Saturday, January 30, 2010


In early November of 2007, out of the blue, I received a letter from a woman I had known long ago. If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, then I’m going to refer to her as “Venus” because she certainly seems to have originated from a “different” planet than Yours Truly.

Back in the day, I had a tremendous crush on Venus, and although I hadn’t seen her since 1985, my thoughts still turned to her from time to time because I feared that perhaps I had let “Miss Right” get away.

I wasn’t overly surprised when I suddenly received this letter from her, for many years ago I’d had a couple of dreams which I had interpreted to mean that someday Venus would reach out to me again. Sometimes dreams really do come true . . . but not always in the way we expect.

In her letter, Venus, who went on to become a psychologist in a faraway state, apologized “for abandoning our friendship.” Prior to telling me what she had been up to for the last couple of decades, she said, “I miss you in my life. I almost feel like I gave my soul away.” Venus explained that she had recently had a dream in which I appeared, after which she read all of my old letters and a poem I had written titled ‘Ailing Spiders.’ The poem made her cry.

Venus was still single, but desiring children, she had ordered sperm through a catalog and underwent what turned out to be unsuccessful treatments at a fertility clinic.

Well, that alone told me that Venus had never actually been my “Miss Right.” However, I still thought maybe we could reestablish some sort of friendship. I knew that back in ’85 Venus was a Republican. I thought: Well, at least she believes in political conservatism. Maybe I could help her to see politics more clearly and understand how both major political parties are merely two sides of the same deceptive, un-American coin. All hope was not lost . . . or so I thought.

We corresponded through August of 2008, and during that time I learned that things were much worse than I had assumed. Venus was no longer a Republican; she was now a Democrat. Furthermore, she was a self-proclaimed “feminist.” (And you’re trying to reconnect with ME?! Ha! Well, good luck with THAT!)

The more we wrote to each other the further apart our views were revealed to be. There were a couple of minunderstandings and a couple of “Let’s start overs” but it was all a fruitless, frustrating exercise for both of us. So, when it became too obvious that the idea of any meaningful relationship was hopeless, I somewhat bluntly laid some of my issues with her right on the table.

I told Venus that I was put off by her attempt to become artificially inseminated and that I hold modern Feminism in the very lowest possible regard. Having studied Feminism in great detail, I had offered to recommend some books to her that I thought would give her a fresh, unimagined viewpoint on Feminism and how it has adversely affected not just men and women but society as a whole. I mentioned to Venus that many women think of men as “expendable” or even “dangerous.” I told her that, thanks to Feminist indoctrination, a huge segment of the female population currently thinks of fathers as “helpful at best.” And, of course, I didn’t fail to point out that this would seem to be her belief as well, as her attempts to become pregnant without a husband and to raise a child without the presence of a father apparently indicated. (I somehow managed to restrain myself from saying, “And that’s all this freakin’ country needs is another single mother, working and trying to raise a kid alone, without the strong influence of a good father figure.”)

After months passed, Venus responded in late August. Below are excerpts from her letter:

The difficulty I’m experiencing is that you hold such strong opinions about certain topics, and about those, whose opinions differ; and believe, so strongly, that you know the “real truth”, that an open discussion doesn’t seem possible or pleasant.

Given that, I’m not going to defend or explain my opinions and beliefs to you.

I don’t believe that most Americans believe that fathers are “expendable” or “dangerous.” I never said or would ever agree with the statement that “fathers are helpful at best.”

My desire and decision to have a child in the way that I did was not a black and white decision, nor was it an easy decision. And that decision certainly does not imply that I believe fathers are unimportant.

You can judge me because you would “never ever” come to the decision that I made or take the road that I took; and you have no idea what was in my heart, thoughts, or spirit around having a baby.

On the subject of Feminism she said:

I believe that we see the world through the lenses we put on, attend to, and polish. I also believe that we can always find evidence to support any position and/or find negativity and ugliness in some people, if that is what we look for. I don’t believe that I am being naïve or “seeing what I want to see” if I focus on what is good and compassionate. I see the results of ugliness daily in my practice. I also believe that what you oppose, grows and what you put your attention on, grows.

I personally want to see the beauty and kindness that is all around me. So, really, I’m not interested in any anti-feminism articles.

Well, that was her devastating and enlightening reply to my charge and to my suggestion that she should consider the opposing side’s opinion of Feminism.

When a person tells you that they are not going to defend or explain their opinions to you, more times than not, it’s an unconceded admission that they are simply incapable of doing so. I have little if any doubt that this was the case with Venus.

Surely, you’ve noticed that her statement on fatherhood contained no information one could understand or contend with – it was just highly personalized, nebulous flimflam. And she completely ignored my statement about her apparent lack of appreciation for fathers - choosing instead to simply deny the evaluation I applied to her view and declining to illustrate how and why I was mistaken. But the fact remains unchallenged: if she truly did not think of fathers as “helpful at best” she never would have attempted to give birth to a child and raise it without a father. Venus may believe that fathers are helpful, but she certainly doesn’t believe that they are usually essential to the raising of a healthy, well-adjusted child. On the other hand, if she honestly thinks of fathers as nonexpendable and more important than merely “helpful”, then we would have to conclude that she was knowingly going to shortchange her would-be child’s development. How selfish is that?

And, of course, anyone who is even mildly interested in knowing truth is required to examine both sides of any argument to determine which one the preponderance of the evidence supports. So, the denial of Venus notwithstanding, she most certainly IS “being naïve” and seeing only what she chooses to see when she refuses to even consider the arguments of those who hold a different view than she does.

When Venus turns down any opportunity to understand why some people oppose Feminism because (as she says) she wants “to see the beauty and kindness that is all around” her and avoid the “ugliness”, it’s quite ironic that she’s actually passive-aggressively supporting the terrible ugliness that Feminism has wreaked upon society and she’s refusing to see the facts that would help to defeat that ideology and assist in ushering in more “beauty and kindness” in male/female relationships.

I believed psychologists to be interested in objectively examining the workings of the human mind in order to dispassionately understand why we react (often in a hypersensitive manner) to particular situations in certain ways. Isn’t the idea to be able to make sense of our emotions and learn to control them better by developing a conscious knowledge of why we feel what we do? Isn’t knowing and appropriately reacting to objective facts rather than emotionally overreacting to subjective impressions part of the goal? Shouldn’t a psychologist be interested in taking a calm, clinical look at a situation from all sides before arriving at any conclusion? Isn’t part of an understanding of psychology about learning to “look before you leap”?

I’m not sure what sort of psychology Venus practices but it seems to rest on a foundation less sturdy than what I base my “opinions” on. For example, before making bold pronouncements, I have been willing to take a look at an opposing side’s arguments – illogical, scatterbrained, and emotionally-based though they may often be. For crying out loud, I was even willing to read Hillary Clinton’s ridiculous ‘It Takes A Village’ before publicly castigating it. If I could read “Hellary”, you’d think the least a psychologist could do is read a couple of recommended anti-Feminism books before discounting the entire idea of anti-Feminism!

But you see, that’s what we have in Feminism – an ideology driven by a bunch of raving, emotionally-overwrought, self-centered Man-Haters. The promoters of Feminism can’t afford to take a good, hard look at the truth because it will not support their position. Feminists, like my former friend the psychologist, must avoid the truth at all costs, for they will always wind up on the wrong side of a fact-based debate. The great thinker C.S. Lewis once wrote that, “Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side.” The same is true for Feminists. They also cannot guard their faith – and a “faith” it is - too carefully, for it would fall apart in the light of cold, objective facts.

I don’t really expect that there will ever again be any significant exchange of ideas between Venus and myself. After receiving her August 2008 letter, I sent just the briefest reply, assuring her that I was not “angry” at her, but declining to defend my position any further. It goes against my nature not to fully defend my viewpoints with the facts available to me. However, after all, if Venus couldn’t or wouldn’t even attempt to articulate a reasonable explanation why her actions did not reveal an unstated lack of respect for men and fathers, and if she wouldn’t peruse even a single anti-Feminism book that came with my highest praise, how was any worthwhile dialogue even possible? And as Yoey O’Dogherty, the Doggtor of Debate, has often said: “You can't reason with a person who forms their beliefs without reasoning.”

Nevertheless, I am exceedingly pleased that my dreams came true about Venus reaching out to contact me again after so many years. Although it’s clear she and I could have never gotten along well enough to forge a healthy, long-term romantic relationship, Venus has finally put to bed (pardon the pun) all of the little doubts that had long survived in the back of my mind about whether or not I had stupidly let “Miss Right”— er, I mean, “Ms. Right” - get away. Now she can go her way and I can go mine . . . in mental peace.

I am posting below a truly outstanding article titled ‘Feminist Gulag: No Prosecution Necessary.’ This was written by Stephen Baskerville and it appeared recently in The New American magazine. This excellent article makes evident some of the horror that Feminism has unleashed against men in today’s society. Read it if you can bear to look at some very dark, disturbing and disheartening facts about the effects of Feminism. Of course, Venus, the trained psychologist, would never read it because she chooses to focus solely on “beauty and kindness” and refuses to look at the “ugliness” promoted by ANTI-Feminism. Here’s hoping you are more intellectually honest than my former friend is.

Immediately below the Baskerville article, I am posting a short list of some of my most highly recommended anti-Feminism books for your further enlightenment on this sad, sad situation.

By Stephen Baskerville
The New American magazine;
Jan. 18, 2010

Liberals rightly criticize America’s high rate of incarceration. Claiming to be the freest country on Earth, the United States incarcerates a larger percentage of its population than Iran or Syria. Over two million people, or nearly one in 50 adults, excluding the elderly, are incarcerated, the highest proportion in the world. Some seven million Americans, or 3.2 percent, are under penal supervision.

Many are likely to be innocent. In The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton document how due process protections are routinely ignored, grand juries are neutered, frivolous prosecutions abound, and jury trials are increasingly rare. More recently, in Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (2009), Harvey Silverglate shows how federal prosecutors are criminalizing more and more of the population. “Innocence projects” — projects of “a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing” — attest that people are railroaded into prison. As we will see, incarcerations without trial are now routine.

The U.S. prison population has risen dramatically in the last four decades. Ideologically, the rise is invariably attributed to “law-and-order” conservatives, who indeed seldom deny their own role (or indifference). In fact, few conservatives understand what they are defending.

Conservatives who rightly decry “judicial activism” in civil law are often blind to the connected perversion of criminal justice. While a politicized judiciary does free the guilty, it also criminalizes the -innocent.

But traditionalists upholding law and order were not an innovation of the 1970s. A newer and more militant force helped create the “carceral state.” In The Prison and the Gallows (2006), feminist scholar Marie Gottschalk points out that traditional conservatives were not the prime instigators, and blames “interest groups and social movements not usually associated with penal conservatism.” Yet she names only one: “the women’s movement.”

While America’s criminalization may have a number of contributing causes, it coincides precisely with the rise of organized feminism. “The women’s movement became a vanguard of conservative law-and-order politics,” Gottschalk writes. “Women’s organizations played a central role in the consolidation of this conservative victims’ rights movement that emerged in the 1970s.”

Gottschalk then twists her counterintuitive finding to condemn “conservatives” for the influx, portraying feminists as passive victims without responsibility. “Feminists prosecuting the war on rape and domestic violence” were somehow “captured and co-opted by the law-and-order agenda of politicians, state officials, and conservative groups.” Yet nothing indicates that feminists offered the slightest resistance to this political abduction.

Feminists, despite Gottschalk’s muted admission of guilt, did lead the charge toward wholesale incarceration. Feminist ideology has radicalized criminal justice and eroded centuries-old constitutional protections: New crimes have been created; old crimes have been redefined politically; the distinction between crime and private behavior has been erased; the presumption of innocence has been eliminated; false accusations go unpunished; patently innocent people are jailed without trial. “The new feminist jurisprudence hammers away at some of the most basic foundations of our criminal law system,” Michael Weiss and Cathy Young write in a Cato Institute paper. “Chief among them is the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.”

Feminists and other sexual radicals have even managed to influence the law to target conservative groups themselves. Racketeering statutes are marshaled to punish non-violent abortion demonstrators, and “hate crimes” laws attempt to silence critics of the homosexual agenda. Both are supported by “civil liberties” groups. And these are only the most notorious; there are others.

Feminists have been the most authoritarian pressure group throughout much of American history. “It is striking what an uncritical stance earlier women reformers took toward the state,” Gottschalk observes. “They have played central roles in … uncritically pushing for more enhanced policing powers.”

What Gottschalk is describing is feminism’s version of Stalinism: the process whereby radical movements commandeer the instruments of state repression as they trade ideological purity for power.

Path to Prison

The first politicized crime was rape. Suffragettes advocated castrating rapists. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who opposed it for everyone else, wanted rapists executed.

Aggressive feminist lobbying in the legislatures and courts since the 1970s redefined rape to make it indistinguishable from consensual sex. Over time, a woman no longer had to prove that she was forced to have non-consensual sex, but a man had to prove that sex was consensual (or prove that no sex had, in fact, happened). Non-consent was gradually eliminated as a definition, and consent became simply a mitigating factor for the defense. By 1989, the Washington State Supreme Court openly shifted the burden of proving consent to the defendant when it argued that the removal of legislative language requiring non-consent for rape “evidences legislative intent to shift the burden of proof on the issue to the defense” and approved this blatantly unconstitutional presumption of guilt. The result, write Weiss and Young, was not “to jail more violent rapists — lack of consent is easy enough for the state to prove in those cases — but to make it easier to send someone to jail for failing to get an explicit nod of consent from an apparently willing partner before engaging in sex.”

Men accused of rape today enjoy few safeguards. “People can be charged with virtually no evidence,” says Boston former sex-crimes prosecutor Rikki Klieman. “If a female comes in and says she was sexually assaulted, then on her word alone, with nothing else — and I mean nothing else, no investigation — the police will go out and arrest someone.”

Almost daily we see men released after decades in prison because DNA testing proves they were wrongly convicted. Yet the rape industry is so powerful that proof of innocence is no protection. “A defendant who can absolutely prove his innocence … can nonetheless still be convicted, based solely on the word of the accuser,” write Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson in Until Proven Innocent. In North Carolina, simply “naming the person accused” along with the time and place “will support a verdict of guilty.” Crime laboratories are notorious for falsifying results to obtain convictions.

The feminist dogma that “women never lie” goes largely unchallenged. “Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes,” says Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for zealous prosecutions. Purdue University sociologist Eugene Kanin found that “41% of the total disposed rape cases were officially declared false” during a nine-year period, “that is, by the complainant’s admission that no rape had occurred.” Kanin discovered three functions of false accusations: “providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention.” The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) adds that “false rape accusations also have been filed to extort money from celebrities, to gain sole custody of children in divorce cases, and even to escape military deployments to war zones.”

In the infamous Duke University lacrosse case, prosecutor Michael Nifong suppressed exculpating evidence and prosecuted men he knew to be innocent, according to Taylor and Johnson. Nifong himself was eventually disbarred, but he had willing accomplices among assistant prosecutors, police, crime lab technicians, judges, the bar, and the media. “Innocent men are arrested and even imprisoned as a result of bogus claims,” writes Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit for the Manhattan District Attorney, who estimates that half of all reports are unfounded.

Innocence projects are almost wholly occupied with rape cases (though they try to disguise this fact). Yet no systematic investigation has been undertaken by the media or civil libertarians into why so many innocent citizens are so easily incarcerated on fabricated allegations. The exoneration of the Duke students on obviously trumped-up charges triggered few investigations — and no official ones — to determine how widespread such rigged justice is against those unable to garner media attention.

The world of rape accusations displays features similar to other feminist gender crimes: media invective against the accused, government-paid “victim advocates” to secure convictions, intimidation of anyone who defends the accused. “Nobody dependent on the mainstream media for information about rape would have any idea how frequent false claims are,” write Taylor and Johnson. “Most journalists simply ignore evidence contradicting the feminist line.” What they observe of rape characterizes feminist justice generally: “calling a rape complainant ‘the victim’ — with no ‘alleged’.” “Unnamed complainants are labeled ‘victims’ even before legal proceedings determine that a crime has been committed,” according to CMR.

Rape hysteria, false accusations, and distorted scholarship are rampant on university campuses, which ostensibly exist to pursue truth. “If a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape,” opines one “women’s studies” graduate, “she may have had reasons to. Maybe she wasn’t raped, but he clearly violated her in some way.” This mentality pervades feminist jurisprudence, precluding innocence by obliterating the distinction between crime and hurt feelings. A Vassar College assistant dean believes false accusations foster men’s education: “I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration.… ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’”

Conservative critics of the Duke fiasco avoided feminism’s role but instead emphasized race — a minor feature of the case but a safer one to criticize. Little evidence indicates that white people are being systematically incarcerated on fabricated accusations of non-existent crimes against blacks. This is precisely what is happening to men, both white and black, accused of rape and other “gender” crimes that feminists have turned into a political agenda.

The Kobe Bryant case demonstrates that a black man accused by a white woman is also vulnerable. Historically, this was the more common pattern. Our race-conscious society is conditioned to remember lynching as a racial atrocity, forgetting that the lynched were usually black men accused by white women. Feminist scholars spin this as “the dominant white male ideology behind lynching ... that white womanhood was in need of protection against black men,” suggesting fantastically that white “patriarchy” used rape accusations to break up a progressive political romance developing between black men and white women. With false rape accusations, the races have changed, but the sexes have remained constant.

Violent Lies

“Domestic violence” is an even more purely political crime. “The battered-women’s movement turned out to be even more vulnerable to being co-opted by the state and conservative penal forces,” writes Gottschalk, again with contortion. Domestic violence groups are uniformly feminist, not “conservative,” though here too conservatives have enabled feminists to exchange principles for power.

Like rape, domestic “violence” is defined so loosely that it need not be violent. The U.S. Justice Department definition includes “extreme jealousy and possessiveness” and “name calling and constant criticizing.” For such “crimes” men are jailed with no trial. In fact, the very category of “domestic” violence was developed largely to circumvent due process requirements of conventional assault statutes. A study published in Criminology and Public Policy found that no one accused of domestic violence could be found innocent, since every arrestee received punishment.

Here, too, false accusations are rewarded. “Women lie every day,” attests Ottawa Judge Dianne Nicholas. “Every day women in court say, ‘I made it up. I’m lying. It didn’t happen’ — and they’re not charged.” Amazingly, bar associations sponsor seminars instructing women how to fabricate accusations. Thomas Kiernan, writing in the New Jersey Law Journal, expressed his astonishment at “the number of women attending the seminars who smugly — indeed boastfully — announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked!” He added, “The lawyer-lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed miscreants.”

Domestic violence has become “a backwater of tautological pseudo-theory,” write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in Aggression and Violent Behavior. “No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice.” Scholars and practitioners have repeatedly documented how “allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage” in custody cases and “become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.” Domestic abuse has become “an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice,” according to the Rutgers Law Review.

Restraining orders removing men from their homes and children are summarily issued without any evidence. Due process protections are so routinely ignored that, the New Jersey Law Journal reports, one judge told his colleagues, “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating.” Attorney David Heleniak calls New Jersey’s statute “a due process fiasco” in the Rutgers Law Review. New Jersey court literature openly acknowledges that due process is ignored because it “perpetuates the cycle of power and control whereby the [alleged?] perpetrator remains the one with the power and the [alleged?] victim remains powerless.” Omitting “alleged” is standard even in statutes, where, the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports, “the mere allegation of domestic abuse … may shift the burden of proof to the defendant.”

Special “integrated domestic violence courts” presume guilt and then, says New York’s openly feminist chief judge, “make batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions.” They can seize property, including homes, without the accused being convicted or even formally charged or present to defend himself. Lawyer Walter Fox describes these courts as “pre-fascist”: “Domestic violence courts … are designed to get around the protections of the criminal code. The burden of proof is reduced or removed, and there’s no presumption of innocence.”

Forced confessions are widespread. Pennsylvania men are incarcerated unless they sign forms stating, “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner.” The man must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behavior was not provoked.”

Child-support Chokehold

Equally feminist is the child-support machinery, whereby millions have their family finances plundered and their lives placed under penal supervision without having committed any legal infraction. Once they have nothing left to loot, they too are incarcerated without trial.

Contrary to government propaganda (and Common Law tradition), child support today has little to do with fathers abandoning their children, deserting their marriages, or even agreeing to a divorce. It is automatically assessed on all non-custodial parents, even those involuntarily divorced without grounds (“no-fault”). It is an entitlement for all divorcing mothers, regardless of their actions, and coerced from fathers, regardless of their fidelity. The “deadbeat dad” is far less likely to be a man who abandoned the offspring he callously sired than to be a loving father who has been, as attorney Jed Abraham writes in From Courtship to Courtroom, “forced to finance the filching of his own children.”

Federalized enforcement was rationalized to reimburse taxpayers for welfare. Under feminist pressure, taxpayers instead subsidize middle-class divorce, through federal payments to states based on the amount of child support they collect. By profiting off child support at federal taxpayer expense, state governments have a financial incentive to encourage as many single-mother homes as possible. They, in turn, encourage divorce with a guaranteed, tax-free windfall to any divorcing mother.

While child support (like divorce itself) is awarded ostensibly without reference to “fault,” nonpayment brings swift and severe punishments. “The advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support,” writes Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University, “have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state.” Abraham calls the machinery “Orwellian”: “The government commands … a veritable gulag, complete with sophisticated surveillance and compliance capabilities such as computer-based tracing, license revocation, asset confiscation, and incarceration.”

Here, too, “the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Like Kafka’s Joseph K., the “defendant” may not even know the charge against him, “if the court does not explicitly clarify the charge facing the [allegedly?] delinquent parent,” says NCSL. Further, “not all child support contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled to a jury trial,” and “even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled to a lawyer.” Thus defendants must prove their innocence against unspecified accusations, without counsel, and without a jury.

Assembly-line hearings can last 30 seconds to two minutes, during which parents are sentenced to months or years in prison. Many receive no hearing but are accused in an “expedited judicial process” before a black-robed lawyer known as a “judge surrogate.” Because these officials require no legislative confirmation, they are not accountable to citizens or their representatives. Unlike true judges, they may lobby to create the same laws they adjudicate, violating the separation of powers. Often they are political activists in robes. One surrogate judge, reports the Telegraph of Hudson, New Hampshire, simultaneously worked “as a radical feminist lobbying on proposed legislation” dealing with child support.

Though governments sensationalize “roundups” of alleged “deadbeat dads,” who are jailed for months and even years without trial, no government information whatever is available on incarcerations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is utterly silent on child-support incarcerations. Rebecca May of the Center for Family Policy and Practice found “ample testimony by low-income non-custodial parents of spending time in jail for the nonpayment of child support.” Yet she could find no documentation of their incarceration. Government literature “yields so little information on it that one might be led to believe that arrests were used rarely if at all. While May personally witnessed fathers sentenced in St. Louis, “We could find no explicit documentation of arrests in St. Louis.” In Illinois, “We observed courtrooms in which fathers appeared before the judge who were serving jail sentences for nonpayment, but little information was available on arrests in Illinois.”

We know the arrests are extensive. To relieve jail overcrowding in Georgia, a sheriff and judge proposed creating detention camps specifically for “deadbeat dads.” The Pittsburgh City Planning Commission has considered a proposal “to convert a former chemical processing plant ... into a detention center” for “deadbeat dads.”

Rendered permanently in debt by incarceration, fathers are farmed out to trash companies and similar concerns, where they work 14-16 hour days with their earnings confiscated.

More Malicious Mayhem

Other incarcerations are also attributable to feminism. The vast preponderance of actual violent crime and substance abuse proceeds from single-parent homes and fatherless children more than any other factor, far surpassing race and poverty. The explosion of single parenthood is usually and resignedly blamed on paternal abandonment, with the only remedy being ever-more draconian but ineffective child-support “crackdowns.” Yet no evidence indicates that the proliferation of single-parent homes results from absconding fathers. If instead we accept that single motherhood is precisely what feminists say it is — the deliberate choice of their sexual revolution — it is then apparent that sexual liberation lies behind not only these newfangled sexual crimes, but also the larger trend of actual crime and incarceration. Feminism is driving both the criminalization of the innocent and the criminality of the guilty.

We will continue to fight a losing battle against crime, incarceration, and expansive government power until we confront the sexual ideology that is driving not only family breakdown and the ensuing social anomie, but the criminalization of the male population. Ever-more-repressive penal measures will only further erode freedom. Under a leftist regime, conservatives must rethink their approach to crime and punishment and their unwitting collusion with America’s homegrown Stalinists.

Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of 'Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family'.

Dangerously declining Population Replacement levels worldwide has been one of the unintended negative effects of Feminsm. Unlike the phony "Global Warming", this is a genuine disaster in the making!

'Demographic Winter: The Decline Of The Human Family'

I've read plenty of anti-Feminism books and below is the cream of the crop which has thus far passed before my eyes.

‘The Privilege Of Being A Woman’
by Alice von Hildebrand

‘Spreading Misandry’
by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

‘Legalizing Misandry’
by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

‘The Gender Agenda’
by Dale O’Leary

‘Manhood Redux: Standing Up To Feminism’
by C. H. Freedman

‘Women Who Make The World Worse’
by Kate O’Beirne

‘The Kinder, Gentler Military: How Political Correctness Affects Our Ability To Win Wars'
by Stephanie Gutmann

‘Weak Link: The Feminization Of The American Military’
by Brian Mitchell

‘Why Women And Power Don’t Mix’
by J. P. McDermott

Please don’t be repulsed by the poorly chosen title of the McDermott book; it’s unquestionably one of the very best I have ever read. We shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, and I suppose sometimes we shouldn’t judge a book by its title either.

You can be certain that the very next anti-Feminism book I read is going to be ‘Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family' by Stephen Baskerville.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010


Not too often, but from time to time, I post here on ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’ commentary and articles written by someone other than myself. I prefer to stick with original compositions and smart-assed remarks, but sometimes something is so interesting, or important, or well-researched, that I feel I should pass it on to both of you.

A few days ago, my buddy Br’er Marc sent me an Email which included a short piece written many years ago by journalist Charley Reese. In doing a little web surfing, I discovered that not only is this not presented in its original form, but as it has made the Email rounds, evidently some folks have added sentences to it in an attempt to update it. Furthermore, the copy I received didn’t even have Charley’s name spelled correctly. Nevertheless, I thought this was a very worthwhile read, and so I’m posting below the same version I received (after correcting the misspelled name).

Below the ‘Reese Piece’ are two articles related to the Global Warming hoax, both written by William F. Jasper for The New American magazine. Everyone should read all three of these items. But, unfortunately, they require some serious thought, they aren’t funny and entertaining, and they weren’t penned by Dan Brown, Stephen King, John Grisham or Dean Koontz (i.e., they're not time-wasting pieces of fiction), so few, if any, visitors to this Blog will read all three. And that’s just the way it is . . . Today In America:

By Charley Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 apparently inept selfish human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

And now on to the subject of Global Warming. First, here is one of my favorite quotes related to the G.W. B.S.

~ Geologist Dr. David Gee
Chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

OK, on that note, let's move on to Mr. Jasper's two columns:

By William F. Jasper
The New American; Jan. 4, 2010

“As near as I can tell, Climate-Gate is almost entirely a tempest in a teacup,” wrote Kevin Drum in a November 30 column for the left-wing magazine Mother Jones. “There’s nothing questionable there,” he insisted. The tempest-in-a-teacup/no-big-deal trope has been regularly invoked by the proponents of global-warming alarmism to dismiss the significance of what may be one of the biggest science scandals in history.

The “Climategate” to which Drum refers is, of course, the still-developing scandal involving the release of thousands of e-mails and documents from a British climate research center. The leaked documents expose some of the biggest scientific names in the global-warming debate to serious charges of fraud, unethical attacks on colleagues, censorship of opposing viewpoints, and possible criminal destruction of, and withholding of, evidence.

The timing of Climategate has been a major boon to skeptics of catastrophic climate change and a monster headache to alarmists, breaking onto the world scene only three weeks before the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) convened on December 7 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Oppenheimer, Stephen Schneider, and Kevin Trenberth — some of the biggest names in global-warming alarmism — are unfavorably exposed in the documents that were posted on the Internet on November 20 by unknown hackers who penetrated the computer system of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Great Britain’s University of East Anglia. Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and a top guru in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN’s climate brain trust, comes off especially poorly in the e-mails. After initially balking at calls to resign or step down, the university announced on December 1 that Jones would be taking temporary leave while an independent inquiry is conducted into the matter.

Climatologist Patrick Michaels, who has long criticized the IPCC process, sees the e-mail scandal far differently than Kevin Drum, and chooses a much different metaphor to describe it. “This is not a smoking gun,” says Dr. Michaels, “this is a mushroom cloud.” On the face of it, it would seem difficult to dispute Professor Michaels’ assessment. The Climategate e-mails provide powerful confirmation of charges by many scientists over the years that the UN’s IPCC process is politically — not scientifically — driven and that claims of scientific “consensus” to justify radical policies are a gross corruption of science. In the past, scientists who questioned the Jones-Mann-IPCC “consensus” have been denounced as “deniers” — a vicious attempt to associate them with Nazi holocaust denial — or “shills” for the fossil-fuel industries … or both. Now, however, scientists who cannot be classified as skeptics — indeed, some are prominent names in the alarmist camp — are challenging the IPCC and the Climategate defendants to come clean and release the data on which they have been basing their dire predictions, but have been withholding from the public and their scientific peers.

“Tricks” and “Consensus”:

In one damaging e-mail that has been widely publicized, Jones writes to colleagues that he has just used “Mike’s Nature trick” of adding other temperature data to “hide the decline” in recent global temperatures. They had to resort to such trickery because the data conflicted with their claims that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, or AGW, is heating up the planet to unacceptable levels and must be curtailed before it leads to irreversible global catastrophe.

The Mike referred to in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential “hockey stick” graph utilized statistical manipulation to produce a curve that would support claims of recent human activities causing the warmest period in the past millennia. The now thoroughly discredited “hockey stick,” which was a big component of Al Gore’s Nobel Prize-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, attempted to wipe the Medieval Warm Period, one of the most solidly established periods of climate history, from the historical record.

During the Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800–1300), temperatures were higher than today; the Vikings colonized then-balmy Greenland and roamed the ice-free waters of the North Atlantic. If allowed to stand, this inconvenient truth would undercut the alarmists’ exaggerated claims that burning fossil fuels is causing the warmest temperatures in 1,000 years.

In trying to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear, the Jones/Mann team went too far, and other scientists responded with a robust “smack-down” of this attempt to falsify the historical record. However, before Mann was forced to retract some of his most egregious statistical falsifications, he and his allies had managed to vilify many reputable scientists and keep their sham going for several years. In 1998, astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics challenged the Mann-Jones thesis, arguing in the journal Climate Research that the evidence supported the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. Drs. Soon and Baliunas were soon subjected to a smear campaign and six editors at Climate Research were forced to resign for allowing the Soon-Baliunas article to be published.

Now the Climategate e-mails are showing that the corruption of science in the name of “saving the planet” from the supposed scourge of climate change is far more extensive and egregious than the public or the scientific community realized.

In an e-mail of January 29, 2004 to Michael Mann, Phil Jones refers to the recent death of global-warming critic John L. Daly with this churlish comment: “In an odd way this is cheering news!” In the same e-mail, Jones then suggests to Mann that he has obtained legal advice that he does not have to comply with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from other scientists to release data and codes underlying his research claims.

Some of the e-mails seem to confirm concerns that Jones, Mann, et al., have destroyed data that could expose their fraudulent methods. That appears to be the case in a May 29, 2008 e-mail message, in which Jones writes to Mann about deleting data for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4):

Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?... Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

In another e-mail that has shocked and infuriated many in the scientific community, Jones reveals the lengths to which he is willing to go to sabotage fellow scientists in order to maintain the myth of AGW “consensus.” In a July 8, 2004 e-mail, Jones assures Mann that he (Jones) and Kevin Trenberth will censor opposing scientific views from the forthcoming IPCC report. Jones writes:

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Similar e-mails paint a picture confirming the charges of critics that Jones, Mann, and other IPCC activists constitute a “climate mafia” or “climate cartel” that punishes dissenters and rewards those who toe the global-warming party line. The e-mails are shedding light on ugly episodes over the past decade or more in which the cartel trashed the reputations of, and slammed doors on, distinguished scientists who dared to dispute the politically ordained AGW orthodoxy. With this kind of control, claims of overwhelming consensus become a self-fulfilling prophecy; contrary opinions are effectively barred from publication in accepted “peer-reviewed” literature. Besides Drs. Soon and Baliunas, other eminent scientists who are trashed or referred to crudely in the CRU e-mails include Richard Lindzen; Hans Von Storch; Sonia Boehmer-Christianson; Patrick Michaels; Roger Pielke, Sr.; Robert Balling; Fred Singer; and Tim Ball.

Huge government grants, impressive computer models, and guaranteed headline stories from sympathetic activists in the media have transformed climate scientists into celebrities and power brokers. However, even with their super computer programs, political connections, and prestigious awards, they still haven’t learned how to predict the weather, let alone control it.

An amusing admission against interest is this comment in an October 12, 2009 Climategate e-mail from Dr. Kevin Trenberth. He is stunned that not only have temperatures not warmed as predicted, but the temperatures have actually hit historic lows in his area, contradicting the supposedly authoritative pronouncements of the climate cartel. Trenberth comments:

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder [Colorado] where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record.

Trenberth then goes on to admit: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Not only did Trenberth, Jones, Mann, et al., miss the current temperature downturn, but none of the IPCC’s highly praised computer models foresaw the global mean temperature decline of the past decade. However, their inability to explain away this enormous fact, which Trenberth admits is “travesty,” has neither diminished the cartel’s certitude nor dampened its zeal for implementing a planetary climate regime.

“Ignore That Man Behind the Curtain”:

For years, the IPCC climate cartel has been using the “Wizard of Oz” defense every time some “Toto” pulls back the curtain to expose the IPCC’s secretive machinations and its sanctimonious claims of “transparency,” “openness,” and “overwhelming consensus.” Inquiring scientists and the general public alike are told not to pay attention to the mysterious process behind the curtain where the fantastic and frightening scenarios of impending doom are being created.

However, two Canadian “Totos” refused to stop tugging on the curtain, and, as a result, have successfully exposed some of the trickery of the IPCC “wizards.” Retired businessman and statistician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick have doggedly pursued the truth and have subjected the IPCC’s “climate science” to rigorous examination. Troubled by unexplained statistical anomalies in Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph, they contacted Mann to request copies of his data sets. Mann balked and also refused to divulge publicly the algorithm he had used to concoct his “hockey stick” graph. McIntyre and McKitrick published several articles challenging Mann’s work on a number of key points. Their path-breaking research sparked a congressional hearing validated by two independent academic panels, one of which was appointed by the National Academy of Sciences.

McIntyre and McKitrick have continued their independent investigations on their award-winning Internet website,, which has won the respect of even many AGW proponents. However, it is clear that Mann, Jones, and the climate cartel regard the two dauntless sleuths as the enemy, and they are the subject of many Climategate e-mails, often referred to as “MM” or “the two MMs.”

In an incriminating CRU e-mail of February 2, 2005, Jones writes to Mann:

The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Oops! The Dog Ate It:

The climate cartel, it appears, has already carried through on the data deletion threat. Scientists at the University of East Anglia CRU have admitted throwing out much of the raw data on which their ominous predictions are based.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” What happened to the original data? According to the CRU, it was discarded back in the 1980s. What this means is that the original CRU data cannot be checked or replicated, which means that the graphs, research, and predictions supposedly based on the missing data is worthless. The available “value-added” and “homogenised” data would also then be worthless, since there would be no way to verify or replicate it.

How many other data sets have likewise been “lost” or “accidentally deleted”? We may soon find out, as official investigations and FOIA lawsuits progress. In the meantime, we are simply supposed to trust the IPCC “experts” who say that we must “invest” trillions of dollars for mitigation and reparation of past carbon consumption, as well as for prevention of future warming.

IPCC vice-chairman Jean-Pascal van Ypersele tried to minimize the significance of the e-mail scandal as the Copenhagen conference opened by claiming that Climategate only pertains to one data set out of many that confirm the serious peril posed by anthropogenic global warming.

“It doesn’t change anything in the IPCC’s conclusions,” said van Ypersele, “it’s only one line of evidence out of dozens of lines of evidence.” This is the party line echoed by most of the AGW alarmists in government, media, and environmental activist circles. Along with this corollary: The skeptics (or “deniers,” “shills”) are exploiting the e-mail controversy simply to sabotage Copenhagen and distract the scientists and politicians from the important work they must conclude there.

“We mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate LORsceptics,” British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the Guardian. “We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act and … seal the deal.”

Brown’s Environmental Secretary, Ed Miliband, was even more scathing, describing skeptics as “dangerous and deceitful.” “The approach of the climate saboteurs is to misuse data and mislead people,” he charged. Miliband’s accusations are especially audacious, inasmuch as it is his alarmist camp, not the skeptics (or “climate realists,” as many prefer to call themselves), that has been caught red-handed misusing data. “The skeptics are playing politics with science in a dangerous and deceitful manner,” Miliband continued, then concluded with this warning: “There is no easy way out of tackling climate change despite what they would have us believe. The evidence is clear and the time we have to act is short. To abandon this process now would lead to misery and catastrophe for millions.”

According to van Ypersele, “We are spending a lot of useless time discussing this rather than spending time preparing information for the negotiators.”

Professor Judith Curry has provided van Ypersele, Miliband, Brown, the IPCC, and other alarmists with an easy solution to this problem: Stop hiding your data and stop engaging in the hostile “tribalism” displayed in the infamous e-mail attacks on fellow scientists. Dr. Curry is no “climate skeptic.” In fact, she is an AGW true believer, an IPCC expert reviewer, and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Curry says:

Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc.

In other words, why not actually practice the transparency and openness that the UN and IPCC claim to favor? Don’t hold your CO2 while waiting for that to happen.

By William F. Jasper
The New American; Dec. 21, 2009

In an October 14 speech to the Minnesota Free Market Institute in St. Paul, Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, delivered a devastating fusillade against the alleged science underpinning the hysterical claims of global-warming alarmists. Lord Monckton’s brilliant presentation, combining a stunning array of slides, charts, graphs, scientific studies, and statistical facts with scathing, satirical wit, became an instant Internet sensation.

The greater part of Monckton’s discourse was aimed at dispelling the innumerable fallacies parading as “scientific consensus” concerning the supposedly imminent apocalyptic demise resulting from human-caused climate change. As such, he introduced little that was different from what he and other climate realists have been saying for years. It was several provocative statements in his closing comments that created an uproar, earning him both plaudits on the Right and venom from the Left.

Here is where he lit the phosphorus:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your President will sign it.... And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” — because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t, and we’ve been screwing up the climate. We haven’t been screwing up the climate but that’s the line. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement...

So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it — now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.

It’s easy to see why the “greenies” and globalists, who have invested so much time, effort, and money since Stockholm ’72 (the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP) and Rio ’92 (the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UNCED, more popularly known as the Earth Summit), would get all frothy at the mouth over having their plans so baldly exposed. But Lord Monckton is on very solid terra firma, as anyone who has read the Copenhagen treaty texts and/or has followed the continuous exposés in these pages over the past three dec-ades of the UN’s environmental agenda for global control, would surely recognize.

Annex I, Article 38 of the Copenhagen treaty (officially known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC) states: “The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism.”

Yes, as the excerpt above indicates — along with many others in the text — the conveners of the Copenhagen summit envision a world government. Here’s how they describe it in the same article 38 of the UNFCCC (page 18):

The government will be ruled by the COP [Conference of the Parties] with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

No checks and balances worthy of the name. No legitimate “rule of law,” despite the constant appeal to that phrase by those perpetrating this perversion of the principle. Only a blatant assault on national sovereignty and outrageous usurpation of virtually unlimited power to rule, regulate, and tax the entire planet. This is what the UN and its one-world advocates have been pursuing for decades. That is what French President Jacques Chirac was heralding in 2000 when he praised the predecessor to Copenhagen, the Kyoto Protocol, as “the first component of an authentic global governance.”

Lord Monckton’s reference to the communist character of the Copenhagen scheme has also caused predictable rage, gnashing of teeth, and catcalls from the usual quarters that object to any exposure of the Marxist-Leninist pedigree and bearing of any favored project, individual, or organization. But, once again, Monckton is spot on. Many of the communists became “Watermelon Marxists”: green on the outside, red on the inside. And the lead watermelon, Mikhail Gorbachev, founder of Green Cross International, kicked off the wholesale transformation with his celebrated 1992 “End of the Cold War” speech in Fulton, Missouri.

“The prospect of catastrophic climatic changes, more frequent droughts, floods, hunger, epidemics, national-ethnic conflicts, and other similar catastrophes compels governments to adopt a world perspective and seek generally applicable solutions,” Gorbachev declared. And to make this desired objective happen, he said, would require “some kind of global government.”

“I believe,” said Gorbachev, who still describes himself as a Leninist, “that the new world order will not be fully realized unless the United Nations and its Security Council create structures … which are authorized to impose sanctions and make use of other measures of compulsion.” Compulsion, force — on a global scale — that’s what it’s all about. That is what UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was saying, in a more subtle way, in his October 25, 2009 New York Times op-ed about Copenhagen. “A deal must include an equitable global governance structure,” the Secretary-General proclaimed. Like Gorbachev, he invoked apocalyptic rhetoric to justify his proposed world government, asserting, “All agree that climate change is an existential threat to humankind.”

Where Monckton Goes Awry:

As Lord Monckton’s timely speech continues to circulate, it will undoubtedly do much to awaken many Americans and speed the crumbling of the incredible non-crisis hoax known as climate change. However, in his effort to stir Americans to action against the Copenhagen treaty, Lord Monckton has inadvertently fallen into a trap, one that has claimed many another otherwise well-informed and well-intentioned Jeremiah. He warns, in these grave words:

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution, and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties. And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back.

Unfortunately, Lord Monckton, like most Americans, has fallen victim to the intentional campaign of disinformation concerning the “supremacy clause” in the United States Constitution. Like many other texts in our Constitution, this section has been ripped out of context and twisted by those who hope to undo the protections the Founders of our Republic struggled so intensely to give us. One of the most important proponents of this attack on our constitutional system was John Foster Dulles, who would become Secretary of State under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In an April 11, 1952 speech, Dulles declared:

Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land.... Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, … can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.

John Foster Dulles was a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which has been the lead organization promoting the notion that treaties and “international law” trump the Constitution. As far back as 1928, in its Survey of American Relations, the Council complained against our Constitution’s checks and balances and separations of power. These features, which most Americans would consider the most cherished blessings of our form of government, the CFR authors claimed “militate against the development of responsible government.” According to the CFR, it would be more “responsible” to model our government after the European parliamentary system and make treaties easier to pass by substituting “a majority of both houses for two-thirds of the Senate in treaty ratification.” Why? Because Dulles and his one-world cohorts at the Council wanted to use the treaty power gradually to intertwine and merge the American government into a global government.

They didn’t succeed in changing the two-thirds Senate vote requirement in the Constitution, but they have very nearly succeeded by winning many politicians, jurists, and legal scholars over to the position that not only treaties, but executive agreements, “international norms,” and even “testimony” and “statements” by so-called “experts” at international fora can override the Constitution because they constitute “international customary law.”

What does the Constitution actually say concerning treaties? The treaty powers are dealt with in Article II, Section 2 and Article III, Section 2, but the main cause of confusion is Article VI, Section 2, the “supremacy clause,” which states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Dulles and the advocates of unlimited treaty power have exploited confusion over the grammar and syntax in the above passage to make it say something that it doesn’t. It is important to note first of all that when referring to “this Constitution,” the Founders are referring to the United States Constitution, while the later “the Constitution” refers to State constitutions. Secondly, they are stating that the U.S. Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” along with federal laws and treaties that are “made in pursuance of” and “under the authority of” that Constitution. Obviously, if a treaty or federal law clashes with the Constitution, then it does not meet those qualifications and is null and void. That is not merely this writer’s opinion, but the stated intent of the men who framed the great document and our earliest and most-esteemed jurists.

James Madison, who was the secretary of the Philadelphia Convention and has justly been called “the Father of the Constitution,” said of the scope of the treaty power:

I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation.

In addition to his many other famous words and deeds, Thomas Jefferson authored the authoritative reference work, A Manual of Parliamentary Practice, which became a standard handbook for both the House and Senate. In it, Jefferson said of treaty power:

It is admitted that it must concern the foreign nation, party to the contract, or it would be a mere nullity.... 2. By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated. 3. It must have meant to except out of those the rights reserved to the states; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.

This is both sound legal opinion and plain, common sense. If the Bill of Rights and the whole Constitution were to have any lasting force and meaning, it could not have been intended that they could be completely undone by means of treaty. Or as Jefferson rightly observed: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”

Alexander Hamilton, one of the principal authors of The Federalist, concurs on this important point. “A treaty cannot be made,” Hamilton maintained, “which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States.” This is the consistent position taken by the authors of The Federalist on the supremacy clause in essays #33 (Hamilton), #44 (Madison), and #64 (Jay).

The United States Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert (1957) restated these foundational principles. After quoting the same Article VI, Section 2 supremacy clause we quoted above, the Court declares:

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.... The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

Nevertheless, the advocates of world government (or “global governance,” as they prefer to call it today) boast a stellar lineup of judges, law-school professors, Senators, Congressmen, journalists, and academics who insist American sovereignty must yield to global “necessity,” and our Constitution must give way to “international law.” And Copenhagen is but one of many UN treaties and agreements that are battering our constitutional ramparts. It is up to the American people to hold the feet of their Senators and Representatives to the fire and strike down as a “mere nullity” (Jefferson’s words) these boundless grabs for power.

If you made it all the way through these three articles but found them boring and unworthy of your time, then please accept my apology and my promise to be more frivolous and entertaining the next time.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
Doggtor of Unread Blog Bits

Related Links:

The New World Order

The Council On Foreign Relations

Global Warming B.S.

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome, however, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). Besides, I "sort of do debate martial arts", so there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. In other words, don't make me have to come over there - I'm just too tired. Play nice.


Monday, January 4, 2010


My brother Napoleon and I went to Home Depot and bought a sturdy, commercial-grade mop bucket on wheels with an attached mop wringer. At home, I swept the floors and then Nappy started mopping. At one point, while working in the kitchen, he kind of mopped himself away from the bucket, and so as I was passing by he said, “Hey, roll that mop bucket over here, will ya?” And I replied, “What, is this a two-man job? In the building where I work, one pregnant Mexican woman does this by herself.”

One day, during the Holidays, brother Nappy and I had some Christmas music playing in the living room. He walked into the bedroom where I was working on the computer and he said to me, “You know what I decided a long time ago?”
“What?” I asked.
“I decided that a man ought never to say ‘Figgy Pudding’.”

I use a dentist-prescribed oral rinse to improve the health of my gums. Part of the instructions on the package reads: “Rinse with one half of the solution for one minute, expectorate (spit) and repeat the procedure with the remaining half of the mixture.” This brings up two questions. #1: Are we as a nation really so dumbed-down now that most adults don’t know the meaning of the word “expectorate”? #2: And if so, then what’s the point of printing both “expectorate” and “(spit)” on the package? Why not just use “spit” and do away with the polysyllabic pretension?

Last night, Nappy and I watched the highly acclaimed Clint Eastwood movie ‘Gran Torino.’ Four thumbs down! The only positive thing I can say about ‘Gran Torino’ is that for once, Clint made a movie and didn’t include his girlfriend, Morgan Freeman. OK, I apologize. Maybe that wasn’t a fair statement. I mean, after all, how do I know that Clint ain’t Morgan’s girlfriend?

I was watching part of the Arizona Cardinals vs. Seattle Seahawks football game on Sunday, November 15th. The Cardinals had the ball and ran a play on 3rd down. (For my readers who don’t understand the game of football, all that really means is that the Cardinals had the ball and ran a play on 3rd down. See? You just gotta memorize the terminology). Anyway, LaRod Stephens-Howling comes up at least – AT LEAST – two (count ‘em – TWO!) yards short of the first down. And the professional television announcer says, “And Stephens-Howling may be short of the first down marker.” I shouted at the TV screen, “He may be? He May be? He MAY be? MAYBE I should have your job!”

I gotta give credit to my friend The Great L.C. for this one, as he pointed it out to me the other day: Every year as playoff time approaches in the National Football League, some of the weaker of the better teams find themselves trying to secure a Wild Card spot in the postseason. Often there are multiple scenarios which determine whether or not a team will advance to the playoffs.

For example, you might have a situation where if Team A wins their final game of the regular season AND Team C manages to beat Team B, then Team A will get that Wild Card spot. In other words, Team A needs a little “help” (from Team C) if it is to continue on into the postseason.

But sometimes a team’s regular season record is good enough that it makes the scenario a bit different. For instance, it may be that if Team A wins its final game of the regular season, it will be irrelevant what Teams B and C do, for Team A is playoff bound regardless of what happens in that other game. In this latter case, professional football announcers frequently refer to Team A as “controlling their own destiny” as far as advancing to the playoffs is concerned. But as The Great L.C. strongly protests: “NO, THEY DON’T!” And he’s right.

As my dictionary explains, “destiny” is “the predetermined, usually inevitable or irresistible, course of events.” The very meaning of the word destiny implies that something is destined to happen; it is beyond anyone’s “CONTROL.” You cannot control your own destiny. I don’t know where these football announcers acquired their education, but to quote Walter, my favorite puppet, they’re “Dumb-Asses!”

IF YOU BUILD IT [A Better Mouse Trap],
Late last year Nappy and I joined NetFlix and I gotta tell ya, I am really pleased with the company so far. They have devised an astoundingly efficient system. I watched the movie ‘The Bad News Bears’ and then dropped it into the nearest mail box on a Thursday at 12:45 PM. Pickup at that box is at 1:30 PM. By 8:30 AM on Friday, the very next morning, there was an Email in my Inbox saying that NetFlix had received ‘The Bad News Bears’ and was sending out my next movie request. I don’t know how they do it, but their delivery system is superfast and efficient, and so I say we kick out the Federal government and put NetFlix in charge of the U.S. Postal Service.

On November 6th, I went into a Safeway Grocery store to pick up a few items. As I was checking out, the clerk pointed out to me that Blue Oyster Cult’s song ‘Godzilla’ was playing over the store’s sound system. [“Go!-Go!-Godzilla!”] I found this a bit disturbing. I mean, the rebellious Rock music I used to listen to in my teenage years, which my parents were constantly hollering at me to turn the volume down on, I find I am now grocery shopping to. Blue Oyster Cult? Music to shop by? I mentioned this to the clerk and he replied, “Well, let’s face it, all music is heading for the elevator.” I laughed and said, “You’re probably right, but the day I hear ‘Godzilla’ in an elevator is the day I off myself. That will be a sign that I have grown way too old.”

Evidently the employees of Safeway grocery stores are forced to follow a dumb executive decision. These dimwits sit in their plush offices on Corporation Row and hand down ridiculous, unrealistic policies to the worker bees without ever really thinking the policies through. I’ve noticed that all of the clerks running the registers at Safeway ask every single customer “Would you like help out with that?” It doesn’t matter who the customer is or how many bags of groceries he or she has purchased, the question is always asked: “Would you like help out with that?” Well, I find that a little offensive.

It’s probably based on “politically correct” thinking: We mustn’t appear to be making any judgments about a person’s physical capabilities, so we will ask EVERY PERSON EVERY TIME if they want help.

Granted, I’m now 50 years old, but I am not in too bad of shape for a dude who has been knocked around by life for half a century. I am not overweight and I actually have biceps at least as large as Serena Williams’ (and that’s without the chemical enhancement or any weightlifting). So, I don’t care for it when I buy a single bag of groceries and some clerk asks me if I would like help out with it.

One time I actually caught the bloke by surprise when I said, “Yes.” Then I pointed to some young woman working at the Customer Service counter and added, “And I want HER to help me out.” The clerk replied that it was up to her to decide. I didn’t push the issue further, but I’m thinking a letter of complaint to the dimwits at Safeway’s headquarters on Corporation Row will soon be added to my “To Do” List. “Dumb-Asses!”

Having breakfast together at IHOP one day, Nappy and I found our conversation turning to politics. (Well, there’s a first time for everything, eh?) Nappy made the comment that if the devil himself ever ran for president of the United States, all of the Democrats would vote for him just to show how open-minded they are. He’s probably right. And to that I will add: In a country where the people get to elect their leaders, the people ALWAYS get what they’ve asked for and deserve to receive. It’s a new year but the same old traitors are still in the White House and in the Congress. And I can state with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that America will continue Her slide into totalitarian socialism in 2010. After all, that’s what the people voted for. Ask and you shall receive.

One day in early November, I got to thinking about Ariel O. O’Airedale, my bossy, inflatable, dog of a girlfriend! And then those lyrics from the song 'Breakfast In America' began playing in my mind: "Take a look at my girlfriend; She's the only one I got; Not much of a girlfriend; Never seem to get a lot." But then I realized that's not entirely true and I wasn't being fair. The fact is, Ariel makes me lightheaded . . . everytime I blow her up. You know, not every woman gets “Made In China” . . . but mine was.

Far be it from me to stir up some racial controversy or anything like that. Race is usually the furthest thing from my mind. Well, that’s not entirely true. 9 x 16 is the furthest thing from my mind. But thoughts of race rarely enter into my thinking. However... (you knew a “but” or a “however” was comin’, didn’t ya?), occasionally something occurs that is race related and I think about it. A while back, I was in a Walgreens drug store buying some shaving soap and I found myself in line at the register behind a Black guy who was wearing a Peyton Manning football jersey. Now that got my attention because it brought to my mind how rare it is to find a Black man wearing the sports jersey of a White athlete. It is not at all uncommon to see White guys wearing the jerseys of Black athletes, but the reverse is quite unusual. So, I got to wondering, why is this? There are lots of very talented White athletes in the world of professional sports. So, why do they have so few jersey-wearing Black fans?

Nappy and I drove up to Prescott for the weekend on November 29th. Well, we had intended to stay in Flagstaff, but when we got up there and found it looking like this...

...with all that cold, wet, white “stuffs” on the ground, we stopped at Granny’s Closet for one beer and then turned around like Southern California born and raised wimps and drove back to Prescott, where the sun was shining and the ground was dry. Well, as I related on my other Blog, we may have had one too many “adult beverages” in Prescott. (Alright! Alright! We DEFINITELY had one – or two – too many. So, sue me.)

Just before we left Phoenix, I went to pack my overnight bag and I grabbed the first T-shirt out of my chest of drawers. It happened to be my Mel’s Diner ‘American Graffiti’ shirt. I immediately hustled into Nappy’s room, held up the T-shirt for him to see and said, “You’re not bringing YOUR Mel’s Diner T-shirt, are you?” The last thing I wanted was a repeat of that most unfortunate Payson episode!

Before the serious drinking had started in downtown Prescott, Nappy dragged me into an antique (read: “junk”) shop where he poked around for awhile. He decided to buy this beat up old red bicycle that the shop owner had gotten at a police impounded property auction. He paid the woman and asked her to leave the bike leaning up against her fence in the side alley for us to pick up later that night after the drinking was done.

So, later that night after the drinking was done (well, almost done), we went back for the bicycle and began walking it to our motel from the downtown area.
I said to Nappy, “Why’d you buy this old bike anyway?”
He answered, “Three dollars.”
“This thing’s a mess. Now you’re going to have to get a new chain for it and a new seat.”
And Nappy said, “Three dollars.”
“You know, you could have just ridden Pa’s old bicycle; it’s in a lot better shape than this thing is."
And Nappy yelled, “THREE DOLLARS!”

As he was walking the bicycle along, my Brother became concerned. He had noticed that the main bar across the bike was very low. “Hey, do you think this is a girl’s bike?” he asked me.
“I don’t know.”
“Doesn’t that bar look too low?”
“Hmmm…” I said. “I don’t know. Maybe.”
“I think this is probably a girl’s bike.”
“Well, if it is, so what? I mean, who cares? What’s the difference between a girl’s bike and a boy’s bike besides where the bar is located? If I liked the bike, I’d ride it anyway.”
“Oh, you would?” Nappy said. “Well, you know what? I won’t.”

Then Nappy noticed something painted in white across the bicycle’s frame. He walked the bike under a street light but still couldn’t read what was painted there. “I can’t make this out in the dark. Can you read what that says?” he asked me.
I immediately recognized it as a police impound number but I told Nappy, “It says ‘Amelia’s Bike’.”

I realize that it may seem to some of you that Nappy and I drink an awful lot of alcohol, but the truth is, I kind of exaggerate things a bit. You know, it’s all part of my shtick. In actuality, we don’t drink to an excessive degree. In fact, the only times we do imbibe “adult beverages” are when we go out of town or stay home. Otherwise, we’re as sober as two old church ladies.

Back when I was a California boy, I loved Disneyland. I had an Annual Pass and used it often. My favorite ride was the Storybook Land Canal Boats - only a “D” Ticket ride back in the “old school” Disneyland days. What always surprised me back then was how my other two favorite attractions were actually free of charge; no ticket required. One was the ‘America The Beautiful’ movie (later, ‘American Journeys’) in “Circle-Vision 360”, and the other was ‘America Sings.’ America Sings was similar to the Country Bear Jamboree, only a thousand times better and totally free, whereas the Bear crap was (if I remember correctly) an “E” Ticket. After many years, Disney closed ‘America Sings’ but reused a number of its “animatrons” in the ‘Splash Mountain’ ride. Well, my dear ol’ friend The Countess, who sent me the entire ‘America Sings’ soundtrack on compact disc back in 1998 (I still play it frequently) recently sent me a link to a YouTube video of the entire ‘America Sings’ production. What a joyful surprise to see it again after so many years. This, people, is GREAT “STUFFS” and not to be missed. Sit back and enjoy the fine music and the gentle humor. My favorite segments? The big Gospel number with the small toads singing bass, and ‘Shake, Rattle And Roll’ with another toad – a larger one - again singing the bass part... “OH BAABEEE!” Dig it! ‘America Sings’ – still free of charge.
Link: ‘America Sings’ at YouTube

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

Back Issues:

Forerunner to S. T. & V. R US:
7 Remastered RANDOM THOUGHTS + 1 Previously Unreleased BONUS TRACK And 1 ALTERNATE TAKE.

Friday, January 1, 2010



[Margaritas: Where sobriety goes to die.]

Dogged if I was going to let a January 1st pass by without wishing y’all a . . .


MARGARITA DAY: “A tradition since 1986, except for 1994.”

Hey, I wrote a song for this special day which comes each and every year. The song is called “IT’S MARGARITA DAY” and it’s sung to the tune of “It’s Howdy Doody Time.” The lyrics are not too terribly complicated so you should be able to learn them quickly. Here they iz:

It’s Margarita Day!
It’s Margarita Day!
Hoo-ray! - Hoo-ray! - Hoo-ray!
For Margarita Day.It’s Margarita Day!

It’s Margarita Day!
It's Margarita Day!
Hoo-ray! - Hoo-ray! - Hoo-ray!
For Margarita Day.

Alright, everybody, let’s sing it.
LOUDER! I can’t hear you!

To steal a line from ol’ Ernie ‘Mr. Cub’ Banks: "It's a beautiful day for a margarita... Let's drink two!"

Beginning today, January 1st, 2010, my Blogs can no longer be read free of charge. Readers are now requested to send one dollar per month for the right to read what I’ve written. Or, do consider our Discount Plan in which you pay for the entire year up front and receive a two dollar discount. That’s just $10. for an entire year of information and entertainment. The fee entitles you to read both of my Blogs, ‘Stephen T. McCarthy STUFFS’ and ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’, as often as you like for 365 days. You may return to the Blogs at anytime; it’s an “All You Can Read” buffet for just one dollar a month or ten dollars for the whole year. This is our special Economic Downturn Rate – an unbeatable deal available for a limited time only.


Please send your subscription money to:

Stephen T. McCarthy
P.O. Box 666
Hell, Airheadzona

All subscriptions entered into are final; no refunds can be given (I anticipated your money and have already spent it on Margaritas). Sorry.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy