CNS News Ticker

Sports Tickers






Stock Market Indices
&ltPARAM NAME="1:multiline" VALUE="true">
[Scroll Left] <     • STOP •     > [Scroll Right]



Haircut: 25 Cents / Shave: 15 Cents / Talk Of The Town: Free



The Inside Track ... News With Views You Won't Hear On The News ...


New GlowBarber Shoppe Gazette Articles Are Also Indexed Online At ... http://del.icio.us/Gazette

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Fasten Your Seatbelts - Rough Ride Ahead


POLITICS / FASTEN YOUR SEATBELTS - WE ARE IN FOR A ROUGH RIDE AHEAD



JIm R Schwiesow



Smiley Flag WaverWe now have an unholy alliance to deal with, a Bush-Pelosi team for socialism and world governance. Look for social reforms that will put the new deal to shame. An amnesty for law-breaking illegal aliens is a certainty, which is a gleeful prospect for Mr. Bush who will then be a step closer to that North American Union that he dreams of. Continuing social depravity, which a Republican majority failed to engage, is now a foregone conclusion with humanist Democrats in charge. Fasten your seatbelts, brothers and sisters; we are in for a rough ride.



A NEW BURNS AND ALLEN SHOW



~ By Jim R. Schwiesow

November 14, 2006
NewsWithViews.com


Those of us old enough to remember the comic act of George Burns and Gracie Allen will recall that the recurring theme of the show was the interaction between a shrewd and astute husband, George Burns, and a simple-minded and intellectually vacuous wife, Gracie Allen. The show provided many hours of merriment for thousands of radio and TV listeners and viewers throughout the United States. I now announce that the country is soon to be introduced to a new Burns and Allen show in an all-new format. It will be called the George Bush and Nancy Pelosi show. I welcome you to view the new king and queen of vaudeville in a brand new serial comedy with an entirely new congressional cast.

George Bush has played straight man to socially debauched Democrats since the day that he first stepped into office. Not possessed of the sapience of a George Burns or the verbal expertise - he has done more to commit to genocide the English language than anyone I know - he has nevertheless stepped forward with craggy countenance and subservient deportment to play fool to the fools. In this regard we have to give tribute to his acting abilities, which rival, if not exceed, those of George Burns. Mr. Bush’s obsequious attention to the political wacko’s of our congressional la la land during his six years as president was not without a purpose, a purpose that I will enlarge upon herein.

I understand that Gracie Allen was possessed of superior intelligence and wisdom, and that her on-stage personality was simply the result of the high quality of her role-playing. Nancy Pelosi on the other hand is naturally possessed of naiveté and a room temperature I.Q. All one has to do is to catch her on the tube to discern that she is not the sharpest stick in the bundle. Actually I am being kind to her with that statement. Like Gracie Allen she also has an on-stage personality and an off-stage personality. And the two diverge significantly. Ever the woman of the common people with disdain for the tax-paying rich in her on-stage personage, she actually lives in capitalist splendor, with a personal wealth of $55 million, in her off-stage reality. It makes one wonder what these nitwits are going to do, and how they’re going to cope, when they have completely destroyed our constitutional republic and are forced to live under the dominance of communistic style despotism. I would imagine that Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy, the Laurel and Hardy of the party of the Democrats, have never contemplated the ultimate consequence of their political stupidity.

The gentleman, who wrote me in behalf of his hero, George Bush, and substituted name calling for articulate discourse, is not going to like the content of this column. A perfectly legitimate and airtight case can be made that George W. Bush deliberately engineered the election debacle, which doomed the continuance in office of many congressional Republicans.

There are Republicans who in their hearts do value the freedoms granted by the constitution, and agonize over the socially repugnant course of the nation. There may be one or two Democrats also; we’ll just have to send out a search party to beat the bushes to find them. The real tragedy is that these people have attached more significance to a slavish commitment to party loyalty than to maintaining the freedoms and liberties wrought by constitutional principles. Their integrity can, and should, be called into question when they have not the courage to stand against the passage of tyrannical laws, which steal the freedoms of U.S. citizens. And if their party, or their president, insists that they capitulate to an ideology, which they know to be wrong and inimical to the best interests of a sovereign nation, they ought to remove themselves from that ideological cesspool, and realign themselves with a party, which better reflects their ethics and their values. If enough would do so a viable and competitive third party could be built and expanded.

I believe, and contrary to what some may think it is my perfect right to do so, that George Bush is extremely pleased by the election slaughter, which sunk the political hopes of so many of his fellow Republicans in congress. Too many of these Republicans had worked in opposition to his goal for a North American Union. Too many were furious over his continual refusal to secure the borders and to bring to a halt an ever-increasing influx of illegal aliens. Too many were angered by his completely dumb insistence on amnesty for law-breaking border intruders, and more than a few were beginning to question the wisdom of his policies in relation to an increasingly casualty ridden war in Iraq. The old adage, which holds that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time was coming into play.

Unquestionably President Bush did everything in his power to contribute to the disaffection and dissatisfaction of the people in regard to these issues, and he did nothing to dissuade them from their ever-increasing anger with their elected Republican representatives. What did he care, they were close to an election and he had two more years to dink with the fate of the nation. In his mind this was their misfortune and his good luck. He reasoned that the Democrats were more attuned to his quest for one world governance, so he opted to throw his lot in with the opposition. I would imagine that as time passes many of the losing Republicans, who were sold out by Mr. Bush, would most likely come to the inescapable conclusion that they were played for suckers, big time.

Some have taken issue with me concerning some of my contentions in previous articles. A very learned gentleman with a constitutional knowledge, which far surpasses mine, wrote and informed me that The Constitution, right or wrong, provided for one man to take control in times of military service, not War. Note: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; Not war, but service is the key.”

As I stated, this man’s credentials are impeccable when it comes to an understanding of the constitution. He also had this to say about presidential abuses of power, “Was there a check on this power? Of course there is. The Constitution provided for the impeachment of the President if he abused any power including the power of the Commander in Chief. Also, we have the right to vote him out of office at the end of his term. Remember that the same paragraph that gives him the role of Commander in Chief also says he has the power to overrule a court and even do away with a ruling the court has imposed except in cases of impeachment of officials. Instead of fighting what he is doing as being unconstitutional, we should be fighting to have a Supreme Court ruling or an Amendment to the Constitution to define the powers of the Commander in Chief more accurately. While Bush has done so many things he shouldn't to drag us further into socialism, his wiretaps and other "Patriot act" moves are all constitutional. As President he couldn't do any of those things but as Commander in Chief he can.”

I have no problem with a program to rid nation of the threat wrought by international terrorism. But, I do have a problem when a president, or anyone else, treacherously misrepresents the true nature of his actions. Ironically we find evidence of a similar kind of treachery in our historical archives. This has been documented, for readers, in an article by Devvy Kidd entitled, FDR and the Pearl Harbor Attack

Now, I know that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant of the most despicable kind. I also know that Kim Jong-il of North Korea and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran are of an equally contemptible disposition. And both of these countries are absolutely identified as having weapons of mass destruction.

Since we are nearly certain that Iraq posed no significant threat to our nation and that Iraq had not the means, or the intent, to launch an attack upon the United States, President Bush could not truthfully support a determination that Iraq was an immediate danger. So he did what most politicians do, he improvised and by subterfuge created the illusion that Saddam was poised for an act of aggression against the United States. Now, in my book this is called lying, and I have a very low tolerance for liars. My Dad taught me at a very early age that to be honest and forthcoming was a virtue, and that to be a liar was contemptible. In my boyhood to lie was to invite a session with the razor strop. God Bless him I am thankful that he instilled this in me. So, if Mr. Bush did not abuse his powers technically, he did so in substance. I submit that prevarication and misrepresentation to gain approval for a clearly uncalled for war indicates a moral deficiency too serious to ignore.

So, now we have an unholy alliance to deal with, a Bush-Pelosi team for socialism and world governance. Look for social reforms that will put the new deal to shame. An amnesty for law-breaking illegal aliens is a certainty, which is a gleeful prospect for Mr. Bush who will then be a step closer to that North American Union that he dreams of. Continuing social depravity, which a Republican majority failed to engage, is now a foregone conclusion with humanist Democrats in charge. Fasten your seatbelts, brothers and sisters; we are in for a rough ride.


© 2006 - Jim R. Schwiesow - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or re-sale.





Jim Schwiesow is a retired sheriff with 46 years of law enforcement service. He served with the Unites States Army with the occupation forces in post war Berlin, Germany, and has a total of nine years of military service, which includes six years in the U.S. Army Reserve.

His law enforcement service includes: three years in the military police, fifteen years as an Iowa municipal police officer, and twenty-eight years as the duly elected sheriff of Sioux County, Iowa.

Jim has written a number of articles, which have been published in various professional law enforcement journals.

E-Mail: jimr@orangecitycomm.net




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend


Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Fret Not About Speaker Pelosi


POLITICS / FRET NOT ABOUT SPEAKER PELOSI



Alains Newsletter



Smiley Flag Waver

Now that Nancy Pelosi has shattered the gender barrier, glass ceiling, and incredulity index all in one fell swoop, ordinary Americans are starting to worry that she may be just a tad too liberal to be second in the succession line for the U.S. presidency.

After all, Comrade Nancy does hail from San Francisco -- the only American city that once tried to join the former USSR, but was rejected because Moscow found folks here too far to the left.



My Fellow Americans: Fret Not About Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi


John W. Lillpop
Tuesday 14 November 2006

Now that Nancy Pelosi has shattered the gender barrier, glass ceiling, and incredulity index all in one fell swoop, ordinary Americans are starting to worry that she may be just a tad too liberal to be second in the succession line for the U.S. presidency.

After all, Comrade Nancy does hail from San Francisco -- the only American city that once tried to join the former USSR, but was rejected because Moscow found folks here too far to the left.

Rest assured fellow citizens, Speaker-elect Pelosi poses no threat to the America that we all know and love. At least not yet, that is.

For the purpose of calming the minds and stomachs of those fearing the worse once Nancy Pelosi is crowned to take over, several common myths and exaggerations concerning San Francisco liberalism must be debunked.

To wit, contrary to popular belief:

  • It is NOT a felony to vote Republican in San Francisco, although it is a misdemeanor to register with the knowing intent of voting for a Republican at a future date.
  • A special permit is NOT required to fly Old Glory—except on Cinco de Mayo and Fidel Castro’s birthday.
  • Speaking English is NOT a hate crime, except at fast-food restaurants, car washes, emergency rooms, and when speaking to Hispanics obviously here illegally.
  • Displaying the logo of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines does NOT violate city ordinances, unless one does so with an arrogant, “America First,” G.W. Bush-type of attitude.
  • Attending a Christian church does NOT automatically subject one to higher property taxes: There is an appeals process available.
  • Law enforcement job applicants are NOT required to prove that they are transvestite, gay, handicapped or a racial minority to qualify.
  • Refusing to smoke marijuana when ordered to by an uniformed police officer is NOT a felony, except for anyone foolish enough to sport a “Bush-Cheney” bumper sticker.
  • Working at Wal-Mart is NOT against city law, provided one can prove he or she is an illegal alien from Mexico.
  • Abortions are NOT available on those fabulous cable cars, but may be arranged at most self-serve gas stations and progressive piano bars.
  • Young Middle Eastern males who speak Arabic are NOT a protected minority until they have first been arrested and charged with a terrorist act(s).
  • Being a straight, white, employed Christian male does NOT require one to notify the police before moving into a new neighborhood, or to be listed on a government web site.
  • Securing a driver’s license does NOT automatically enroll one as a dues-paying member of the ACLU, and
  • Convicted sex offenders moving into San Francisco are NOT automatically registered to vote as democrats: They have 30 days in which to join the party and register.

So while liberalism is a severe mental disorder that will significantly impact Nancy Pelosi’s judgment, the good news is -- heck, there is no good news!

Run for your lives!





John W. Lillpop is a recovering liberal, "clean and sober" since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat. Pray for John: He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where people like Nancy Pelosi are actually considered normal!




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend


Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Post Election Dis-illusion: Unanticipated Change


POLITICS / POST ELECTION DIS-ILLUSION - CHANGE IN THE WIND - BUT NOT THE KIND OF CHANGE VOTERS ANTICIPATED



Dorothy Seese



Smiley Flag WaverThe public voted in enough Democrats to speak its mind and hand control of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate to the Democrats.

It is possible that such an outcome was the only route left if America is to retain the appearance of having two modes of thought expressed by a two party political system.

There is change in the wind, but it may not be what the American people felt they were voting to obtain.



BEWARE OF HIGH HOPES


~ Dorothy A. Seese
November 11, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

The illusionists are masters of deception, and deception rules the age in which this world spins. Post-election euphoria has not yet pulled one American soldier out of the Middle East, nor can it remove from power those who really control the opinions of the public, American, European, Middle and Far Eastern, the people we call the "shadow government" comprised of the industrial billionaires and world bankers.

If the elections held in the United States in November, 2006, had been presidential, there is little doubt that the country would now be looking at an incoming administration run by a Democratic Party president. Instead, the public voted in enough Democrats to speak its mind and hand control of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate to the Democrats, thus forcing an arrogant, stubborn president to replace his Secretary of Defense with someone who appears to be more moderate. It is possible that such an outcome was the only route left if America is to retain the appearance of having two modes of thought expressed by a two party political system. The Republican National Committee knew this, the president knew it and so did the Pentagon officials. There is no exit strategy from another quagmire "war" on either side, but the expression of discontent by the popular vote gives the appearance that change is in the wind.

There is change in the wind, but it may not be what the American people felt they were voting to obtain.

A new balance of power in the House and Senate will permit the US to develop an exit strategy from Iraq, which has proved to be a lost cause in the midst of its own civil war and inability to handle a democratic form of government. The same may be true of Afghanistan. The American public, tired of seeing American lives wasted on a no-cause conflict of cultures, gave the government a save-face way out by changing the guard to the more "liberal" side of a political structure in which the terms liberal, conservative, moderate, centrist and right-wing have little to no meaning. A cursory reading of the speeches made by Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy make them sound like right-wing patriots compared to today's so-called "neo-cons."

While the war of words continues in the arena of rhetoric, look at the United States as a whole:

* American jobs are still being lost by the thousands as industry downsizes or moves overseas;

* America's fiscal condition appears terminally ill, with trillions in debt being reserved for another Great Depression or a selloff of American resources to foreign powers to operate with greater efficiency;

* The borders are still wide open to whoever wishes to cross;

* Morality is at an all-time low, having taken a forty-five year tumble since 1961;

* Every Executive Order signed by President Bush is still in effect and available for use;

* Political correctness and its companion, hypocrisy, still stalk the city streets laden with snoop cameras;

* Free speech and the remainder of the Bill of Rights appear to have been given a mortal blow with no chance of recovery or survival;

* The Constitution is still regarded by most courts, including the Supreme Court, as an historic piece of paper;

* Social Security for the elderly is still a mythical lockbox that the nation could not afford before the Iraq incursion and claims are always made that the country cannot afford its elderly while adding non-Americans to the benefit rolls;

* Hundreds of millions are committed to the federalized education of students from pre-kindergarten to the colleges where education now demands loans that would buy a new house, yet we have some of the least educated graduates in the world who have no idea how to think for themselves unless taught at home;

* Freedom has been minimalized to the point where most Americans would rather trade all their freedoms for what they deem to be "security" and security can be guaranteed by no person or government, as anything from asteroids to weather can destroy human lives in a matter of minutes.

* The sanctity of life is in total disregard except where convenient for media exploitation on behalf of some agenda where public outrage is needed for a few days.

And that is a very short list of only the most obvious. America has become a nation where Americans cannot afford to live, other nations are being sought by those who wish to find a place where retirement dollars will buy both food and medicine, not more bureaucratic red tape.

So what did the election accomplish? The appearance that the will of the people has been accomplished, a new era is beginning, America will build back from the Bush years, and the people still have power. That is precisely what anyone could have predicted, given the irritation over the Iraq war and the Bush administration for the past six years.

Is it realistic to believe that America will return to the nation it was in the 1950's, when government intervention in private lives (right down to your cholesterol level, flu shot or your choice to smoke a ground up leaf) would have caused a genuine revolt among the people? Hardly. Is it reasonable to believe that morality will improve, among both the unchurched and leaders of religious bodies? Not really, when money, power, sex and self-gratification are the Baals that line the halls of America from school to church to political office to home.

Is it reasonable to believe that the Republicans are relieved that they have been booted off the hot seat over Iraq and now the world will give America time to get another act together, since hope springs eternal? Yes. That's what this changing of the guard, in appearance more than substance, was all about.

So, considering the above, did anyone win the election?


© 2006 Dorothy A. Seese - All Rights Reserved
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale




Dorothy Anne Seese has been working since she was three and a half years old, but not as a journalist.

Her career began as a child actress in the 1939-1942 "Five Little Peppers" film series produced by Columbia that mercifully ended with the nation's involvement in World War II, although she did do small parts in a few films until 1953. By that time, she was a student at U.C.L.A. where she received her liberal arts degree in Political Science.

E-Mail: carrot710@yahoo.com




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend


Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Radical Pelosi To Block Conservative/Moderate Dems


POLITICS / RADICAL LIBERAL EXTREMIST PELOSI WILL BLOCK APPOINTMENTS OF MODERATE AND CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS



Jim Kouri



Smiley Flag Waver"Did anyone really believe Rep. Pelosi reinvented herself into a moderate? Pelosi is the most extreme leftist to ever hold the Speaker's gavel in congress,"

"Democrat control is not going to be good news for those who believe in competent oversight of the national-security apparatus"

While the liberal-left wing of the Democrat Party and the MoveOn.Org crowd are celebrating "their victory," they appear to already forget that the Democrat candidates who unseated Republicans usually ran to the right.

"Pelosi and her ilk used these moderate-to-conservative Democrats to grab into more power and now they want to deny centrists important congressional positions."



PELOSI TO BLOCK APPOINTMENTS OF MODERATE DEMOCRATS



~ Jim Kouri, CPP
November 11, 2006
NewsWithViews.com


The new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) plans to block committee appointments that elevate Democrat moderates and conservatives into important chairmanships, according to Insight Magazine.

Their sources claim that Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), a six-term member of Congress, who has cooperated with Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, will be a priority target for Pelosi's iron-fist approach to leadership.

"Nancy Pelosi wants total party discipline," a source in the Democratic Party leadership told Insight.

"If you played ball with the Republicans during this session, then you're not going to be given an important chair in the next session," said the source.

As the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Ms. Harman was the logical choice to become chairwoman of the powerful committee. In fact, she was always a strong supporter of national and homeland security and even chastised the New York Times when its reporters published government secrets in their news stories.

But Rep. Pelosi may pass over Rep. Harman, showing preference for either Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida or Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the second-ranking and third-ranking Democrats on the intelligence committee.

The Congressional Black Caucus has been pushing for Mr. Hastings, an impeached federal judge, to become chairman. Earlier this year, the caucus was upset by Ms. Pelosi's decision to expel Rep. William Jefferson from the committee after he was accused of accepting bribes.

Congressional observers believe she expelled Jefferson only to avoid the question of Democrat corruption so close to the elections, since the party's internal polls showed intense dissatisfaction with congressional corruption.

"There is no seniority on the Intelligence Committee," Ms. Pelosi announced. "The leader or the speaker can appoint a whole new set of people."

The same sources told Insight that the 61-year-old Ms. Harman, regarded as the best informed House Democrat on intelligence and technology issues, angered the leftist Pelosi by supporting the Bush administration's policies on defense issues, particularly the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. They added that Pelosi recently rebuffed lobbyists in the pro-Israel community and defense industry that sought a chairmanship for Ms. Harman.

"Did anyone really believe Rep. Pelosi reinvented herself into a moderate? Pelosi is the most extreme leftist to ever hold the Speaker's gavel in congress," political analyst Mike Baker told this writer.

"If Nancy Pelosi's apparent determination to deny Jane Harman the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee to appease the Black Caucus is any indication, Democratic control is not going to be good news for those who believe in competent oversight of the national-security apparatus," Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute told Insight.

Meanwhile, Rep. Harman, who is credited with actually writing the Democrat Party's national security agenda for the campaign, said she hoped to remain a leading voice on defense issues. She said her California constituents want her to be on the House Intelligence Committee.

"House Intelligence Committee activities are directly relevant to the major concerns of my constituents," Ms. Harman said.

While the liberal-left wing of the Democrat Party and the MoveOn.Org crowd are celebrating "their victory," they appear to already forget that the Democrat candidates who unseated Republicans usually ran to the right, claims Baker.

"Pelosi and her ilk used these moderate-to-conservative Democrats to grab into more power and now they want to deny centrists important congressional positions."


© 2006 Jim Kouri- All Rights Reserved


E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or re-sale.




Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.

He writes for many police and crime magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, and others. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com, Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores.

E-Mail: COPmagazine@aol.com




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend


Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Fatherhood: Obstacle To Social Welfare State


SOCIETY / LIBERALS VIEW FATHERHOOD AS AN ANACHRONISM AND A STUBBORN OBSTACLE TO THEIR UTOPIAN VISION OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE STATE



RealityCheck



Smiley Flag WaverBrock Chisolm, former head of the World Health Organization, once admitted, “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” Men are often the staunchest defenders of those democratic ideals, so it only makes sense to marginalize males by any means possible.

There is a small yet influential group in our society that views fatherhood as an anachronism and a stubborn obstacle to their utopian vision of the social welfare state. And they see divorce and award of child custody to mothers as a highly-effective ploy to achieve their goal.



Carey Roberts


Fathers No Longer Cost-Effective?


~ By Carey Roberts


I’m not one who is prone to get misty-eyed, but Tim Russert’s latest book did it.


Two years ago Russert penned a moving tribute to his own father, Big Russ and Me, which quickly became a New York Times best-seller. Russert was inundated with so many poignant letters that he decided to compile them into a sequel, Wisdom of Our Fathers. Now that book has become a run-away top-seller, as well.


There’s a message here: persons have an enormous sense of gratitude for the many things -- big and small -- that dad did for them. I know, that’s exactly how I feel about my father.


But there is a small yet influential group in our society that views fatherhood as an anachronism and a stubborn obstacle to their utopian vision of the social welfare state. And they see divorce and award of child custody to mothers as a highly-effective ploy to achieve their goal.


When one million children experience divorce each year, and when custody is awarded to mothers in 85% of cases, you can see the scope of the problem. If you want to scale down male influence in a society, what better way than to bar fathers from seeing their own sons and daughters?


So this past spring, Mitch Sanderson of Grand Forks, North Dakota set out to make things better for kids. He canvassed voters throughout the state, collecting signatures for a measure on the November ballot to promote shared parenting. The petition stated that in the event of divorce, “each parent would be entitled to joint legal and physical custody unless first declared unfit.”


One of Sanderson’s most vocal supporters was grandmother Myrna Meidinger, who explained, “If you don’t have shared parenting like I went through, it’s hard to see your grandkids.” Before long over 17,000 signatures were gathered, proving that the shared parenting idea enjoyed support throughout the state.


But what happened next is comprehensible only if you remember the old saying, “Follow the money.” Under federal regulations, states stand to gain millions in federal incentives and reimbursements by increasing their child support rolls. If kids spend equal time with dad and mom, child support payments are reduced accordingly.


So in July, Thomas Sullivan of the federal Administration for Children and Families (the gargantuan federal agency that runs our child support apparatus) sent a letter to state senator Tom Fisher. Since the measure would reduce federal largesse by $70 million, citizens should vote against the pro-child ballot initiative, Sullivan argued.


Since when are green-visor bureaucrats allowed to lobby state legislators?


As columnist Stephen Baskerville lamented, “federal bureaucrats are now using taxpayers’ money to strong-arm citizens from democratic decisions that, by relieving a serious social problem, threaten to render the bureaucrats redundant.” [www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16538]


Then North Dakota Human Services director Carol Olson weighed in with the same Chicken-Little message, raising the specter of federal cutbacks. How could anyone so brazenly ignore the well-being of children?


This catapulted Mitch Sanderson’s sleeper initiative into the most-debated topic throughout the state. Soon former governor Ed Schaeffer announced his support for the shared parenting measure.


Schaeffer also chastised the lawyer-dominated state legislature for dragging its feet on the issue. Remember, when divorcing couples litigate high-priced child custody disputes, it’s the lawyers who make out like bandits.


Proving Mr. Schaeffer’s point to be true, the North Dakota bar association soon jumped into the fray. The attorneys hastily assembled a front organization known as the North Dakota Concerned Citizens for Children’s Rights. Soon the group was resorting to scare tactics such as the claim that shared parenting would “dismantle the current child support system.”


Huh?


Two years ago a similar ballot measure was presented to the voters of Massachusetts, where 85% of the electorate approved the idea.


But this time, the lawyers, social workers, and others who profit from family break-up succeeded in sowing enough confusion to tip the balance. This past Tuesday, the shared parenting measure was defeated by a 56% to 44% margin, thus dashing the hopes of Mitch Sanderson, Myrna Meidinger, and the many kids who, like the persons who wrote loving tributes in Tim Russert’s book, long to see their daddies.


Brock Chisolm, former head of the World Health Organization, once admitted, “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” Men are often the staunchest defenders of those democratic ideals, so it only makes sense to marginalize males by any means possible.


Usually the Lefties work their mischief behind closed doors. But this time around, the rats came scurrying out of the woodwork.


© 2006 Carey Roberts - All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or re-sale.





Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism. Mr. Roberts’ work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show.

Besides serving as a regular contributor to NewsWithViews.com, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, RenewAmerica.us, ifeminists.net, Men’s News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan.

Roberts now works as an independent lecturer, writer, researcher and consultant.

E-Mail: CareyRoberts@comcast.net

Carey Roberts 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.

The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend


Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below