First of all, women are very interesting creations on Earth, they can do a lot of things such as inventing unreal stories, blaming employers of the companies for being late, complaining about their families etc. Of course, at work nobody needs it. Lets face it, women are the problems themselves. They don’t do what they are supposed to do at workplace, they always have an excuse for everything. Who wants workers like that?

Surely, gender discrimination will have place. For example, one of my co-workers at JC Penney at Brea is a woman and all the time when I see her she is eating. Even though she knows that it is forbidden for employees to eat during the work time she still does eat. The company talk to her 7 times already and nothing have changed, I’m sure they will fire her soon. And they will be right! According to the web personal interview, “Women are the workers who need to become more responsible for their work at workplace.”Of course the author has a point , if women can be responsible at home, they also can be responsible at work, but lots of times by many reasons they don’t pay attention at work as much as they should do. And men found a solution through discrimination. Good job!
Secondly, women are fighters from the beginning and they talk too much. It is easier for them to fight with emotions while solve the problem wisely and calm. This is also a big women negative characteristic which also leads to gender discrimination. Men don’t want to fight they like explanations and employers also need an explanation verse then emotions and overactive actions. For example, the boss at JC Penney where I work would listen better men’s opinion rather then women.According to documentaries facts by Sharapov,“Believe it or not but because of women temper and their worrier beginning they get paid less.” It means that women themselves are provocateur of discrimination.

Moreover a friend of ladies is exaggeration. There is no way women can work without it. And after all they complain that there are little wages, that there are “bad” bosses, that they are all are discriminated, poor women.
Thirdly, sometimes employers afraid of women because a lot of them sue the companies for many different reasons which they easily can find. Of course, it is better for companies to stay away from women then to get in trouble. Maybe it will sound wearied but in the company I work there are more men then women. But this is only the mall where there is mostly sales job. How about banks, big business companies, aerospace industry, scientific jobs? According to statistics of New York Times, in all kinds of job’ industries usually work more men then women. And it is understandable, why? Because women are irresponsible at workplace, they think about their lives first then the jobs, they sometimes ignore their bosses’ comments about work because it is more important for them to do their little things. And if the bosses are not happy, that’s fine. They are ready to sue them and they are not afraid to go through court routine just to prove that they are victims and the bosses are the bad ones who, for example, do practice gender discrimination at workplace. That is it. The company is bankrupts.
In conclusion, women are the reason of gender discrimination. They are very impulsive, emotional, snaky. They are always ready to attack. They will never lose an opportunity to do what they want, not what the companies want. That is why employers are very careful with women, they try to show different way that women are not into work, they more into life, into their families. Of course, I believe that women are the one who created discrimination and they are the one who can minimize it. Of course, people will never be able to get rid of discrimination. Are women ready to say good-bye their temper, their female character? I don’t think so. Women were created like that already and they will die like that. Maybe men will change?

How can you make that in internet? With the help of your dating profile, of course!
So, you are here, on this page, because you decided that you deserve the better life. Better wife, lover or friend. That decision is only a half of success. Another half – is your dating profile, attractive for the people of the opposite sex and catching, the profile that’s stands out from the crowd. You want one like this? I’ll show you how.
You want to meet a lady of your dreams, find a good friend, chatter or sexy lover? Then spare some time on your profile. Take as much as you need to build it smart, there is no need to rush. Read everything carefully, think first – and then write. Please, write grammatically and skillfully. Check better your spelling. It will show you as a knowledgeable and competent person.
It is very important to tell all the truth about yourself. Not to be confused or catched you liying. The person you may deceive will break off the acquaintance for good. Give as much information as you can. But, be honest, you will get great dates just being yourself.
In the private section, try to write more then just a couple of sentences. Relate about your personal likes and dislikes, hobbies, time spending, more about preferences in relations, woman, friendship.
You are selling your personality. So, be positive about yourself. Be more specific, so you can create an interest in you. Remember that potential dating partners are reading this information to get a feel of whether or not the two of you might like and fits each other. It’s very important for both of you!
Another good rule – is to have a clear, attractive, eye-catching picture or no picture at all! As part of your profile, the photo is one of the most important sections. If you decide not to upload a photo, again you will not be taken seriously.
Photo is very important. Please, don’t post a picture of yourself that is usual or routine. It’s not interesting or catching!
Ask a friend or relative to make a good one and make it your trademark. Posted other pictures as well, make a gallery. On the picture you should be attractive, sympathetic; you need to show your dignity and innodividuality. And of course, it should be your photo. Say no to Brad Pit’s magazine pictures. Be yourself!
When youre reading someones profile, how important would it be to see a photo of that person? Just think about it.
So, now you knew all about profile and how to make it attractive. You have all the facilities to make it so! Don’t be lazy; spend some time for a good result. Because the aim of all that competition – is happy you. Happy in love, friendship or a great sex!

The old media are in critical condition.
Newsweek writers Michael Isikoff and John Barry reported that American military personnel at Guantanamo Bay had flushed the Muslim world’s holiest book, the Quran, down the toilet – a report that led to blistering condemnations and a call for a holy war in the Arab world, violent anti-American protests in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, et al., and 17 deaths and over 100 injuries so far.

Mark Whitaker, the magazine’s editor, wrote in a follow-up issue that he regretted “we got any part of our story wrong,” but not that his magazine had been caught spreading lies, distortions and anti-American propaganda in a story that was based on a solitary anonymous source.

Reuters reported that the magazine’s managing editor, Jon Meacham, responded to the expose by saying, incredibly: “This was reported very carefully, with great sensitivity and concern, and we’ll continue to report on it.”

Right. Newsweek’s definition of “very” careful reporting is an untrue story that was investigated with no care at all, and its definition of “sensitive” is a story that savages the American military and inflames an already incendiary part of the world.

Meacham went on to say that in terms of the bogus story, “we leave it to the readers to judge us.”

Right again. The American public is judging Newsweek, just as it has judged – and condemned – other leftist outlets in the old media and found them not credible, not trustworthy, not fair, not balanced, not relevant.

Undisguised Partisanship

The president of the Media Research Center and founder of Cybercast News Service, Brent Bozell, said, “Newsweek is guilty of pushing a false story they knew was unconfirmed but wanted to believe was true, and this time the result was tragic.”

It was the same kind of “gotcha” journalism, “only this time with riots and deaths. … This is the painful legacy of news organizations whose anti-Bush agenda predisposes them to running negative stories they want to believe are true, even if they have no evidence of their veracity.”

Journalist Rich Lowry agrees. “How many stories has Newsweek magazine written about the Bush administration allegedly ‘skewing intelligence’ by relying on raw, insufficiently sourced data? How many times has it lamented that these mistakes have hurt the U.S. abroad? Too many to count.”

Lowry goes on to say that many of those stories were written by Isikoff and Barry – “the very duo that has itself dealt the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan a blow by stretching poorly sourced information into a false report. …”

Aiding and Abetting the Enemy

In a recent article entitled “Is U.S. media a ‘partner’ with Al-Jazeera?” journalist James P. Pinkerton asks, “Does showing bloody and violent video from Iraq encourage the killing of Americans, and increase the likelihood of American failure in that country?”

He cites an article in The Wall St. Journal authored by Dorrance Smith – formerly of ABC News and the Bush 41 White House, and recently a media adviser to U.S. forces in Iraq. Smith said that the U.S. media are guilty of “aiding and abetting” the enemy.

Smith explained the process, saying that when Al-Jazeera – the anti-American Middle East TV station – receives “advance knowledge of actions against coalition forces,” it doesn’t tell authorities but rather sends a camera crew to the site to “wait for the attack, record it and rush it on the air,” then make inflammatory footage available to the American media, who are “addicted” to it.

Pinkerton concludes, “This is exactly what Newsweek did in its fraudulent story about the desecration of the [Quran].”

Pundit Michelle Malkin minces no words: “Newsweek has blood on its hands [and] blood on its desks,” a point reinforced by Gary R. Assell (Vipers Vietnam Veterans Page, A Vietnam Veteran and Proud) who wrote that Newsweek “lending credence to this rumor has only strengthened the hands of our enemies, fanatics, and those who would undermine U.S. efforts to build democracy. This behavior is criminal. People died.”

Other Non-fatal but Egregious Errors

· Recently, CBS-TV “news” quoted former prosecutor Ken Starr, saying that the plan of Republicans to ban judicial filibusters was a “radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.”

In fact, Starr’s statement referred to the Democrats who are obstructing President Bush’s appellate-court nominees by questioning their judicial philosophies. In other words, CBS manipulated the quote to fit its by-now famous leftist agenda, proving that the ghastly ghost of Dan Rather – Mr. Forged Documents himself – is alive but not so well, given its devolving ratings.

· In an article in the Boston Herald last month, writer Brett Arends reported that the editor of the Boston Globe, Marty Baron, “was forced to disavow a partially made-up story by a freelancer.” Disavow – but stay on the job!

· On CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” journalist Howard Kurtz interviewed Mitch Albom, who he described as a “multimedia personality” who hosts two radio shows for ABC, is a contributor to ESPN, wrote “Tuesdays with Morrie” that was on the New York Times best-seller list for four years, and writes a column for the Detroit Free Press.

But Albom also wrote a column, Kurtz said, “before the final four playoff game between Michigan State and North Carolina as if the game had already taken place.” But it hadn’t! Albom was suspended, along with his publisher, Carole Leigh Hutton. Suspended, but not fired!

Nevertheless, his friend Tony Kornheiser, a Washington Post columnist, said that he didn’t think Albom had “any malice” in making up the story or that his “intent was to defraud people.” And John Feinstein of National Public Radio agreed, saying that Albom’s fiction wasn’t “a speeding ticket” and added, “It happens often.”
Aha! At last an admission from a liberal that, indeed, lying to the public “happens often” in the old media!

· Barbara Stewart, a longtime reporter for the New York Times, which owns the Boston Globe, was fired from the newspaper this year because she made up part of the story she wrote about seals on the coast of Canada. It turned out that Stewart never attended the event, so her vivid description of “the ice and water turning red” as the seals were slaughtered never took place. Why? Because the entire event was canceled as a result of bad weather.

· On www.politicalusa.com this month, journalist Debbie Schlussel wrote that reporter David Shepardson – “a primary reporter on the domestic war on terrorism in the heart of Islamic America” – wrote an article in the Detroit News alleging that a “former terrorist,” Ahmed Hannan (who planned to blow up U.S. tourist sites and a U.S. Air Force Base in Turkey) had been deported. He was “forced to leave,” the headline blared.

In fact, the deportation never happened and Hannan is still here! A fact, by the way, that Shepardson apparently didn’t know because he relied solely on Hannan’s lawyer for information. When USA Today reporter Jack Kelley lied in an article, he and many of the paper’s top officials were fired by the newspaper’s parent company, Gannett News Service. But in response to Shepardson’s lies, Gannett awarded him First Place in investigative reporting!

Moral: If you lie about seal slaughter, you’ll get fired. But if you lie about trashing the Quran, if you purposefully misquote a former prosecutor, or if you invent out of whole cloth a sympathetic story about a terrorist, no consequences will be forthcoming. And, as in Shepardson’s case, you might even get an award!

Or maybe Jay Leno is right when he said that an appropriate punishment for these old-media dissemblers might well be to work for CBS News!

Kicking the Messenger

In April, New York Times writer Adam Nagourney wrote an article for the Washington Post in which he said, “The growing tide of personal attacks by bloggers and e-mailers can make you really paranoid.”

Translated, this means that independent researchers who care deeply about accuracy in news reporting have made the old media something they have never been before – accountable!

Nagourney and his left-leaning ilk should hate bloggers. After all, they have scored three major knockout punches to the old media that resulted in more than the loss of their credibility and influence.

In fact, they resulted in the election of the 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush.

The first knockout punch was the expose of CBS-TV’s forged documents – a la liberal Dan Rather – that turned out to be so phony that they signaled the death knell and eternal ignominy of Rather and his producer Mary Mapes.

Bloggers also forced the resignation of liberal CNN chief Eason Jordan for his intemperate, partisan and inaccurate ranting about our country’s military operations.
And the final blogger coup was forcing conservative, name-changing reporter Jeff Gannon out of commission and out of his privileged post in the White House press corps.

It Gets Worse

Writing in the New York Daily News in April, longtime columnist Jack Shafer exposed the New York Times for its egregious leftist bias. In reviewing the book “Buried in the Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper” by Laurel Leff, Shafer says: “The crimes committed against humanity and journalism by the New York Times in the 20th century are so huge and numerous they fill three new volumes. …”

Shafer concentrated heavily on Leff’s book, revealing that Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger kept the Nazis’ atrocities against the Jews off Page One during World War II and failed to explain to its readers that “Hitler was killing Jews because they were Jews.”

Shafer said that he counted 1,186 stories about the Jews of Europe in the paper between the war’s start in 1939 and its conclusion in 1945. Only 26 of those stories were published on the front page, and only six of them stated explicitly that Jews were the primary target of the Nazis.

In other words, the greatest genocide in human history was deemed non-news by the paper “of record,” just as major stories today that don’t fit the paper’s leftist bias are either slanted to the left or relegated to its back pages.

But they couldn’t hide everything. After the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal, in which a middling journalist and pathological liar had been elevated to celebrity status by the Times, the very “gray old lady” – as the paper was once affectionately called – hired Daniel Okrent as its ombudsman.

Okrent took his 18-month job so seriously that he had the audacity to state publicly that – yes – the Times had a liberal slant! Of course, this is exactly what Accuracy in Media (www.aim.org), The Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com.) and The Media Research Center (http://www.mediaresearch.org), among other critics, have been saying for decades.

But self-delusion, not to omit grandiosity, dies hard. In a panel discussion of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in April, journalists were questioned about any bias they detected in news coverage. The panel included, among others, liberal columnist Eric Alterman, who remarked: “I’m not so crazy about objectivity, or what is defined as objectivity. It seems to me that blue-state journalism tries to be objective. There is very little liberal journalism.”

Thank you, Eric, for affirming why you and so many like-minded journalists are so clueless and why 60 million voters – for whom you have such contempt – rejected your brand of so-called journalism in the last election.

Polls Don’t Always Lie

A recent Carnegie Corp. poll found that journalists who were surveyed picked Democrat John Kerry over George Bush in the 2004 election by a margin of over 2-to-1. And a recent University of Connecticut poll found that media professionals are frequently out of touch with an overwhelming number of Americans. For instance:

· 43 percent of the public say the press has too much freedom, but only 3 percent of journalists feel that way.
· 70 percent of journalists say the media do a good or excellent job when it comes to accuracy, while just 40 percent of the public agree.
· Only 14 percent of the public can cite “freedom of the press” as a guarantee in the First Amendment.
· 60 percent of the public believe the media are biased in reporting the news.
· 22 percent of the public say the government should be allowed to censor the press.
· 53 percent of the public think journalists should not run stories with unnamed sources.
· 80 percent of journalists read blogs but fewer than 10 percent of non-journalists do.
· 61 percent of the public use TV as their main news source, while 20 percent use newspapers.

There is no way to misinterpret these numbers. The only conclusion is that the public have not been surprised by the latest Newsweek excesses, but rather disgusted and increasingly mistrustful of an old media whose obituary they have already written but whose members are too arrogant, self-important and defensive to see the writing on their tombstones.

Joan Swirsky, a New York-based journalist and author, can be reached at joansharon@aol.com and contact@theconservativewoman.org
Courtesy of Newsmax.com

My dad was a Federal Parole and Probation officer in El Paso, Texas, 30 years ago. Because he dealt with Federal cases, it was his responsibility to handle illegal immigrants. I was only about 8 years old when I overheard him saying that 10,000 Mexicans a day crossed the border between America and Mexico. Of course, they didn’t all stay… much of it was just daily traffic back and forth.

But many of them did stay, and I knew why. We would often go into Juarez for fun–gorgeous pottery, inexpensive trinkets, another world to peruse and study. I grew to despise those trips, however, because I couldn’t bear the suffering I saw. Old people, children, crippled lying on the sidewalks begging for change, half-starved creatures barely resembling human beings, stripped of clothing, flesh, and dignity. Children sleeping under blankets on dusty sidewalks, an old woman with no legs or teeth, smiling sweetly at the offer of a quarter–such images plague me to this day, and eventually caused me to abandon our regular trips. I had taken to changing the money my parents would give me for the trip into quarters, and giving it to those who lined the sidewalks. It was never enough, and my helplessness in the face of such overwhelming need left me disheartened. I mentioned this to my dad one day, and to my utter surprise, this man–whose job it was to stop illegal immigration–looked at me and said, “It breaks my heart too. If I lived there under those conditions, I would do anything, break any law to get my family to America.”

This display of understanding touched me then, and still does. But my father would also caution that America could simply not take in the entire world, and that those who obeyed the laws could not and should not be made to pay for those who broke them. He taught me what illegal immigration was costing this nation, and what it would end up costing me and my children someday if it was allowed to go on, unchecked, unfettered, unregulated. The picture he painted was even more repugnant than the streets of Juarez, and I knew then and there that illegal immigration was wrong–evil, in fact, because it would destroy the life of the land it was seeking.

Let’s face it, our borders are swiss cheese. Our futile attempts to pretend we’re doing something about it are pointless. We need a new form of attack–offense, not defense. But the attack needs to be full force–that is, we need to watch the airports too, because America’s greatest threat is coming from within these everyday locations in our heartland.

Illegal Mexican immigrants have caused our taxes to get out of control, this is for sure. But let’s analyze them as opposed to some others I will mention in a minute. Those who come to America from Mexico come here not to destroy us, but to better themselves. These aren’t people being embedded into America to bring her down from the inside, but those who see our beauty, and want to be part of it. They come here and work hard for a piece of the American dream, and the warrior in me can’t help but respect that.

But now for the rest of the story…

Recently I was approached by a man who sent me something far more alarming. People, there are groups of Middle Eastern men in this country who are determined to bring us down, alright, but not by toppling buildings. These men are members of groups of organized criminals, and they are running companies in this country–companies that are not just defrauding customers, but are making millions of dollars for men who aren’t citizens, and who are using the funds to support terrorism and destroy our land and those of our allies.

I have hard evidence: names, places, Social Security numbers, bank accounts, addresses, phone numbers, etc., all sent to me by one man who infiltrated one of their businesses. He has seen their arrogance, their dismissal of “Stupid Americans” and our inability–or lack of ambition–to stop them from their entrenched havoc and menace. These people refuse to claim the true dollars involved, leaving the rest of us to pick up the tax slack. They believe that anything they can do in business, in the courts, in the community to divide and conquer is the right thing to do.

My “mole” friend has done all of this, on his own, at great personal risk, for one reason and one reason only: he loves this land, and loathes those who would destroy it. He has seen their wretchedness first hand, lived within a large nest of the monsters, and documented how wide-spread they are… all across the nation. These aren’t people desperate for a better way of life, working at any job, anywhere, just to have enough to eat, nor are they angry young militants taking flying lessons. No, these are young men in Mercedes and expensive clothes, who take our money and laugh at our gullibility. They plan this carefully, recruiting illegals in the Middle East and exploiting “dual nationals” with hellish contemplation, and choose warily those they can use to abuse us here in America. Companies range from “Home improvement”, “Moving” (very notorious), “Real Estate”, “Air Conditioning”, “Toys”, “Cosmetics”, various Kiosks in major shopping malls across the United States. If caught, they close up shop, go back to the Middle East, and in a few months open up the same business under a different name. Their actions are deliberate, their motive is evil, and their success is horrifying. Their works include marriage scams and workers who don’t dare squeal for fear of being deported. It is madness, it is mind-boggling, and it is happening.

It is obvious that our government agencies have failed miserably. This fact is what motivated my “mole” to do this on his own–that magnificent American method of finding a way to accomplish something, and if you can’t find it, then by God, you forge it. People are allowed to fly into our airports and simply disappear from the radar, only to torment and eat away at the fabric of America, and to get rich while doing it. Riches which, by the way, go to support terrorism’s more obvious face of violence. Someone has to stop this.

So I’m taking up the standard of my “mole,” and I’m going to do this myself. I call upon all of you who say “Enough” to join me. I am rallying those who will help me put together a documentary, articles, and a book about this shadowy enemy in our midst. Everything is ready, in hard format, even those on the inside who will be interviewed. People, these are not men who love America so much they’ll do anything to be a part of it, who work away their youth and health to make a better life for their families. No, this is the vile face of the enemy, and he’s already here. Our worst “border” is the airport, where these men arrive from first class, and marvel at the “Stupid Americans” while they plan, execute, and evade. This is real, it is deadly, and it is now. Join me, fellow Americans… if we fail this, there is no future.
I think my dad would have approved.

Keep the faith, bros, and in all things courage.

Resa has been guest on the Armstrong Williams Radio Show, the Mike Reagan Radio Show, and an occassional guest on the POW/MIA Freedom Network (which can be heard every Sunday from 5pm to 8pm Eastern time via internet at Americanewsnet.com ). Fox News has done two stories on the first man in her “Forgotten Warrior” series, Ricardo Carrasco. Scripps Howard writer Mike Hedges featured Ricardo’s story in a write-up for the 50th anniversary of the start of the Korean War, and the Fox News show “Heroes” with John Kasich also did a short piece on Ricardo on Memorial Day of 2001. John later featured as one of his four personal favorites on a “Heroes” special in 2003. She has interviewed hundreds of vets over her past decade of research, and is currently trying to arrange funding for a reunion trip to Korea for the surviving cast of “Cease Fire!” Our Resa is part of The Conservative Woman Website. She is a delight and a pleasure to read.

“When the LORD your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you—a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant—then when you eat and are satisfied, be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” Deuteronomy 6:10, 11

As citizens living in a country, that in the course of human history has never flourished so greatly, are we as parents remembering to teach our children gratefulness towards the Almighty?

The outside forces that we constantly let consume us as adults are spilling over into our abilities to lead our children into remembering to whom we are indebted to. We are living in a drunken like stupor- our cities are flourishing as our houses grow larger. Our over sized houses are bursting with all kinds of extraneous goods. We are reaping the benefits of others hard back breaking work as we enjoy the liquid blessings and the fruits of their sacrifices. Then when all is said and done at the end of our day and we lay our heads down upon our pillows-, our eyes shut in self-congratulating fulfillment- and we forget our Lord.

How we rob the youth of reflective moments.

As parents, we will go to great lengths to make sure our children have the latest clothing fashions, attend the highest rated schools, and have their own spacious bedrooms. We then fill up their innocent hearts with stuff… just stuff. We over equip them with state of the art electronics, sign them up for every sport possible, drive for hours to educate them in the arts and go into debt taking them on extravagant vacations. What is it we are trying to teach our children? Are we too busy satisfying our empty frail shells with materialism that we really do not know what we are filling ourselves up with? Have we become so numb, due to our over abundance, that there is no remembrance from whence our prolific riches have come from?

Daily we are showing our children what is important to us and what matters most in our lives. Each time we push towards bigger and better- and then leave the gratitude lost somewhere back underneath the foundation of our homes, we are teaching that self is the god and there is no room for gratefulness towards anyone or anything.

We wonder as we read our daily newspapers or flip the news stations what has gone awry… why does our youth seem to be directionless and unfulfilled- but maybe what we should be asking ourselves as adults is this- due to our own lack of gratitude and thanksgiving to God- are we creating my own unhappiness and disillusionment which has led us to the continuation of emptiness and no gratitude? What hope of tomorrow are we teaching our children, for without recognition and thanksgiving- all we touch, see, taste and feel is void and without meaning. Objects are mere objects- and we then treat our loved ones much in the same fashion.

Without gratitude, life has no value. Want to change the world? Want to create a better life for yourself and the ones you love? Stop, be still, and remember with bowed heads and folded hands each day the giver of all gifts. Our God, our Creator, our Savior gave himself without asking for more than our gracious thanksgiving and obedience to His Divine will.

Our children are depending upon our leadership- when we rise, when we walk, when we take our fill, when we fall asleep- let our remembering become the catalyst for change and reflective measurement. It will create an atmosphere free from the false outer dependence of drugs, alcohol, and other addictions. Do not forget who has released us from the slavery of eternal death and destruction. Do not forget the Lord our God, call upon His name with a humbleness of gratefulness and thanksgiving individually and collectively as a family- life has been created to be a gift of abundant blessings and the hope of eternity.

Ms. Marsala tries to use a bit of satire every now and then in her writing. She has been praised by many of her readers for saying it “like it is” and speaks for the common person who believes in American ideals, especially our freedoms. Stating the way she sees it with “punch,” her philosophy remains that no matter the event, you can always find a bit of humor or the human element of hope somewhere amongst the cracks . cnuseeme@cox.net

A 25-year-old computer programmer has done what has long been thought impossible–he has united the pro-choice feminist left and the pro-life right. Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Michigan is the plaintiff in a new lawsuit in which he seeks to wipe out the child support payments he is obligated to make to an ex-girlfriend. He says he had made it clear to her that he didn’t want to be a father at this time, and that she got pregnant after she had repeatedly assured him that a physical condition rendered her sterile.

National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy, conservative TV host Bill O’Reilly and numerous commentators from all sides have criticized Dubay’s “Roe v. Wade for Men” lawsuit. Yet when commentators make the arguments against choice for men–“if a man doesn’t want to father a child he should have used birth control,” “men need to take responsibility whether they wanted to have the child or not”–one can often detect a little confusion in their eyes, as if a part of them is whispering “uh, wait a minute, but couldn’t you say the same thing about women?”

One and a half million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year by adoption, abortion or abandonment, yet somehow nobody labels them “deadbeats” or “deserters.” In over 40 states a mother can return the baby to the hospital within a few weeks of birth–completely opting out of motherhood with less hassle than it takes to return a DVD to Best Buy. Yet if the mother decides she wants to keep the child, she can demand 18 (or in some states 21 or 23) years of child support from the father, and he has no choice in the matter.

Feminists have long based their support for Roe v. Wade around the slogan “My Body, My Choice.” Women’s rights legal advocate Jennifer Brown denounced Dubay’s suit, explaining that “Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government…There’s nothing equivalent for men.”
However, 100,000 men each year are jailed for alleged non-payment of child support, and federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data reveal that 70% of those behind on payments earn poverty level wages. When states force a man to be financially responsible for a child he never wanted, and jail him if he comes up short, isn’t that a terrible state intrusion too? Don’t the sacrifices required to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support over two decades take a heavy toll on a man, too?

Research shows that many men are unwillingly drafted into fatherhood, just as Dubay claims he was. The National Scruples and Lies Survey 2004 conducted in the United Kingdom found that 42% of the women in the survey said they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners. According to research conducted by Joyce Abma of the National Center for Health Statistics and Linda Piccinino of Cornell University, over a million American births each year result from pregnancies which men did not intend.

Under choice for men, unmarried fathers would have a one-time right to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities within a month of learning of a pregnancy, just as mothers do when they choose to give their children up for adoption. Women would still be free to exercise all of the reproductive choices they now have.

Gandy, O’Reilly, Brown and others claim that the current system is necessary because it protects children. In reality, over time choice for men would greatly benefit American children–if women knew that they could not compel unmarried men to pay to support children they did not agree to have, the number of unwed births (and the huge social problems associated with them) would be reduced. Choice for men means better parenting because more men will be able to become fathers when they’re married, willing, and stable–a huge benefit for children.

Women’s advocates correctly note that pregnant women often have legitimate reasons for not wanting to be mothers, including youth, finances and the lack of a suitable relationship or marriage. Yet all of these apply equally to men. Women have a choice–men should, too.

This article first appeared in the Saginaw News (4/2/06).
Jeffery M. Leving is one of America’s most prominent family law attorneys. He is the author of the book Fathers’ Rights: Hard-hitting and Fair Advice for Every Father Involved in a Custody Dispute. His website is www.dadsrights.com.
Glenn Sacks’ columns on men’s and fathers’ issues have appeared in dozens of America’s largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

In an attempt to turn the tide of public perception that Democrats are weak on national security issues, Democrat leaders issued a national security policy statement. Hoping to strike fear in the hearts of terrorists everywhere and inspire voters in the midterm election, they promised a fresh approach, “one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security,” as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stated. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid echoed this sentiment, saying, “We need a new direction on national security, and leaders with policies that are tough and smart. That is what Democrats offer.”

Sounds pretty good so far. What do they propose? Well, that’s where there’s a teeny problem. See, they don’t offer specifics. They say they want to capture Osama bin Laden, but they don’t say how. They do, however, suggest they will double the number of special forces and add more spies to the payroll.

And what do they suggest for Iraq? They want a troop withdrawal, but they don’t say when they want it done. But they do say, “We will ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for security and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U. S. forces.”

Gee. I feel safer already.

Guys, there’s a reason why Democrats are seen as weak on national security. It’s because they are weak on national security! Top to bottom, Democrats have been openly hostile towards our military and national security for decades, and that’s not something that can be overcome with a policy statement. Especially considering their actions speak more loudly than that statement.

Throughout the 80s, which party opposed Ronald Reagan’s attempts to beef up the military to defeat the Soviet Union, which would have made us safer? The Democrats.

During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, which party had prominent members come out against the war with the chant “no blood for oil”? That would be the Democrats.

After the Berlin Wall fell, which party promptly demanded military spending be cut? Survey SAYS…the Democrats.

Which major political party ran a candidate who wrote a letter stating that he “loathed the military”? Can you say “the Democrats”? I knew you could.

Which party said military service was not the sign of a good President? Say it with me now! The Democrats!

Which party actively sought to discount the military vote in the 2000 election during the Florida recount? You spell it D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T.

Which major party has undermined the war plan in Iraq by stating the Commander In Chief broke the law, lied to get us into war, and is only seeking to make his rich donors richer? And the answer is… why, it’s the Democrats!

Which major party ran a candidate who said the Iraq war was “the wrong war at the wrong time” in spite of the fact that same candidate supported going to war with Iraq in 2002? I’ll take “Democratic Party” for $1000, Alex.

Which party speaks with pride about the number of people in their ranks who served our country, but call George W. Bush a draft dodger who went AWOL from the Air National Guard? The password is “Democrat.”

Get the picture?

But let’s get beyond the past and look at the actual problems with the proposal the Democrats have laid out for us. First, the idea to double the number of special forces and spies to get Osama bin Laden is odd, considering what the Democrats have said regarding our force levels in Iraq. People like Rep. John Murtha have said repeatedly that we didn’t bring enough troops to beat back the insurgents, and Democrats both at the grassroots level and the national level have echoed this sentiment. And they’ve all commented on lower-than-expected recruiting levels, which may or may not be happening in all branches of the military.

Riddle me this, Batman. If we don’t have the troop numbers in Iraq to win, where are the soldiers and spies going to come from? And wouldn’t those troops be more effectively used in Iraq to fight off the insurgents? This would help to bring the troops home sooner. As far as the spies are concerned, that takes time and training. Are we going to expect the terrorists to put their attacks against us on hold until we get our troops up to speed? I can just imagine Reid or Pelosi making the request: “Yeah, I know you want to kill us because we’re infidels, but could you hold off on that until we get our people trained so they can be more effective against you? Thanks. Love ya!”

Now, let’s move onto the lack of a timetable to get our troops out of Iraq. This has been an issue Democrats have used against President Bush for quite some time now. Now, when the Democrats unveil their master plan, it lacks a timetable. And for that, I’m sending the DNC a bill for a brand new Irony Meter because mine broke after reading about this fact. It’s amazing to me that anyone considers the Democrat “plan” to be a viable alternative to what President Bush is already doing. The Democrats have put out a policy statement full of promises, but lacking in any specifics. I sense John Kerry’s hand in this…

More important than the Democrats’ lack of a serious plan, though, is the apparent lack of thought put into this policy statement. It should be pointed out that if the Democrat plan sounds a little familiar, it should. It’s the same plan Bush has had and promoted since the beginning of the Iraq War. As Joe Biden will tell you, copying off someone else isn’t a key to success. Nor does it reflect any serious thought on such an important matter, which is essential to anyone proclaiming themselves to be the ones with the plan for a better future, not to mention the ones who proclaim themselves to be smarter and more in touch than the President.

Let me help you Democrats out here. Leave national security to the people who actually know a thing or two about it. Go back to doing what you do better than the Republicans.

Losing elections.

Thomas Lindaman is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. He is also Publisher of CommonConservative.com.

Ah… if only I had been Dictator of California a few days ago. Just imagine. Half a million illegal immigrants in one place. Had things been left to me, there’d have been INS, police and National Guard blocking every street and store front once the so-called protestors assembled.

I’d have used tear gas and rubber bullets, and maybe even the trusty old water cannon to subdue the masses. I’d have had military transport planes standing by to receive the human cargo from the prison buses delivering the illegals to the nearest airport.

Then, the transports would have flown under fighter escort - uninvited, by the way - about 1000 miles into Mexico. No resistance from the Mexican government would be tolerated. They’d have landed at whatever airport was most convenient. And, they’d have booted the law-breaking, drug-dealing, job-stealing illegals onto the tarmac, then flown back to the USA to await another protest.

Okay, so I’m daydreaming. Admit it - you like the idea.

Nowadays, people can get in more trouble for speeding than for violating American sovereignty. Our borders are meaningless. Our immigration laws are a source of ridicule. And, conflict between the House and Senate will likely result in more toothless legislation that does nothing to secure our borders.

A wall along our border will accomplish nothing except to flush more taxpayer dollars down the federal toilet. A guest worker program will raise unemployment and allow Mexico to continue to export poverty to the USA.

There is only one solution to the problem of illegal immigration. We must take away their reason for coming here. To do this, we must punish those who hire them. Federal immigration laws must be vigorously enforced, with fines, imprisonment, and confiscation of assets of all who intentionally aid and abet the criminals who stream across our borders.

Once the illegals realize they have nothing to gain by sneaking across the border, they’ll stop coming. That’ll still leave us with the cross-border drug trade, but when the illegal immigration problem is under control, the drug trade will be much more easily addressed.

Those illegals who are already here will see their job prospects begin to dry up once potential employers become afraid to hire them. When that happens, they’ll begin going home. And yeah, a few legal immigrants will miss job opportunities in the process because people will be afraid to hire them for fear that they’re actually illegals with fake documents. At this point, I don’t care. Our borders must be secured no matter the cost.

Solving the illegal immigration problem will make our streets and schools safer. Wages for unskilled labor will rise, allowing more Americans to rise above the poverty line. In short, there is no downside for America in solving the crisis caused by millions of illegals slipping over our borders. We have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. The American Dream is for Americans, not criminals who slip across our southern border in the dead of night.

This won’t happen if we sit back and wait for the impotent Republicans or their equally deficient Democratic brethren to get it done. These people must be made to know that their cushy jobs on Capitol Hill are in jeopardy if they don’t act soon. Real reform. Real quick. Like maybe yesterday. That means another flood of phone calls, letters and e-mails to Washington. You know the routine. Time to get busy.

Alan Burkhart is a 20+ year over-the-road trucker who has traveled over 2 million miles across the U.S. and Canada. The experiences encountered during his travels have shaped his worldview into what it is today. He writes from a blue-collar conservative-Christian perspective, accompanied by a healthy skepticism of all things political. His pet issues include property rights, Islamofacism, and religious freedom.

When it comes to the discussion over illegal aliens and amnesty, it is time to toss a baseball cap or glove onto the table. This act is the universal signal that the time for talking is over. On amnesty issues, the time for talking is indeed over. I am not suggesting that we turn from words to pugilism, of course. Rather, I speak of a battle at the ballot box, later this year. Patriots everywhere are ready, and we will not forget Congress’ actions over the next couple weeks.

There are foreign flags flying in American streets. Radicals threaten that they will cause parts of California and Texas to secede. Foreign lobbyists from Central and South America seem to be getting more reception in Congress than the American people. Amid all of this, Congressmen are milling around with their hands in their pockets. Grow a spine, folks, and step up to the plate for America.

Mark my words — this issue will dictate the next election. If Republican Congressmen refuse to stand tall for the American people and the rule of law, they will lose their majority in the next election. The result would be tragedy, since most Democrats — remarkably, once the supposed party of the middle class American worker — are pretty much useless on amnesty issues.

Thus, America’s future rests with Republicans in Congress. Republicans will walk tall and do what is right, or they will utterly fail America. There is no middle ground.

The choices are simple. The decision is on the table and so is the baseball cap. We either live in a land of laws, or we do not. We either enforce our laws, or we do not. We either protect our borders, or we don’t.

To Congress — reject amnesty; no guest worker programs; defend our border; enforce the law.

Lastly, may God bless all of the patriotic minutemen who have stepped forward to protect the border — a job that Congress and the President refuse to do.

Minutemen, you have my highest respect and appreciation. Thank you.

Steven T. Voigt is a lawyer with a premier law firm that has offices throughout the United States and Europe. After receiving his juris doctorate, Steven served as a judicial clerk to the Pennsylvania appellate court for one year before enteringprivate practice. Steven is the executive director of Foundations of Law PAC, www.foundationsoflawpac.org, and the public policy advisor to AmericanDestiny.com. Steven was recently named a “Rising Star Super Lawyer” in a feature in the Philadelphia Magazine.

Steven has authored numerous academic law reviews, commentaries, and publications related to national public policy and law, including the books Letters to America, TYRANNY The Collapse of Traditional Law in America, and No Political Solution No Political Messiah.

To read more of Steven’s works, please also visit www.VoigtonAmerica.us. To receive Steven’s free monthly e-commentary related to policy and law, send your name and e-mail address to info@voigtonamerica.us with “subscribe” in the subject line.

The views expressed in this article belong to Steven T. Voigt personally and do not necessarily reflect the views of his employer, any entity he is associated with, or any forum where this is published.

Here’s what I believe to be true regarding some of the most important issues facing America today, and what most politicians apparently don’t.

Immigration Law Enforcement

I’m going to be as blunt as I can be with respect to the illegal alien problem in this country, while refraining from using the profane terms that routinely leap to my mind every time I think about our government’s unrelenting failure to address this issue in any responsible way. To get right to the point, any person in this country who doesn’t support (A) doing whatever is necessary to stop illegals from entering this country, (B) severely punishing individuals and businesses that knowingly hire illegals, and (C) immediately deporting anyone who is found to be in this country illegally, is either an illegal alien himself, an opportunistic politician, or an idiot.

Suffice it to say that if you’re having a difficult time understanding the fact that illegal aliens have no business being in the United States, don’t expect me to waste my time explaining the relatively simple concepts of right and wrong to you.

While it may be true that we can’t possibly hunt down and deport every illegal alien in this country, we sure as hell can kick out the ones that our law enforcement officers stumble upon everyday. The ones we don’t catch will eventually come to the conclusion that staying here is no better an option than going back home once we decide to deny them jobs, welfare assistance, and political influence.

Oh, and all this stuff we keep hearing about illegals doing work that Americans refuse to do is a load of crap! The minute that able-bodied Americans are no longer allowed to collect government money for sitting on their backsides, you’ll see them taking whatever jobs are available in order to avoid starving to death.

Healthcare

The cost of basic medical coverage to average Americans nowadays is scandalously high, and the primary causes are (A) ever-increasing government manipulation of the healthcare system, and (B) the steadily rising number of bogus malpractice lawsuits being filed by slip-and-fall lawyers like John Edwards. The millions of illegal aliens who exploit our hospitals’ policy of never turning sick or injured people away, whether they can afford treatment or not, also contributes to the rising price of medical care to the folks who actually pay for it. That’s why anyone who’s unable to show some sort of proof that they belong in this country, when the seek medical assistance at one of our hospitals, should be detained and handed over to the authorities once they’ve received the help they need.

Socialist kneebiters like Hillary Clinton believe that letting the federal government take complete control of the American healthcare system is the answer to all our prayers, but any person who recognizes the truly inept nature of the government, understands the basic principles of supply and demand, and appreciates the positive influence of competition upon virtually every aspect of our lives, knows that her proposal is too ridiculous to even consider.

What we need to do is cut as much government bureaucracy out of the process as is humanly possible, while simultaneously punishing with massive fines anyone (and that includes lawyers) who brings a false malpractice claim against a doctor. We also need to electronically modernize every applicable facet of the medical profession, such as records-keeping and prescription drug dispensing. In essence, let the free market determine the price of healthcare, and make sure that the people who provide us with medical services are able to do so as efficiently as possible.

Social Security

The social security system is a government-run ponzi scheme, pure and simple, and even the man who created it did not intend for it to become the unsustainable federal monstrosity that it has. As Franklin D. Roosevelt himself put it, “In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”

President Bush’s proposal to allow for the creation of voluntarily individual retirement accounts, using a small percentage of funds earmarked for social security, is the only viable plan currently on the table that even attempts to prevent this doomed system from caving in on itself in the coming decades, and the only reason most politicians oppose it is because allowing you to control your own money takes power away from them.

Government Spending

In February of this year, the President submitted to Congress his $2.77 trillion budget for fiscal year 2007. This is an obscene proposal, and there is absolutely no justification for the federal government spending anywhere near this amount of money. Every federal spending program that is not directly related to fighting the war on terror should be cut by a minimum of ten percent over the course of the next 12 months. And don’t let anyone try to con you into thinking that the government won’t have enough money to feed and shelter the elderly and the disabled, or educate our children if we make such drastic cuts. Every year we increase spending for these socialist schemes by billions upon billions of dollars, and every year the ranks of the welfare poor swell, and our public school students become more ignorant.

Clearly money is not the reason why practically every domestic federal program in this country is a pathetic failure… incompetence is! Cutting funding to these programs just might, at the very least, force the bureaucratic weasels in charge to use the money they receive wisely instead of pissing it away as if it grew on trees, while simultaneously complaining that they’re not getting enough.

Taxation

Two words… Flat Tax.

Public Education

Forcing children to attend government-run schools in this day and age condemns most of them to a life of mind-numbed mediocrity at best, and every time some teachers union lackey tries to tell us that all is well with our public education system, that individual should be dragged kicking and screaming into a public park, locked in a pillory, and then flogged.

If you ask me, half of the tax money we spend on public education should be divided up among working class families so that parents can afford to send their kids to schools that are capable of teaching them how to read and write.

The Supreme Court and Our Constitution

The Constitution of the United States is a contract between the citizens of this country and their government. Like any contract, the terms within it are meant to be concrete and inflexible, unless the parties bound by its terms mutually agree to modify it at a later date. Nobody in their right mind would ever enter into a contract with another party if the terms of that agreement could be changed after the fact by a judge. The whole point of creating a contract is to show that there is a meeting of the minds between the parties who agree to abide by its terms, and whenever there is a dispute between those parties over some aspect of the contract once it’s been entered into, a judge is charged with figuring out what the parties actually agreed to in the first place.

Initially the judge does this by reading the contract and considering the literal meaning of the words within it. If he should come across a passage that uses an ambiguous term like “excessive”, he then must determine what the parties involved understood the term to mean when the contract was written. He can accomplish this task in several different ways, but what he should never do is simply make up a definition out of whole cloth. This, however, is exactly what activist judges do on a regular basis.

You see, ORIGINALIST judges attempt to figure out what the original intent of the people who created our most important contract was, so that the parties currently bound by it (aka the citizenry and the government) are dealt with fairly and reasonably. Activist judges, on the other hand, seek to change the terms of the original agreement and force upon everyone involved their own personal opinions of what that contract SHOULD say. This practice is grossly unfair, because it forces one of the parties to the contract (whichever one is ruled against at any given time) to accept terms that they did not agree to, and that is precisely why activists should never be allowed to preside over any court which deals with Constitutional issues.

Energy Production

The policies of nutbag environmentalists have caused the U.S. to become increasingly dependent upon foreign countries (including potential enemies of our nation) for satisfying our energy needs. This situation is not only the primary cause of increased energy costs to American consumers, it’s also a direct threat to our national security, which is why every environmental regulation that’s been imposed upon the oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear industries over the past two decades should be done away with immediately.

Furthermore, oil exploration, drilling, and refining efforts should be increased by 50 percent as soon as possible, and dozens of new nuclear power plants should be constructed over the course of the next decade.

The World Trade Center

After four and a half years, ground zero in Manhattan is still a giant, empty hole in the ground, and I for one am outraged by that fact. Since the World Trade Center’s original twin towers were constructed in under seven years, I see no reason why it should take a decade to build only one new tower. Now, I understand that it took many months to clear out the rubble after the twin towers fell on 09/11/01, and there are several other structures that have to be built at the location, but we’ve had at least three full years to start construction on the “Freedom Tower”, and so far the only thing the folks responsible for the rebuilding project have managed to do is draw some fancy colored pictures of it.

Can somebody please explain to me why someone like Donald Trump wasn’t put in charge of rebuilding the WTC complex back in 2002? I can almost guarantee that if “The Donald” were running the show, the primary structure, or more likely a building of superior design, would be well on its way to completion by now.

The United Nations

The UN is both useless and corrupt. It is a thorn in the side of the United States, and a threat to the sovereignty of every free nation on earth. It should be disbanded at once, and its headquarters in New York converted into a public recreation center for underprivileged children.