Issues related to men, their problems and relationships

men problems, men relationships, men and relationships, men and women relationships, relationship advice for men, men relationship advice, men to men relationship

Archive for May, 2013

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

Washington D.C., known more these days as the "district of criminals"
commits so many crimes each day as a collective body that a moratorium
on government should be declared until we can clean this nest of
globalists, these kissers of corporate butts who seem more determined to
protect their own private interests than protecting our country from
obliteration by global cabals.

As congress moves forward with plans to end our sovereignty, as they
collude with foreign interests to take our jobs, to destroy our culture
and to subject us to international laws and agreements harmful to us as
a nation, we need to remember who we are.  We are not globalists; we are
Americans.  We are not "citizens" of some new world . . . We are not a
collection of mindlessly identified numbers and codes, biometric
identifiers, or mindless sheep that don’t understand what is being done
to our nation.

We are the greatest society to have ever existed.  WE ARE AMERICANS.

The greatest threat America faces on a day to day basis are those who
masquerade as protectors and defenders of the American people.   D.C.
has long since ceased to be of any value to the public although
corporations and the obscenely rich find a home away from home in this
ten square mile district.

We are also standing on the edge of a precipice and if we don’t stand up
and collectively demand a return to, and an affirmation of, who we are
and what has bound us together for more than 200 years, we will be
driven over the edge into an unimaginable abyss.

As congress continues its daily deluge of anti-American legislation, its
un-American activities, bear in mind that just because congress said it,
doesn’t make it so.  Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

     The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators
bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The
Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and
any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both
the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:

     The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the
time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so
branding it.

     An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative
as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that
it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

     Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals
follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office,
bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and
justifies no acts performed under it . . .

     A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

     An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing
valid law.

     Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of
the land, it is superseded thereby.

     No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.

     - Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.
(late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Keep this in mind when your friends and family, or your elected
officials tell you that "it’s the law, you have to".  If that law is
arbitrary to the constitution, if it renders you subject to illegal or
unconstitutional laws and acts it is in fact, null and void.  Keep this
in mind when the courts rule in favor of corporate interests knowingly
violating the rights and protections afforded the people as described in
the Constitution.  Almost without exception, every law that has been
passed by one administration and congress after another in the last
twenty years has substantially violated and reduced the rights of Americans.

One of the gravest mistakes made by Americans today is the mistake of
assuming that because congress passed a piece of legislation and the
president signed it, the violations of rights and liberties, the
assaults on the American people under the guise of [national security]
or other created crisis are justified or legal.

You have guaranteed rights only so long as you defend them from
encroachment by the government.

Source:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/no-one-is-bound-to-obey-an-unconstitution…

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/no-one-is-bound-to-obey.html

-

Quotes from the Founding Fathers:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force,
like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

George Washington

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety
deserves neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."

William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring
one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth
of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government,
and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity."

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

"We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for
self-government."

James Madison

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

"(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and
immutable principles of private morality; . . . the propitious smiles of
Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal
rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained . . ."

George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm
basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are
a gift from God?"

Thomas Jefferson

"The citizens of the U.S. are responsible for the greatest trust ever
confided to a political society"

James Madison

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."

Thomas Jefferson

"If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those
inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we
mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so
long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until
the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight!"

Patrick Henry

". . . God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a
rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part
which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of
the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s
rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them
right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives
lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural
manure."

Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence,
July 4, 1776

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Boobs in the Office..

http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2010/12/boobs-in-office.html

Gee, where do I start with this little gem of stupidity ?

Since when was the work place an arena to demonstrate your sexuality or your
need for attention. Ever since more women entered the workplace ofcourse,
they want their cake and eat it as well by refusing to comprehend the fact
that they are there to work and produce results and it has nothing to do
with anything else..

But obviously a little too difficult to comprehend for some and we have the
example of taking advantage of the unlimited "sexism" laws introduced by
feminists to reduce so-called sexism in the workplace. In the past we have
seen multiple companies sued by women en-mass for failing to "promote" them
even though their credentials were not up to scratch but why admit that !

SO we have the ongoing argument by women to do anything they want in the
workplace just because they are women and scream, yell and shout if they are
held accountable for their very own actions..

Flashing boobs in the work place is not a good idea and employers have
stated that as such. They are probably sick to death of providing all those
extras to women already, you know like maternity leave, menstruation days
off, shorter work hours, additional days off, flexi-time, and ofcourse to
quit that executive position after they get pregnant after being granted
promotion via the "equal opportunity" laws that demand women are promoted
regardless of ability or effort..—

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Rabbit

Rabbit bandicoot,
bounding through the rusty sward,
will suck dick and ass.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

The American Woman

http://www.angryharry.com/reTheAmericanWoman.htm

Eric Dingwall 1956, 1957

(Note: Basically, Eric Dingwall shows how pathetic are American men in that
they allow themselves to be totally dominated by their women.)

(excerpts)

… many domestic and foreign observers have remarked that the United States
seems to have a surprising number of men who remain adolescent and of women
who play the roles both of doll and of matriarch, and they have not always
realized that this is part of the American cultural pattern and the result
of the domination of society by women. The conflict in the American soul, is
an economic and a sexual conflict, and the American woman is, I think, at
the heart of that conflict. It is women who set the stage and largely
control the players in important sections of American life. America is a
woman’s world, a world in which, as a Chinese woman, Helena Kuo, remarked,
women have succeeded in everything except in the art of being truly
feminine. In this lies the tragedy and the danger. It is the purpose of this
book to try to see how the American woman has attained her position and how
the whole of American culture is permeated by her influence. p. 14—

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Where Are the Female Einsteins?

http://www.aei.org/article/23481

By Charles Murray

Weshould discussintractable differences between men and women, or between
any other groups of people, because the refusal to confront the reality of
differences has consequences.

Last January, Harvard University president Lawrence Summers offered a few
mild, off-the-record remarks about innate differences between men and women
in their aptitude for high-level science and mathematics, and was treated by
Harvard’s faculty as if he were a crank. The typical news story portrayed
the idea of innate sex differences as a renegade position that reputable
scholars rejected.

The Orwellian disinformation about innate group differences is not wholly
the media’s fault. Many academics who are familiar with the state of
knowledge are afraid to go on the record. Talking publicly can dry up
research funding for senior professors and can cost assistant professors
their jobs. But while the public’s misconception is understandable, it is
also getting in the way of clear thinking about social policy.

Good social policy can be based on premises that have nothing to do with
scientific truth. The premise that is supposed to undergird all of U.S.
social policy, the American founders’ assertion of an unalienable right to
liberty, is not a falsifiable hypothesis. But specific policies based on
premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to
work. Often they do harm.

One such premise is that the distribution of innate abilities and
propensities is the same across different groups. The statistical tests for
uncovering job discrimination assume that men are not innately different
from women in ways that can legitimately affect employment decisions.
Affirmative action in all its forms assumes there are no innate differences
between any of the groups it seeks to help and everyone else. The assumption
of no innate differences among groups suffuses American social policy. That
assumption is wrong.

Hence this essay. Most of the following discussion describes reasons for
believing that some group differences are intractable. I shift from "innate"
to "intractable" to acknowledge how complex is the interaction of genes,
their expression in behavior and the environment. "Intractable" means that,
whatever the precise partitioning of causation may be (we seldom know),
policy interventions can only tweak the difference at the margins.

Here are three crucial points to keep in mind as we go along:

1. The differences I discuss involve means and distributions. In all cases,
the variation within groups is greater than the variation between groups. On
psychological and cognitive dimensions, some members of both sexes fall
everywhere along the range. One implication of this is that genius does not
come in one sex, and neither does any other human ability. Another is that a
few minutes of conversation with individuals you meet will tell you much
more about them than their group membership does.

2. I have had to leave out much. I urge that readers with questions consult
the fully annotated version of this essay, which includes extensive
supplementary material; it is available at www.commentarymagazine.com.

3. The concepts of "inferiority" and "superiority" are inappropriate to
group comparisons. On most specific human attributes, it is possible to
specify a continuum running from "low" to "high," but the results cannot be
combined into a score running from "bad" to "good." What is the best score
on a continuum measuring aggressiveness? What is the relative importance of
verbal skills versus, say, compassion? Of spatial skills versus
industriousness? The aggregate excellences and shortcomings of human groups
do not lend themselves to simple comparisons. That is why the members of
just about every group can so easily conclude that they are God’s chosen
people. All of us use the weighting system that favours our group’s
strengths.

The technical literature documenting sex differences and their biological
basis grew surreptitiously during feminism’s heyday in the 1970s and 1980s.
By the 1990s, it had become so extensive that the bibliography in David
Geary’s pioneering Male, Female (1998) ran to 53 pages. Currently, the best
short account of the state of knowledge is Steven Pinker’s chapter on sex in
The Blank Slate (2002).

Rather than present a telegraphic list of all the differences that I think
have been established, I will focus on the narrower question at the heart of
the Summers controversy: As groups, do men and women differ innately in
characteristics that produce achievement at the highest levels of
accomplishment? I will limit my comments to the arts and sciences.

Since we live in an age when students are likely to hear more about Marie
Curie than about Albert Einstein, it is worth beginning with a statement of
historical fact: Women have played a proportionally tiny part in the history
of the arts and sciences. Others have found similar proportions. Even in the
20th century, women got only 2% of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences–a
proportion constant for both halves of the century–and 10% of the prizes in
literature. The Fields Medal, the most prestigious award in mathematics, has
been given to 44 people since it originated in 1936. All have been men.

The historical reality of male dominance of the greatest achievements in
science and the arts is not open to argument. The question is whether the
social and legal exclusion of women is a sufficient explanation for this
situation, or whether sex-specific characteristics are also at work.

Mathematics offers an entry point for thinking about the answer. Through
high school, girls earn better grades in math than boys, but boys usually do
better on standardized tests. The difference in means is modest, but the
male advantage increases as the focus shifts from means to extremes. In a
large sample of mathematically gifted youths, for example, seven times as
many males as females scored in the top percentile of the SAT mathematics
test. We do not have good test data on the male-female ratio at the top
one-hundredth or top one-thousandth of a percentile, where first-rate
mathematicians are most likely to be found, but collateral evidence suggests
that the male advantage there continues to increase, perhaps exponentially.

Evolutionary biologists have some theories that feed into an explanation for
the disparity. In primitive societies, men did the hunting, which often took
them far from home. Males with the ability to recognize landscapes from
different orientations and thereby find their way back had a survival
advantage. Men who could process trajectories in three dimensions–the
trajectory, say, of a spear thrown at an edible mammal–also had a survival
advantage. Women did the gathering. Those who could distinguish among
complex arrays of vegetation, remembering which were the poisonous plants
and which the nourishing ones, also had a survival advantage. Thus the logic
for explaining why men should have developed elevated three-dimensional
visuospatial skills and women an elevated ability to remember objects and
their relative locations–differences that show up in specialized tests
today.

Perhaps this is a just-so story. Why not instead attribute the results of
these tests to socialization? Enter the neuroscientists. It has been known
for years that even after adjusting for body size, men have larger brains
than women. Yet most psychometricians conclude that men and women have the
same mean IQ (although debate on this issue is growing). One hypothesis for
explaining this paradox is that three-dimensional processing absorbs the
extra male capacity. In the past few years, magnetic-resonance imaging has
refined the evidence for this hypothesis, revealing that parts of the
brain’s parietal cortex associated with space perception are proportionally
bigger in men than in women.

What does space perception have to do with scores on math tests? Enter the
psychometricians, who demonstrate that when visuospatial ability is taken
into account, the sex difference in SAT math scores shrinks substantially.

Why should the difference be so much greater at the extremes than at the
mean? Part of the answer is that men consistently exhibit higher variance
than women on all sorts of characteristics, including visuospatial
abilities, meaning that there are proportionally more men than women at both
ends of the bell curve. Another part of the answer is that someone with a
high verbal IQ can easily master the basic algebra, geometry and calculus
that make up most of the items in an ordinary math test. Elevated
visuospatial skills are most useful for the most difficult items. If males
have an advantage in answering those comparatively few really hard items,
the increasing disparity at the extremes becomes explicable.

Seen from one perspective, this pattern demonstrates what should be obvious:
There is nothing inherent in being a woman that precludes high math ability.
But there remains a distributional difference in male and female
characteristics that leads to a larger number of men with high visuospatial
skills. The difference has an evolutionary rationale, a physiological basis
and a direct correlation with math scores.

Now put all this alongside the historical data on accomplishment in the arts
and sciences. In test scores, the male advantage is most pronounced in the
most abstract items. Historically, too, it is most pronounced in the most
abstract domains of accomplishment.

In the humanities, the most abstract field is philosophy–and no woman has
been a significant original thinker in any of the world’s great
philosophical traditions. In the sciences, the most abstract field is
mathematics, where the number of great female mathematicians is
approximately two (Emmy Noether definitely, Sonya Kovalevskaya maybe). In
the other hard sciences, the contributions of great women have usually been
empirical rather than theoretical,

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

Australian Navy to Enemy: Don't Attack Now, Haven't got Babysitter..

http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2010/12/australian-navy-to-en…

How inevitable was this ?

As the Australian Armed forces feminise themselves and become more useless
women friendly, they continually embarrass themselves as they introduce more
ridiculous and brain numbing capitulations to the opposite sex..

Drop the standard, drop the training courses, drop the regulatory physical
training tests, install babysitting facilities, promote women above men for
any reason just to demonstrate how "woman friendly" they really are..

As is the case in government departments and corporations. No woman can
claim that they were promoted due to their own ability, determination or
experience as the law now states that women HAVE to be promoted above men at
any level and for any reason. Regardless whether or not the are competent,
have the experience or even the capacity to fulfil their duties..—

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Dad castrates man, 57, for dating 17-year-old daughter: cops

While I normally eschew violence as a proper response, the dad was 100%
right

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/13/2010-12-13_dad_47_in…

Angry that his teenage daughter was dating an older man, a German dad went
to the 57-year-old’s home and castrated him with a bread knife, police said.

Helmut Seifert, originally from Russia, recently pled guilty to attacking
Phillip Genscher, according to London’s Telegraph.

"I saw it as my duty as a father," the 47-year-old father allegedly told
police.

With the help of two of his co-workers, he went to Genscher’s home in
Bielefeld, in northern Germany.

"[Genscher] was forced to remove his trousers and, fully conscious, he was
castrated," police said, the Telegraph reports. "The severed testicles were
taken away by the perpetrator."

The father has not revealed the identity of the men who helped him. He is
expected to go on trial next year.


J Young
jvisi…@live.com

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (15)

Does Obamacare discriminate against men?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/doesobamacarediscriminateagainstmen

Caroline May

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously told the American people that
Congress needed "to pass the [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] so
that you can find out what is in it," and with each passing day Americans
are learning more and more about what their government has planned for them.

Among the many expressed frustrations of the new health care law’s opponents
has been the addition of more unwieldy bureaucracies to the already bloated
federal government. The massive law creates 159 new government agencies.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

Of the many new boards, agencies, and programs the law creates, those
implemented for the benefit of women are among the most common, a fact some
say renders the law inherently unequal.

There are at least 7 new agencies and departments devoted solely to women
while there is not one office for men or male specific ailments.

Men’s health advocates long have pushed for an Office of Men’s Health to act
as a companion to the Office on Women’s Health, established in 1991. Instead
of rectifying that disparity, the new health care law intensified it.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, has been
critical of Obama’s gender policies, charging that his administration has
pushed initiatives that favor women over men. According to Roth, the health
care bill was no different.

"[The women's] lobby is very well funded, active and vocal. It is really
paradoxical because women in many ways are doing better than men, so for
example, if you do a search in the health care bill there is not one mention
of ‘prostate’ and are over 40 mentions of ‘breast’ and men are tax payers,
they should get equal health treatment," Roth told The Daily Caller

Hadley Heath, health care policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum,
said that women got more consideration because it was politically expedient.

"Women came out big in 2008, and they were a very big voting bloc for
[Obama]," Heath told TheDC. "Women as voters really care about health care,
health reform because we often make decisions for ourselves, our families
and dependents about health care. So clearly this is an issue that is
important to women, women are important as voters to any politician."

Roth stressed that the high number of women’s agencies and lack of
corresponding men’s offices was not just a symbolic display of inequality,
but one that would have real world repercussions, namely in the distribution
of research funding.

"What is interesting is that all these offices for women in the health care
bill, that generates grants for research of women’s health issues," Roth
said. "So it is not just that they have those offices, but those offices are
accompanied by pots of money for research. So it means that they are skewing
the research in favor of women over men."

Scott Williams, vice-president of the Men’s Health Network, told TheDC that
women have done a fantastic job raising awareness for their health concerns
and have left men in the proverbial dust. Williams believes that much of the
blame for the lack of focus on men lays squarely at the feet of, well, men.

"I think for years the women’s health movement and women’s health advocates
have been a lot more effective than we have as men’s health advocates,"
Williams said. "They certainly beat a louder drum than we do. So I think the
onus is on us to make more noise but I think it is also a lack of awareness
around men’s health issues in general."

Williams added that while the current agencies are doing good work, men’s
health needs more attention.

"People don’t understand that men on average live about 5 less years than
women. That 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women in their lifetime will be diagnosed
with cancer. That men lead in 9 out of the 10 top ten causes of death. When
you look at the data and the facts it is really not part of the debate in
health care and I think those are statistics and facts that need to be
brought to light," he said.

But men’s health advocates are cheering any victory they can get. Williams
said that one of the most exciting pieces of legislation passed this year
was the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) because it created an
Office of Indian Men’s Health to mirror the existing Office of Indian Women’s
Health within the Indian Health Service. Advocates see the Act as the first
step toward their larger vision of an Office of Men’s Health, which Williams
believes would rectify some of the perceived neglect of the Obama
administration towards Men’s health issues.

"The administration can easily fill this gap by creating an Office of Men’s
Health at HHS, and should do so with the utmost speed," Williams concluded.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

Washington D.C., known more these days as the "district of criminals"
commits so many crimes each day as a collective body that a moratorium
on government should be declared until we can clean this nest of
globalists, these kissers of corporate butts who seem more determined to
protect their own private interests than protecting our country from
obliteration by global cabals.

As congress moves forward with plans to end our sovereignty, as they
collude with foreign interests to take our jobs, to destroy our culture
and to subject us to international laws and agreements harmful to us as
a nation, we need to remember who we are.  We are not globalists; we are
Americans.  We are not "citizens" of some new world . . . We are not a
collection of mindlessly identified numbers and codes, biometric
identifiers, or mindless sheep that don’t understand what is being done
to our nation.

We are the greatest society to have ever existed.  WE ARE AMERICANS.

The greatest threat America faces on a day to day basis are those who
masquerade as protectors and defenders of the American people.   D.C.
has long since ceased to be of any value to the public although
corporations and the obscenely rich find a home away from home in this
ten square mile district.

We are also standing on the edge of a precipice and if we don’t stand up
and collectively demand a return to, and an affirmation of, who we are
and what has bound us together for more than 200 years, we will be
driven over the edge into an unimaginable abyss.

As congress continues its daily deluge of anti-American legislation, its
un-American activities, bear in mind that just because congress said it,
doesn’t make it so.  Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

     The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators
bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The
Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and
any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both
the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:

     The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the
time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so
branding it.

     An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative
as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that
it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

     Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals
follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office,
bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and
justifies no acts performed under it . . .

     A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

     An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing
valid law.

     Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of
the land, it is superseded thereby.

     No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.

     - Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.
(late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Keep this in mind when your friends and family, or your elected
officials tell you that "it’s the law, you have to".  If that law is
arbitrary to the constitution, if it renders you subject to illegal or
unconstitutional laws and acts it is in fact, null and void.  Keep this
in mind when the courts rule in favor of corporate interests knowingly
violating the rights and protections afforded the people as described in
the Constitution.  Almost without exception, every law that has been
passed by one administration and congress after another in the last
twenty years has substantially violated and reduced the rights of Americans.

One of the gravest mistakes made by Americans today is the mistake of
assuming that because congress passed a piece of legislation and the
president signed it, the violations of rights and liberties, the
assaults on the American people under the guise of [national security]
or other created crisis are justified or legal.

You have guaranteed rights only so long as you defend them from
encroachment by the government.

Source:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/no-one-is-bound-to-obey-an-unconstitution…

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/no-one-is-bound-to-obey.html

-

Quotes from the Founding Fathers:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force,
like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

George Washington

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety
deserves neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."

William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring
one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth
of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government,
and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity."

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

"We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for
self-government."

James Madison

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

"(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and
immutable principles of private morality; . . . the propitious smiles of
Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal
rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained . . ."

George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm
basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are
a gift from God?"

Thomas Jefferson

"The citizens of the U.S. are responsible for the greatest trust ever
confided to a political society"

James Madison

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."

Thomas Jefferson

"If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those
inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we
mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so
long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until
the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight!"

Patrick Henry

". . . God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a
rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part
which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of
the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s
rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them
right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives
lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural
manure."

Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence,
July 4, 1776

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Boobs in the Office..

http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2010/12/boobs-in-office.html

Gee, where do I start with this little gem of stupidity ?

Since when was the work place an arena to demonstrate your sexuality or your
need for attention. Ever since more women entered the workplace ofcourse,
they want their cake and eat it as well by refusing to comprehend the fact
that they are there to work and produce results and it has nothing to do
with anything else..

But obviously a little too difficult to comprehend for some and we have the
example of taking advantage of the unlimited "sexism" laws introduced by
feminists to reduce so-called sexism in the workplace. In the past we have
seen multiple companies sued by women en-mass for failing to "promote" them
even though their credentials were not up to scratch but why admit that !

SO we have the ongoing argument by women to do anything they want in the
workplace just because they are women and scream, yell and shout if they are
held accountable for their very own actions..

Flashing boobs in the work place is not a good idea and employers have
stated that as such. They are probably sick to death of providing all those
extras to women already, you know like maternity leave, menstruation days
off, shorter work hours, additional days off, flexi-time, and ofcourse to
quit that executive position after they get pregnant after being granted
promotion via the "equal opportunity" laws that demand women are promoted
regardless of ability or effort..—

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments