Toddler Chauffer: A No Shit Video About Driving in China

Article: http://theweek.com/article/index/218909/a-toddler-driving-through-traffic-the-shocking-video

F#ck the Very Rich

Lakota Renounce US Treaties, Declare Independence

What happened to the Lakota Nation? Years have passed, yet it is business as usual for the Feds.

Descendants of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse break away from US

The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us," long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.

A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.

They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free -- provided residents renounce their US citizenship, Means said.

Get the rest of the article here:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Descendants_of_Sitting_Bull_Crazy_Horse_1220.html

The Wefare State: An Essay by James Keye

This article can be viewed at the original source by visiting this link:

http://inteldaily.com/2011/09/the-welfare-state/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+inteldaily%2Ffeeds+%28Inteldaily.com%29


The Welfare State

September 2, 2011

by James Keye

The Self-inflicted Wound Theory of state coddling of the poor, that they are robbed of their self-reliance by handouts, is not entirely incorrect, but only in very selected ways – which will be gotten to. The more important issues have gone, as is often the case, largely unrecognized. If poorer people and the rest of ordinary folk are to be self-reliant, take the bull by the horns and ‘make something of themselves,’ just what is it they are to make? What ‘bull’ is it that they are to take by the horns?

It is obvious that those who make the ‘state coddling’ argument are suggesting that the common person should take a mercantile position; they should look for those entrepreneurial opportunities offered in their communities and exploit them. In this way they are supposed to pull themselves out of poverty or at least climb up a bit from the lower rungs of the ladder, create employment for their fellows and supply goods and services to their neighborhoods and beyond.

There is, however, an important caveat: the entrepreneurial activities must be done by the rules and laws set down by ‘their betters’ and must, therefore, support the superstructure that depends in large part, for its power and wealth, on the common folk remaining powerless and poor. Most business building requires attachment to the banking system, meeting official standards and acceptance by some government authorization process – very often controlled by those already in the relevant businesses. The poor should become self-sufficient, but without actually gaining in the real power to control their own destiny because that would, of necessity, interfere with the elite’s control of their destiny: the poor and the ordinary do the work and the elite do the calculating – in large measure, calculating how to collect to their own uses as much from the work of the poor and ordinary as possible. The poor and ordinary may be encouraged to become entrepreneurial in work from which the elite also gain, but only rarely should they aspire to the calculating classes.

I am reminded of an article from Life Magazine, it must have been in the 1950s. (By way of context, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee had turned America into Paranoid Nation.) I remember being upset by the article, knowing that I was expected to see its protagonist as a hero, but was only able to see him as a man without feeling and a thief. It was supposed to represent the best of Americanism, to wit:

A successful businessman went out to live on the bum. Dressed appropriately, he moved into the hobo ‘towns’ and adopted the hobo life. This was not a story of growing empathy for and comprehension of, primarily, men ‘down on their luck;’ it was the story of ‘hobo makes good’ by applying the principles of self-reliant (anti-communist, thus anti-commons) thinking and practice. Our hero noticed that the hobos left messages, on the equivalent of bulletin boards in the hobo jungles, about where to get handouts and other services. He began to catalogue these messages; he reproduced the messages and began to sell them to the other hobos. I don’t remember the details anymore, but it is not unreasonable that he might have begun to pay small amounts to both collect the information and, subtly, inhibit its free posting.

The upshot was that our hero became hobo-wealthy selling information that was once, admittedly, inconsistent but free. He emerged from hobodom having proven the superiority of capitalism, that you just can’t keep a good capitalist down and that there was something degenerate about those ‘others’ who didn’t seize the opportunity to raise themselves out of their miserable circumstances. I remember seeing only a heartless thief taking information from the commons, hoarding it and selling what was once free. His claims of having improved the lives of the hobos by giving them a superior survival tool seemed nothing more than happy-talk drivel intended for the impressionable masses [1]. There was, at the time, a growing recognition among the elite that the people had to be moved away from the ‘common man’ spirit of the New Deal and WWII; and Life Magazine was doing its bit for the cause.

The great mass of people are not capitalists; they are not hoarders; they are unwilling to ‘buy low and sell high’ when it harms their fellows. A capitalist is some one who has collected wealth sufficiently, most often from the work of others, to use that wealth to gather more wealth by controlling the work of those others. This may be what we have become, but it is not where we began: The human animal is a cooperative species, the distribution of information, goods and services has been an essential survival behavior for the millions of years that our genus as been on the earth. This is our context, this is who we are.

But it can be said that, today, the great mass of people live in a capitalist system which means, referencing the above, that their world is controlled by capitalists. It is also true that the barriers to wealth are or have been lowered in capitalist systems for those who are willing, like the capitalist hobo, to violate human principles of cooperative life. And so, our underlying habits of interaction have been under great pressure for a long time.

It is becoming clear: the bull that is to be taken by the horns is our human collectivist nature, our cooperative spirit. Self-reliance is to be self-promotion over, rather than in support of, others. We are to make something new of ourselves; we are to make someone who sees other people’s work as a source from which to extract some gain; we are to see other people as consumers of information, goods or services that we have brought, using inventiveness, stealth, the laws or raw force, under our control. We are to see other human beings as a resource to be used for our own advantage.

Michael Dawson, proprietor of The Consumer Trap web site has been documenting this transition from human being to capitalist. Rather than attempt to replicate his good works, go there for multiple examples of this process in action. My concern is the process and its toll on both those people who are unable to fight off their species humanity and those who can.

The myriad forces that have moved us to our present madness include all the usual suspects: the various forms and distortions of competition created by the direct and indirect consequences of population increase; the qualities and quantities of power available to individuals and small groups allowed by technological developments; the special influence on the human peculiarity, consciousness order, by communication technology; the sheer magnitude of the abundance of which human collective action is capable, and the depths of deprivation we are willing to allow (or force) others to descend into.

The great mass of people feel these pressures as disconcerting currents and eddies as they ply their way in life traveling with the humanity that still remains in our communities and our cells. But the allure of abundance, the distortions of competition, the outsized powers of communication and direct force, all in a world of millions and billions of people, are taken up by a small percentage of people who are not as well formed as most, who give up the birthright of species humanity.

In a sane world the antisocial rich would be ostracized if they could not be persuaded to rejoin common society. The central value would be the wellbeing of community, not the accumulation of material goods for private and often damaging uses. The entire sophistry built to justify and glorify self-interest, material accumulation and antisocial behavior is deeply dishonest and flies in the face of the several million years of the development of instinctual intuitions and social habits of our genus.

The bright and shiny attract us to be sure, and the ease and the power to do just as we wish when we wish. But most of us outgrow such infantile motivations and become more farsighted and community oriented. The best and the brightest of us become good human beings just as one might expect. Jack Welch, Angela Braley, Hank Paulson, Herbert Fritch and some thousands of others like them are not the best and the brightest; their salient quality is the willingness to ignore their humanity and the value of life for immediate personal gain [2]. Such behaviors that we would not allow at table are glorified as exemplary – how crazy is that? “Isn’t is wonderful that Johnny is stealing food from his little brother? He is so talented!”

And so, with this context we return to the “coddled” poor. First and foremost, the accumulations of the rich are really the accumulations allowed by community order and infrastructure, created by the community as a whole from the community commons; the wealthy are the beneficiaries of prior human achievement and the willing and unwilling contributions of their contemporaries. That they have contrived ways to exclude a great many from the sharing in the abundance generated from the multitudes is their only real achievement. Payments to the poor are, in most cases, a government enforced sharing of what should have been theirs in the first place. The real question is not ‘should it be done’, but how best to fix a broken system in ways that cause as little distortion of natural human economics as possible.

An obvious solution would be for the social standard, enforced by the righteous indignation of the masses, to be that no one have a wealth accumulation in excess of about 3 to 10 times (the figure needs to be researched for efficacy) the average wealth of the poorest 20%. Such a political and economic condition would have to be come to by a variety of routes, political, social and revolutionary, and I am not suggesting that it would be easy or even possible. This is not a solution to our present issues, though it remains in my mind as a most effective eventual state that would contribute positively to many of our difficulties.

Once it is fully realized that the wealthy, even those with social responsibility, have acquired their abundance by fraudulently taking from the efforts of a great many and, without proper compensation, from an environment which ‘belongs’ to all life, then the question is not whether to have a welfare state, but how to organize a state in which the contributions of all the citizens are appreciated and compensated. This will be the topic of the next essay.

[1] It should be noted that there is an “ecology” to the sources of help. The distribution of information would adapt to the rates at which the help could be delivered. Spreading the information widely and rapidly would shift the patterns of attempted use and thus availability. While our hero may have ‘enriched’ himself, it was almost certainly done with some level of destruction to the informal delivery systems that helped out these men. But, when the goal is to exploit an opportunity, the consequences of the exploitation only create more opportunities; how lives are affected is not an important issue and only given lip-service.

[2] Just a few of the ‘billion dollar’ CEOs and related types. Google “highest paid CEOs” or some similar search to become really annoyed.

James Keye is the nom de plume of a biologist and psychologist who after discovering a mismatch between academe and himself went into private business for many years. His whole post-pubescent life has been focused on understanding at both the intellectual and personal levels what it is to be of the human species; he claims some success. Email him at:jkeye1632@gmail.com, or visit James’s website.

Also see:

Economic Bill of Rights (with video)

Perverts: An Educational Video

Nudge

Working on a big surprise guys. Should have it ready for you in a week or so.

Why Libya? Why Now?

A decade ago, there were only a handful of nations left on the planet that did not have a central bank dominated by the Rothschild family. Iraq was on that short list, and Saddam Hussein was promptly eliminated when he decided to drop the American dollar as the currency for which to purchase Iraqi oil. Also on this short list are Cuba, and North Korea. Up until just recently now, Sudan, and Libya rounded out that short list. Maybe now it will make a little more sense to you, what is behind our latest adventure, and that of the globalist United Nations along with their NATO military arm. This is the New World Order folks, make no mistake. This is the end game.

Why are we in Libya?

Ten Years After 9/11, US Supports Al-Qaeda in Libya

Ten Years After 9/11, US Supports Al-Qaeda in Libya

Libya: Libyan Rebels Are CIA Funded, al Qaeda Connected Murderers

This so called liberation of Libya is the EXACT opposite of what the corporate media is actually reporting.

Gaddafi's fall might allow al-Qaeda affiliates take over southern Libya: Analysts

The fall of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi might see the al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic terrorist groups filling up the void, US analysts have said.

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

Top Libyan Rebel Leader Has Deep Al Qaeda Ties

Abdel Hakim Belhadj, who leads the rebel forces in Tripoli, was a founder of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and is believed to have been close to bloodthirsty head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

EDIT (9/3/11) to add:

"Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989)." -USC § 2339B. Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

Libyan Islamist Fighting Group, or LIFG (anti-Qadaffy forces)are listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department...

...This same faction is responsible for contributing more foreign fighters than any other country, to fight against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan...

...according to a study by West Point USMA.

Katt Williams and the Mexican Heckler

Did Katt take it too far? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

Selective Attention Test

And now you have a clue why...

Texting and Driving Worse Than DWI

Women More Likely to Abuse, Study Says

Women more likely to be perpetrators of abuse as well as victims

Women are more likely than men to stalk, attack and psychologically abuse their partners, according to a University of Florida study that finds college women have a new view of the dating scene.


“We’re seeing women in relationships acting differently nowadays than we have in the past,” said Angela Gover, a UF criminologist who led the research. “The nature of criminality has been changing for females, and this change is reflected in intimate relationships as well.”


In a survey of 2,500 students at UF and the University of South Carolina between August and December 2005, more than a quarter (29 percent) reported physically assaulting their dates and 22 percent reported being the victims of attacks during the past year. Thirty-two percent of women reported being the perpetrators of this violence, compared with 24 percent of men. The students took selected liberal arts and sciences courses. Forty percent were men and 60 percent were women, reflecting the gender composition of these classes.


In a separate survey of 1,490 UF students, one quarter (25 percent) said they had been stalked during the past year and 7 percent reported engaging in stalking, of whom a majority (58 percent) were female.


Although women were the predominant abusers, they still made up the largest number of victims in both surveys, accounting for 70 percent of those being stalked, for example.


The reason more college men weren’t victims may be that women in the study did not exclusively date them, preferring men who had already graduated, not yet enrolled in college or chose not to attend college at all, Gover said. “It shows that students who are perpetrating these attacks aren’t just targeting other students on campus,” she said.


It also is possible that some of the physical attacks women claim they are responsible for are actually acts of self-defense, Gover added. “Maybe some of these women have been abused by their partner for some time and they’re finally fighting back,” she said.


Recent studies on domestic violence suggest that whereas in the past victims might have felt trapped in violent situations, today’s women are more likely to understand they have options instead of putting up with mistreatment, she said.


“I think we may also be seeing sort of a new dynamic in dating relationships in terms of women feeling more empowered,” she said. “They recognize they don’t have to be in a dating relationship forever. They can get out of it.”


Child abuse was the single biggest determining factor for men and women becoming perpetrators or victims of either dating violence or stalking, Gover said. Even if one never personally experienced abuse, witnessing violence between one’s parents as a child increased the likelihood of stalking or being stalked as a young adult and it made girls more susceptible to becoming victims of dating violence when they grew up, she said.


The survey found that men and women who were abused as children were 43 percent more likely than their peers who were not mistreated to perpetrate physical violence and 51 percent more likely to be victims of physical violence in a dating relationship. Violent acts included kicking or slapping, pushing or shoving, punching or hitting with a hand or object, slamming someone against a wall and using force to make a partner have sex, she said.


Sexual risk-taking – the age when survey respondents first had sex and the number of sexual partners in their lifetime – was another important risk factor, but surprisingly, attitudes toward women made no difference, said Gover, who did her research with Catherine Kaukinen, a University of South Carolina criminology professor, and Kathleen Fox, a UF graduate student in criminology. Some of the findings were presented at the American Society of Criminology annual meeting in November in Toronto.


The study also was among the first to look at psychological abuse. Examples included preventing partners from seeing family or friends, shouting at them and using threats to have sex. Fifty-four percent of respondents reported being psychologically abusive, and 52 percent said they were victims of this type of behavior. Women were more likely to be psychologically abusive, with 57 percent saying they were perpetrators versus 50 percent of males.


Shelley Serdahely, executive director of Men Stopping Violence, in Decatur, Ga., questions the validity of studies showing women are more violent. “Women might be more likely to get frustrated because men are not taught how to be active listeners and women feel like they are not being heard,” she said. “Often women are more emotional because the relationship matters a lot to them, and while that may come out in a push or a shove or a grab, all of which are considered dating violence, it doesn’t have the effect of intimidating the man.”


Source: University of Florida


http://www.physorg.com/news72113800.html

Modern Feminist Narcissism and the Sperm Bank

This article used by permission. Read more from Marselus Van Wagner.

Modern Feminist Narcissism and the Sperm Bank

There is far too much to cover in one article regarding the modern feminist movement as it pertains to social engineering, the degeneration of the family unit, and many of the ills we see today in modern society. Suffice to say though, that the movement as a whole has been a great disservice to humanity, and even to women in particular. Fatherless children is only one aspect of a much, much larger agenda, and in this piece we will be narrowing the view even further to focus specifically on women who deliberately become pregnant by anonymous sperm donors. But just to be clear, when we speak here on “modern feminism” we are not speaking about all women, or against any women, but against the socio-political agenda of the feminist movement that has actually done a great disservice to women and society as a whole.

Today, political correctness dictates that we are supposed to accept fatherless children as a sort of “new normal,” in direct contradiction to the laws of nature. We fancy ourselves gods, who can re-write the laws of nature on a whim, whenever we feel like it, and then act as if there will be no consequences for turning the natural order of things upside down. Children are meant to have a mother and a father. One can argue that point all day long in the interests of their modernist socio-political agenda, but the fact remains that our species, like so many others, reproduces sexually with both a male and female contribution of chromosomes. Balanced children will grow from the guidance and nurturing of both a man and a woman. Of course, there is tragedy in the world. One parent or another may be lost in some tragic accident, a war perhaps. But how do we suddenly make the jump to accept as normal, even preferable, what was once only the result of tragedy? The answer is simple. Narcissism. Unbalanced narcissism. The “I want what I want, and you can’t tell me no” mentality of our modern society, which is just as much a product of modern feminism as women wearing blue jeans. (Not that women in blue jeans is a bad thing of course.) Putting aside now the high rate of children raised by divorced parents, or born of unwed and unprotected sexual liaisons, we will maintain our focus here on the microcosm of clinical sperm donation. Of course, what we see here can be applied to the larger social arena as well, but unclouded by the arguments that often derail debate on the genuine core issues as the “blame” is tossed back and forth ad nauseum. When a woman chooses to impregnate herself clinically with anonymously donated sperm, then clearly there is no ambiguity when it comes to the responsibility of the pregnancy.

Now, there are a number of reasons why a woman might want to employ the services of a fertilization clinic. This article is not meant to be taken as some sort of assault on science, only to call into question the moral basis, or lack thereof, for certain applications. As with any knowledge, just because we can do something does not necessarily mean we should. So we will not question here in this piece when a clinic might assist a happy and stable heterosexual couple in joining their natural egg and seed. We will also put aside the debate as it pertains to deceased partners. The focus here is on when a woman solicits an anonymous sperm donor. In some cases, it might be that her mate is sterile, that the man in the couple does not have sufficient viable sperm to initiate a pregnancy. In other cases, the woman’s mate may be another woman, and therefore obviously, her sexual partner cannot provide the necessary component to initiate a pregnancy. In other cases still, the woman may be alone, for one reason or another, perhaps coming toward the end of her own natural viability as a mother and anxious to partake of the gift of life.

At first glance, these reasons seem, well, reasonable. It’s natural for women to want to be mothers after all. But wanting something does not necessarily mean it’s the right thing to do. One might really want to go out and buy a particular house, but it might not be such a good idea if you can’t actually afford it, or if the house happens to be in a very bad part of town. So let us look a little more closely at what is really at stake here. To see if the “wants” or perceived needs really outweigh the potential for negative consequences.

With a single woman who has not been able to secure a stable relationship with a man, we can chalk it up to a bad luck of the draw, perhaps. Random odds that sometimes go against emotional fulfillment. For one reason or another, every male suitor turned out to be not so suited. But we could also look at the woman herself. Perhaps the men she met were not so much the problem. It is just as likely that she herself was the problem. The product of this modern feminist agenda. It is little surprise that a woman who goes through life with an “I don’t need no man, I can do it all myself” sort of attitude, will in fact wind up by herself, without a man. A cold desert for a woman to be lost in no doubt. Caught between hating men for not meeting the undefined ideal of a perverted feminist agenda, and not fulfilling her own natural identity as a woman. Of course, some women don’t just wind up in that spot, but choose to, usually because of a career. But in either case, is such a woman really the ideal candidate for motherhood? A woman too busy with other obligations that she has no time to make a secure emotional investment in a man, yet somehow expects to have enough time to fill the role of both parents, with all the love, nurturing, and guidance that a child should receive? Or a woman so emotionally unstable, lacking in dedication, or of such abrasive personality that she has been unable to maintain a caring relationship with a man? This is not meant presume to dictate a woman’s choices or personality of course, only to examine whether or not they are really ideal candidates for voluntary and deliberate single-motherhood. It seems there is a high probability that a child is more of an object or a prize to fill a void created by their own selfishness and lack of fortitude. Just because a woman can bear a child, does not mean that she will make a good mother. A woman who, for whatever her reasons, cannot maintain an enduring stable relationship with a grown man is hardly an ideal candidate to maintain a balanced and stable home for a child over the course of eighteen years, much less a lifetime of devotion that a good parent will often commit to.

We also see lesbian couples who often seek out sperm donors so that they may become same-sex parents. This obviously flies in the face of any natural sense of parenthood, social constructs aside. Once again, this is not to denigrate a woman’s personal choices in any way, and we will leave the common debates regarding the morality of homosexuality at the door. Instead, we might conclude that homosexuality does indeed play into the natural order of things, just not natural parenthood. That homosexuality is a natural mechanism to prevent the overpopulation of our species. That folks like homosexuals and others who are unable to maintain a heterosexual relationship are the gatekeepers who are destined to cease the perpetuation of inherited natural traits that nature sees fit to extinguish as we evolve. If homosexuality is a choice by nature, and not the choice of the individual, then clearly it is also nature’s choice that a homosexual not bear children. If it were otherwise, we would all be androgynous beings reproducing asexually. So clearly here we have a natural inhibitor preventing lesbians from becoming mothers. (No inference should be made here that homosexuality itself is necessarily an inherited trait, nor that it is destined to become, or should be, eliminated through natural selection.) There are also strong social complications that will distress a child as it grows up in a household with same-sex parents. First, confusion no doubt as to the natural order of things on a biological level, and a need for explicit sexual education from a very young age. There is also the outside social influences that will complicate matters, right or wrong. Even if one sees homosexual parenthood as morally acceptable, a good parent would never bring a child into the world to be used a pawn to enforce their socio-political views and willingly subject a child to undue hardship. So in that respect, we again see the “I want what I want” attitude rear its head, at the expense of the child, regardless of what either nature or society have to say about it. As politically incorrect as it may sound, homosexual couples are not ideal candidates for parenthood any more than a one-armed man is an ideal candidate for the NY Yankees.

A third reason for a woman to seek out a clinical sperm donation is in a case where a woman’s male mate might not be able to produce his own viable seed. Again, it seems fairly reasonable at first glance. Of course, we have the natural selection argument here again though. That there are natural population inhibitors that we may be violating to allow this sort of procedure to go forward. But at least we see a greater potential for a stable home and upbringing in the traditional sense. Yet digging in a little deeper, we find not only the potential for serious problems, but the sort of problems that have actually occurred. A case outlined in a recent Associated Press article that you will find linked below, told of how a young woman of 20 years old suddenly found out that the father who had raised her had been infertile, and that her biological father was an anonymous sperm donor. The truth of the matter was revealed by her mother just as she was divorcing the man who raised the young woman as his own. So here we really get to see the ugly side of modern feminism, and surely this is happening more often than we will find in a news article. Here this woman used this man to be the father to a child that was not biologically his, and all of the financial support that went along with that no doubt. When she was done with the man, just as the child was grown, she divorced him and then she went ahead and severed the bond between him and the daughter whom he had raised. An act so narcissistic that her own need to be cruel toward the man she was now leaving outweighed the well-being of the daughter she had seen fit to lie to for 20 years. Was it really worth it?

Not according to Lindsay Greenawalt, the product of a donor conception, who wrote in her blog, “If I had to choose between being conceived with half of my identity and half of my kinship deliberately denied from me for eternity — or never being born — I'd choose never being born. We were created to carry a loss. A loss that no human being should have to endure.” Barked at by egotistical sorts, these children are often told to be grateful that they are alive, as if this heartache that their mothers cursed upon them was really some gift to be cherished. More twisted sense of reality brought to us by modern feminism and the notion that women can do whatever they want without consequences, and that the world should be grateful for their mere presence. Recent studies have shown that children conceived in such a manner are more troubled and depressed than their peers as they become young adults. But rather than questioning the practice, news articles and study groups instead point to the anonymity of the donors as the source of the problem, not the fact that these women chose this themselves!

The media is doing a bang-up job of ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room too, by deflecting, spinning, and emotionalizing the topic to suit the feminist agenda. We see articles like the one from the AP mentioned earlier, titled, “Sperm-donors’ kids seek more rights and respect.” Respect? Is there some sense of entitlement here, that they are somehow due more respect than any other child? That now society must make special allowances for the choices of a mother who also was filled with some self-centered sense of entitlement? Rights? What rights? This was the conscious and deliberate choice of their mothers. The child has no rights, or say in the matter, any more then if the mother was a Preying Mantis who slew the father post-copulation. And what of the rights of a donor who never had any intention of being anything more than an anonymous donor of chromosomes? Well, we have Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker to spin that angle saying, “The adult voices of donor offspring are a welcome counterbalance to an array of cultural forces aimed at further marginalizing fathers.” So somehow we are supposed to believe that reneging on or undermining anonymity contracts is not actually marginalizing the rights of these men? How about giving some rights to men paying hundreds, even thousands of dollars a month to kids they are never allowed to see? This society is so twisted and turned upside down that men who want to be fathers aren’t allowed to be, but those who don’t want to be, will be forced to, as if it were a favor to them, and that they should be grateful.

Here is a link to the AP article as it appeared on FOX News:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/08/16/sperm-donors-kids-seek-rights-respect/


Now clearly we see that the real problem here rests with the practice of actually becoming pregnant through this method, not the fact that the donors wish to remain anonymous. To say any different would be to apply the sort of logic where you might blame the electric company for the fact that you stuck a fork in the socket and got burned. So why then the assault on the rights of the men, the donors, rather than on the practice by women of using those services? Well, the “it’s for the children” excuse will pull at the heartstrings of many Liberals, so now we need something to offend the Conservatives. How about brother and sister accidentally marrying each other because anonymity prevented them from researching their background? Well there were a few cases like that in the news in the past few years.

Here’s a case reported by the BBC where twins who were adopted separately wound up finding any marrying each other after they were grown, not knowing that they were actually siblings, and then were forced to have their marriage annulled:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7182817.stm

Now of course, the odds of such cases happening aren’t all that great, but that sort of thing is indeed possible, and even more possible when it comes to half-siblings or cousins as well. But even more pressing might be the need for medical information. The “right” of a child, or a child since grown to adulthood to have medical information of their biological paternal lineage. In fact, in some cases it could be seen as necessary to save a life, or to treat a debilitating disease.

These are all risks that the mother should consider before going ahead with this sort of pregnancy. There are so many risks, so many negative points to how it will affect the child, why would any reasonable woman actually go ahead with this sort of thing? The answer, a reasonable woman wouldn’t. Not generally speaking anyhow. There may be some exceptions of course, there always are, and many of these woman cannot be seen as downright bad mothers. But we are talking about the ideal here. What is really in the best interest of these children, and of society. Bringing a child into the world knowing full well that you are doing so deliberately putting them ad a disadvantage right from the start is not the sign of good responsible parent. That is the sign of a lonely, self-centered woman who puts her own needs before anyone else’s, including their own child. But rather than acknowledging that clear and simple premise, we have this convoluted campaign to shift responsibility back onto men and onto society for the deliberate choices made by these women.

Women who, by the way, are told that their choices are perfectly normal, so it’s not that we can really blame them either. Women are raised to believe that their actions have no consequences, that they can do as they please, while men and society pick up the tab and try to make the world a more comfortable place for them. This is where we see that the modern feminist movement is actually doing a great disservice to women, in the same way that a parent might spoil a child and let them run wild. One day, the child, or the women in this case, will have to pay the piper so to speak. For some women it may be the heartache of realizing just how much suffering they have actually condemned their child too by bringing them into the world without a father. For others, it will be an open assault against an inflated ego, when their child is not grateful at all to have been brought into this world. It’s no wonder women are more bitter and unhappy than ever before. They are trapped in a web of deceit. The modern feminist movement is no friend to them, it is an agenda put upon society, using women as pawns, for the shadowy figures who engineer the face of society to their own nefarious ends.

End like profiteering from misery. Think of all the dollars that could be had by stripping away donor anonymity. The lawyers could wind up having a field day with donors who might not have disclosed a family history of some affliction, or who hid certain facts about themselves which they refused to disclose. And now we have our “ah-ha!” moment. We start to get a glimmer of the real reasons why there is suddenly an assault on the anonymity of sperm donors. The lawyers are salivating at the chance to muck around in this sort of misery. The women and the offspring will be used as pawns as always, the face of irrational emotional appeal, but nevertheless quick to jump on that bandwagon when they are told that it is their “right” to demand compensation from the man. And the state? Will the state step in to stop such injustice? Absolutely not. They stand to profit from taxation, court fees, child-support processing, and will even be able to squeeze profits out of these matters that are found to be “criminal.” Already there have been cases in the news in the past few years where men were forced to pay support for children that were the product of in-vitro fertilization, for example.

Here’s an article from over three years ago that outlines some rather unjust rulings against sperm donors:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2883/can-a-sperm-donor-be-forced-to-pay-child-support

After having read this piece, perhaps some have been inspired to exercise more critical thinking rather than simply going along with what is easiest, or politically correct. Truth is the enemy of these spin-pages in the mainstream news and the agendas which they are well paid to support. Perhaps you found yourself offended at some points reading this piece. Good, that means you actually stopped to think rather then just listening to the drone of propaganda and everyone patting each other on the back while society is torn asunder. If we were to take the AP article mentioned up above at face value, me might have concluded that donor anonymity is a social scourge, and that men should be appreciative to have their rights undermined. The suffering of the children is very real, but that emotional appeal is misplaced in calling for an end to donor anonymity, rather than an end to the practice of donor pregnancies right from the start. This is all just setting the stage for precedents that will be set in the coming years, as nationalized healthcare and the legal system ramp-up the genetic mapping of society through DNA identification. Privacy is of no concern to the powers that be, and there is in fact a concerted effort to do away with the last few vestiges of it that we have.

For further reading on those concerns you may enjoy reading other articles posted at the MSMReview:

Electronic Surveillance of Your Fat

L.A. Touts Serial Killer Arrest to Quash Civil Liberty Concerns

Technology and Police Hypocrisy

6 Gender Stereotypes Exposed at Cracked.Com

6 Things Everyone Knows About Women (That Aren't True)

We previously pointed out how some crude, absurd gender stereotypes are in fact proven true by science. But, in the interest of not letting 60s sitcoms have the last word on the differences between men and women, we should point out how many things "everyone knows" about women just plain aren't true, according to science. Like...

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_18760_6-things-everyone-knows-about-women-that-arent-true.html

Reaction to Women Abusing Men in Public (video)

Programming Your Kids: The Coloring Book of Terror

(WXYZ) - On the brink of the 10th anniversary of September 11th a new children's 'graphic coloring novel' has emerged.

We want to know; is it appropriate for kids?

According to the publisher, the book entitled 'We Shall Never Forget 9/11 -- The Kids' Book of Freedom' is "designed to be a tool that parents can use to help teach children about the facts surrounding 9/11."

The book opens on September 11, 2011 with a picture of Osama Bin Laden as he plots the US attacks. It ends nearly 10 years later with the raid of Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound and his death.

Several pages show both American military and Muslims with guns. The final page of the story shows a bullet flying toward Bin Laden before his death.

Publishers say the book 'demonstrates honesty, reverence, integrity and good character,' with 'a historic and educational perspective.'

7 Action News showed the coloring book to the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic relations. He calls the book disgusting because it portrays all Muslims as radicals when indeed American Muslims had nothing to do with 9-11 and they were victims as well as first responders that day.

"This publisher is doing a disservice to innocent young minds by showing this type of nonsense. In every single reference to Muslims has to do with radical, extremists, and depictions of people being terrorists," said Dawud Walid.

Spokesperson for the publisher, Wayne Bell, released a statement to Action News about the use of Osama Bin Laden and said:

"Because they see the man, Osama Bin Laden, get shot in black and white, that provides closure for them."

'Taliban Hunting Club' Banned

Banned: 'Taliban Hunting Club' badges worn by UK troops in Afghanistan

British soldiers in Afghanistan have been banned from wearing skull-and-crossbones badges on their uniforms that declare ‘Death To The Taliban’ and proclaim membership of a ‘Taliban Hunting Club’.

The unofficial stick-on badges are now a cult accessory among British troops fighting Taliban insurgents.

But senior Army officers visiting Helmand province in southern Afghanistan – where most UK troops are based – have ordered them to be removed because they are deemed ‘politically insensitive’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030876/Afghanistan-Taliban-Hunting-Club-badges-worn-UK-troops-banned.html#ixzz1WSyuTAAG

Okay, I tend to be a little anti-government, anti-war, I think 9/11 is a fraud and all that... but WTF? They are going to deny these guys from wearing a stupid patch? A patch that no doubt increases morale and camaraderie among fighting people ordered to do the unthinkable, day after day. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene!" -Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, Apocalypse Now

Custom Vaginas are the New Trend

The rise of designer vaginas: study reveals disturbing new trend


Is there such a thing as the perfect vagina? According to a new study, more women than ever believe there is and they'll go to extreme measures to get it. Vaginal rejuvenation surgery has skyrocketed in popularity in the past few years. But the scarier fact to emerge from the study published in The British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology this week, is that most patients primed for surgery were anatomically "normal".


"It is surprising that all of the study participants had normal sized labia minora and despite this nearly half were still keen to pursue surgery as an option," writes the study's author Dr. Sarah Creighton, of the University College London Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute of Women's Health.


Patients in the study averaged in age around 23, while one patient was referred by her GP for the surgery, at the age of 11. For the most part, the issue isn't incontinence, post-pregnancy tearing or another uncomfortable medical problem, it's purely cosmetic. Women with technically healthy, diametrically status quo vaginas are finding flaws.
Overall, it seems the surgical improvements go in the opposite direction of breast enhancements. Women want less, rather than more. Smaller labias, less pubic hair, shrunken clitoral hoods.


Read more: http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/the-rise-of-designer-vaginas-study-reveals-disturbing-new-trend-2533165/

I dunno about the rest of you guys, but I like vaginas with personality. There is no "perfect" vagine, or chest rack either for that matter. Unless you have a really disturbing appendage or something, I would advise the ladies to NOT go this route. I can buy the perfect doll at the pron shop. Who the hell wants to open up the same package every Christmas anyway? (Unless of course it was the one you really, really always wanted.)

And not to get too graphic here, but despite the trend, I like some 70's bush and big lips lol.

Funny Joke from Predator from dawg on Vimeo.

Single Dad Forced to Abandon 11-Year Old as Banks Foreclose

Eleven-year-old Sebastian Cross woke up July 18 to find his dad gone.

Left behind were two notes.

In the first, his father, Steven Alexander Cross, said there were no jobs for architects in the current economy. It went on to say their Lakeville home was in foreclosure and they would be evicted the following week.

Cross instructed Sebastian in the note to take his PlayStation and go to a neighbor's house.

The second note asks the neighbors to take care of his son.

"If this paper is wet, it's because I am crying so bad," the father wrote to the boy. "You know your dad loves you more than anything."

Authorities have issued an arrest warrant for Cross, 60, who was charged this month with a gross misdemeanor of child neglect, according to a Dakota County criminal complaint.

Sebastian is in the custody of Dakota County Child Protection, said County Attorney James Backstrom. He is living with a foster family but soon will be placed permanently with a relative.

"For a parent to abandon a child under these circumstances - it is both unusual and disturbing," Backstrom said.

Cross' last known whereabouts were in California, but officials have been unable to locate him.

On Thursday, his two-story home was vacant. Foreclosure signs on the front door said the house is under new ownership and told where to go to collect any items left behind. A bank bought the home Jan. 25 for $336,925, according to county records.

Read more: http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_18760371?source=rss

Unusual and disturbing there eh Mr. Lawyer who apparently has a fuckin' job. Better get used to this trend folks. And here they are going to charge this man with a crime, as if he wanted to lose his house and his son. This country makes me fekkin sick.

UFO's Over Bronx NY, Night Before Irene Strikes (multiple witness vids)

Two Yogurts and a Diaper Please

Gotta give him credit for creativity.

Owner put naked yogurt-store employee inside box, D.A. says


A Monterey Park yogurt shop owner is facing kidnapping and attempted murder charges for abducting a female employee and keeping her inside a box in a soundproof room, prosecutors said Friday.


Robert Yachen Lee alleged lured the employee to a storage room above O My Yogurt on south Atlantic Boulevard early Wednesday, knocked her unconscious and then -- after removing her clothing and dressing her in an adult diaper -- placed her in a box, authorities said.


The victim told authorities that when she came to, she was bound with tape and had a collar around her neck.


Prosecutors believe Lee planned the kidnapping, because the storage room had recently been soundproofed.


The woman was able to free herself and escape to a nearby optometrist's office, where she alerted police.


Lee appeared briefly in Alhambra Superior Court on Friday afternoon. Bail was set at $10 million.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/08/yogurt-store-owner-kidnaps-female-worker-and-keeps-her-up-in-soundproof-room.html

Local Storm Damage

When I went to bed last night, well early this morning, I thought we dodged the worst of it. I even slept with my window open. When I woke up, I saw that it had even stopped raining. Then I looked out in the yard. FLOOD.

As it turns out, flooding is pretty bad here locally. Many roads not only underwater, but destroyed. Many folks have had to leave their homes, others can't get out without a raft and have had to call for help. Local 911 is inundated with calls from people trapped in their homes and cars and the calls keep pouring in. Just heard another call of 8 people trapped in a house. 

I was going to put together an album of local photos, but I am having some technical problems and the power is jacking around on me, so I will post a few submitted by a friend of mine here, and link you to the Facbook page where locals have been posting pics of what really does appear to be a disaster now.

Some more rain is falling now, and now we are finally getting hit with the winds. A limb just cracked and came down as I am typing this. Looks like we might be in for a long night here in Dutchess County NY.

Thanks for the pics Jason...

FACEBOOK STORM PAGE