?? YOU WORK FOR JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! See The Empire of the City on Google. When they tell about the Zionist Rothschild's started and supported the occult societies Thule and Boreal that became the Nazi party. ALL TRUE AND ALL HISTORICAL. AIN'T THAT A BITCH!!!!!! I got the biggest joke you ever heard. Guess why you blond haired and blue eyed aryan types are superior? You nazis and KKK will punk out because of this!!!!! This is really gonna kill you!!! Not because you are better than the rest of us! It is because you are all the best food for the lizards!!! True story!! You all have a higher more desirable emotional level so more adrenalchrine in the blood when tortured. They love torturing your kind for months before devouring you. They want as much of their favorite food as possible so they want all of you to replace the rest of us. See Arizona Wilder and Credo Mutwa at my site for more information or google them and see their testimonies!!!! AIN'T THAT A FUCKING BITCH!!!!!! Tim Winckler for THIS GEEKS REVOLT <a href="http://p100.ezboard.com/fdrumsofwar86845frm11" rel="nofollow">http://p100.ezboard.com/fdrumsofwar86845frm11</a> ]]>

<![CDATA[<a href="http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/16/82049/5729/849/516798" rel="nofollow">http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/16/82049/5729/849/516798</a>]]>

<![CDATA[There will be an "Support Quitting from Chinese Communist Party Rally" on this Saturday afternoon in Flushing, the location is in front of the library. If you are free, please go there to support us.(May 17 afternoon, in front of the library of Flushing, 5 min to 7 strain station) Support Quitting from Chinese Communist Party Rally Tel 718 358 8870 Support us is to support human rights. ]]>

<![CDATA[Can you smell the desperation in the air? smells like......... victory? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! yes - the man won. eat it. and - from the looks of things - McBush will self destruct.]]>

<![CDATA[Get over it]]>

<![CDATA[Prove it already. You idjits just sling buzzwords with no proof. Like Kevin James on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night, and you know what Chris did to him right? That's the future for the anti-American Right so get used to it. You're a big yawn pally. Oh and nice touch with the "Harlem" thing. Pathetic.]]>

<![CDATA[obama the black david duke]]>

<![CDATA[2 years ago Pelosi and the democrats ran on the platform they will bring the price of oil down. Sorry but the price has doubled. Democrats are in charge. Bush just tried to work around democratic incompetence.]]>

<![CDATA[CNN) — John McCain’s campaign said Friday that claims by former State Department official Jamie Rubin that the presumptive Republican nominee had advocated unconditional dialogue with Hamas were misleading. Rubin, who supports Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, wrote an op-ed in Friday’s Washington Post relating an interview he conducted with McCain on the British network Sky News shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian elections in January 2006. "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if HAMAS is now in charge?" Rubin asked. McCain said the United States would not be able to avoid a dialogue with the Islamic militant group. "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another,” he said. “And I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice … “But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that." The Arizona senator has criticized Barack Obama for both his willingness to speak with hostile nations like Iran, and repeatedly raised what he has described as Hamas’ approval of Obama’s candidacy. On CNN’s American Morning, Rubin said McCain’s criticism of Obama’s position was “the ultimate flip-flop in American politics.” <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/" rel="nofollow">http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/</a> McCain calls Obama naive? Calls him a Hamas supporter because he said tht he would talk to leaders... Excuse me? McCain is an IDIOT]]>

<![CDATA[He intentionally neglected one important little fact in his attack on Americans in front of that Israeli Knesset delegation. "A senator" was this senator: "Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided." Senator William Borah, REPUBLICAN of Idaho, when he heard that Hitler had invaded Poland September of 1939 What's John McBush have to say about this gross abortion of protocol by the president?]]>

<![CDATA[In Janruary GW Bush asked the Saudi's to increase oil production to reduce price and they refused.. Today Bush asked the Saudi's again increase oil production to reduce prices and AGAIN he was denied.. Since GW Bush took office the price of oil per barrel has risen over $100.00 - gas was $1.87 a gallon nation wide today it is $3.79 Just another GW Bush failure to add to the list]]>

<![CDATA[So how do you explain the endorsement for Obama by the United Steel Workers, made up largely of working class whites? I think that the problem is not with Obama, I think that the problem is that working class whites are fleeing Hillary and supporting Obama! Guess you HillBillyBots will have to come up with something else]]>

<![CDATA[If Hillary Clinton can't beat an "America-hating, black liberation espousing, Muslim in disguise" as they have shamefully tried to portray Barack Hussein Obama, how would she ever stand up to our real enemies? Barack Hussein Obama is one of the very few who can legitimately claim he has defeated THE CLINTON'S. Just an illusion? Think about it.]]>

<![CDATA[So this is the email I get in response to my post about Obama " As far as Janet Jackson's nipple goes, I am all for that. I would love to see your mothers nipples, your wife's nipples, or maybe your daughters nipples while walking around the supermarket...Oh that's right, it's only ok for someone else. And while we are at it, it wasn't about oral sex in the White House, it was about lying under oath, which is a greater sin." The "greater sin". As opposed to the sin of sending young brave men and women to fight in a war of choice for made up stories of WMD and 9-11 involvement? Ok, no one wants a lying president. Duh. No one wants to pay for anything either. Tell me which president in our lifetime hasn't lied? Under oath? Yes, that's a no-no. And my posting is not a defense of Clinton ( I know conservatives can't get enough of the salacious details of Bill's head). It's about pointing to the absurdity. As for your request to see my 90 year old mother's nipples, well there are other sections here on Craig's which I know you're more familiar with that will address that fetish. ]]>

<![CDATA["The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor. "I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do." -- Robin Morgan "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan "I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan From her "The Demon Lover" (NY: Norton & Co., 1989 Morgan doesn't hide her bigotry): * p. 138-9: The phallic malady is epidemic and systemic... each individual male in the patriarchy is aware of his relative power in the scheme of things.... He knows that his actions are supported by the twin pillars of the State of man - the brotherhood ritual of political exigency and the brotherhood ritual of a sexual thrill in dominance. As a devotee of Thanatos, he is one with the practitioner of sado-masochistic "play" between "consenting adults," as he is one with the rapist* p. 224: My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony. * p. 229: Sex to this point in my life has been trivial, at best a gesture of tenderness, at worst a chore. I couldn't understand the furor about it. * p. 316: Did she die of the disease called "family" or the disease called "rehabilitation", of poverty or drugs or pornography, of economics or sexual slavery or a broken body? "And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism - the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group -- skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative -- for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, 'Women's Liberation' will of course free men -- but in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers". -- Robin Morgan "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." - Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto "Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex." - Valerie Solanas, SCUM founder (Society for Cutting Up Men.) "The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." - Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas) "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." - Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." - Andrea Dworkin "Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." - Andrea Dworkin "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." - Andrea Dworkin "In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice." - Andrea Dworkin Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." - Andrea Dworkin "To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is." - Andrea Dworkin Q: People think you are very hostile to men. A: I am." - Andrea Dworkin "Men use the night to erase us." - Andrea Dworkin "The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality." - Andrea Dworkin "Men love death. In everything they make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, stilling their sobs as they mourn the emptiness and alienation of their lives." - Andrea Dworkin "Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it 'Her'. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination." - Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women "On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom." - Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women. "The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" - Ti-Grace Atkinson "Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." - Ti-Grace Atkinson "Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" - Susan Brownmiller; Authoress of Against Our Will p.6 "When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression." - Sheila Jeffrys "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." -- Catherine MacKinnon "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon "You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs." -- Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; Universities of Michigan & Yale.) "In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." -- Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies. "The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." -- Sharon Stone; Actress All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck-- statement made by an University of Maine Feminist Administrator and overheard by Richard Dinsmore who brought a successful civil suit against the university in the amount of $600,000. Richard had objected to what was said and as a result was dismissed on the grounds of 'harassment'. He responded by bringing suit against the university, 1995 settlement. "Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not Rambo." -- Jodie Foster; Actress - as quoted in The New York Times Magazine. "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female. "And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference." -- Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime. "If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." --Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001. "If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them." - David Angier "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins "As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE." -- Marilyn French (her emphasis) My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." -- Marilyn French; The Woman's Room. "All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey." -- Marilyn French "All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.) "The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations ... obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign." -- Marilyn French "I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." -- Barbara Jordan, former congresswoman "Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release." -- Germaine Greer. "Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence." -- Judith Levine; Authoress "Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.' -- Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry) "I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love,' for the men women share their lives with -- husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, co-workers." -- Judith Levine, Authoress of My Enemy, My love "There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts'...includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder." -- Judith Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document, (A Southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex) ((Delaney Nickerson, of the American Coalition for ABUSE AWARENESS, refers to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as "The Fucking Molesters Society". (Miami Herald, April 3, 1995) The ACAA is a lobbying group, which includes Ellen Bass (co-author of THE COURAGE TO HEAL), and Rene Frederickson, leading feminist psychotherapist and strong proponent of repressed memory theory.)) ((At the STONE ANGELS satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay in February, 1995, the following was contained in the handouts at a conference supported financially by the Ontario Government: FMS stands for: FULL OF MOSTLY SHIT; FOR MORE SADISM; FELONS, MURDERERS, SCUMBALLS; FREQUENT MOLESTERS SOCIETY.)) "Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do." -- Popular Feminist Graffiti "I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.". -- Sylvia Fraser; Journalist Catharine MacKinnon maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid--ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed--they're "hiding from the truth." The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose. -- Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al, tenets of misandric belief.) "If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal -- a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students -- I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment ... of persuading students that women are oppressed" -- Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women. "Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact." - Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood. Another posting on FEMISA: "Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men's violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers." (Both above quotes taken from Daphne Patai's excellent critical work, Heterophobia) "At Brandies I discovered Feminism. And I instantly became a convert... writing brilliant papers in my Myths of Patriarchy class, in which I likened my fate as a woman to other victims throughout the ages." -- Heather Hart 7 Here are 10 reasons why we are concerned about feminism and the National Organisation for Women. 1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" -- National NOW Times, January, 1988. 2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" -- feminist leader Sheila Cronan. 3. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" -- Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989. 4. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole...patriarch!" -- Gloria Steinem, radical feminist leader, editor of Ms. Magazine. 5. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism," November, 1971). 6. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God." -- Gloria Steinem, editor of Ms. Magazine). 7. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women.... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world." -- Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," The Humanist, p. 37, July/August 1988. 8. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman. 9. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." -- Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981. 10. "The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it." -- Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Race," p. 67 "We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men." -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton From 'A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985: MALE: ... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female. MAN: ... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man... TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning." Letter to editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate". "......Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is: if you don't like it, bad luck--and if you get in my way I'll run you down." Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia. 9 February, 1996. “Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” - Catharine A. MacKinnon ]]>

<![CDATA[time to flush howard dean. <a href="http://liberalrapture.com/" rel="nofollow">http://liberalrapture.com/</a> time to flush donna brazille <a href="http://liberalrapture.com/" rel="nofollow">http://liberalrapture.com/</a> ]]>

<![CDATA[Did Reagan hold direct talks with the leader of the "evil empire"? oh - lets all take foreign policy tips from the republicans who have betrayed and destroyed america's credibility and strength abroad. sure sure Obama is a muslim. sure sure sure < 16% of the population is registered republican. The GOP expects to lose 20 more seats in the House. Democrats are showing up in TWICE the numbers as republicans in the primaries. Keep digging your own graves RePuke. we love to watch you flailing your arms in desperation. Obama is a muslim. sure sure sure. this is like taking candy from a retarded baby.]]>

<![CDATA[this is all the republicans have left - desperate attempts at race baiting and lies. suuuure - Obama is muslim. sure sure sure < 16% of the population is registered republicans. and this is exactly why. ]]>

<![CDATA[Seems to be. Where's the "short" one I saw last night?]]>

<![CDATA[DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA, asked in a July 23, 2007, candidates' debate whether he would be willing to meet without precondition with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during his first year in office: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."]]>

<![CDATA[<h2>Face it, Democrats: Barack Obama's Got a Growing Problem With Whites</h2> BY JUAN WILLIAMS Hillary Clinton, down to her last straw, is making the case that she is the better candidate to run against the Republicans because, unlike Barack Obama, she can win white Democrats. She is right. But because she is daring to touch the hot button of racial politics, she is being told to shut up or risk being charged with exploiting racial tensions for political advantage. The facts are stubborn, however. Since his phenomenal win with 33% of the white vote in nearly all-white Iowa, Obama has been unable to get a firm grip on white Democrats. He has won a majority of these voters in only six states, the biggest of which is his home state of Illinois. Clinton has defeated Obama among white voters in key states such as California, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Exit polls show Clinton winning an overwhelming average of 57% of white Democrats since the February Super Tuesday elections. If you think none of this is a real issue for Democrats as they try to win the White House, then listen to Republican guru Karl Rove. Citing Obama's inability to get more than 30% of Catholics or working-class white voters in a big state such as Pennsylvania, Rove recently wrote: "Defections like this elect Republicans." And now we are heading into a general election with an even larger group of white voters in play, key independents and suburbanites in "toss-up" districts that swing between Republicans and Democrats. So it is critical for the Democrats to focus on what it means to nominate this particular black candidate. It is critical for them to honestly assess his strengths and weaknesses, even when those are uncomfortably intertwined with his race. In particular, being silent on race is not going to erase Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the preacher's fireballs of inflammatory rhetoric. Nearly half of the voters in North Carolina and Indiana said Wright was an important issue for them. Then there is an April poll by The Associated Press that found "about 8% of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for President." According to a May Newsweek poll, 12% of voters said they thought most Americans would "have reservations about voting for a black candidate that they are not willing to express"; 41% said they thought some Americans would have such reservations. To some, any reference to such numbers is desperate at best - and race-baiting at worst. "I have much broader base to build a winning coalition on," Clinton told USA Today this week, making clear that she consistently does better among white, working-class voters. "There is a pattern emerging here." That prompted The New York Times editorial page to write: "Yes, there is a pattern - a familiar and unpleasant one," making reference to charges that during the primary campaign the Clinton camp has used veiled racial attacks against Obama. Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is living in similar denial. If the GOP brings up Wright during the fall campaign, Dean said recently, it will amount to "race-baiting...just like Willie Horton was race-baiting so many years ago." Obama has run a brilliant campaign. He has won over many white voters by making them proud to vote for a supremely educated and capable man who, at his best, makes race a secondary concern. It is not inconsistent, unfair or unsavory to point out, at the same time, that Obama has been growing weaker over the months in his ability to win all but black voters. Nor am I necessarily suggesting that white voters are drifting from him because of his race - as opposed to judgments about the content of his character or candidacy. This is about facing facts. And history will reflect poorly on Democrats if they believe it is virtuous to ignore race in the name of nominating the first black candidate for the White House - even if it means giving the Republicans a better chance to once again walk away with the big prize of the presidency. Williams, a political analyst with NPR and Fox, is author of "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America - and What We Can Do About It." Privately, aides and associates of Obama tell stories about a boss who can be aloof and ungracious. He holds firmly to views and doesn't like to be challenged, traits that President Bush packaged and sold under the "resolute" brand in the 2004 election. For Bush, those qualities proved to be dangerous in a time of war and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. If arrogance is a display of self-importance and superiority, Obama earns the pejorative every time he calls his pre-invasion opposition to the war in Iraq an act of courage. While he deserves credit for forecasting the complications of war in 2002, Obama's opposition carried scant political risk because he was a little-known state lawmaker courting liberal voters in Illinois. In 2004, when denouncing the war and war-enabling Democrats would have jeopardized his prized speaking role at the Democratic National Convention, Obama ducked the issue. It may be that he has just the right mix of confidence and humility to lead the nation (Obama likes to say, "I'm reminded every day that I'm not a perfect man"). But if the young senator wins the nomination, even the smallest trace of arrogance will be an issue with voters who still consider him a blank slate. That may seem unfair to a candidate who's running against Clinton, the former first lady who is the model of overbearing pride. This is a woman, after all, who claims experience from her eight years as first lady but won't release her White House records; who trails Obama in delegates but deigned to suggest he'd be her running mate; and who has more baggage than Samsonite yet says Obama lacks "vetting." But voters expect arrogance from Clinton and her husband, Bill. It's part of the package. It's a 90s-thing. The Clintons' utter self-absorption comes with a record of achievement and brass-knuckle passion that Obama cannot match — and that Democratic voters know could come in handy against GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain. Voters won't cut Obama as much slack on the humility test because he's sold himself as something different. While rejecting the "me"-centric status quo and promising a new era of post-partisan reform, Obama has said the movement he has created is not about him; it's about what Americans can do together if their faith in government is restored. The power of his message lies in its humility. As he told 7,000 supporters at a rally last month, "I am an imperfect vessel for your hopes and dreams." Nobody expects Obama to be perfect. But he better never forget that he isn't. ___ EDITOR'S NOTE: Ron Fournier has covered politics for The Associated Press for nearly 20 years. ]]>

<![CDATA[BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! THIS IS TEH BEST THE REPUKES HAVE? INVENTING LIES THAT OBAMA IS MUSLIM? THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE!!!!!?????????? oil is $127 a barrel. american are losing their homes. the number one cause of bankruptcy is medical bills as fewer and fewer americans can get insurance. Iraq is a total disaster. Iran's influence is growing. Al Qaeda is stronger than ever - and ignored. < 16% of americans are registered republicans. the world economy is teetering on total collapse. AND THIS IS ALL THE INTELLECTUAL GIANTS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CAN SAY? OBAMA IS MUSLIM? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! THIS IS LIKE TAKING CANDY FROM A RETARDED BABY!!]]>

<![CDATA[Yes they're on the move, marching up Rector St. as we post here. Lesbians, enlisting other women, mothers out with their baby strollers and pulling them into a life of hedonistic same sex behavior. Having abortion parties and flag burning rituals before their man hate meetings. All is designed to create a matriarchal communist state where men will serve at their pleasure. No more ultimate fighting games. Forget about baseball and you can kiss NY Dolls, Scores and the Hustler clubs good bye. How do we know this? Because the "battery parker" poster, with his failed marriage behind him, and the struggle of his current relationship has found articles in the net supporting his claims. Hey it's the internet! Of course it's true. There are myriad stories of female crime, feminist agendas and Betty Freidan concepts to drive any man to bulk up, arm his manhood with viagra and show who's boss.]]>

<![CDATA[Yes, the campaign is gearing up. Obama likes terrorists, he's a racist because of Rev. Wright. Wants to create a soviet communist state. Can't win. Is insensitive to working class folks. Oh let's see now, I guess because he's a Democrat, he loves abortions and has questionable moral character. Allrightie now, this is how you're going to select the next President eh? And all the chit chat on the radio and youtube re-enforces these statements. But an administration that created the Iraqi fiasco, thinks environmental concerns are a hoax ( although even Bush doesn't anymore, just Rush Limbaugh does), and thinks all's fine with health care and gas prices is ok with you. 'Why? Because there wasn't any oral sex in the oval office. And there won't be another peak at Janet Jackson's nipple. Not on their watch!. So shall we debate the significance of the flag lapel pin ( which McCain doesn't wear either), or who we know ( how about McCain and Bush's interesting alliances?), or just not deal with small things like THE ISSUES ? If anyone truly believe that an Obama presidency will be a racist toward whites, sympathetic toward radical Islam, weak on security administration marching toward a communist model, then there's little point in having anything remotely resembling a political debate. It doesn't matter whether you support McCain, Clinton, Obama, Bush, Ron Paul or Bob Barr. What does matter for the collective well being of this great nation is how we get to the place where we decide who we support. An ongoing battle of public relations image making or image distorting method of understanding our political health is a very scary path for anyone to take. Why don't we all quiet down. Yes, speak to the character of the man, or woman. For sure that's important. And let's think on what they will or won't bring us with their presidency, issue by issue and policy choices their team will advance. It's our country. I respectfully suggest we think outside the idiot box.]]>

<![CDATA[A researcher in Chicago and fiend of mine was investigating Obama for his job at a newspaper and found a document he says shows Obama converted to Islam with the help of Louis Farrakhan back in 1986. No wonder he wanted to be seen going to this crazing black empowerment church to help make him electable in Chicagoland. A lot of people are about to have the shock of their lives when it comes out. I really don't blame him for trying to keep his faith a secret but I am not sure everyone will be as understanding as I am?]]>

<![CDATA[*** FUNNY OBAMA-CLINTON Video!!! AT <a href="http://www.glove25.com" rel="nofollow"> http://www.funnyvideosplus.com</a> fgagluiaeulig fweafi ulagwewe uilgfaew fl iugweafui ewl ewgaiufaeluig faew uigfwea guiwealf waeuilg wealgiu fewaf iuwegaf aweiulgf aewluigfweagiu fweaflui weaf luiewgf weagliuf wealgiu f aewlui efwaf iuwegaf weiulag algiuf weali ugfweafui gweafi uewgafai ewglufaewgliufaewluig faewfl iuewafi uweagfwealui gf weauil gfaewlfiu weai ugewaf iuewgalfweil aguf aewliguf awegiu fweafui geawflui aewgfligu]]>

<![CDATA[The IHEU-Appignani Center for Bioethics & Bioethics International cordianlly invite you to a one day conference concerning: New Dilemmas in Medicine: Three Current Controversises in Genetics,Religion, and Big Pharma. When: Friday May 23rd 2008 9:30am - 6:45pm Where: 777 UN Plaza (Corner Of 44th St & 1st Ave) 2nd Floor New York NY 10017 Following the Conference will be a Cocktail Reception featuring an Argentinean Tango performance by Laura Real From 7pm to 9:30pm at the Consulate General of Romania: 200 E 38th St,(3rd ave) New York NY 10016 212-682-9120 Registration Fees*: General Public - $65 Students - $30 *Includes Cocktail Reception **$30 to attend Cocktail Reception ONLY For More Information Contact Ana Lita @ 212-687-3324 analita@iheu.org To find how to register visit our website: www.humanistbioethics.org Panel descriptions: To Have the Best Child Possible - The Coming Age of “Procreative Beneficence?” Genetic science has the potential to provide prospective parents with unprecedented control over their unborn child’s characteristics and attributes. In vitro fertilization and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis allow couples to sort out “good” from “bad” embryos prior to the start of pregnancy. Although these technologies are almost exclusively employed to detect genetic and/or chromosomal abnormalities among embryos, their use for selection of other medical and non-medical traits is conceivable. Tomorrow’s couples may have the opportunity to select embryos that will not only be the least susceptible to disease but which also have particular hair colors, skin tones, temperaments, or other personal attributes. Advocates of these eugenic initiatives have argued that future couples will have a moral obligation to pursue these technologies whenever possible to achieve the greatest benefit for their children, a principle known as “procreative beneficence.” Still, secular and non-secular critics alike argue that use of such technologies is immoral and may be potentially devastating to children and the structure of society. Saying “No” to Patients - Medical Professionals as Conscientious Objectors Central to the professional and ethical mandate of physicians, pharmacists, and other healthcare personnel is the provision of medical care consistent with the best interests of their patients. However, news of healthcare professionals refusing to provide certain types of care to their patients under the auspices of “conscientious objection” have raised questions about the role of professionals’ personal beliefs in fulfillment of their purported obligations and duties. Examples include doctors refusing to terminate pregnancies, pharmacists refusing to dispense emergency contraception, certain Catholic hospitals receiving public funds refusing to issue morning-after birth control to rape victims, and others. Ethics and Pharmaceutical R&D Who Should Be Responsible for Tomorrow’s Drugs? The vast majority of prescription medications are developed and sold by private pharmaceutical companies. Under the current market-based system, however, some critics argue that pharma- ceutical companies have financial incentives to support R&D that will yield the biggest return but which may not be in the best interests of improving the health of patients worldwide. They claim, for example, that pharmaceutical companies are far more interested in producing Viagra than vaccines, and call for change in paradigm of drug design and provision. Others point to the high costs of R&D and the critical importance of blockbuster drugs to the future development of less profitable vaccines and antibiotics; without the former, they argue, there could be no breakthroughs. ]]>

<![CDATA[This is the height of fashion during this sure-to-be close election. Make your opinion known! ]]>

<![CDATA[July 4th is Independence Day in the United States. A day when the country’s Fathers set fourth a Declaration of Independence… from British rule. India also declared its independence from British rule in 1947. Finland declared its independence from Russian rule in 1917. In the early part of the last century Mexico declared its independence from Spain. The list is endless…. country after country declaring themselves free from the grips of another…. On May 14th, 1948, the ‘People’s Council of the Land of Israel’ declared the following… ACCORDINGLY, WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL. Termination of the British Mandate over Eretz- Israel (Land of Israel)??? What ‘Land of Israel’??? Whatever happened to ‘The Land of Palestine’??? In 1938, Mahatma Gandhi wrote the following… “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French…What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct…If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs…As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.” Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in “A Land of Two Peoples” ed. Mendes-Flohr. So just who was Israel declaring their independence from? The British had no control over ‘their’ country, according to THIS report the country was populated by Palestinians at the time… not Israelis. Just as America itself was stolen from its native population, so was Israel. In both cases the ‘justification’ continues by dehuminising the victims, both the First Nation People of North America and the Palestinians. Perhaps that explains why the United States government has been the most loyal supporter of Israel since its inception… perhaps that explains why they allow Israel to continue with its genocidal polices against the Palestinians, are they not guilty of the same crimes against their own Native population? There are many ‘whys’ and very few answers coming forth, but the question remains… ISRAEL’S INDEPENDENCE FROM WHOM? <a href="http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/israels-independence-from-whom/" rel="nofollow">http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/israels-independence-from-whom/</a> The Jews, while most are a lovely people, are NOT "the chosen ones". Many refer to the bible to "prove the claim" but they seem to forget that God punished the Jews by banishing them to the four corners of the earth.. They lost their land then... God gave it/God took it away!]]>

<![CDATA[by Michael D. April 20, 2008 02:26 PM EDT While Prescott Sheldon Bush made his money by selling arms to Hitler, his family cooperated with bin Laden in recent years. There is a long history of cooperation between the Bush family and the Saudi Arabia elite. Is it a coincidence or a conspiracy is a question that has been posed for years now. Everything started in the 1970s when the Bush family founded the Arbusto Energy company and theReuters-.--.- bin Ladens helped greatly with their money. The company dealt with oil, of course. The friendship between the two families, which are sworn enemies for the public, continued for decades. When George H. W. Bush became the director of the CIA in 1976, he helped train the guards of the Saudi royal family. Terrorists evacuated after 9/11 attack But let us go a little forward in history. More precisely, the 9/11 terrorist attack on the WTC. Despite the fact that 15 of 19 attackers who piloted the planes were from Saudi Arabia, the White House ordered the evacuation of the Saudis at that very time. Reuters-.--.-It might be an absurdity, but could also be true, says the author of the House of Bush, House of Saud book. Everything goes back to the long-term connection between the Bush clan and the Saudi royal family. It is rather difficult to get information about the friendship of the Bushs with their alleged enemies because most data have been taken off of the Internet. George W. Bush's grandfather financed Hitler The grandfather of George W. Bush was no exception. It has been rumoured for years that he helped the Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler, and in a way helped him rise to power. Prescott Sheldon Bush, a U.S. senator, was a shareholder and director of the Union Banking Corporation (UBC). According to archive documents, the company financed Hitler during World War II and issued shares to Nazi leaders at a time when all international loans had been ceased in Germany. Through Wall Street, Prescott took action and in-.--.- cooperation with Himmler's friend, Fridrich Flitch, secured Hitler access to international loans without which he never could have financed raw materials and weapons for the war. Confiscation of Bush's company's shares Nine months after the United States declared war on Japan and Germany, citing the Trading with the Enemy Act, President Roosevelt ordered the confiscation of UBC shares. Several days later, the U.S. -.--.-president also ordered the confiscation of shares of the Silesian-American Corporation, the Holland American Trading Corporation and the Seamles Equipment Corporation which had been run for years by Prescott Bush and his brother-in-law, Walker Bush. The cooperation between Bush and Hitler took place via a contract with German Steel and members of the National-Socialist Party travelled for free with Prescott's Hamburg-America Line company. To make matters worse, the Americans supplied oil and weapons to Hitler, making loads of money from it. Standard Oil Company also cooperated with I.G. Farben Even before World War II, the Standard Oil Company, which was managed and owned by the Rockefeller family, cooperated with I. G. Farben, a German chemical industry, and many joint-.--.- factories were located near concentration camps, including the controversial Auschwitz. SS commander Himmler got money payments via secret Standard Oil accounts. Prisoners in the concentration camps were exploited as labour force in the factories and during the bombing of German cities, the Americans had to be careful not to drop bombs close to the chemical factories. The facilities remained intact even when most of Germany was reduced to rubble. The reign of inseparable clans When George Herbert Walker Bush became the president of the United States in 1980, his estate was managed by William Farish III, the descendant of Farish I, who managed the Standard Oil of New Jersey consortium (today the Exxon company) as well as Hitler's I.G. Farben company. The consortium actually opened Auschwitz with the aim of producing synthetic rubber. The financing of the Nazis continued until 1944. After it came to light that Standard Oil was responsible, Farish was blamed, not John D. Rockefeller. And the partnership between the clans continued probably to this day. The U.S. Congress launched an investigation, but was evidently not very successful, since it was concluded when all leads stopped with the Farish family. <a href="http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977328008" rel="nofollow">http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977328008</a>]]>

<![CDATA[Bush said: "We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." My response: It was a REPUBLICAN SENATOR that made the appeasement comment. That senator was William Borah, a Republican of Idaho. and Prescott Bush, GW Bush's grandfather, financed the NAZI'S ]]>

<![CDATA[I've seen a lot of sad things in American politics in my lifetime -- the resignation of a president who became a national disgrace after he oversaw a campaign of break-ins and cover-ups, another who circumvented the Constitution to trade arms for hostages, and yet is now hailed as national hero. And those paled to what we have seen in the last seven years -- flagrant disregard for the Constitution, the launching of a "pre-emptive" war on false pretenses, and discussions about torture and other shocking abuses inside the White House inner sanctum. But now it's come to this: A new low that I never imagined was even possible. President Bush went on foreign soil today, and committed what I consider an act of political treason: Comparing the candidate of the U.S. opposition party to appeasers of Nazi Germany -- in the very nation that was carved out from the horrific calamity of the Holocaust. Bush's bizarre and beyond-appropriate detour into American presidential politics took place in the middle of what should have been an occasion for joy: A speech to Israeli's Knesset to honor that nation's 60th birthday. But here's what he said: JERUSALEM (CNN) – In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II. "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." As a believer in free speech, I think Bush has a right to say what he wants, but as a President of the United States who swore to uphold the Constitution, his freedom also carries an awesome and solemn responsibility, and what this president said today is a serious breach of that high moral standard. Of course, there are differences of opinion on how America should handle Iran, and that's why we're having an election here at home, to sort these issues out -- hopefully with respect and not with emotional and inaccurate appeals. Not only is the president's comment a gross misrepresentation of Barack Obama's stance on the issue, but ironically, it comes just a day after his own Secretary of State, Robert Gates, said of Iran: "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them." Is Gates a Nazi appeaser-type, too? And Bush has been hardly consistent on this point, either. Look at his own dealings with oil-rich Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, linked to deadly terror attacks like Pan Am Flight 103. But what Bush did in Israel this morning goes well beyond the accepted confines of American political debate, When the president speaks to a foreign parliament on behalf of our country, his message needs to be clear and unambiguous. Our democracy may look messy to outsiders, and we may have our disagreements with some sharp elbows thrown around, but at the end of the day we are not Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives. We are Americans. And you, Mr. Bush, are the leader of us all. To use a diplomatic setting on foreign soil to score a cheap political point at home is way beneath your office, way beneath your country, and way beneath the people you serve. You have been handed an office once uplifted to great heights by fellow countrymen from Washington to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Eisenhower, and have plunged it so deeply into the Karl-Rove-and-Rush-Limbaugh-fueled world of political destruction and survival of all costs that have lost all perspective -- and all sense of decency. To travel to Israel and to associate a sitting American senator and your possible successor in the Oval Office with those who at one time gave comfort to an enemy of the United States is, in and of itself, an act of political treason. In another irony, this comes from an administration that has already committed such grave abuses that its former officials are becoming fearful of traveling overseas, lest they be arrested for war crimes. Despite the alleged crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration, the Democrats who control the House have until now been restrained in their use of the impeachment process, hoping that the final eight months of our American nightmare can pass by quickly. Indeed, one has to wonder how much of Bush's outrageous statement this morning arose from fear -- fear that a President Obama will go after his wrongdoing in 2009. Today, it's a whole new ballgame. I believe this treacherous statement by a U.S. president in Israel is a signal to the Democrats in the House in Washington, that it's time to play its Constitutional role in ending this trauma, before even greater acts against the interest of America are wrongly committed in our name. <a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/President_Bush_committed_treason_today.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/President_Bush_committed_treason_today.html</a> BTW: It was a REPUBLICAN SENATOR that made the appeasement comment. That senator was William Borah, a Republican of Idaho. Bush's fail foreign policy's are going to take us out of our comfort zone and Obama recognizes this..]]>

<![CDATA[Rafah, May 14, 2008 Nayef Abu Snaima says his 14-year-old cousin Jihad had been sitting on the edge of an olive grove talking animatedly to him about what he would do when he grew up when he was killed instantly by an Israeli shell. He says he clearly saw a bright flash next to the control tower of the disused Gaza international airport, occupied by Israeli forces after Cpl Gilad Shalit was seized by militants on 25 June. "I went two or three steps and the missile landed," said Nayef, 24. "I thought I was dying. I shouted 'La Ilaha Ila Allah' [There is no God but Allah]." When Jihad's older brother Kassem, 20, arrived at the scene: "My brother was already dead. There was shrapnel in his head. Nayef was shouting 'Allah, Allah'. The missile landed about four metres from where Jihad had been standing. There was shrapnel in his body as well, his legs, everything. He had been bleeding a lot everywhere." Jihad Abu Snaima was just the most recent of more than 37 children and teenagers under 18 killed [out of a total death toll, including militants, of 228] in the operations mounted by the Israeli military in Gaza since 25 June, according to figures from the Palestinian Centre of Human Rights (PCHR). Of these, the PCHR classifies 151 as "civilian", although beside non-combatants and bystanders, that total also includes militants or faction members not involved in operations against Israel at the time for example those deliberately targeted in Israeli air strikes because of their involvement in previous attacks. The Israel Defence Forces have always maintained that being under 18 does not automatically exclude a person from taking part in action against them. The conflict in Gaza has attracted relatively little international attention, not least because for five weeks it was overshadowed by that in Lebanon. But the death toll has continued to rise. Nayef, who was speaking from his hospital bed, has multiple shrapnel-inflicted cuts on his plaster-covered arms and legs. But he was lucky compared with Jihad. A school caretaker with a five-year-old daughter, Nayef insists the evening of Jihad's death was just a family get-together. It is normal, he said, in this Bedouin community in the Al Shouka hamlet outside the southernmost Gaza town of Rafah to socialise at each other's homes on a summer evening, and that he and Jihad were especially close. "I was always with him. He was an innocent person, kind. He was talking to me about how he was going to inherit part of his father's land and farm it and how he was going to get married and stay here." Nayef added tearfully: "He was a boy who had hopes. He wanted to live his life." He added: "What is my daughter going to think? She is going to grow up hating the Israelis." The family say there was no shelling in the area at the time either before or after the incident; and that they therefore presume Jihad and Nayef were targeted by a tank crew. They insist there was no activity by militants against Israeli positions on the day of the attack. "This is an open area," said Nayef. "The resistance would not go there because they would be seen." By contrast, the Israel Defence Forces said, without specifying Al Shouka, that on 10 September it had identified and hit "two men" moving near its forces in southern Gaza crouching on the ground, and " apparently planting explosives". Nayef is adamant that on the night in question he and Jihad were merely pausing on an evening stroll to his own house. The PCHR, which seeks to monitor every violent Palestinian death, does not only focus on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It has, for example, repeatedly condemned the killing and injuring of growing numbers of civilians, also including children, during mounting inter-Palestinian disputes in Gaza; shootings by Palestinian security forces themselves; attacks on Christian churches by Muslims protesting against the Pope; the injury of civilians, including children, by Palestinian-fired Qassam rockets which fall short of targets in Israel; and the kidnapping last month of two Fox TV employees which has deterred journalists from visiting Gaza. But Hamdi Shaqqura of PCHR's Gaza office which accuses Israel of using repeated closures and destruction of the power supply to operate a policy of "collective punishment" in breach of international law in Gaza, argues that the excuse of "collateral damage" cannot justify the "very high" death toll in the operations since 15 June. He adds: " Israel's forces have been acting excessively and disproportionately, and this explains the high figures for the number of innocent civilians killed by them." At the other, northern end of Gaza, close to the al-Nada apartment blocks between Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya, Aref Abu Qaida, 16, was killed by an artillery shell on 1 August. Sharif Harafin, 15, said: "We had been playing football and we had just finished. I was carrying the ball. I was going to my home, and [Aref] was going to his home. I heard a loud boom and then I saw him cut to pieces." As his family displayed Aref's shredded red baseball cap, Sharif said he saw his friend's severed head on the ground, adding: "His chest was torn out by the rocket. People were collecting parts of his body. I was crying a lot." The IDF says that on 1 August it had fired and hit "a number of Palestinians" in "the area of Beit Lahiya" who had " approached a number of rocket launchers placed in the area". Both PCHR and local residents, including Mohammed Abu Qaida, 39, the dead boy's uncle, say that, while three other civilians were wounded, the only other death in this incident was that of Mervat Sharekh, 24, a woman who was visiting relatives from Rafah and who died in hospital an hour later. Although the area had been shelled before, and some residents had fled in response to Israeli warnings the previous week, Mr Abu Qaida said the area had been quiet on the day except that Qassam rockets had been fired about four hours earlier from northern settlements more than a kilometre away from the flats. The IDF said last night that, of those killed in Gaza, it had the " positive identities of over 220 gunmen killed in fighting, and can confirm their affiliation with terror organisations". The 220 figure said to be "unbelievable" by Mr Shaqqura coupled with another 20 dead which the military acknowledges as genuine civilians, is all the more strikingly at variance with PCHR figures since it produces a total exceeding the centre's own records. Mr Shaqqura said that, at the absolute minimum, the IDF figures do not take into account the casualties under 18 which PCHR estimates at 44 and from which he said every effort is made to exclude the "rare" teenagers with militant connections or eight women killed since 25 June. " We do not believe their figures. We do not believe their investigations." The IDF said: "Since the abduction of Cpl Gilad Shalit by the Hamas and PRC terror organisations, the IDF has been operating in the Gaza Strip against terrorist infrastructure and in order to secure the release of Cpl Shalit. In the course of the operations, the IDF engaged in intense fighting with Palestinian gunmen, who chose heavily populated areas as their battlegrounds. The IDF takes every measure to prevent harm to civilians, often at a risk to its soldiers." The forgotten war in the Middle East * 25 June: Palestinian gunmen from the Hamas-linked Izzedine al-Qassam brigades cross from Gaza into Israel and launch a raid on an Israeli military patrol. Two Israeli soldiers are killed, four wounded and one, Cpl Gilad Shalit, is captured and taken back into Gaza. * 28 June: Israel masses troops before launching a reoccupation of the Gaza Strip under the codename Operation Summer Rains. Civilian casualties mount as Israeli forces search the Khan Younis refugee camp for Cpl Shalit. * 12 July: Mimicking the tactics of Palestinian militants, Hizbollah launches mortars and rockets into northern Israel from southern Lebanon to divert attention from a cross-border raid that ambushes an Israeli military patrol, killing three soldiers and capturing two others. The raid threatens to draw the whole Middle East into conflict. * 13 July: International attention is diverted from Gaza as Israel launches a full military invasion of southern Lebanon in response to Hizbollah's attack. The mounting civilian death toll across Gaza pales in comparison to Lebanon as Israeli jets pummel infrastructure. * 24 July: As world powers frantically search for a UN-backed ceasefire in Lebanon, Israel increases its bombardment of the Gaza Strip in an attempt to force Palestinian militants to release Cpl Shalit. Under the codename Operation Samson's Pillars, Israeli jets pound Gaza's roads and buildings, including the power station. * 14 August: UN approves a ceasefire for Lebanon after four weeks of fighting which has left approximately 1,500 Lebanese and 150 Israelis dead. International community continues to ignore the conflict in Gaza over fears that Lebanon could slip back into warfare unless a UN peacekeeping force arrives in the region. * Mid-August-present: Israel continues to carry out air strikes and raids in Gaza. At least 33 civilians have been killed since the beginning of August, 10 of whom were under the age of 18. Names of children under the age of 18 killed during the operations mounted by the Israeli military in Gaza since 25 June, according to the Palestinian Centre of Human Rights Bara Nasser Habib, 3 (hit by shrapnel to the head and body, Gaza City, 26 July) Shahed Saleh Al-Sheikh Eid, 3 days old (bled to death after airstrike, Al-Shouka, 4 August) Rajaa Salam Abu Shaban, 3 (died of fractured skull in air raid, Gaza City, 9 August) Jihad Selmi Abu Snaima, 14 (killed by a shell, Al-Shoukha, 10 september) Khaled Nidal Wahba, 15 months (died of wounds from an airstrike, 10 July) Rawan Farid Hajjaj, 6 (killed with his mother and sister in an airstrike, Gaza City, 8 July) Anwar Ismail Abdul Ghani Atallah, 12 (shot in the head, Erez, 5 July) Shadi Yousef Omar 16 (shot in the chest by IDF, Beit Lahya, 7 July) Mahfouth Farid Nuseir, 16 (killed by missile while playing football, Beit Hanoun, 11 July) Ahmad Ghalib Abu Amsha, 16, (killed by missile while playing football, Beit Hanoun, 11 July) Ahmad Fathi Shabat, 16 (killed by missile while playing football, Beit Hanoun, 11 July) Walid Mahmoud El-Zeinati, 12 (died of shrapnel wounds, Gaza City, 11 July) Basma Salmeya, 16 (killed in Israeli airstrike, 12 July, Jabalia) Somaya Salmeya, 17 (killed in Israeli airstrike, 12 July, Jabalia) Aya Salmeya, 9 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July) Yehya Salmeya, 10 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July) Nasr Salmeya, 7 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July) Huda Salmeya, 13 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July) Eman Salmeya, 12 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July) Raji Omar Jaber Daifallah, 16 (died of shrapnel wounds from missile, Gaza City, 13 July) Ali Kamel Al-Najjar, 16 (killed by Israeli tank shell, Al-Maghazi refugee camp, 19 July) Ahmed Ali Al-Na'ami, 16 (killed by Israeli tank shell, Al-Maghazi refugee camp, 19 July) Ahmed Rawhi Abu Abdu, 14 (killed by drone missile, Al Nusairat refugee camp, 19 July) Mohammed 'awad Muhra, 14 (killed by Israeli bullet to the chest, Al-Maghazi refugee camp, 20 July) Fadwa Faisal Al-'arrouqi, 13 (died from shrapnel wounds, Gaza City, 20 July) Saleh Ibrahim Nasser, 14 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 24 July) Khitam Mohammed Rebhi Tayeh, 11 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 24 July) Ashraf 'abdullah 'awad Abu Zaher 14 (shot in the back, Khan Younis, 25 July) Nahid Mohammed Fawzi Al-Shanbari, 16 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 31 July) 'aaref Ahmed Abu Qaida, 14 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 1 August) Anis Salem Abu Awad, 12 (killed by airstike, Al-Shouka, 2 August) Ammar Rajaa Al-Natour, 17 (killed by drone missile, Al Shouka, 5 August) Kifah Rajaa Al-Natour, 15 (killed by drone missile, Al Shouka, 5 August) Ibrahim Suleiman Al-Rumailat, 13 (killed by drone missile, Al Shouka, 5 August) Ahmed Yousef 'abed 'aashour, 13 (killed by missile fire, Beit Hanoun, 14 August) Mohammed 'abdullah Al-Ziq, 14 (killed by drone missile, Gaza City, 29 August) Nidal 'abdul 'aziz Al-Dahdouh, 14 (killed by rifle fire, Gaza City, 30 August) Jihad Selmi Abu Snaima, 14 (killed by artillery fire, Rafah, 10 September) <a href="http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m44027&hd=&size=1&l=e" rel="nofollow">http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m44027&hd=&size=1&l=e</a>]]>

<![CDATA[more republican parroting of lies that's all the republican have. lies their idiot in chief can't talk about his own accomplishments - because he does not have any. so - he lies about Obama. < 16% of the general population are registered Republicans. 16%. The GOP expects to lose another 20 seats in the House. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! keep posting lies. we LOOOOOOVE to hear you cry.]]>

<![CDATA[In looking back at what the Republicans have done in the last 8 years it seems that they "let" 9/11 happen (read Richard Clarkes' expose)they also provoked osama bin laden to act when he did (Absolute best timing if your goal -was to invade Iraq during Bush term)Also the "smioking gun of the complicity -was when miraculously the hijackers suitcase just happened to show up intact- with all 20 names in it and their "mission": When you look at what Bushs' grandfather did in ww 2 - helping finance NAzis at least the government seizxed the assets of the bank he led. This is a family of thugs. Remember HW -read my lips I lied.... what stupidity exists in this country trto elect these thugs twice - I ccan go on and on and on..........]]>

<![CDATA[<h2> "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' </h2> "We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.", said President Bush in Israel today. White House press secretary Dana Perino flatly rejected the idea that the Knesset remark was aimed in any way at Obama. The remark is fairly typical for Bush speeches, and Gordon Johndroe, a national security spokesman for the president, said the president was referring to "a wide range of people who have talked to or suggested we talk to Hamas, Hezbollah or their state sponsors" over a long period of time. One such person most recently was former President Carter, who held talks with Hamas leaders, prompting criticism from Bush officials. Still, even as the White House said Bush meant no dig at the Democrat, Perino couldn't resist the opportunity to get in a small one. "I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case," she said. In Columbus, Ohio, the GOP's nominee-in-waiting, John McCain, told reporters he took Bush at his word that he wasn't referring to Obama — but he also used the opportunity to portray Obama as naive, inexperienced and lacking judgment. Said McCain: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people and that is why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?" Obama says he would meet with heads of state in places like Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton says those meetings could be used for propaganda and her first response will be outreach through other diplomatic channels. President Bush has strongly disagreed with Obama's expressed willingness to meet the leaders of U.S. adversaries such as Cuba and Iran. And, McCain has criticized Obama directly and repeatedly for saying that he would meet with Cuba's leader, Raul Castro, without preconditions.]]>

<![CDATA[People, It is time for the American community to wake up from the inundation of media that has us hypnotized from the real problems that we face today. I am tired of us as citizens allowing our elected officials to make all sorts of decisions for us that in the most part are meant to bankrupt us both economically and morally. I had thought this was a government by the people for the people, well by those little choice words it is quite clear to me that WE should be in charge of our elected officials and if they do not heed our needs then WE should be able to FIRE them. No and ifs or buts. I am tired of paying out of my ass for things in this country that I should not have to even break a sweat for to have. Yet a country like Myanmar that did no want our help is forced to accept it. If they don't want it don't give it. We can use all the money spend of aid to aid ourselves. Theres plenty of problems within the walls of this country that need to be taken care of FIRST. F the rest of the world lets take care of our own. Lets stand up and rise against this abusive gov't which allows oil companies to profit significantly while we are paying out of our asses for gas. Instaed of sending any aid to any country lets aid ourselves. It is apprehensible to see that no one gives a shit, people in this f'in country are so stuck on tv dreams and materialistic items that they just dont care about their surroundings. This country has become a country of selfish individuals that think if they help some damn little African kid somewhere they are doing their part. How wrong they are. Help those within the confines of this country first. How can we be a strong and united people when we are set up in a system of classes and only one class is benefiting. The poor outnumber jsut about everything in this country. I really believe that all us Americans, from all warps of life need to stand up in ARMS if we have to to get something damn done in this country. Let's take back control of our country and help ourselves become a better country. Everyone hates us all over the world anyway lets give them more reason tehn by shunning them let those countries governemnt's deal with their own people. This country should not think it is responsible for the world. Come later this year we need to stand up and fight for what is right and right being lets take care of our citizens first the world can wait.]]>

<![CDATA[I remember several years back the wingnuts on Craigslist claiming they had a monopoly on government - and would rule this country for the next thousand years (borrowing the idea from the nazis). ahhhh...... what a difference a few years make. The number of registered Republicans nationwide is now < 16% of the general population. This overly noisy and obnoxious minority is responsible for one of the most catastrophic political, financial and military collapses in US history. Blunder after blunder piled on top of mismanagement and overt corruption has taken the republicans to the brink of destruction. And it appears that there is nothing left of the preening self-important republican ass-kissers here on craigslist - like JG (remember him?) - except a few prancing propaganda jackasses selling lies and smears for the GOP. oh yes - Obama is a muslim. sure sure sure. Obama is a commie. sure sure sure. go take a nap. its over. the fascist neocon revolution FAILED and you best leave town, lest your own personal Mussolini moment comes a-knocking on your door. traitors. signed the vast majority]]>

<![CDATA[This change in our perceptions of men and women has had some huge benefits. For the first time ever, we have publicly recognized and acknowledged child abuse by men. And wife abuse. All forms of archetypally maculine abusiveness, in fact. Because of this new cultural awareness of male forms of violence (i.e., overt sexual or physical abuse), victims of these abuses gain the opportunity to work through and heal these wounds in therapy, in self-help groups, in workshops, in women's shelters and with friends. They may write about their experiences and their recovery. The strong cultural support for the victim, the conviction that abuse is never the child's fault, enables progress against the powerful tendency to repress and avoid such painful feelings. Because of this, we no longer have a ubiquitous father wound in our psyches. There is no possibility that an evil masculine ideology like Nazism could take over our culture, for its abusiveness and hypocrisy would be quickly recognized. We are no longer idealizing men and in denial about masculine forms of evil. However, we are still in deep denial of feminine evil. In the last fifty years, the feminine forms of child abuse have remained unrecognized. And as long as abuse is unrecognized, it cannot be healed. Today, we have a ubiquitous mother wound. We gained this wound because our mothers, idealized in modern culture (since now we believed men were responsible for the evil in the world), abused us in feminine ways without our recognizing it as abuse. And with feminine forms of abuse unrecognized, there was no stigma or consequence to mothers for such abuse. Indeed, like the German fathers, they believed that their words and actions were good parenting. And, just as German mothers feared to stand up to the physically abusive fathers, so modern fathers are ashamed to stand up to psychologically abusive mothers. The damage to the soul of the child remains unrecognized. And, with no public consciousness of the destructiveness of such forms of abuse, there is little possibility for large numbers of people to recover as adults. Our mother wound today remains massive, universal, and unhealed. What is this feminine abuse? It is the separation of the child from his or her trust in their own mind, their own feelings. It is the substitution of the mother's self-serving, subjective determination of right and wrong, of guilt and innocence, for a repeatable, objective standard. It is the crushing of natural emotional expression in the child because such expression is felt by the mother to be distasteful, distressing or inconvenient. As always in abuse, it is the exercise of coercive power in the interest of the exerciser, in this case the mother, and against the interest of the child. It is a form of what Anne Miller calls "poisonous pedagogy". She writes, "Since training in many cultures begins in infancy during the initial symbiotic relationship between mother and child, this early conditioning makes it virtually impossible for the child to discover what is actually happening to him. The child's dependence on his or her parents' love also makes it impossible in later years to recognize these traumatizations, which often remain hidden behind the early idealization of the parents for the rest of the child's life." 13 Archetypal feminine abuses are indirect (exercised through others such as the father or siblings), psychological or emotional ("you should be ashamed of yourself", or "stop your crying at once"), covert (often communicated by no more than a glance that says, "You're such a disappointment"), manipulative (you can't understand because you're not a woman/not an adult/etc.), and psychologically rather than physically incestuous ("let me tell you what your father is really like"). Such behaviour is seen as adequate parenting, not ideal perhaps, but not really harmful. Nowhere is it a criminal offense, as are the masculine forms of child abuse. Yet, I argue that it is at least as damaging as are the masculine abuses with which we are familiar, but that the wounds it produces are different. Fundamentally, it is built on the use of shame to control behaviour (as opposed to the dark masculine which uses fear for the same purpose). Where fear attacks the will, shame kills the soul. In her book Shame: Spiritual Suicide, Vicki Underland Rosow says that shame is systemic in our western culture, and gives examples of its use in religion, politics, education, helping professions, and science. So we, in the West, because of our childrearing practice, possess a massive, ubiquitous, archetypally feminine wound in our psyches, of which we are unconscious, and which I call the mother wound. According to this thesis, then, we are ripe for the appearance of an evil feminine ideology to exploit this wound. This ideology is already among us, and its name is feminism. Feminism Firstly, it is important to say to what I refer with the name feminism. A standard defense against any criticism of feminism is that it is no one thing, but many shades of beliefs and affiliations, such as liberal feminism, socialist or marxist feminism, radical feminism, ecofeminism, etc. Of course these branches exist, but this is irrelevant. Any ideology is identified by its basic tenets, which remain unchanged across all its variations, since it is they that unite the varieties under the one banner. In the case of feminism, all branches share the same basic belief that history has been a story of general oppression of women by men. Indeed, this is acknowledged by feminists as the essential, defining principle, for example, by Alison M. Jaggar and Paula Rothenberg Struhl in their book Feminist Frameworks, where they say, "... the conservative view of womenÕs situation in society is not feminist, because it denies that women are oppressed." 14 Further, I want to be very clear that it is not my intention, nor would I consider it valid, to indict feminism based on the words or actions of any radical elements or 'lunatic fringe'. Only the consistent messages of its major, acknowledged spokespersons and the major policies that it has pursued will be used here to build a case. My focus is on modern, mainstream feminism, which for brevity I will refer to simply as feminism. And, while my research indicates that the same phenomenon is operating throughout the Western world, I will confine my examples to North American feminism, since this is the area that I know best. Feminism is an Evil Ideology If feminism is indeed an ideology which is exploiting a ubiquitous 'mother wound', then the forms it has taken will exactly match and repeat the feminine forms of child abuse, just as Nazism matched the German masculine mode. Is this the case? It is non-hierarchical: indeed, feminists make much of their peer-level, consensual processes, and there are no national or international 'heads' or chiefs of the feminist movement. Similarly, it is indirect, in that nowhere is there an overtly feminist legislature, university, law court or military, or even a female one. Rather, feminism exerts its power indirectly, having those in positions of power do its bidding without needing itself to hold those positions in order to achieve its aims. In this it operates exactly like the mother in post-war families, where the father's authority seems to be intact, yet it is the mother's will that rules. Feminism is subjective rather than objective, driven by women's feelings about what is right--which exactly reflects the way that mothers decided what was right in modern families. In issues of law, where objectivity and repeatability are vital, feminism has successfully argued that any unwelcome or hostile feeling in a woman is to be regarded as establishing sexual harassment. And modern anti-stalking legislation discards hard-won fundamental freedoms such as equality before the law, the presumption of innocence, and rights to freedom of association and to property (for men) in order to ensure that "no one [is made to] feel afraid and unsafe in their own home or community" 15 (emphasis added). Extensive feminist writing on gender equality is simply rationalizations of women's feelings of inequality, for when analyzed carefully, modern feminist arguments always reveal themselves to be built not on objective gender equality but on female superiority. Even feminist philosophy, now founded in post-modern constructivism, standpoint theory and "women's ways of knowing", is essentially subjective. Like post-war mothers, feminism portrays itself as the virtuous victim struggling to correct male injustices. Requests for change are never presented as simply, "Let's work together to achieve this goal ...", but always as grievances, as arguments that women are owed more money, more power, more rights, more ... consumption of society's production. The argument is always moral in nature, always filled with angst and outrage, and always favours women. Feminists do not mention the many ways that women enjoy gender advantage over men--except to deny their reality or their import--because they never feel any disadvantage but their own. Finally, and most importantly, feminism gets its way through the inculcation of shame. Here is the lever, the engine of modern social control: a lever that can be operated only by or on behalf of women. For, when we were tiny, it was our mothers who convinced us that we were unworthy except when we pleased them, no good unless we had their approval. The deep sense of shame that was planted in the psyches of both boys and girls, that I call the mother wound, now provides the means for feminists to effectively control every area of social power. Male--and female--legislators, judges, academics, managers, all re-experience those intense feelings of shame and unworthiness they felt as children, when angry women say or imply that they are bad. Indeed, their whole lives have been built around reassuring themselves that they are worthy through good works, public accomplishment or financial success. However, none of these external defenses can stand for long against feminist shaming if the inner psyche still carries the mother wound, still gives to Woman the ultimate power to determine its worth. Just how powerful is shame as a coercive technique? Powerful, wealthy men gave up their lives to save those of women and children on the Titanic in 1912. Why? Because of the shame they would feel as a coward, if they didn't. In wartime, average men will run directly into machine gun fire, knowing they will die a meaningless death, rather than face the shame they would feel if they fled the battle. Shame is the most intense psychological pain we can feel. We usually prefer to die. It's that big. I have shown, very briefly, that the forms adopted by ideological feminism match those of modern, archetypally feminine child abuse. But does feminism meet the definition of an evil ideology? Let us see. Firstly, does feminism seek unearned privilege--rights without responsibilities? A major plank of modern feminism from the beginning has been reproductive rights; specifically, a woman's right to abort an unwanted child. Has feminism sought to address the issues of others affected by this right, such as the fetus, the father or society? No, feminists have universally repudiated all responsibility to such others. They demandÑand have receivedÑthe unilateral right to abort an unborn child, or not, as they choose. (Note that this is a brand new right, and not one that men ever had.) In 1969, Betty Friedan said, "Only one voice needs to be heard on the question of whether a woman will or will not bear a child, and that is the voice of the woman herself: her own conscience, her own conscious choice." 16 Fetuses have no rights at all, since, feminists argue, "A woman's body, a woman's choice". This emotive, shaming slogan ignores all the ways that a fetus is unique from all other female body parts--for example that it can grow into a person, that it is the result of a sexual act with a man, and that it can be male or female--in favour of the obscuring argument that it is enclosed in and fed by the woman's body. And so we have the iniquitous situation that the father has no say in whether his offspring lives or dies, is not even required to be notified of the pregnancy, yet is legally obliged to support the child if the woman chooses to keep it--and whether he intended or wishes to be a father or not. And society, again with no say in the woman's choice, yet must foot the bills for welfare moms. Saying to a woman, "If you didn't want a child, you shouldn't have had sex" is met by feminists with howls of outrage and accusations of discrimination--yet this is exactly what those same feminists say to men in the same situation. Clearly, in women's area of traditional responsibility--reproduction--feminism wants no gender equality, but rather has sought and won rights for women and responsibilities for men. What about in other areas? In men's areas of traditional responsibility, the real equality issues--the right to vote, laws against gender discrimination in employment, in salary, in housing, in access to professional roles--were addressed years ago. Today, all feminist initiatives--every single one--are about giving women rights over men, and men responsibility for women. Thus we have employment equity (affirmative action) for jobs where men predominate, but not for those where women are in the majority. We have ever more punitive enforcement of child support, but no enforcement at all for access by fathers to their children. We have zero tolerance (i.e., arrest the man on the woman's word) against male violence against women based on feminist advocacy studies that model all domestic violence in terms of male oppression of female victims, and deny the reality of women's equal initiation of violence in the home. We have sexual harassment laws addressing the ways that men might abuse women's sexuality in the workplace, but no laws addressing (or even acknowledging) women's use of their sexuality to unfairly advance their careers. We have even defined obscenity, here in Canada, in terms of what harms women! 17 ]]>

<![CDATA[ All of these feminist initatives seek women's advantage coercively, which is the second criterion describing an evil ideology. Feminists are not saying to men and to society, "Offer these things where you choose." No, they insist (and have been granted) that these rights be given the coercive force of law. And in doing so, they employ their own, archetypally feminine forms of coercion: deception and shame. Deception appears in the creation and use of false and distorted statistics (such as the many studies showing that women continue to earn less than men, but which ignore differences between men and women in hours worked, years of experience, overtime, credentials and the like, which when factored in account entirely for the differences in apparent earnings). And shame is coercive in a similar way to blackmail, in that the ability of legislators, academics, judges--and voters!--to consider the issues dispassionately and make free, sensible choices is virtually eliminated by their need to avoid their denied but still devastating feelings of shame if they ever see themselves as abusive to women. In Canada, a feminist initiative of the moment is pay equity. A Human Rights Tribunal has ordered the federal government to pay approximately five billion dollars to (mostly) female government workers, because their work was "undervalued" with respect to that of men. This argument is totally fallacious. Unequal pay for equal work and discrimination in hiring (the real equality issues) have been illegal in North America for years. Any woman who wanted the higher paying 'male' work could have competed for it like the men. The fact is, salaries are set by market demand: where many people desire a particular kind of employment (such as clerical office work), the supply forces salaries down. And that's as it should be, since the price of production then represents the real costs. (Communist Russia went broke trying to make the market serve ideological goals.) What the pay equity advocates really want is the cushy, attractive office work they desire, and the higher salaries of the less desirable (hence higher paid) jobs. They want to be subsidised on the backs of others. They want to increase their consumption without any increase in their production. They want a legal entitlement to it. And they're getting it. The third aspect of an evil ideology is the maintenance of an image of total and perpetual moral righteousness. Many of the examples already discussed have already made this apparent, so I will confine myself to exposing the basic strategies employed. If one is pursuing goals (women's advantage) which must be disguised, then it is vital to have devices by which meaningful debate can be avoided or deflected. Feminism has three basic strategies for this: 1. Where there is a difference in society between men's and women's roles, ignore the real causes and present the difference always as evidence of male oppression and discrimination against women--and demand compensatory programs (e.g., abortion on demand, sexual harassment, pay equity, censorship of pornography, etc.). 2. Where there is no difference between men's and women's roles, or such differences as do exist already favour women, create biased studies and statistics to argue that women are disadvantaged. Claim that difference as evidence of male oppression and demand compensatory programs (e.g., women's health, violence against women). If necessary, introduce "violence against women and children" as an emotional trump card to shut down debate of the real issues. (e.g., allegations of child or wife abuse in child custody cases). 3. If anyone opposes or criticises feminist claims, silence or isolate them through shame, by accusing them of "backlash", i.e., of being opposed the equality of women in order to maintain their own selfish or oppressive behaviour. (Note that this also works against women, who are said to be "colonized" by the patriarchy.) Summary: Never, under any circumstances, yield the moral high ground. It seems that feminism, not love, means never having to say you're sorry! (e.g., the contortions that feminists are performing as they rationalize their support for Bill Clinton in the face of behaviour that, in anyone else, they would condemn. As, indeed, they condemned United States Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas for the alleged 'crime' of making suggestive or lewd personal comments in the workplace.) Conclusion I have tried to sketch a picture of where I believe we are today, and how we got here. I want to finish with some words about where I think we are going. What is the ultimate objective of modern feminism? Feminists sincerely believe that it is equality that they seek. But it is not. Because they are unconsciously acting out of the mother wound, their goal is to regress women to the state of childhood: i.e., rights without responsibilities, consumption without production. For men, they have the opposite objective: responsibilities without rights. People with responsibilities but no rights are slaves. We are currently headed, unconsciously but inevitably, for a world in which women are children and men are slaves. Not until we recognize the truth of this and recoil in horror as a whole culture, will we wake up from this nightmare. The situation is very grave, but the real war has not yet begun. We are still appeasing feminists, trying to give them enough of what they want so that we won't have to confront them in their power, much as the allies did with Hitler in 1936-39. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. In fact, as then, it will lead to disaster. The coming war is unavoidable. At a psychological level, we have to take women off the pedestal, and we won't do that as a culture until we see the evil that they do, as we already have with men. But we are very attached to idealizing women. 'Motherhood' is our last great god(dess), and so it will take massive suffering before we will be willing to see women's dark side and let them be fully human. The war I refer to will not be a physical war--that would be an archetypal masculine form. Rather, it will be a spiritual war, a war about meaning and life purpose and what is true. It will need not physical soldiers, but people who have done their own healing and become emotionally and morally strong, who are recovering from being controlled through shame. In the short term, I believe that we will see increasing levels of violence and delinquency as traditional social restraints break down, increasingly strident claims that it is all the fault of men, ever-greater penalization of men and 'protection' of women and children, and rising levels of psychological distress, despair and suicide. Feminism will become ever more virulent and radical. We will know that we have won, that we are beginning to emerge from it when anger and fear finally turn to grief, when we see massive grief across our whole culture, grief at what we have done, at what we have allowed to happen to our children and to ourselves. I can only guess how long this process will take: probably at least twenty years. Comparing it to the situation in Nazi Germany, two things stand out. The first is that the mother wound is deeper than the father wound, because our relationship with out mother is the first and deepest relationship we make. That, of course, is why we did the father work first--it was easier. And so the working out of the mother wound will be harder and more distressing, and perhaps require more suffering before we are finished with it. And the second thin