Catherine Lhamon: the woman behind "Dear Colleague"

Catherine Lhamon
Glenn Reynolds: The unilateral war on college men
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 11:01 a.m. EDT September 30, 2015
An assistant secretary of education thinks she can rewrite rape law by writing a letter.

It appears to many — including me — as if the Obama administration is engaged in a war on college men. Using debunked statistics, the president, the vice president and various other political officials have falsely claimed that there’s an epidemic of rape on college campuses, even though campus rape is, in fact, falling, just as off-campus rape is. (And, in fact, rape is less common on campus than off).

And, ever since the Department of Education issued a ”Dear Colleague" letter to universities in 2011, in essence ordering them to adopt new and draconian campus “sexual assault” rules that treat accusations as presumptively true and force the accused — almost always men — to prove their innocence, sometimes even very strong evidence of innocence is ignored.

Spearheading this effort has been Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon, who has characterized the letter as binding on colleges and universities even though it is not a law, was not adopted as a formal or informal rule making after notice and comment under any law, and appears to have very little to do with the federal anti-discrimination law Title IX, which says only that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

Title IX was supposed to force colleges to admit women to programs formerly reserved for men. The law says nothing about sexual assault, sexual harassment, or the duty of universities to investigate criminal behavior on their own instead of referring crimes to law enforcement. But through a period of interpretation and reinterpretation, that simple statutory language has produced reams of federal paperwork that, in effect, turn a simple academic non-discrimination rule into a rape law that lacks the due process protections and evidentiary standards of actual rape law.

Now it appears that Congress has noticed. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., crashed a Senate hearing last week to grill Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education Amy McIntosh about past statements by Lhamon that purported to establish the “guidance” letter as binding law. How could this be binding, asked Sen. Alexander, when it’s simply a letter issued without any of the procedures required for administrative rule making?

McIntosh didn’t offer much of an answer, and that’s because there isn’t one. As some, including Ari Cohn, have argued for a while, the Department of Education is acting unlawfully here.

A law, to be binding, must pass both houses of Congress and be presented to the president's desk, where it must either pass into law or be vetoed and then overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house. Because this procedure, which the framers of our Constitution designed in order to make lawmaking difficult, turns out to make it difficult to pass laws, we also allow administrative agencies to issue regulations that are binding as law. But those regulations can be issued only after a draft is published and the public has a chance to comment, via either formal or informal rule making.

A mere letter from a bureaucrat, which is all the “Dear Colleague” letter is, has no binding authority. At most, it suggests that the bureaucrats might be willing to go to court to try to convince a judge that their interpretation of the statute is correct.

So why did colleges roll over? Law blogger Scott Greenfield suggests that it’s because the colleges are also warring against college men: “After all, why should a college risk the loss of its lifeblood (federal money) for the sake of protecting a few guys, particularly when the colleges pretty much agree with Lhamon’s progressive ideals?”

Greenfield notes that once Columbia University was sued by a male student claiming that his Title IX rights were violated because of the university’s response to a false accusation, it changed its mind and decided that Title IX didn’t create much in the way of student rights after all. Greenfield concludes: “Regardless of whether one embraces the policy choice embodied in Lhamon’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letters or not, there is no doubt but that it was imposed without lawful authority and adopted by schools who chose to sacrifice one segment of their student population to appease another segment. This is not the law. This is not what Title IX mandates. And they know it, even if you don’t.”

Greenfield is right. It’s nice that members of Congress are taking notice. But male college students and their parents, as well as alumni and trustees — and those women noticing that there’s a shortage of college-educated men all of a sudden — need to ask why there’s a war on college men, and why colleges, seemingly, are on the other side.

Source

There is no other way of saying it. This bitch needs to go to prison. She has deliberately fucked up men's lives. She needs to pay. The best way of doing that is to contact your Representative and Senators and tell them to send Lhamon to prison.

It couldn't happen here. Could it?

Can it happen here? Yes,it could. Feminism is proof of that. Feminism has gotten its issues out to the sympathetic politicians and populace. The nazis couldn't accomplish it neither could their Japanese coconspriators: to fly their respective flags at the White House. The Germans said they would fly the swastika. The Japanese the rising sun and during the Cold War the Russians with the hammer and sickle. These threats were empty rhetoric. Now the terrorist group,ISIS or ISIL,are making the same threat. Will they succeed? Who knows. There is only one of these hate movements that has be not only been accepted into American society but it is actually embraced by a large part of the population and that movement is feminism. The most honest face of feminism,"gender feminism",wasn't unleashed upon American society until 1993 with the election of Bill Clinton as president. With the Bill Clinton presidency came great risks for Men's Rights Activists. Masculist publications were being monitored by the FBI. Because the Bill Clinton presidency was sympathetic to the feminist cause they were going to use the power of the government against us. Today we seen Obama wearing a t-shirt that says "this is what a feminist looks like" and old mean man-hater Joe Biden as the veep. I would say that feminism has indeed infiltrated American society the same way rot infiltrates wood.

Student sues over "not alone" policy

University of Michigan Student Found Guilty of Sexual Assault & Expelled - No Trial, No Jury, No Witnesses, No Attorney
Suzanne Hamner May 9, 2014

It seems the University of Michigan has followed the recommendations in the White House Task Force report entitled "Not Alone" to enact a four-year suspension against a student who was found guilty of the charge of sexual assault – "despite receiving little notice of the charges against him, no attorney, no trial and no jury." Drew Sterrett, the former University of Michigan student, is now suing the institution for violating his rights guaranteed by the US Constitution due process amendments. The incident occurred in 2012, Sterrett's freshman year.

According to The Daily Caller, Sterrett had sex with a female student in his dorm room. According to Sterrett, his roommate was present during the encounter and could attest to it being consensual. While at home for summer break, five months later, Sterrett was informed by the university the female student had filed a rape complaint against him. The university told Sterrett any time in trying to procure a lawyer would result in the proceedings commencing without him. In a hearing via Skype communication later that day, Sterrett denied any wrongdoing.

"'At no point during the call/interview was [Sterrett] given notice of the specific allegations which had been made against him,' the lawsuit claimed."
Sterrett's accuser had second thoughts about the details of their encounter being made public resulting in the investigation being halted in September. He was warned to stay away from the dorm where his accuser resided while being totally unaware of the full accusations against him. The university proceeded to adjudicate the matter anyway resulting in administrators informing Sterrett "he was found guilty of raping his accuser and creating a 'hostile environment' for her, and would be suspended until 2016."

Sterrett denied the charges. He called them "ludicrous" and claimed the proceedings were "a gross perversion of justice." The university denied Sterrett adequate representation and the opportunity to address the specific allegations against him made by his accuser. Regardless, a university appeal board upheld the suspension.

The lawsuit filed by Sterrett maintains, "the decision of the Appeals Board was a rubber stamp of the flawed investigation and Report and Addendum, lacked fundamental fairness, was reckless, arbitrary and capricious, and clearly denied [Sterrett] due process." The lawsuit demands the university reinstate Sterrett and pay damages.

The University of Michigan denied any wrongdoing. Kelly Cunningham, a spokeswoman for UM, said, "The University is reviewing the complaints and plans to defend them vigorously."

In a recent article regarding the White House Task Force report "Not Alone" and its falsification of facts, the problems with these "recommendations" for college campuses, that were urged to be put in place as soon as possible, were the removal of the rights of due process afforded all citizens of the US, upheld by the US Constitution with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, already in place on some campuses with the administration praising those institutions that arbitrarily dispensed with the rule of law in regards to complaints of sexual assault and rape. As stated in the previous article, this dispensation of the right to due process affects everyone's children regardless of political affiliation, political viewpoint, religion, creed, national origin, race or socioeconomic status. And, it could cause irreparable harm to those who are falsely accused or a complaint filed because of revenge or a prank.

While liberals and those on the left cheer the administration when it participates in violations of law that promote their cause, these individuals have heralded the dismissal of "the rule of law" on college campuses, recommended by the Obama administration, in favor of the "rule of men." In their thinking, the rules would not apply to them as the administration is "liberal friendly" seeking to thwart conservatives and those believing in the rule of law – the law of the land, the US Constitution. However, they too will bear the fruits of their labors.

Whether this student is innocent or guilty is not the issue – the issue is the removal of the right of due process upheld in the US Constitution by an institution, individual, or group that does not have the right to eradicate individual God-given rights.

While all of us would like to believe that our children do not or would not engage in casual sexual activity, it has become evident this does happen and happens at earlier ages: sometimes despite the teachings of parents. In this case, the accused claims the encounter was consensual and even reported having a witness to verify that fact. In the report, "Not Alone," the definition of sexual assault is to be redefined that may include many innocent situations, possibly a consensual situation between individuals of consenting age. Unfortunately, Drew Sterrett has been caught up in a war between the upholding of the rule of law versus the implementation of the rule of men. He will end up paying the price while the posturing of Congress, this administration and the public continue.

The left is busy condoning debauchery at every level, destroying the family unit, and promoting the early sexualization of our children; then, this group has the audacity to support the eradication of due process. Sterrett believed he was not in the wrong by engaging in consensual sexual relations, so did not worry about the encounter. It is proving costly as he attends a university who denies due process to those accused of wrongdoing.

The liberal left needs to re-evaluate their mantra. Oh wait, that would mean that a right-wing extreme woman that someone let out of the kitchen where she needs to be kept was actually right about the consequences of trampling the US Constitution. Well, sometimes that chicken comes home to roost.

Source

I guess dear colleague didn't go over so well so now we have not alone,which is another misandric assfucking from this administration. The weird thing is that the administration making our lives hell is the same one that put together a fucking website that didn't work for shit. In fact it was a running joke on FOX news. All this administration has done is managed to piss off everyone and make them sue the government. I'll bet Biden is the brains on this one,it is that asinine.

Bring back our girls? What about the boys?

By now you've heard about the incident where 300 Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by a militant Islamic group,Boko Haram. It is hard to miss it with the media plastering it all over the place,both the left wing and right wing media pushing it. Hannity is completely taken in by this,as I suspected he would be. Only the female Republicans are making any sense by saying let's stay out of it.The federal government is getting in a lather about it as well. Even with a sad face Michelle Obama holding up a sign that says "save our girls". Everyone in the government is in a rush to play the white knight. Why? It is not our problem. Why should American men sacrifice their lives to save foreign nationals when it's not in our national security interest? What has Boko Haram threatened to with the girls? They have threatened to marry them off to their soldiers. Here is something you may have not known: prior to kidnapping the girls Boko Haram MURDERED 58 Nigerian boys and not a peep from the world,let alone the American government and media.(Source: The Factor with guest hostess Laura Ingram 05/08/2014)That's right we let Boko Haram get away with slaughtering 58 boys. We didn't make a sound. Nothing from the media,nothing from the government. No angry calls to rush in and avenge them. The Obama administration sure wants to rush in and save those girls but this is the same Obama administration that let 4 American men be murdered in Benghazi,Libya. We have no suspects,no one in lock-up for it and a president that is going to stonewall this but I guess 300 foreign females that may or may not favor the United States are more important than 4 American men who definitely were loyal to their country,a country that didn't reciprocate that loyalty. There is now a House Select Committee looking into Benghazi and I hope they reach the truth and I hope to be informed about it by a media source that is not afraid to look politically incorrect.(this is America,what is a "correct" opinion anyway,everyone has different opinions which they deem to be "correct". Political Correctness is Proletariat Communism. IOW a dictatorship) We as a nation need to keep an eye on this administration. We can not forget Benghazi. We cannot forget Obamacare,the murdering of the Bill of Rights and the UN dictatorship this administration would shove down our throats.

Whitehouse commission on boys and men is shot down

Exposed: Obama Blocks White House Council on Boys and Men
Rachel Alexander | Feb 03, 2014

A White House Council on Women and Girls was formed in 2009 under the Obama administration to ensure that government agencies were taking into account the needs of women and girls. Warren Farrell, who has served on the board of NOW in New York City and writes books about men’s and women’s issues, was asked to be an adviser to the Council. He agreed, but suggested the need for a White House Council on Boys and Men. He was invited to submit a proposal to create one.

Farrell got to work, and over the next 18 months put together a bipartisan group of 34 peopleto draft the proposal. He thought it was crucial that it be seen as a bipartisan issue, since everyone wants our children to do well. The 34 members selected consisted of political leaders and authors of the top books about men and boys. There was also the head of government relations for the Boy Scouts and the managing editor of Men’s Health magazine. Three political parties were represented; Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians, with diverse viewpoints including Jennifer Granholm, former Democrat governor of Michigan and co-chair of a Super PAC for Obama, and Christina Hoff-Summers with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

The Boy Scouts endorsed the proposal. Once a year, the Boy Scouts meet with the president and present a State of the Nation report to him. The group arranged to have an Eagle Scout deliver the proposal to the president. But just prior to the meeting in 2009, everything on the Boy Scouts’ agenda was approved except the proposal to create the council.

This represented but one of two times the White House has expressed a tremendous amount of interest in the council but suddenly nixed it. The Office of Public Engagement (that handles the Council on Women and Girls) and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan had been very interested. But somehow the phone calls that had been set up to prepare for a presentation to the president were stopped. It appears that one or more people at the very top, just beneath Obama, have been blocking it from reaching the president over the past three years.

Farrell heard rumors that the council was rejected because it would take resources away from the White House Council on Women and Girls.The problem is that’s a zero-sum attitude in conflict with most of the White House that appears to agree that we’re all in the family boat together--if the family boat does well, we all navigate the troubled waters of life well. If we’re not all in the family boat cooperating, we sink together. Everyone on the commission and almost everyone Farrell has contacted in government agrees.

There may be a way around this sexist, anti-male roadblock. The council can easily be created with an executive order; it does not need Congressional approval. Farrell calls it “the easiest single bipartisan thing that would do more good for helping schools, foundations and private industry become aware that there is a boy crisis.” The main goal of the council is not to have government solve the problem, but to play an interactive role with industries, foundations and school systems, so parents become aware of what the five crisis areas are for our boys. They need to know what are the 10 major causes of these crises and the solutions that can fix them throughout every level of society.

Jeanette Hernandez Prenger, who is with the coalition to create the council and is Vice Chair of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce nationwide, spoke with Teresa Chaurand, who is in charge of creating new councils at the White House. Chaurand concurred with Prenger's idea to organize Congressional support. Prenger went to Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), head of the Congressional Black Caucus, and he got together with Republicans and Democrats and started building Congressional support for the council. At the same time, the new organization Leading Women for Shared Parenting, which includes both liberal and conservative women, came on board to support the proposal.

I asked Farrell why there was a need for a White House Council on Men and Boys. He told me that this is the first time in American history that our sons will have less education than our fathers. The ripple effect of that one statement is creating a disaster for our sons. In the old days, when a boy didn’t have much education or wasn’t academically inclined, he would become a construction worker, mechanic, farmer, or go into manufacturing. Those muscle jobs are declining in percentage, being taken over by robotics and microchips. Farrell told me labor is evolving “from muscle to microchip” or from “muscle to mental.” The areas that non-academic boys used to go into are evaporating.

Women are as good or better in the mental area and usually better on average with interpersonal skills, Farrell said, so lots of interpersonal jobs like greeting and selling, such as pharmaceutical reps and sales engineers, end up with a very high percentage of women.

The need for technical education in particular is growing. But the school systems are cutting back or eliminating vocational education that is necessary to prepare our children for the microchip world. Without that, we don’t become an effective global competitor; we destroy the family because girls and women are not interested in marrying into “failure to launch” boys and men. It leads to women asking themselves, “If I’m going to have a child, why should I marry one more child?” So many women end up not being married. An alarming 53% of women under age 30 in 2010 had children without being married.

The great majority of children who grow up in families where the parents are not married have little or no contact with their fathers. These children do worse in a whopping 30 different areas according to Farrell. These can be broken down into four larger umbrella areas. The first is socially: the children have less empathy, have fewer friends, and are more likely to be aggressive but not assertive. The second is psychologically: the children are more like to be depressed, suicidal, have ADHD, and are not as capable of postponing gratification - one of the key ingredients to becoming successful. The third area is worse physical health: there is much greater absence in school and more frequent visits to hospitals. Finally, children with little to no contact with their fathers are more likely to do worse in every academic subject, especially in math, science, reading and writing.

There is a ripple effect caused by the education disparities. When boys and men are not productive, that affects our entire position economically in the world. When our position economically weakens, our national security weakens. Any one of these crises with boys has a ripple effect that results in a profound effect on everything from our family to our country’s status in the world.

Another crisis area caused by the lack of a father is mental health. There is a stereotype that girls fall in love emotionally whereas all boys want is sex. But we’re now seeing that when teenagers and young people in their 20’s break up, the boys have more negative mental health outcomes than the girls. The boys are more likely to be depressed, suicidal and act it out in ways--such as driving fast, getting drunk or beating someone up--that distract their family and friends from their emotional distress over the breakup.

Another dimension of the mental health crisis among boys can be seen in the Newtown massacres. Mass murders are happening with increasing frequency around the country. We ask ourselves if guns are the issue? Is it mental health? It turns out over and over again that every mass murder in the last 8-10 years except one has involved a boy or a man. When we don’t pay attention to the mental health of boys and men, it makes us the equivalent of a terrorist state, where we’re always worried that the next time we send our son or daughter to school that the unintended mental health of some boy in that school is going to create a crisis for our own children.

Farrell tells me that the proposed council would look around the world as well as within the U.S. for possible solutions. Countries like Japan are integrating vocational education into their school systems, resulting in 97.3% of the vocational school graduates getting jobs within a year after graduation. The charter school Urban Dove in Brooklyn took the worst students from the worst schools and gave them three hours of physical education at the beginning of the day, then had the coaches stay with the students throughout the rest of the day, in case they needed to “defeat” problems with algebra, reading or other subjects. The leverage of friendship and ally-building mentality that the coaches established was used during the rest of the day, rather than disconnected after P.E. The result was that 95% of those children graduated from high school and are going to college. Without the program, none of them were predicted to have gone on to college. This is the type of solution-building that a council could highlight. It is not liberal nor conservative, nor is it male versus female.

Perhaps most troubling of all, the evidence reveals that children do even worse without a father in the home than they do without a mother in the home. Yet mothers are favored when it comes to awarding custody. This throws the notion that women are more nurturing on its head. It’s time to stop prioritizing the whining about women and swing the pendulum back to our guys, if only for the sake of our children. The playing field must be fair for our guys, and by creating this council, perhaps some of the damage can be rectified.

Source

Femocrats are always doing this to us. What ever way they can to fuck us over they will do so. This is 2014 which is an election year which means we can implement a plan of mine. I call it ABD: Anyone But the Democrat. It's real simple: vote Republican or third party. Just don't vote for the Democrat. Deny the Democrats your votes which will get them out of office which will clear up a lot of misandry.

On a positive note they are taking notice of us and it is starting to get them very nervous which gives me tremendous feeling of joy. Now that we have their attention let's FTSU. I haven't forgotten let's FTSU nor will I abandon it. I will implement it. We know this is the right track. I say we stay this course and achieve victory. I'm not going to change. Why appease those that hate me?

Go to the source page and read the comments. Hope and change are in the air.

Tell Obama to stop politicizing rape

From SAVE Services:

A few days ago President Obama announced the creation of a White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. During this announcement, he offered this piece of misinformation: "It is estimated that one in five women on college campuses has been sexually assaulted during their time there."

That statistic comes in part from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence study.

There is a very serious problem with the way this study's questions are worded. Example: "When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to give consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?" Someone who purposely gets drunk with their partner and willingly participates in a sexual encounter is counted as a rape victim!

To learn more, see Katherine Connell's National Review article.

We believe that policies on sexual assault and rape should be based on accurate facts, not fear-inducing hyperbole.

Ask President Obama to stop politicizing the rape issue.
•Phone: 202-456-1111
•Email:Click Here

Thank you,

teri

Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org

Re-elect Mitch McConnell

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

Why am I mentioning Senator McConnell? Because he is one of the 22 Senators that stood up to the feminazi bullies and voted against VAWA. He remembered us now it is time we help him. If you are an MRA and a resident of Kentucky or allowed to vote there re-elect Mitch McConnell. Not only that but McConnell is big supporter of the other Senator from Kentucky,Rand Paul. Like I said if McConnell is defeated then some liberal Obama-loving,feminist loving democrat will take his place. You want that? I don't. So like I said if you are able to do so re-elect Mitch McConnell.

Statist loses election but wants to be Secretary of State

Howard Berman

The good news: Congressman Howard Berman -- one of the lead supporters of SOPA -- lost his re-election bid last week. The bad news: The Los Angeles Times is reporting that Berman is being considered as the replacement for Hillary Clinton when she steps down as Secretary of State in coming weeks. That would mean that he'd play a key role in developing global Internet policy! Please add your name at right to tell President Obama and the Senate that Berman has no place being considered for Secretary of State. Berman has spent decades representing Southern California, and has been one of the biggest shills for Hollywood and other forces that seek to censor the Internet: He was one of the original sponsors of SOPA, and unlike so many others who had the sense to wiithdraw their support after the Internet cried out, Berman has never backed down. But now the LA Times reports:

Berman, who has been chairman and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is among those now mentioned by U.S. officials as a possible replacement for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton when she departs next year.

If the United States really cares about global Internet freedom, there couldn't be a worse pick for Secretary of State than Berman, who's repeatedly tried to censor the web at Hollywood's behest -- and Hollywood's been leading a global charge to clamp down on Internet freedom. Let's put Obama and the Senate on notice.

Source:click here to sign petition.

Last week we got rid of this statist asshole through democratic means but we could end up stuck with him if we don't let Obama and our senators know that we don't want him. If he is a big SOPA supporter I don't want him anywhere near the controls for the internet. If he is so big with the Hollywood crowd then they can give him a job in the private sector so that way he can leave the rest of us alone.

Tell our leaders to reform VAWA

From SAVE Services:

Have your civil rights been trampled by current abuse laws? Do you want to bring the need for reform into the public eye? For the next two weeks, you have a unique opportunity to put the domestic violence issue on the political radar screen.

Between now and Nov. 6, visit campaign townhall meetings, rallies, and events. Pass out flyers and ask the candidates if they support reform.

Visit the SAVE website for question ideas, flyers, nationwide survey results, special reports, event information, and more: http://www.saveservices.org/campaign-2012/

Have a friend take photos or video. We'd love to see them. And by all means, let us know if your question gets in the news!

teri

Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org

You can also contact your elected leaders here to let them know about VAWA reform and how much we demand it. You can also contact Mitt Romney about this at: mitt@mittromneyforpresident.com and let him know that we will lobby for reform and we are serious. Let's do this.

You paid for it,maintained it but you may not be the legal owner

From Demand Progress:

You've Been Owned: Tell Obama To Stop Siding With Copyright Trolls

We need your help: Once again, the film studios and record companies that tried to censor the Internet are up to no good. The same business lobbyists who backed SOPA are trying to stop you from reselling most of the things that you own -- and President Obama has taken their side.

Arguments before the Supreme Court take place later this month: Please add your name at right to tell Obama to stand with consumers and Internet users.

A few months ago Demand Progress -- joined by over 100,000 Internet users and a coalition of public interest groups -- asked President Obama to take action and protect consumers' rights to resell their own things. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case (Kirstaeng v. Wiley) that will decide whether you have the right to sell your iPod, books, and other goods on eBay and Craigslist -- or even at your own yard sale.

But the entertainment industry lobbyists at the MPAA and RIAA have filed a brief in the Supreme Court mocking consumers' concerns -- just like they did during the SOPA Fight. These special interests admit that they want the Supreme Court to decide against the interests of ordinary Americans and protect the music and film industries' "ability to control entry into distinct markets."

You heard that right -- Hollywood thinks that controlling their CD and DVD markets is more important than consumer rights.

Amazingly, the Obama administration agrees and has rejected the pleas of thousands of ordinary consumers: The White House's solicitor general filed a legal brief rejecting our arguments and allowing big businesses to sue people for reselling their things online.

To sign the petition:click here

Obama is going out of his way to insure he is,like Bush Sr.,a one term president. Whenever the people favor something these two shoot it down. Now they do so at their own expense.

Obama screws men on STEM courses

Probable Anti-Male Caps in Math and Science MONDAY, 01 OCTOBER 2012 07:19 EAGLE FORUM 1338 readings

Feminists intent on limiting opportunities for men and boys have long abused Title IX when it comes to school athletics. Now we can expect the same assault against men who are interested in math and science.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 requires that schools and colleges receiving federal funding not discriminate “on the basis of sex.” The law is traditionally associated with school sports programs, where radical feminists have used it to forcefully eliminate hundreds of men’s sports teams in the name of “proportionality.”

The White House has announced a new set of policies that would step up enforcement of Title IX, explicitly applying the rule to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Title IX has always applied to all federally funded education programs, but the Department of Education’s new enforcement efforts will “develop consistent and consolidated technical assistance” on Title IX in STEM.

Just as enforcement of Title IX has meant gender quotas on school sports teams, increased enforcement in STEM education will likely lead to artificial enrollment caps aimed at keeping men out of math and science classes. “Title IX isn’t just about sports,” President Obama wrote in Newsweek earlier this year. It’s also about “addressing inequality in math and science education” and “a much broader range of fields, including engineering and technology. I’ve said that women will shape the destiny of this country, and I mean it.”

“To Obama, gender disparities are only bad when they disfavor women,” wrote the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Hans Bader. “Under his strange idea of equality, equality means men losing out to women. . . . The result could be a substantial reduction in the number of scientists graduating from America’s colleges and universities.”

Fewer women major in subjects like science and engineering because they choose to study other things, not because anyone discriminates against them. Charlotte Allen of Minding the Campus noted in a July blog post:

When college women study science, they tend to gravitate toward biology – about 58 percent of all bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in biology go to women. In contrast, women earn some 17 percent of bachelor’s degrees in engineering and computer science and just over 40 percent of bachelor’s degrees in physical sciences and mathematics. The likely reason for this . . . is that women tend to be drawn to “organic” fields involving people and living things, whereas men are more interested in the objects and abstractions that are the focus of STEM majors.

Yet the Obama administration sticks closely to the hard-line feminist argument that the problem is bias: women are somehow being denied access to STEM courses.

These new policies come at a time when women frequently outnumber men in classes of all subjects. 25 percent fewer men than women now graduate from college. Title IX was passed to correct a much smaller gender disparity in the days when 17 percent fewer women attended than men. So many more women than men now attend college that the Richmond-Times Dispatch asked in March whether colleges ought to begin considering affirmative action for men:

In every other academic realm, the existence of a statistical disparity . . . is taken as definitive proof of gender discrimination. . . . We look forward to a robust debate on how institutions of higher learning can correct the discriminatory circumstances that are leading them to graduate nearly three women for every two men.

“The fact that engineering departments are filled mostly with men does not mean they discriminate against women,” notes Bader, “anymore than the fact that English departments are filled mostly with women proves that English departments discriminate against men. . . . Deep down, the Obama administration knows this, since it is planning to impose its gender-proportionality rules only on STEM fields . . . not other fields that have similarly large gender disparities in the opposite direction.”

Charlotte Allen pointed out that applying gender quotas to STEM is not merely bad policy:

The use of Title IX to force universities to restructure their curricula and alter the composition of their hard-science and engineering departments in order to achieve a supposed gender equity that matches neither the aptitudes nor the interests of many women isn’t just heavy-handed and totalitarian. As study after study indicates, it’s bad science as well.

The Washington Post’s Christina Hoff Sommers warned in 2009 that the sciences would become radical feminism’s next favorite target:

The idea of imposing Title IX on the sciences began gaining momentum around 2002. Then, women were already earning nearly 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees and at least half of the Ph.D.s in the humanities, social sciences, life sciences and education. Meanwhile, men retained majorities in fields such as physics, computer science and engineering. Badly in need of an advocacy cause just as women were beginning to outnumber men on college campuses, well-funded academic women’s groups alerted their followers that American science education was “hostile” to women. Soon there were conferences, retreats, summits, a massive “Left Out, Left Behind” letter-writing campaign, dozens of studies and a series of congressional hearings.

The Department of Education says that it has “not expanded the jurisdiction of Title IX, nor has the department issued new Title IX regulations or guidance regarding the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM),” but has instead created a new multi-agency initiative “to develop consistent and consolidated technical assistance” on Title IX as it relates to STEM:

The goal of this coordinated multi-agency collaboration is to reduce the burden on schools and institutions, who may benefit from common guidance about their Title IX responsibilities and way to improve access and outreach to women and girls in STEM fields. There is no truth to claims that the Department plans to impose STEM quotas or caps.

But, as the Heritage Foundation noted:

The heart of the matter remains the same: Title IX has a track record of measuring “opportunity” in athletics on the basis of whether participation is proportional to enrollment. This shifts the focus from equality of opportunity to equality of results, substituting policymakers’ desired outcomes for students’ own preferences. . . . Will this new collaboration result in quotas, substituting policymakers’ predetermined outcomes for the preferences of students, and diminished opportunities for men in STEM fields? If implementation of Title IX in the intercollegiate athletics context is a reliable indicator, there is strong evidence that it might.

Legal precedents have made it very difficult for school sports teams to comply with Title IX without imposing gender quotas, and it’s unlikely that STEM education will be different. Bader explains:

The first way (and only permanent way) to comply is to adopt a quota that artificially caps male participation. The second and third ways, which are only short-term fixes, involve continuous expansion of participation by, or satisfaction of all desire to compete by, the “underrepresented” sex. In a world of finite resources, these latter two ways can only work for a short period of time. In light of this fact, courts have rejected lawsuits by men’s teams cut by colleges to achieve proportionality (that is, quotas), concluding that such quotas are required by Title IX, which thus overrides any rights the men’s teams might otherwise enjoy.

Bader, who used to work in the Office for Civil Rights, which administers Title IX, believes that gender caps are just as unwise as they are unconstitutional: “I think that it would be a grave mistake to apply its standards, which were designed for allocating resources among all-male and all-female sports teams, to the very different context of math and science classes, which are coed.” Math and science classes, he noted, “are open to all students, regardless of gender, and are supposed to be gender-blind, not gender-specific or gender-based.” Applying gender quotas to STEM classes “is simply unconstitutional.”

Source:click here

Men,if getting rid of Obama didn't mean that much before this ought to change that way of thinking real quick. It's obvious Obama is against us so the faster we are rid of him the better. Vote Obama out.

Homeland Security official accused of sexual harassment resigns

Janet Napolitano's aide, ICE chief of staff, resigns amid misconduct claims

Published: September 1, 2012 7:29 PM

By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A senior Obama administration political appointee and longtime aide to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano resigned Saturday amid allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior lodged by at least three Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees.

Suzanne Barr, chief of staff to ICE Director John Morton, said in her resignation letter that the allegations against her are "unfounded." But she said she was stepping down anyway to end distractions within the agency. ICE, a division of the Homeland Security Department, confirmed Barr had resigned. The Associated Press obtained a copy of Barr's letter. Barr is accused of sexually inappropriate behavior toward employees. The complaints are related to a sexual discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by a senior ICE agent in May.

In her letter to Morton, Barr said she has been the subject of "unfounded allegations designed to destroy my reputation" and is resigning "with great regret."

"Of greater concern however, is the threat these allegations represent to the reputation of this agency and the men and women who proudly serve their country by advancing ICE's mission," Barr wrote. "As such, I feel it is incumbent upon me to take every step necessary to prevent further harm to the agency and to prevent this from further distracting from our critical work."

Barr went on leave last month after the New York Post reported on the lawsuit filed by James T. Hayes Jr., ICE's special agent in charge in New York. Additional employees came forward with their allegations around the same time.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., said in a statement Saturday that Barr's resignation "raises the most serious questions about management practices and personnel policies at the Department of Homeland Security." He said his committee will continue to review the case and personnel practices at DHS.

In one complaint, Barr is accused of telling a male subordinate he was "sexy" and asking a personal question about his anatomy during an office party. In a separate complaint, she is accused of offering to perform a sex act with a male subordinate during a business trip in Bogota, Colombia. She's also accused of calling a male subordinate from her hotel room and offering to perform a sex act. The names of two of Barr's accusers were censored in affidavits reviewed by AP.

Homeland Security's office of professional responsibility and inspector general have been investigating the allegations.

Prior to the lawsuit, there were no complaints about Barr, according to a homeland security official who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

In the lawsuit, Hayes described a "frat house" atmosphere at ICE designed to humiliate male employees under Barr's leadership. Hayes, who was transferred to New York from ICE headquarters in Washington, is asking for more than $4 million that, among other things, would cover compensation he believes he is owed for relocation expenses and financial losses associated with his transfer.

Hayes' lawyer, Morris Fischer of Silver Spring, Md., has declined to comment.

The Justice Department is seeking to dismiss Hayes' lawsuit on the basis that he did not state a claim for retaliation.

Barr, a 1995 graduate of the University of Arizona, was among Napolitano's first appointments after she became secretary in 2009. Barr started working for Napolitano in 2004, while Napolitano was governor of Arizona. Prior to that, Barr worked for Arizona Republican Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain.

Source:click here

This is a follow-up to this article which initially broke the story. If it were a man he may suffer the same fate or worse for sexually harassing a female employee. At least the matter wasn't swept under the rug like these female-on-male sexual harassment cases usually are. This goes to show that women can sexually harass men too.

Obama discriminates against men in health care

From NCFM:

Now that men and women pay equally for healthcare, shouldn’t men receive equal coverage when it comes to fully covered services? Shouldn’t there finally be a government health office dealing with men’s health? Men and women should sign this petition no matter if they agree with the Affordable Care Act or not. The Act is sexist and needs to be made unbiased should it remain in existence in its present state.

On August 1, 2012 many more health care services became available to women without co-pays, deductibles, or out-of-pocket expenses. While this can be seen as a victory for women’s health, there are many services that affect men in equal or similar ways that still require men to be able to afford those cost-sharing requirements. Why should all women receive these services (such as well-care visits) “free” while men still will be denied those services if they can not afford to pay for them? The Affordable Care Act will undoubtedly expand the gender life-expectancy gap even further due to men being denied these well-care visits. Blacks and Hispanic males will be hit hardest as studies have shown them to be less likely to afford those out-of-pocket expenses.

These are our fathers, our brothers and our sons that perhaps will be forced to go without those well-care visits to determine important screenings and services. It’s great to have our mothers, sisters and daughters to not have to be concerned with financial obligations to receive those services. This act should not force some men to be denied those preventive care services just because of financial inability. It’s time to rectify the imbalance and make this bill adhere to gender equality.

A look at what preventive services are deemed sexist can be found in the US Dept. of Health and Human Services list of such services and to whom they apply:click here

We ask President Obama to correct the following biased aspects of the Affordable Care Act:

FACT#1
WOMEN ARE PROVIDED WELL-CARE VISITS WITHOUT DEDUCTIBLES, CO-PAYS OR OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN RECOMMENDED PREVENTIVE SERVICES. MEN WILL BE DENIED THESE WELL-CARE VISITS UNLESS THEY CAN COME UP WITH THE REQUIRED EXTRA FUNDS. This will mean that many men will not go for well-care visits due to lack of affordability. This will lead to many men not being diagnosed until a disease has become more expensive to treat or until it is too late for treatment altogether. This will cost lives and add to the already burdensome cost of The Affordable Care Act.

FACT#2
BREAST CANCER SCREENINGS ARE FULLY COVERED WITHOUT DEDUCTIBLES, CO-PAYS OR OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS. PROSTATE CANCER SCREENINGS REQUIRE MEN TO FIND A WAY TO PAY THOSE EXTRA COSTS OR BE DENIED PREVENTIVE CARE. Prostate cancer affects 1 in 6 men and kills roughly 28,000 annually. Breast cancer affects 1 in 9 women and kills roughly 39,000 annually. Should this Act continue, no one should be turned away from these preventive cancer screenings.

To sign the petition click here

If you like things the way they are,men getting shafted at every turn then by all means ignore this petition.If,OTOH,you are sick of being fucked over,ran over and just plain ignored because you weren't born with a vagina then do yourself a favor and sign the petition. Why should women get freebies while men pay? Why should they? Are you opposed to female favoring when it comes to medical coverage? If yes,then sign the petition.

Prisons take anti-rape stance

Justice: Prisons to step up anti-rape efforts The Obama administration ordered federal, state and local officials Thursday to adopt zero tolerance for prison rape as it issued mandatory screening, enforcement and prevention regulations designed to reduce the number of inmates who suffer sexual victimization at the hands of other prisoners and prison staff.

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press

WASHINGTON —
The Obama administration ordered federal, state and local officials Thursday to adopt zero tolerance for prison rape as it issued mandatory screening, enforcement and prevention regulations designed to reduce the number of inmates who suffer sexual victimization at the hands of other prisoners and prison staff.

Anti-rape advocates and victims of prison rape, while saying the standards are not perfect, cheered the new regulations. The rules have been under development since Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003 to fight rape and sexual victimization in the nation's prisons, jails and halfway houses. The regulations were announced only minutes after the Justice Department unveiled a new survey of former state and local prisoners that showed that almost one in every 10 reported at least one incident of sexual victimization by prison staff or other inmates.

Garrett Cunningham was raped in a Texas prison by a guard in 2000, and now works with Just Detention International, an anti-prison rape group. "If strong national standards had been in place when I was in prison, my abuse may have never happened. Now that the standards have been released, we can make sure it never happens again," said Cunningham, who testified to Congress about his ordeal.

The regulations are immediately binding on federal prisons. States that don't fall in line face a loss of 5 percent of their Justice Department prison money unless their governor certifies that the same amount of money is being used to bring the state into compliance. Prison accreditation organizations also will be barred from federal grants unless they include similar anti-prison rape standards in their accreditation process, which means local jails could lose their accreditation unless they comply.

"Sexual violence, against any victim, is an assault on human dignity and an affront to American values," President Barack Obama said.

Obama announced that the Prison Rape Elimination Act would apply to all federal confinement facilities, and all other agencies with confinement facilities were required to have protocol to fight prison rape within a year. That means the Homeland Security Department, which runs immigrant detainment facilities, will have to have similar rules in place by this time next year.

"The standards we establish today reflect the fact that sexual assault crimes committed within our correctional facilities can have devastating consequences for individual victims and for communities far beyond our jails and prisons," Attorney General Eric Holder said.

But immigration advocates immediately denounced the idea that Homeland Security would be allowed to come up with its own rules instead of following the ones announced by the Justice Department.

"It was clearly the intent of Congress that every person in confinement in the U.S. would be protected from being raped. Holder's decision leaves those in Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, many of whom are not accused of a crime, at the mercy of sexual predators," said Pat Nolan, president of the Justice Fellowship and former member of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission.

The administration announcement came as the Bureau of Justice Statistics released its first-ever National Former Prisoners Survey, which found that 9.6 percent of former inmates said they were sexually victimized in jails, prisons and halfway houses. A somewhat similar survey of still-imprisoned convicts done by the same agency in 2008-09 found that only 4.4 percent of state and federal inmates said they were sexually victimized.

The difference may be because the former inmates in the current survey were asked about a longer time period than in the previous survey, said Allen J. Beck, an author of the survey. But it also could be that former inmates may be more willing to talk about the sexual victimization than the inmates currently housed inside those facilities, who have concerns about retaliation for speaking up.

Critics have said inmates may be willing to lie on these surveys in an attempt to embarrass a facility or refuse to report an incident for fear of retaliation.

The study defines sexual victimization as any type of unwanted sexual activity with other inmates, abusive sexual activity with other inmates and both willing and unwilling sexual activity with staff.

Among the findings:

- Almost the same number of former inmates were victimized by facility staff as were victimized by other inmates. About 27,300 - 5.4 percent - reported incidents with other inmates, while 23,300 - 5.3 percent - reported incidents that involved staff. Of the former inmates who reported incidents with staff, 6,300 said they had unwilling sex or sexual contact with staff, while the rest said they "willingly" had sexual contact. And half of the former inmates who were victimized by facility staff members said they were offered favors or privileges in exchange, while a third said they were talked into it.

Any sexual contact between staff and inmate is officially classified as nonconsensual. Prisons uniformly forbid inmate-staff sexual contact.

The new regulations require prison officials to screen inmates for the potential of sexual victimization and use that information in assigning housing and work, require background checks on employees and prohibit hiring of abusers. The regulations also say firing will be the presumptive punishment for staff members involved and ban cross-gender pat downs of female inmates and juveniles.

- A fourth of the former inmates victimized by other inmates said they had been physically held down or restrained, and a quarter also said they were physically injured or harmed during the attack.

The new rules would require juvenile inmates to be kept away from adult inmates, allow anonymous and outside-of-prison reports of sexual victimization and require evidence preservation after a reported incident. Facilities also must produce plans for adequate staffing and video monitoring.

- Gay and bisexual men seemed by far the most frequently targeted. The survey said that 39 percent of men who were gay and 34 percent of bisexual men reported being sexually victimized by another inmate, while only 3.5 percent of heterosexual men reported incidents. Lesbian and heterosexual women reported incidents with other inmates at the same rates - 13 percent - while staff victimization was double for lesbian women - 8 percent - compared with heterosexual women - 4 percent.

The new regulations would require detention facilities to incorporate the "unique vulnerabilities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and gender nonconforming inmates into training and screening protocols."

Source:click here

This is a good idea when you take into consideration that more men are raped in prison than women are,whether in lock-up or on the street. If men are not raped in prison then they may have less hostility toward society and are less like to go back to prison.

Tell Obama you don't want indefinite detention

Tell Obama: End Indefinite Detention Now!

It was amazing news: Chris Hedges, Revolution Truth, et al won their lawsuit last week as a judge ruled that indefinite detention violates the Constitution. More than 50,000 Demand Progress members have signed on as supporters of the lawsuit.

Now indefinite detention is back in President Obama's hands: He can tell the government's lawyers not to appeal the ruling and end this travesty once and for all. Meanwhile, the Senate takes up indefinite detention THIS WEEK.

Please sign up at right to urge Obama and the Senate to stop supporting indefinite detention -- and use these links to share the photo at right:

Obama signed last year's National Defense Authorization Act even though it included provisions which could let the military detain civilians indefinitely without a trial or charges.

Despite a valiant effort by opponents, the House retained indefinite detention when it passed the new NDAA last week. The Senate will take it up soon, and President Obama can drop his defense of it in court.

Just add your name at right to send emails to Obama and the Senate right away.

And please spread the word and help us meme President Obama, by sharing the image at right.

Source:click here

If being labeled a "terrorist" and detained by the military indefinitely without due process sickens you then you may want to sign the petition to Obama and the Senate.

Too little too late

The other gender gap: Obama struggles to make gains among male voters
By Judson Berger
Published April 09, 2012
FoxNews.com

April 6, 2012: President Obama speaks at the White House. (AP) For all the analysis of Mitt Romney's struggle to attract female voters, little has been made of the other gender gap -- President Obama's difficulty in attracting male voters.

While Romney's deficit among female voters is deeper, the incumbent president has faced his share of trouble winning over the other 49 percent of the population. The president's approval ratings since the beginning of his term demonstrate this reality. He fares consistently better among women, consistently worse among men.

When pitted against Romney, the Republican presidential front-runner, the trend holds. Romney often captures the men, while Obama wins the women. In a Fox News Poll released last month, only 43 percent of men said they approved of the job Obama was doing -- 51 percent disapproved. The numbers practically flipped among women.

Drilling deeper into the numbers, the poll showed 59 percent of men disapproved of Obama's handling of the economy, compared with 50 percent of women who felt the same way. On the deficit, disapproval among men was 61 percent; among women, 53 percent.

A widely cited USA Today/Gallup poll last week, which measured Obama's and Romney's support in 12 vital swing states, showed Romney losing women 36-54 percent.

In the swing states, Obama was doing better among men than he has been nationally, but still behind by a point -- with Romney leading 48-47 percent.

The reason for each candidate's gender gap likely can be traced to a host of factors.

There are historical trends to consider -- women have favored Democrats and men Republicans for decades.

In this particular race, dissatisfaction with Obama runs deeper among men when it comes to issues of the economy and the deficit -- issues Romney has tried to make the centerpiece of his campaign platform.

Amid a shaky economy recovery, though, Obama's trouble with the not-so-fair sex could boil down to the basic challenge of unemployment.

"Men are hurting more in this workforce in unemployment than women are," said Brad Blakeman, past adviser to former President George W. Bush. "Men have left this president because they are unemployed."

The latest jobs report in March pegged the unemployment rate for men at 7.6 percent, for women at 7.4 percent. The numbers, though, weren't always so close.

The gap in the jobless rate for women and men grew to nearly 3 percentage points in late 2009 and has narrowed slowly since.

A 2010 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that the men fared worse during the recession and its aftermath in part because the industries that suffered most were male-dominated.

From a cultural perspective, Blakeman noted that the "burden of not being employed" can weigh more heavily on a man than a woman. Polling has shown different issues mattering more to male and female voters.

In the USA Today/Gallup poll of swing state voters, men listed the deficit and national debt as their top issue. For women, the top issue was health care.

Indeed, Obama and his Democratic allies appear to have made inroads with women by stoking concerns about Republicans targeting contraception. "The culture wars nonsense really drives -- especially women -- crazy," said Democratic strategist Peter Fenn. He said that while Obama should strive to bring more men on board with his campaign, Democrats historically don't need to be winning among men to win the presidential election.

Christopher C. Hull, who runs the online advocacy platform BlastRoots, said the gender gap has more to do with the nature of the parties than the candidates.

"The reality is that the party of the left is a generally communitarian party, and the party of the right is a generally individualist party," he said, calling those "feminine and masculine qualities, respectively."

Source:click here

Obama and Biden are toast as far as I'm concerned,judging from their track records on supporting misandry especially VAWA Joe. If Obama were serious he would have created that Boys To Men Commission,which he didn't while still pandering to women. Screw him and VAWA Joe.

A blurb of hope

From Demand Progress:

Hollywood's bragging that they're pushing a new version of SOPA. But in less than 24 hours more than 50,000 of you have emailed the White House to demand that President Obama reject Hollywood's back room deal.

This is indeed encouraging as it shows Obama and the other PTB that we are not going to let them cancel the Constitution on us,particularly the First Amendment. Be sure to sign the Fight For The Future petition mentioned in the post previous to this one and sign the Demand Progress petition as well.

Hollywood lobby to get SOPA like legislation passed

From Demand Progress:

Tell Obama And Dodd: No Backroom Dealing, No New SOPA

They still just don't get it. Chris Dodd -- the head of the Hollywood Lobby -- is bragging that he's working on a new insider deal to push through SOPA-like legislation.

He had this exchange with the Hollywood Reporter this week:

THR: Are there conversations going on now?

Dodd: I'm confident that's the case, but I'm not going to go into more detail because obviously if I do, it becomes counterproductive.

THR: Did you feel personally blindsided by Obama over SOPA?

Dodd: I'm not going to revisit the events of last winter. I'll only say to you that I'm confident he's using his good relationships in both communities to do exactly what you and I have been talking about.

This exchange comes days after the White House issued a report that urges a redoubling of efforts to crack down on piracy.

Hollywood and Obama should've learned: No form of censorship will be acceptable to Internet users, and we're fed up with corrupt, back-room deals that are driven by the rich and well-connected. Any major Internet policy changes should be negotiated in the light of day, so the millions of people who'd be affected can have their say too.

Please tell President Obama to reject Hollywood's backroom deals -- just add your name at right.

TO PRESIDENT OBAMA AND CHRIS DODD: After the biggest outpouring of activism in the history of the Internet, it's appalling that Hollywood is back to its old insider ways. No backroom deals -- and no new SOPA. And any and all negotiations with Hollywood should take place in the light of day.

click here to sign petition.

Wow,these idiots just don't get it. We don't want their censorship pushed on us. You would think that after they got shellacked for sponsoring SOPA they would learn their lesson but no they want to go through this again. If we have to stand up to them again it is not a problem because the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.Preserve your liberty sign the petition today.