The War on Men

What began as “the Ray Rice incident” has now morphed into a full frontal attack on not only the National Football League, (NFL), but men in general.  Even though the incidents of domestic violence and other crimes are markedly lower in the NFL than in the same general public demographic, this inconvenient truth has not diminished the out and out lie that now drives the agenda:  Professional football players are dangerous, violent predators that routinely assault and otherwise mistreat and degrade women.  Any discussion to the contrary; debate or analysis that does not comport with this everyone-knows-this-is-true agenda earns the heretic so daring Satan’s mark.

Misandristic, militant feminism drives this narrative, believing that their stance on the issue insulates them from criticism, the theory being that anyone who dares question the motives or facts in the matter automatically receives the label of denier of the obvious and woman hater, marginalized and discarded as unworthy of consideration.  You either get with the program and embrace the group-think on this issue or you are an outlier, banished from all contemplation.

A video recording for all to see is what propelled this incident into the marching orders for the social engineers to find the requisite excuse to advance an agenda that strives to actually end the game of football as we know it, and further homogenize the male species into the neutered state of being that misandrists till now have only dreamed of.

Combine the head injury claims, the tightening of rules about appropriate tackling, illegal use of the helmet, lawsuits from ex-players claiming dementia and other injuries with this latest slew of allegations of domestic violence, and you have the necessary ingredients for making a case that brings down the very symbol of manhood for many; Football.

When these social engineers can bring NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to his knees, almost literally, as we witnessed during a recent news conference, they gain strength by sapping it from the strong.  As Goodell leads the long line of those who need punishment into the open arena for their public flogging, the hand-wringing, weeping, apologetic lap-dogs, afraid to fall out of step are cowards of the first order, happy recipients of a do-it-yourself neutering.

Honorable and virtuous men do not strike women, no need for classes or reminders.  When these crimes happen, the legal system is the appropriate forum for resolution.  When you are a celebrity, and make your living entertaining the public, you may also suffer by way of lost endorsements and public condemnation.

But make no mistake, the masterminds of the militant, misanderistic movement are using this combination of events to advance wholesale change in a way that may seem appropriate in the heat of the emotionally charged moment, but is actually taking advantage of emotionally skewed thinking to mask the real goal of furthering the feminization of men.

The Goodell’s et al represents the low-hanging fruit for self-flagellation, but the rest of mankind won’t subscribe as ordered.


Wedding Cake and Eat it Too………..

Professional football player Ray Rice was arrested for assaulting his fiancé.  The judicial system processed and adjudicated Rice’s case and he was punished accordingly.  On what legal basis does the National Football League, (NFL), act in further punishing Rice?

How is it that the NFL has justification or authority to extend and increase the punishment that the legal system has already metered out?  Since when are employers extensions of our legal system in deciding crime and punishment?

By initially suspending Rice for two games and then reacting to public sentiment by changing that decision to an indefinite suspension, the NFL arbitrarily deciding to heap punishment on top of punishment, clearly at the whim of public pressure and the anticipated politically correct backlash.

If this same incident involved another man instead of a woman, none of this reaction by the NFL would be happening.  If another man spit in Rice’s face, (as is alleged in the case involving the woman), many would view the ensuing assault as just desserts yet many in the shrill, modern feminine movement lecture us about the equality of men and women; equal only apparently until that first punch is thrown and then, instantly those same screaming-for-equal-rights feminists run for cover and without a hint of irony, seek the comforts and confines of the traditional mantra of never-hit-a-woman.

 Can’t have it all ways girls.

 Not many right minded men would spit in the face of a 206 pound professional football player, but apparently his girlfriend felt empowered by the feminine movement to try her luck at it.  By their own standards of supposed equality, they should have seen it coming.


Welfare Queen

A regional group of grocery stores in conjunction with a local chain of gas stations offers a rewards program that discounts gas prices based upon the amount of grocery purchases. The more you spend on groceries, the more you save on gas.

As I stood in line, cash in hand, waiting for the proud, loud and obese welfare queen with 5 out-of-control kids to scan her food stamps card, the clerk announced that she had “earned” 30 cents per gallon discount on her next gas purchase.

“Earned?” defines “earn” as, “to gain or get in return for one’s labor or service.”

Maybe the new policy on the rewards program would be to give it to the next person in line that can produce proof that they paid taxes that make food stamps possible to begin with.

Public service announcements shame us into believing that 1 in 6 suffer from something called “meal uncertainty.” With over 50 million people on food stamps and roughly 300 million people in the USA, this must be how they concoct this preposterous number. Look around you at the grocery store and observe the folks on food stamps. There is no uncertainty as to the fact they are getting their food, and apparently plenty of it. As a group, those on welfare are more than twice as obese as the rest of society. Medicaid recipients use almost 70% of their medical benefit services addressing health issues directly related to being over-weight, yet the hunger-is-an-epidemic crowd would have you believing the poor routinely go hungry. If this were true, you would think that in Broome County we would see many incidents of malnutrition, but according to the NYS Health Department, not a single case has been reported in recent memory.

We don’t have a hunger problem in this country, we have a nutrition problem.

Food stamp recipients should be evaluated for their familial and health needs and then be given healthy, affordable, quantity controlled foods, chosen specifically for their circumstances. No more shopping without regard to price or healthy content, recipients would receive nutritional foods chosen and packaged at the most affordable cost.

Statistics show that those on food stamps are overwhelmingly making the wrong nutritional choices. Those of us who are being forced to pay their bills ought to be making healthier decisions on their behalf; after all, we’re also paying for their healthcare. Once self-sufficient, they can eat whatever they can pay for, but as long as they seek our help, they ought to be obliged to accept our guidance as well.

Now, if we could manage to have maybe one day a week where the only folks allowed into the grocery store are those with cash or credit cards, perhaps going to the local market would be less like a trip into a war-torn ghetto near a mental hospital and more like a nice opportunity to interact and socialize with your working, thoughtful, taxpaying neighbors without the need to carry a gun.



A front page story published in the local newspaper on Labor Day bragging that all Binghamton students will eat free meals this year should take taxpayers appetites away.

Properly written, the lead line should be: Beleaguered taxpayers disprove the old adage that there is no such thing as a free lunch by purchasing them for all Binghamton students regardless of need.

Binghamton school superintendent Marion Martinez tells readers, “..the main point is children are able to get the nutrition they need at no cost to them.” Senior food service director for Broome-Tioga BOCES, Mark Bordeau goes on to say, “..studies have shown student’s eating regular meals at school concentrate more and achieve better grades.”

It seems school officials are unaware that families qualifying for the free meal program also quality for and likely receive food stamps, which takes into account the familial, daily nutritional needs of kids. Food stamp recipients have the capabilities to prepare their own kids a breakfast before school as well as a bag lunch. Apparently Martinez does not have much faith in the strength and self-sufficiencies of the families her district educates. Perhaps if a greater focus was placed on actual education within the school, less social engineering might free up resources for improving Binghamton’s abysmal drop-out rate and test scores.

Bordeau tells us of “studies” that justify regular school meals because kids achieve better grades. That is great news however I would like to know, from these studies Bordeau touts, just how much of grade improvement can we expect? We ought to see measurable improvement because of this program, and we ought to see it in the next year, that is according to the “studies” but I doubt we will see any positive change and if anything, the outlook and outcomes will grow dimmer. If grades stay flat or go down, excuses will dismiss any real accountability and never will a program like this go away once it is thought of as an entitlement. And these same folks wonder why the traditional nuclear family is breaking down or is all but gone in the poor community? It’s in large measure because they and their social experiment policies have eradicated pride, need and accountability in this demographic by attempting to replace productive people with responsibility robbing policies.

A single parent with two or three school age kids will see their weekly responsibility for providing meals decrease by 50%, but I’ll bet the farm that no corresponding reduction in food stamp benefits will take place. And why shouldn’t it? The financial pressures for food are being reduced by half. Then these same folks will look the other way when the under-ground economy is turning excess food stamp credit into cash that buys the votes that fosters this advancement of bad policy, marching those caught in it into the abyss of hopelessness.

How much longer do you think the 30% of us paying for lunch are going to carry the 70% who expect it for free?