Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Ron Paul: The Economic Interview.

Watch the master at work:

And when you get done with that, please read:

The Case For Gold, by Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman

Secrets of the Federal Reserve

And get all the monetary education you need this year!

Let the truth be known.

Kumo tha Dude.

At last... A Girl that Doesn't Suck!


Ron Paul Girl!

Check her out gents... I mean, listen to her words!



Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Waco: Symptom of a Larger Sickness.

Dear readers,

You may have heard about the Waco massacre. But you probably have no idea about what really happened there. At least, I didn't know until yesterday.

Hot flixx:

Waco: Rules of Engagement.

Waco: The Big Lie.

Waco: A New Revelation.

Surprisingly, or should I say, unsurprisingly, feminist child abuse hysteria may have been one of the primary factors that led to the fatal standoff.

According to Taken Into Custody by Stephen Baskerville:

"...despite numerous exposes of abusive government bureaucracies from writers on both the left and the right, the feminist inspired politics of children [divorce, child abuse, child custody, etc] shows no signs of being brought under control. None of the prosecutors or judges who have railroaded parents into jail on spurious charges without due process of law has been prosecuted.

Indeed, one of them was made attorney general of the United States. Following her career as a state attorney in Dade County, Florida, where, in the words of left-wing journalist Nat Hentoff, she "orchestrated some horrendously unjust convictions," including using child abuse hysteria to send one innocent man to prison for five consecutive life terms...

... From this position [US attorney general] she managed to use questionable rumors of child abuse to launch a violent assault against American citizens in Waco, Texas, resulting in the deaths of twenty four children who she was ostensibly protecting (Baskerville, Taken into Custody, pp. 227-228)."

Upon review of the Waco: Rules of Engagement and Waco: The Big Lie, it turns out that the Bureau of ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, and FIREARMS has no jurisdiction over child abuse cases, although allegations of abuse formed the lion's share of the search warrant that was used as a pretext to raid the compound.

Notice that ONCE AGAIN, feminist based "abuse" and "violence" were used as justifications for overriding the protections of American citizens.

Shockingly, it turns out that Waco was just another battle in a wider war, where the commanding generals of the Fempire dance to the tune of feminist/platonic/marxist orthodoxy.

Feminism is a symptom of a larger sickness, and it is more deadly than most can possibly fathom. Even I am continually shocked and appalled at the depravity of this belief system, and I am far from a MRA newbie.


From the Comments: The Economic Roundtable.


I received some most excellent comments and questions from my most recent This Week on Wall Street Post. I wanted to take the time to answer them directly, as best I can.

NASCAR said...

Ron Paul had an excellent explantion on what was realy affecting inflation. Monetary Inflation Is the Problem.

The feds are printing money to pay the bills as opposed to raising taxes. Not that I like raising taxes I just think printing money is even more despicable. This all had never occurred to me and it makes perfect sense now that I think about it. Filthy bastards will do anything. Geeez.

You got it!

The government spends trillions of dollars a year, with a lot of it being wasteful, outside of its lawful and constitutional areas of responsibility, and, in some cases, extremely harmful, such as the funding for VAWA, IMBRA, and so forth.

To prevent exactly this sort of the thing, the Constitution of the United States in Article 8 says that Congress has the power to:

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

Section 9 says:

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Section 10 says:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

As we can see, the Congress is forbidden to collect direct taxes, make or use money that cannot be coined or measurable (i.e. gold or silver coin), and the States are forbidden to make anything other than gold and silver legal tender, the status which our federal reserve notes enjoy today.

While most would assume that the Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to collect an income tax on personal income, there is a body of research that argues otherwise, but that is another issue for another time.

Basically, in my opinion, all of this was to prohibit the federal government from doing anything like what it is doing today, imposing stealth taxes on the people via inflation and printing money with no gold or silver backing whatsoever.

If the feds wanted to fund something as harmful and unconstitutional as the Office of Child Support Enforcement, under a constitutional system, the government would have to either raise taxes (constitutionally), or undertake some form of activity to raise funds that would force it to seek popular support from the people, a task that would prove to be extremely difficult.

Who in their right mind would willingly subsidize their own destruction, if they had all the facts in their possession?

R said...

I see the end is near, I had not realized we were so close to a hyperinflation event.

Kumo where is a good place to buy gold and silver?


It is getting damn close to all out disaster, but there is still hope that we as a country can straighten up and fly right. It's always better to hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

For gold and silver coinage, please visit I recommend them as they have a pretty good assortment of hardware, and it should be known that I have no financial interest in this company (full disclosure).

And also, if the shit really hits the fan, scrap gold (such as jewelry) can come in handy as well.

Hope that helps.

TBA wrote,

Kumo, on the question of gold: I watched the Constitution Class videos and I watched the Money Masters videos. Here is my question: I've always known that Libertarians suport a return to the gold standard and that makes sense. But the gentleman in the Money Masters video is AGAINST a return to the gold standard. His reasoning seems sound. The world bank seems to now control all of the gold,a nd a return to the standard may be fruitless. My question is which position do you believe is the correct one? The libertarain position on having a gold standard or the position of the gentleman on Money Standard where he simply wants the Federal government to print money without any interest rates?

I feel where the Money Masters guy is coming from, because in The Case For Gold and in Secrets of the Federal Reserve, they talk about how the gold market was manipulated by major players, especially in London by the Rothschilds and others. The Money Masters guy was thinking that so long as the government printed money in house, it would be safe from manipulation by outside forces. It goes without saying that any future "hard money" system should be set up to keep any outside manipulation to a minimum.

While I haven't finished reading The Case For Gold yet, I am looking forward to the ultimate recommendations that Paul and Lehrman make in the book.

With that said, I prefer a gold standard (as argued in The Case For Gold) because the purpose of such a system is to limit the power of the government to inflate money, which, as history shows, it will do if left to its own devices. As I pointed out earlier, politics and money don't mix well, and the ability to print money to satisfy any and all interest groups goes against the spirit of a republican form of government, which the Constitution guarantees.

Such a system would enable a government to print interest free, but it is very possible that we would end up with the same problems, and spending issues, that we face under the Federal Reserve. Free money is free money, after all.

I believe that the Libertarians, such as Paul and others, seek a hard money standard in order to check the size and spending of the government, and to elevate the people to sovereign status, as the citizen holds REAL wealth, as opposed to funny money, in his possession. If the government wants to confiscate his wealth for feminist pet projects, for example, it would take one helluva stir in order to take it from him against his will.

If the feminists believe that the personal is the political, then maybe Paul and others believe that the gold coin separates personal freedom and wealth from political goals and shenanigans.

And, given the brilliant track record of governments to oppress and violate the rights of its citizens, I tend to side with the Gold is good point of view.

Cause less is more!

Thanks all, for reading my humble blog, and God Bless.


Monday, October 29, 2007

Father's Rights Flicks: Baskerville and Fathers 4 Justice!


Get a load of this!

Baskerville answers the tough questions in relation to his book, politics, the divorce machine, and more.

When you're done with that, check out Channel 4's Fathers 4 Justice documentary.

You've got a lot of watching to do, so sit back, relax, and prepare to get pissed at all the injustice that is heaped upon us as Men.


This Week on Wall Street: Watch the Dollar!

Good day.

I wrote last week about how economic (not necessarily stock market) conditions are worsening, and we are beginning to see the effects of our reckless spending on entitlements, feminist pork, war, and other needful things.

Hold onto your hats gentlemen, cause things are going to get rough.

From Market Oracle.UK:

Dollar Devaluation Is Annihilating the Middle Class and Worse is Yet to Come!

You Want to Know Why You Feel Like You are Struggling Financially?

Because the U.S. Dollar Has Just Been Devalued by a Third Over the Past Five Years.

And more devaluation is coming. Perhaps another 50 percent. The markets are convinced that the Fed is going to drop rates again on Halloween by another half percentage point. This means hyperinflation, and all markets moved accordingly Friday. The Dollar hit a new low, at 77.00, and is worth 53 percent of what a Euro is worth.

This is a massive currency devaluation right before our eyes. It means the cost of everything is going up, which the Master Planners figure will diminish the debt load as debt contracts are expressed in Dollars from the past that were worth more than they are now. Those debts can be paid back in the future with dollars that are worth less. But this thinking requires folks to get their hands on a greater quantity of these devauled dollars. This thinking is ludicrous, but reality.

When the Master Planners devalued the dollar over the past five years, they raised the cost of living for everyone. The Middle Class is getting annihilated from this silent event. Incomes are not keeping up. This was done because this administration “equates stock market success with economic success and has directed their efforts to drive up equities at literally any cost,” to quote one of our subscribers...

Be sure to read the rest of the Market Oracle piece.

Speaking of manipulation, please see this excellent article at Goldseek that explains who has been intervening in the financial markets as of late, and why.

Now is the time to keep your eye on the birdie, no matter what you may hear on CNBC.

Don't sleep.

Kumogakure Jones.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

State Marriage...

Should be avoided at all costs.

In honor of my recent legal research kick, I would like to recommend the Abolish State Marriage blog.

A collection of articles and essays, this site advocates that Civil marriage, which is given (and taken away) by the State, should be avoided in favor of an Ecclesiastical or Common law marriage that is outside of the Civil/Marriage license quagmire.

While it is always better to avoid marriage in any form, MRAs should give this a once over.

As an example of the thorny legal questions we need to sort out, let's take a look at the article entitled, Enlightening Conversation with a Marriage License Bureau (located on a different website than the Abolish State Marriage blog):

... the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.

He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God. But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a dotted line, and NOT officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all.

He said, if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in their marriage, that is a "dotted line" they will have to add in their own minds. The state's marriage license is "strictly secular," he said. He said further, that what he meant by the relationship to God being a "dotted line" meant that the State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless.

Now this is interesting, as the religious definition of marriage is just the opposite.

In the Judeo-Christian context:

Marriage and Divorce

The marriage relationship is entered into when a man and a woman commit themselves to each other, before Elohim, as husband and wife, and then consummate that commitment with the sexual union. The Scriptures offer NO precepts or guidelines for ceremonies. There is NO command or precept in the Scriptures that says that some man ("clergy") is to "marry" the couple. No man can marry the couple because it is Elohim who created and ordains the institution, and He gives no command in the Scriptures where He calls for a man to serve as the agent of approving the marriage. The couple is to be married before Elohim first and foremost.

Marriage is defined solely by Elohim, and as such, government-given "marriage licenses" really have no binding authority whatsoever on the actual and true definition of marriage. Likewise, government-based "divorces", or simply the voiding of government-given "marriage licenses", also have no authority on the legitimacy of Biblical marriages. Whatever the government chooses to define has no meaning or bearing in terms of whether Biblical marriages are "existing" or "voided".

See Genesis:16 1-6 and Genesis:24 62-66 for examples of Biblical marriage.

Returning to Conversation with a Marriage License Bureau:

The picture he was trying to "paint" was that of a triangle with the State at the top and a solid line extending from the apex, the State, down the left side to the husband, and a separate solid line extending down the right side to the wife, a "dotted line" merely showing that they consider themselves to have entered into a religious union of some sort that is irrelevant to the State.

Marriage License Secular Contract Diagram

STATE (primary party)
HUSBAND WIFE . (secondary party)
(secondary party) . GOD

He further mentioned that this "religious overtone" is recognized by the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a state official or by a minister of religion that has been "deputized" by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State.

Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a "privileged business enterprise" various tax advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman...

... it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" - meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.

In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as "the contract bearing fruit," he said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children - the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

He also added a few more technical details. The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for- profit business enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property through out its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.

Also, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence.

The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage. That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people...

While this article may indeed have errors (as far as I can see), it's worth looking at. It is clear that marriage and divorce are covered by Equity, and quite possibly,Admiralty law where
basic constitutional provisions simply do not apply [a][b].

We as MRAs need to step back, take a good hard look at what the law really says about the issues we care about, and focus our efforts on making the necessary corrections needed to restore our Natural Rights as men.

So check out the Abolish State Marriage blog, put on your thinking cap, and let's flex those legal muscles!

Kumo out.

More media fun!


As I was thumbing through my America's First Freedom, the official monthly publication from the NRA, and found this little gem that I thought I should share with you.

Entitled The Media Assault on the Second Amendment, it is another shining example of the media NOT doing its job of reporting the facts, but of the press attempting to brainwash [a][b] the masses on behalf of their Money Men masters.

The report begins:

By David Niedrauer

When it comes to the right to bear arms – to accept personal responsibility to defend home and family – the media are far from fair and balanced. During the first seven months of 2007, the media waged an intermittent war against the Second Amendment, using a variety of fallacious arguments to make the pitch for gun control. This Eye on Culture report will begin by detailing what the media reported on gun issues, and then point out essential information the media failed to mention.

I. The Media Assault

A crime wave in the big cities, followed by the Virginia Tech tragedy in April, gave the media plenty of ammunition for attacking the right to bear arms.

The three major broadcast networks ran at least 650 stories on gun homicides from January through July. In a manner reminiscent of Michael Moore, journalists sprinkled post-Virginia Tech news coverage with comparisons between the United States and other countries that have stricter gun control laws and less crime.

The media first broached the urban crime wave immediately following a
March 9 court decision, Parker v. District of Columbia, which struck down D.C.’s handgun ban. ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today each ran at least one story on the crime wave between March 9 and March 29.

On the March 10 NBC Nightly News, anchor John Seigenthaler tried to link the crime wave and the decision: “A new study of major cities shows an alarming rise in violence … This comes on the heels of a federal court decision striking down a gun control law in Washington, D.C., on the grounds it violated the constitutional right to bear arms.” A major problem: Seigenthaler failed to acknowledge that the D.C. gun ban was in effect while the crime wave was taking place...

Be sure to read the rest of it.

As I have said before, the evidence is overwhelming that an armed population reduces crime [c]. Furthermore, the government of the United States, or any State government, to my knowledge, has no duty to provide for your individual safety. Most important of all, the lack of access to guns leads to nasty things such as genocide and slavery, more often than not at the hands of a state gone out of control.

So why do none of these and other relevant issues ever get included in these media reports? They could easily take a pro second amendment stance, but they choose not to.


Because the mainstream news media is the weak and frightened handmaid of the men that seek to dominate others, and a disarmed populace is ever so easy to slaughter.

So in any event, before I close this one out, I leave you with some historical quotes:

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

... The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

Henry sneered,

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?

Kumo Out.

Alex Jones: Endgame.

Dear Readers,

Got the next hott film for ya: Alex Jones's Endgame.

An excellent, and bloodcurdling video that does a commendable job of putting all the pieces together.

What's interesting to me is that at frame 1:29:58, Jones mentions PLATO as the origin of a sick, perverted ideology that has stalked the world ever since.

From feminism to the New World Order, all roads lead back to Plato. And, since we know that he is the source, one of the best ways to know our enemy is to study his works.

Feel free to take a moment to read my writings on the Greek Philosopher here.

From the feminist movement, to the "family" courts [1][2], to the halls of the United Nations, the Endgame remains the same... Old Skool Global Domination.

Trust that.


Friday, October 26, 2007

Taken into Custody part II


Courtesy of the Noble Daddyblogger, an interview with Baskerville, author of the weighty tome Taken into Custody.

I have to tell you folks... I have been reading this book, and it has been the most emotionally disturbing experience I've ever had. I'm man enough to admit to you that I am afraid.

Not just for me of course, but I am afraid for you, my family, my friends... anyone who happens to make the foolish mistake of getting married in this feminist, matriarchal, socialism nation formerly known as America.

I do intend on wrapping up my Day in the Life series, otherwise known as how to meet, marry, and bring home the foreign wife of your dreams.

But I gotta tell you:


If you get married here in the West, my friend, you are FUCKED. That's all there is to it.

Don't you dare get married, but by all means pick up the book, Taken into Custody.

And be sure to listen to the interview that the Good Daddyblogger has so kindly posted to his spot.


Kumo out.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Taken into Custody; and a Few Queer Questions.

Stephen Baskerville's Taken Into Custody is a book that no serious MRA can be without!

The book is 300+ pages of raw, brutish, and ugly truth. And it only costs about 16.00 USD, so it won't set you back too much.

In my case, I am seriously considering buying a few more copies and mailing them to select figures in my local community in order to raise awareness of the massive injustices that take place in our "Family" tribu... er courts on a daily basis.

You know, dear reader, I heard somewhere once before that, "In death, avoid Hell. In life, avoid the Law Courts!"

While truer words were never spoken in our day and age, it shouldn't discourage us as MRAs and Truthseekers to take a very hard look at the Statutes that are on the books in this nation.

If you recall, I asked the question on this blog, "Are you a U.S. citizen, or an American Citizen?"

Some of you might have glossed over the significance of this question. However, I think that this idea is crucial to the success or failure of the greater push, from MRAs, Fathers Rights, Truthers, and other Freedom lovers in general, to restore liberty and true justice to this Republic for us, and for our generations to come.

For example, did you know that you can have Natural Rights as opposed to Civil Rights [1][2]?

Are we fighting for the Natural Right to have and hold our children, free from government interference, or are we ASKING the government to please be nice nice and allow us to have the right to be with them?

Did you know that you can be a Natural Person versus an Artificial Person (corporation)?

Do Artificial Persons have Constitutional rights can be upheld and respected in all places and all times, regardless of public opinion, in the family courts of law? Or are we subject to whatever privileges that our various government units decide to hand out to us?

If we look to the Federalist Papers no. 10:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.

Do we live in a society where the Rights of an unpopular "minority," i.e. Men, are respected? The answer to that question is obvious.

My point with this is that if we were truly Natural Persons with Natural Rights, as the Founding Fathers proscribed, then the Rights of Man to be a part of their own families would be on much stronger grounds than they are today.

Something isn't right here.

Moving on, did you know that Black persons are not, yesterday and today, under the Constitution, Natural Persons with Natural Rights, and that there is such a thing as different classes of Citizens vs. citizens?

From Dred Scott v. Sanford:

3. In the Circuit Courts of the United States, the record must show that the case is one in which, by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the court had jurisdiction -- and if this does not appear, and the court gives judgment either for plaintiff or defendant, it is error, and the judgment must be reversed by this court -- and the parties cannot by consent waive the objection to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.

4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.' Consequently, the special rights and immunities guaranteed to citizens do not apply to them. And not being 'citizens' within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.

7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument.

8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens, as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State...

... The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people, and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them...

... In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States...

Just where am I going with this? you may wonder.

Simply this... there are differing legal definitions of citizenship: one group being Sovereign, and the other being dependent upon Civil Rights that can be given, and taken away, by legislature, executive order, or judicial decree.

Does it now make sense why so many laws dealing with Black people and other minorities deal with the issue of Civil Rights?

Taking this a bit farther, it may be true that, with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment [1][2], that all American persons might just be in the Civil Rights, not the Natural Rights crowd.

A partial reading of the text:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let's take a closer look at:


n. a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of people.


n. exemption from penalties, payments or legal requirements, granted by authorities or statutes. Generally there are three types of immunity at law: a) a promise not to prosecute for a crime in exchange for information or testimony in a criminal matter, granted by the prosecutors, a judge, a grand jury or an investigating legislative committee; b) public officials' protection from liability for their decisions (like a city manager or member of a public hospital board); c) governmental (or sovereign) immunity, which protects government agencies from lawsuits unless the government agreed to be sued; d) diplomatic immunity which excuses foreign ambassadors from most U.S. criminal laws.


This is an important question, and one to which I plan on devoting more time and study in order to answer it.

We as MRAs and Truthseekers complain loudly about all of the numerous violations of our basic, God given, Constitutional rights that feminist groups and others trample underfoot. But what if we are literally barking up the wrong tree? What if we are dealing with a different political animal than what we have been led to believe?

If we are dealing with a Civil Rights vs. Natural Rights issue, shouldn't our efforts go towards amending our Constitutions to secure NATURAL, INALIENABLE RIGHTS for all citizens, instead of begging our legislatures and courts to throw us a bone?

Needless to say, I don't have all the answers to these questions I've just proposed. Much more study on my part will be needed before I can begin to offer a clearer answer.

However, picking up Mr. Baskerville's work is a good place to start. We need to know our enemy, as much as they know themselves, or we have no hope of winning the most important battle facing Western Civilization today, Securing the Rights of all free men to their life, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.

Kumo out.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

This Week... on Wall Street.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Good morning. There's a lot to cover, so let's get to it.

As predicted, the Turks and the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) are getting ready to do battle in Northern Iraq.

What's really interesting is that it seems that Syria, a Sunni Muslim nation, seems to support Turkey's increasingly aggressive stance. Syria, of course, has much to gain from general chaos in Iraq in general, and a breakup over ethnic-religious lines in particular, something that Sunni Al-Qaeda has failed to bring about.

And of course, the Americans can't do too much to interfere without mortally offending Turkish pride (and if you've ever met any Turks like I have, you know how proud they are about their country) , seriously pissing off the Kurds, who have been the most steadfast supporters of the American adventure to date, or some other unexpected consequence of meddling in very old vendettas.

So what does all this have to do with the market?

In one word: OIL.

According to Market Oracle:

Turkish Saber Rattling lifts Crude Oil

Earlier this week, Turkish PM Recep Erdogan asked his parliament to approve plans for an invasion into northern Iraq to attack Kurdish militants, defying a US demand for restraint. Turkey built up its military forces on Iraq's border, a move meant to pressure Baghdad to rein in the rebels of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, who are launching raids into southeast Turkey from hideouts in Iraq. Turkey must also deal with its own rebellious Kurdish minority, which makes up 20% of its population.

But Ankara also has its eyes on a bigger prize, the oil fields of Kirkuk that contain 40% of Iraq's proven oil reserves. Ankara still holds its claim to Kirkuk, which was taken from Turkey as a result of the 1923 Lausanne Treaty. Turkish nationalists still regard it as historically part of Turkey. Ankara also asserts guardianship over the Turkmen ethnic minority in northern Iraq.

Ankara fears that Baghdad will allow the Kurds to make Kirkuk part of their autonomous zone. For Ankara, this would be excessive Kurdish autonomy, its red line in Iraq, and it might resort to military intervention to prevent the emergence of an oil-rich Kurdish political entity on its southern border.

Erdogan said his country will not be deterred by the diplomatic consequences if it decides to stage a cross-border offensive against Kurdish rebels. “If such an option is chosen, whatever its price, it will be paid. There could be pros and cons of such a decision, but what is important is our country's interests.” With regards to whether or not a Turkish invasion of Iraq could destroy the relationship with the US Erdogan said, “Let it snap from wherever it gets thin...”

Please read the rest of the article, as it is excellent.

One will immediately note that all of the major Powers have an interest in Oil, the Middle East, and the success (or failure) of the rehabilitation of the latest addition to the American Empire.

It goes without saying that record high oil prices, just in time for the Winter season, can play havoc with economies around the world. Super expensive oil will force businesses to raise prices eventually, which could be one of the many possible shocks that will bring about massive inflation, which will cause our dollar to weaken even further than it already has.

Speaking of the U.S. Dollar, I believe this is the indicator that you need to watch.

According to Daily FX:

US Dollar Tumbles Ahead of G7 Summit, Fed Rates Outlook Exacerbates Sell-off
Thursday, 18 October 2007 17:16:42 GMT

Written by David Rodriguez, Currency Analyst

The US dollar plummeted to fresh record lows on a trade-weighted basis, leaving the Euro at all-time highs and the Canadian dollar just short of 33-year peaks. Traders sold the dollar on speculation that the upcoming G7 meeting would provide little guidance on the future of greenback trends. Official commentary on dollar weakness has been mixed through recent days, dashing hopes for verbal intervention to stem the greenback’s declines.

The euro scaled fresh record heights of $1.4309 through morning currency trading, and the British Pound remained similarly bid at three-month highs of $2.0512. The forex carry trade strategy was substantially lower, as the low-yielding Japanese Yen and Swiss Franc were the largest gainers through the afternoon—adding 1.0 percent and 0.9 percent, respectively.

Economic data was partly to blame for the dollar’s decline, as disappointments in Jobless Claims and Leading Indicator reports boosted expectations for Federal Reserve Interest rate cuts through year-end. Federal Funds Rate futures now price in an approximate 70 percent chance that the central bank will cut interest rates by 25 basis points in its October, 31 meeting—a clear shift from the 40 percent chance just a week ago. Worsened expectations for US dollar yield differentials have kept the currency on offer, and a further deterioration could only sink the greenback further. Such downward pressures only exacerbated the sell-off ahead of the upcoming Group of Seven Financial Ministers summit in Washington DC.

Fresh record lows.

Now, it must be noted that in the short term, a very weak dollar is good for our exporters, because American goods become cheaper. However, on the other side, foreign countries, many of whom absolutely depend upon their exports to the United States for their daily bread, are not going to sit idly by and let the dollar sink into oblivion.

As we read at Market Oracle:

Jack Crooks writes: The finance ministers of six leading nations — Germany, France, Italy, Britain, Canada, and Japan — will meet with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in Washington today. And you can bet there's one topic they'll definitely want to discuss — the falling dollar.

How could they not? The dollar is as distressed as ever … the Canadian loonie is trading at multi-decade highs … and the euro has hit levels never before seen.

Remember, these currency moves aren't abstract … they greatly affect the world economy and individual trading partners. A cheaper dollar makes U.S. exports far more competitive in the global marketplace. Conversely, nations with stronger currencies lose a bit of their edge.

Foreign businesses have been crying out for help! One example: BusinessEurope, an organization representing overseas firms, has asked the G7 to intervene and stem a further rise in the euro (or additional downside in the buck).

Now, a lot of people lobby the G7 to do a lot of things so it's not like they aren't used to meeting under pressure. However, the issue has become so important and so high-profile that Paulson and the other finance ministers will at least have to discuss the topic.

The question for currency investors is whether or not anything meaningful will come out of the discussions. My answer: Probably a lot of banter and not much else.

After all, markets dictate currency moves, not finance ministers! That's why I think you need to pay far more attention to what's actually happening in the world right now.

Look, the dollar's fate rests far more on the uncertainty in the U.S. economy than it does on any meeting in Washington. Nevertheless, G7 ministers will be careful not to completely ignore the dollar's weakness because that would send the market a flashing green light to sell the buck even more.

However, you shouldn't expect much more than talk to come out of the G7 meeting.

Regardless of how the market translates the G7 message, no mention of dollar weakness would implicitly mean these ministers have no problem with an ongoing, orderly dollar decline — a big mistake.

Warning flags are flying. This idea of allowing the dollar to decline can quickly lead to a crisis. Desperate times call for desperate measures, so they say. And unfortunately, for the buck, the U.S. economy can't accommodate desperate measures right now...

No, we cannot.

Because you see, the American Housing market, which quite possibly became the new asset backing for an America that went Bankrupt back in the 1930's, continues to tank. To make matters worse... the subprime crisis is spreading across the globe.

From Seeking Alpha:

In 2005, Ben S. Bernanke, then an adviser to President Bush and now the Fed chairman, said “strong fundamentals” were the main force behind the rise in prices. “We’ve never had a decline in housing prices on a nationwide basis,” he added.

Such statements utterly astonish me when they come from professionals, let alone the eventual head of a central bank. Simply because asset prices have not fallen in the past, it is not axiomatic asset prices will not fall in the future.

Well, Helicopter Ben's rate cuts won't save either the housing market or the CDO market, just as Easy Al's rate cuts didn't save the Tech Bubble.

[Richard] Bove notes that the financial system has essentially regressed from one in which borrowers were expected to pay back their debt, to one in which principal was forgotten so long as the interest payments were made, to one in which even interest payments are being refinanced. Now Bernanke has institutionalized this practice by bailing out errant commercial paper holders.

With the growth in total U.S. financial debt outpacing GDP growth, 8.7% to 1.5%, Bove concludes, our economy is not capable of generating the income necessary to meet the debt-repayment requirements. The potential for disaster is mind-blowing, and any steps taken to paper this over are only prolonging the unavoidable wipeout

Thus, surely the Fed will continue to cut rates into next year. Residential construction spending is falling.

Easy Al, now speaking clearly, knows the stakes:

The fate of the world economy hinges on what happens to house prices in America and that may not be a good thing, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said on Monday.

Speaking at the Reuters headquarters in London, the former Fed chair delivered a gloomy prognosis on the state of the global economy – U.S. house prices are likely to fall further and they could drag the rest of the world with them...

Please remember, that if the Fed cuts interest rates, the value of the dollar will be further devalued. That's bad because if the dollar continues to fall, foreign business partners will continue to suffer. But more importantly, if the dollar continues to fall, then the foreigners that we absolutely rely upon to finance our ever increasing debt obligations will simply choose to invest in assets that produce a higher rate of return.

This is the iron law of finance. Investors, especially the non-American kind, really don't give a fuck about us. America is not special. Ain't no love when it comes to money Baby.

If we as a nation can't pony up the bucks to pay our Money Men and other international investors, then they will, at some point, dump our bonds and seek greener pastures.

Seeking Alpha:

The spin investment thesis goes like this:

Why are you worried about the fiscal and trade deficits? China will continue to buy our bonds. They have to, because it is in China's best interest to do so. If the U.S. economy goes into a recession, so will China's. They need economic growth to alleviate social and economic pressures as they transition from a Communist to a capitalist society. So they have no choice. They have to keep buying our bonds.


Chinese investors decreased their holdings of U.S. government debt $8.8 billion in August, while Japanese investments declined $24.8 billion, the Treasury said.

But it wasn't just the Chinese who were selling:

International investors sold a record amount of U.S. securities in August as soaring credit costs sparked an exodus from the stock market.

Total holdings of equities, notes and bonds fell a net $69.3 billion
after an increase of $19.2 billion in July, the Treasury Department said today in Washington. None of the dozen economists surveyed by Bloomberg News predicted the decline, the first since Russia defaulted in 1998.

None of the economists predicted the decline? I'm shocked!

The Treasury's reporting on long-term securities captures international purchases of U.S. government notes and bonds, stocks, corporate debt and securities issued by U.S. agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages.

Including short-term securities such as Treasury bills, foreigners sold a net $163 billion, compared with a gain in the previous month. ...

International holdings of U.S. stocks fell a net $40.6 billion, compared with net purchases of $21.2 billion in July, the first drop since December. ...

But wait. Every time I saw Jack Bouroudjian on Bubblevision the past two months, he was telling us to buy stocks because foreigners were buying. Yet, the Treasury says foreigners have been dumping US equities.

Perhaps the lack of volume the past few months is a buyers' strike by foreign investors.


International demand for Treasuries decreased by $2.6 billion, compared with a $9.4 billion drop the previous month. The yield on the benchmark 10-year note in August averaged 4.73 percent, compared with 5.04 percent in July.

Holdings of agency debt increased a net $9.6 billion after an $8.7 billion net gain the month before. ...

U.S. investors bought a net $34.5 billion of overseas assets in August, after buying $5.5 billion in July.

Foreigners sold a net $1.2 billion of corporate bonds, compared with a $4.5 billion increase in July.

Now dear reader, you know that I have written much about what could happen if foreign investors begin selling their bond and dollar holdings in earnest. I also explained the ill effects of other countries moving to diversify their assets out of dollars and into other currencies, such as the Euro.

Well, it would appear that countries are beginning to scale down their dollar holdings [1][2][3][4].

This be bad.

Finally, we saw that the U.S. Dow Jones plunged 360 points
in honor of "Black Monday."

However, it is my opinion that the Stock Market, at this point, has decoupled from the real economic issues that threaten to destroy the U.S. economy. Investors continue to crave ever expanding bull markets, easy credit, and euphoric corporate earnings reports. In other words, its time to stop looking at the Market as the bellweather of American financial well-being.

Make no mistake though... there are plenty of opportunities to make money, and there are plenty of individual stocks that are solid companies that will produce higher and higher gains for its shareholders, economic instability be damned.

However, I will not be recommending any individual stocks, as there are a ton of sites on my finance sidebar that do it a whole lot better than me. However, I would suggest that you may consider, after you speak with your financial adviser of course, looking into commodities ETFS (Exchange Traded Funds), gold and silver coinage, international funds and stocks, and quite possibly, currency ETFS, to take advantage of all the currency movements that may be taking place in the very near future.

There are many ways to get paid in this situation. You could sit things out in cash and gold coins, and buy up attractive properties and securities after the great future crash occurs.

Or, you could use put options and shorts to make money as the Market falls all the way down, if such a thing should happen.

Once again, please speak with your financial adviser before you make any serious moves, as these opportunities also bring great risk.

It should be noted that, unless and until the United States, and her people wake up and understand the seriousness of the situation at hand, and make serious moves to correct that which is broken, then our country will take its place alongside the late and great failed empires of history.

Kumogakure out.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

What the F&^K??

Dear Readers,

Here's a little something to make you choke on your drink!!

According to ScienceDaily (Props to my man Joe for the heads up):

Feminism And Romance Go Hand In Hand

Science Daily — Contrary to popular opinion, feminism and romance are not incompatible and feminism may actually improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, according to Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan, from Rutgers University in the US. Their study* also shows that unflattering feminist stereotypes, that tend to stigmatize feminists as unattractive and sexually unappealing, are unsupported.

It is generally perceived that feminism and romance are in direct conflict. Rudman and Phelan’s work challenges this perception. They carried out both a laboratory survey of 242 American undergraduates and an online survey including 289 older adults, more likely to have had longer relationships and greater life experience. They looked at men’s and women’s perception of their own feminism and its link to relationship health, measured by a combination of overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction...

First of all...

Feminism? Good for your relationship!?

What kinda Weed are these two FEMALE feminazis smoking?? Must be some of that good shit.


Seriously though... this claim is beyond ridiculous. Any man with any common sense knows that feminist women are to be avoided like the plague, lest something bad, such as a crippling divorce, an overnight stay in Club Fed, or feminine-feminasty domestic violence befall them. I can only think of the lies that the boyfriends of these toxic gals had to tell in order to avoid "domestic violence" from their empowered girlfriends!!

Secondly, it seems that the femmes are losing the culture wars, not to mention the dating and marriage game[1][2], and BADLY. Why the hell else would these two dames author themselves up a report that sounds more like a Harlequin romance novel than a serious scientific study?

I guess, in the sense of fairness, I will read this so-called study someday. But for now, I think it's safe to say that a feminasty babe is good for only one thing:

A late night bootycall that involves three condoms worn at the same time, lots of meaningless sex, possibly some vittles beforehand, and promising to call her sometime as you leave her house before sunrise...

"Sure we're gonna get married baby! Suuuuuuure!"

Anyhoo, give the rest of it a read at your discretion...

And try not to laugh too hard!


House Resolution 590, Ron Paul, and Honor.


I found this gem in my comments section, in regards to Ron Paul's vote for H.R. 590:

What Paul voted for was a statement that says it's wrong to beat, rape, and kill women, nothing more. Beating, raping, and killing people is bad. There may be some poorly written domestic violence oriented legislation but this has nothing to do with that, there is no law at all contained in 590. Passing a resolution that says it is bad to beat, rape, and kill women, and that beating, raping and killing people in the home or related to domestic arguments is consistent with Paul's track record of healthy family values.


Welcome to Kumogakure School, and I hope you enjoy your time here.

With all due respect, you don't get it.

In essence, this bill is libel against men, pure and simple. The facts and the figures as stated in the legislation are flawed, as the Mighty MediaRadar group has so thoroughly proven.

Radar writes (their comments in bold):


Supporting the goals and ideals of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month and
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should raise awareness of domestic violence in the United States and its devastating effects on families and communities.

Whereas one in four women will experience domestic violence sometime in her life;

[This statement is one-sided and misleading because it does not state that men experience partner abuse at similar rates as women. According to the most comprehensive review of this issue, “This bibliography examines 203 scholarly investigations: 156 empirical studies and 47 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.”1]

Whereas domestic violence affects people of all ages, racial, ethnic, economic, and religious backgrounds; [This statement is misleading because domestic violence is far more common in younger and lower income populations.2]

Whereas women ages 16 to 24 experience the highest rates, per capita, of intimate partner violence; [This statement is one-sided and misleading because it does not state that men in the same age range also experience the highest rates of partner violence.3]

Whereas 13 percent of teenage girls who have been in a relationship report being hit or hurt by their partners [This figure is both exaggerated and one-sided. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which is the most authoritative source of information on dating violence, reports the correct figure is 8.9 % for boys and 8.8% for girls.4] and one in four teenage girls has been in a relationship in which she was pressured into performing sexual acts by her partner; [The “one in four” statement is wrong. According to the CDC, the correct percentages are 11.9% of teenage girls and 6.1% of teenage boys.5]

Whereas there is a need for middle schools, secondary schools, and post-secondary schools to educate students about the issues of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking; Whereas the annual cost of lost productivity due to domestic violence is estimated as $727,800,000 with over $7,900,000 paid workdays lost per year; [This statement is wrong because it falsely implies the lost productivity figure includes male DV victims. The report that is the source of this information did not analyze lost productivity for men...6]

It should make any honorable man's boil that, our CONGRESS, our REPRESENTATIVES, would approve a bill that is LIBEL through and through.

You should feel INSULTED as a man that your government would write things about men that are half-truths and out and out LIES.

It is common sense that raping, bullying, mistreating, and abusing women is a bad, terrible, dishonorable, and shameful thing to do. That goes without saying, and this has been the moral code for civilizations going back thousands of years prior.

However, for our country, and our government to condemn men in this way, based on faulty and ideologically driven research, should not go unchallenged, nor should it be brushed aside like it's no big deal.


Take a look at the text of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act:

The 1999 INS report notes that "The per-
19 vasiveness of domestic violence in our society has al-
20 ready been documented,
and with the burgeoning
21 number of unregulated international matchmaking
22 organizations and clients using their services, the po-
23 tential for abuse in mail-order marriages is consider-
24 able.'' The author of the study commissioned for the
25 1999 INS report noted further that American men

HR 3657 IH
1 who use the services of an international marriage
2 broker tend to seek relationships with women whom
3 they feel they can control.

4 (3) The dangers posed to foreign women who
5 meet their American husbands through international
6 marriage brokers are underscored by the growing
7 number of cases across the United States of foreign
8 women who have been abused or killed by those
9 men.
Two highly publicized examples are the mur-
10 ders in Washington State of Susanna Remunerata
11 Blackwell of the Philippines and Anastasia Solovieva
12 King of Kyrgyzstan. In addition, a 2003 survey of
13 programs providing legal services to battered immi-
14 grant women across the country found that over 50
15 percent of these programs had served immigrant
16 women clients battered by American men they met
17 through international marriage brokers.
18 (4) 30.4 percent of all women in the United
19 States are physically abused by their husbands or
20 male-cohabitants at some point in their lives...

Now then, find out how false some of these claims are at the Outstanding Online Dating Rights webpage.

Do you see, my good man, how once again, false and misleading information is used by the Congress to take away (unconstitutionally, I might add) rights from men?

The fact of the matter is that perception is reality. If men allow their sacred honor to be slighted and downtrodden, if we accept the terrible things that our society says about us, if we do not challenge lies and deceptions, then we deserve all of the persecution that our feminist and elitist enemies heap upon us.

When is the last time you've heard someone say, "They WON'T get away with this?"

When is the last time you've really gotten pissed when someone has disrespected you and called you out of your name?

When is the last time you've challenged mis-andry, face to face, live and in living color?

The only one who can raise or lower your standing and reputation in society is you. No one else is going to do it for you.

One last example of how deceitful words can destroy:

Women, lies, and Planned Parenthood...

...“Other studies fill in the rest of this troubling picture. Physical violence is only the most visible form of abuse. Psychological abuse, particularly forced social and economic isolation of women, is also common. L. Walker, The Battered [505 U.S. 833, 892] Woman Syndrome 27-28 (1984). Many victims of domestic violence remain with their abusers, perhaps because they perceive no superior alternative. Herbert, Silver, & Ellard, Coping with an Abusive Relationship: I. How and Why do Women Stay?, 53 J. Marriage & the Family 311 (1991). Many abused women who find temporary refuge in shelters return to their husbands, in large part because they have no other source of income. Aguirre, Why Do They Return? Abused Wives in Shelters, 30 J.Nat.Assn. of Social Workers 350, 352 (1985).

Returning to one's abuser can be dangerous. Recent Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics disclose that 8.8 percent of all homicide victims in the United States are killed by their spouses. Mercy & Saltzman, Fatal Violence Among Spouses in the United States, 1976-85, 79 Am.J. Public Health 595 (1989). Thirty percent of female homicide victims are killed by their male partners. Domestic Violence: Terrorism in the Home, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Children, Family, Drugs and Alcoholism of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1990)"...

That was the text from the Casey vs. Planned Parenthood decision. This is the decision that awarded all power in family life and law to women.

Sounds familiar don't it??

Please consider this carefully. Feminists know what they are doing. They are masters at manipulating the thoughts and emotions of their listeners. They have effected revolution through the power of their words alone.

My friend, it was BECAUSE of half-truths and out and out lies that women were granted the so-called right to slaughter their babies at will, and that MEN WERE COMPLETELY SHUT OUT OF THE FAMILY UNIT FOR ALL TIME. It is because of the "Man bad, women good" language that is present throughout all of the bills we have examined today that we as men have come to suffer so greatly.

Get it?

So, to make a long story short, I am most glad that Ron Paul voted against H.R. 3093 that would have contributed even more money to feminist coffers. I feel that Representative Paul IS the last hope for this country.

However, we as men aren't going to effect any sort of change until we RECLAIM OUR HONOR, our dignity, and our self-respect AS MEN.

No one is going to respect us, so long as we don't respect ourselves.

We cannot allow such lies to go unchallenged anymore.

We can no longer be silent.

We have to let our countrymen know, rather loudly, that we will not be disrespected, discriminated against, or demonized, in any way, shape or form.

We can't punk out. Any group or ideology that criticizes us will find that they too will be criticized, examined, and their false arguments torn into several million teeny weeny bite sized pieces.

Don't start no SHIT, won't be no SHIT. Feminists, take note.

Don't misunderstand me tho... I appreciate all comments here at Kumogakure School. I learn from you, you hopefully learn from me, and we all learn from each other.

Kumo out.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Baskerville: Some are more equal than others.

Welcome back Spacefans!

Here's the latest article from the Outstanding Baskerville:

Some are more equal than others

Posted: October 9, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Stephen Baskerville

The substitution of the re-titled "Women's Equality Amendment" (WEA) for the same old text of what was known in the 1970s as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a real-life validation of George Orwell's fictional portrayal of the opportunism of extremist political movements and their tendency to turn high-minded ideals into the opposite of what they promise. In "Animal Farm," Orwell's allegory of the Soviet revolution, the pigs proclaim that "All animals are equal." Once they seize power, the pigs revise the principle: "But some animals are more equal than others."

Promoters of the WEA claim that it will prohibit discrimination against both men and women. But if so, why the name change? The entire U.S. Constitution has always been gender neutral, and without the help of feminists. The aim of the new sexual militants is not to ensure the "equal protection of the laws," but – precisely the opposite – to signal that only one sex is equal.

Whatever the situation 35 years ago, today's name change is a declaration not of weakness but of strength. Virtually all forms of "discrimination" against women have been proven to be false or eliminated. Warren Farrell has shown the fallacy of the "wage gap." Christina Hoff Sommers demonstrated that, far from being privileged, it is boys who are now struggling under feminist changes in public education.

In fact, if any group faces systematic discrimination today, it is males. And it is not trivial. Men routinely lose their children, along with everything else they possess (including their freedom), in divorce courts, because child custody is virtually automatic to mothers, even when the mother is the one breaking up the family. Feminists not only defend but celebrate this "divorce revolution" and resist shared parenting provisions that would allow children to have their fathers as well as mothers after divorce.

Much more is at work here than just than the principle that, all else being equal, young children need their mothers. Men lose their children even when they have given neither consent nor grounds to divorce and are legally faultless. Further, the legal innovation that opened the door to mass fatherlessness was itself the creation of organized feminism. As author Judy Parejko has shown, the National Association of Women Lawyers designed the "no-fault" divorce system as long ago as the 1940s...

Be sure to read it all.

Also, Mr. Baskerville has a new book, Taken into Custody. Check it out will ya?

Because knowledge is power.

Kumo out.

Stop the Presses, Correction.

Dear Readers,

It has come to my attention that Ron Paul, while he did vote for H.R. 590, DID NOT VOTE for the feminist pork bill spending bill H.R. 3093!

While it is indisputable that H.R. 590 is filled with flaws and falsehoods, I can live with our favorite Rep voting for it. The fact that he stayed true to his ideals and voted against the actual money bill fills me with relief. I had truly thought that even Ron Paul had betrayed us. In our business, we can't afford to put blind trust in ANYONE, no matter how ideal he may seem.

I apologize for my previous post, as I was not aware that the article I referenced for the Ron Paul vote was discussing a totally different bill. This is why I value my readers: if I should make a mistake, then I will be set to rights with the quickness.

I don't claim to have all the answers, and I do make mistakes from time to time, but I try my best to be as accurate as possible.

At this point, I would like to respond to some of the comments:

... Ron Paul did NOT vote for alleged legislation!

He voted "aye" for a 1 page bill saying abusing women is bad and congress doesn't approve. THAT is "H.R. 590",

Then the blog author followed up with an unrelated article about "H.R. 3093" which Ron Paul voted AGAINST in it's entirety.

The ONLY thing he voted IN FAVOR OF in "H.R. 3093" was an amendment for additional border patrol money, but VOTED AGAINST THE BILL!

October 14, 2007 11:56 PM

It should be said that Ron Paul did vote for H.R. 590, a bill that is full of lies and distortions. However, this is excusable, as Ron Paul probably isn't as schooled on recognizing, much less debunking, hyperemotional feminist statistics as some of the MRAs out there.

Tba said...

Thanks guys for the links. You guys are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. HR 590 is NOT the same as HR 3093. The article that you linked to Kumo was in reference to HR 3093 and Ron Paul voted AGAINST that bill.

THIS IS MUSIC TO MY EARS. Kumo, don't scare us like that again. Maybe you assumed the title of HR 590 was the same as the bill referenced to in that article?

I'll retract my previous post.


October 15, 2007 9:30 AM

Damn right!!! Ron Paul or Die baby!

Atlas shrugged said...

I have to laugh at you MRAs. You are going down with a sinking ship. You signed the contract and you are chained to the oars. So long suckers.

If you were a MGTOW none of this would matter to you. You would be living your life removed from a system that hates you and only wants to destroy you.

By removing yourself from this system you are doing far more to accelerate it's self destruction than by voting for Hillary.

October 15, 2007 2:18 PM

Welcome Atlas.

Yes, I am well aware of Ayn Rand and her role in the Elitist scheme of things. Atlas Shrugged is the key tome that signifies to like minded people that they are "in the know." Make no mistake... the Elites are a small, and ultimately insignificant number of people that rely on lies, deception and fear to maintain their hold on the masses.

But actually, those who shrug should be careful:

As more people wake up and find out what's going on, the Hunters will find themselves to be the Hunted.

That is why I blog, and this is why we will ultimately win, no matter how impossible it may seem.

As for the Billary crack, I was going for the sarcastic. No man with any common sense would vote for that little MAN. And yes, even though I have chosen to Go My Own Way, that doesn't mean that I should die to the world.

Those with eyes that can see realize that every action on our part DOES make a difference in the Universal Scheme. Even if it is as small as enlightening a young man searching for the truth about the Fematrix, all of our actions make an impact.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you that the best course of action is to do nothing, and allow this corrupt system to collapse in on itself, I am also of the opinion that we should do all we can to enlighten others, thus gaining new recruits that can join us in doing... absolutely nothing!

But I digress.

With all that said...



Monday, October 15, 2007

Speaking of IMBRA...

Check out this nice Youtube vid.

Respect to the guys at Online Dating Rights for throwing it up!


Sunday, October 14, 2007

Correction: The United States is Insolvent.

I would like to begin this post with an apology.

I had written many posts concerning our financial markets, and how we as a nation are insolvent.

When I wrote those posts, I had in mind some future realization that the United States, and indeed, many other fiat nations such as Japan, were heavily indebted and would undergo some form of economic crisis at that time.


If this is true, and I am researching this to see if it is, then our current housing crisis begins to make tons of sense.

If the land of this country has been pledged to our creditors, and if the people who own the real estate who make the payments on the real estate are also being used as collateral, then any major crash in the housing market would be a big fat hairy deal to our creditors, the International Bankers to whom we are beholden, not to mention the creditor nations who have bought billions of dollars in DEBT instruments from us, otherwise known as U.S. Treasury bonds.

Please remember that the government has very little resources of its own. Everything that they back with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government is ultimately paid for by... you and me.

We live in interesting times. It seems that the truth of things, long suppressed, is beginning to come out. Don't take my word for anything though.

Examine the information for yourself.

Kumo out.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Are you a U.S. citizen, or an American Citizen?

Take a look at The TRUTH About the 14th Amendment.

When you get done with that, have a gander at the Occult World of Commerce.

When you get done with these, ask yourself... Are you a Sovereign human being with inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States... or are you something else?

If we aren't covered by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then it would make a lot of sense why we as Men receive none of the Due Process and Equal Protections that the highest law in the land supposedly guarantees when it comes to Domestic Violence, Restraining Orders, Child Custody, Child Support, and other related matters. Our problem may be that we are dealing with a totally different system of law where constitutional protections might not even apply.

I'm not saying I believe all of this mind you, but it does make ya go hmmmmmm.

One more thing...

Be sure to check out Media Radar's Latest and Greatest report on how Domestic Violence policies are actually DRIVING relationship violence.

Interestingly, the American Coalition of Fathers and Children came to a similar conclusion in their Outstanding report that you can read here.

While the efforts of these two fabulous organizations are always appreciated, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that when you back a man into a corner, then the potential for a situation to explode goes up exponentially.

If you lock up a pit bull in a cage, abuse it, yell at it,and beat the damn dog every day of its miserable life, don't be surprised when someday, that pitiful pup takes a big ol' bite out of your ass. Men are not dogs, but we are human beings who don't always act rationally.

STOP FUCKING WITH US, treat us with some respect, acknowledge our needs when it comes to education, employment and so forth, AND YOU WILL SEE MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE DECREASE OVERALL.

I have to state again that SOME WOMEN INSTIGATE VIOLENCE AND ABUSE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWERS that they have been given. Get rid of this unnatural lab-rat-maze like system that sets men and women at each other's throats, and you will see the sexes make "nice nice" and actually get along again.

But I digress.

We live in a crazy mixed up world, and its hard sometimes to tell friend from foe, and up from down. But no matter where the truth leads us, NOW is the time to do our homework, and set things to rights before its too late.

Everything depends on it.