This site has been deprecated. Please visit our new site National Men's Advisory Council 

Fight The Bias - Home


Fight The Bias - Newsletter Issue #18


In This Edition #18












There was a little situation overnight in Banks County, Georgia.  Thank goodness the gun wasn’t locked up --- safe from children, you know.

A 36-year-old man shows up at the front door of a house, bangs on the door, and demands to see his ex-wife.  He’s told that she's not there.  “Go away.” 

He doesn’t. 

This ex-husband, you see, has a long and rich history of beating the crap out of his now ex-wife.  Apparently he thought it was time for another whipping. 

The predatory ex keeps banging on the door, trying to break it down.  Inside the house is his 16-year-old stepson.  When the wife-beater kicks the door down and rushes into the house, the teen fires.  One stepfather now taking the eternal celestial dirt nap. 

Police say they don't intend to file charges against the stepson.  The dead man had been jailed before on domestic violence charges.  And there were two small children in the house. 

Omigod!  Two small children in the house!  And a gun!  How can that be? Goodness gracious!  Don’t they know these children could have been hurt?

Go ahead, gun grabbers.  Try to convince us that this situation would have been better if that evil, evil gun hadn't been there.  Are you going to tell me this ex-husband was trying to break down the door just so he could have a leisurely chat with his ex-wife?

Stories like this--law-abiding Americans using guns for self-defense--happen more than 2.5 million times a year.  That's about 7,000 times daily.  The Banks County case is unusual because the gun was actually fired!  In more than 98 percent of cases the gun is never fired.  The vast majority of the time, all you have to do is brandish the gun to scare away your attacker.

But you won't hear this from the anti-gun crowd.  This kind of story drives them nuts because it puts gun ownership in a positive light.






Want to know how the Democrats are systematically gutting George W. Bush's tax cut?  Turn on your television.

The Media Research Center has just released a study of network news coverage of the Bush tax cut plan.  They looked at 93 tax stories that appeared on ABC, CBS, and NBC from January 20 through March 31.  The findings:

  • When quoting tax cut supporters and opponents, the networks quoted Bush plan opponents five times more often than they quoted supporters.
  • Network reporters, led by NBC's Tom Brokaw and CBS' Dan Rather, labeled the Bush tax plan as "big" or "very big" on 30 different occasions.
  • No broadcast reporter ever described Bush's tax cut as modest or small.
  • Liberals' standard complaint that the Bush plan would favor the wealthy received twice as much airplay (31 times) as the opposing point of view (15 times).
  • NBC and ABC both reported that Bush's plan would offer a greater percentage tax reduction to lower- and middle-income families...but CBS never did.
  • None of the networks reported that the last income tax increase in 1993 targeted higher-income families...and none of them bothered to report that the top five percent of income-earners pay more than half of the taxes.
  • CBS was the least likely to convey comments from Bush or other tax cut supporters touting the economic benefits of a tax cut.

In fact, CBS did the biggest job of telling the American people that a tax cut would be bad for the nation's economy.  The Media Research Center concludes that CBS "displayed a unique antagonism toward the tax cut and the arguments made on its behalf."

The people in charge at ABC, CBS, and NBC aren't journalists anymore, folks.  They ceased to be journalists the moment they compromised their principles in favor of reporting just one side of the story--the Democrats' side.  You've seen the statistics that say more than 90 percent of newspaper editors and reporters vote Democrat.  And now you've seen the hatchet job the broadcast networks are doing on the Bush tax cut plan.







I’ve brought this up a few times --- thus far with no real reaction. It doesn’t seem to bother people, yet it should.  If the productive American people don’t wake up to this Democratic game plan sometime soon the ballot box will have been stripped from the hands of those who pay the bills, and the game will essentially be over.

Now --- just what am I talking about?  It’s the Democratic efforts to take about one-half of American wage earners and remove them from any responsibility to pay any federal taxes of any kind.  This includes income taxes, Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes.  The Democrats want ALL of these taxes to be paid only by upper-income wage earners – those more likely to vote Republican than Democrat.

You’ve seen the Democrats fighting this battle in their demands that tax cuts be given to people who don’t pay income taxes.  The Democrats want a portion of the excess income taxes collected from upper-income Americans to be used to cover some of the Social Security and Medicare taxes for lower-income earners.  This means that these middle and lower income Americans would be entitled to and receive Social Security and Medicare benefits that they did not pay for --- that were paid for by someone else.

Now – something new.  You know about this so-called “Earned Income Tax Credit” (EITC)  haven’t you?  It’s not a tax credit at all.  It’s a welfare payment.  If a person earns an EITC in the amount of $2000, but only owes $650 in income taxes, the government wipes out the income tax liability and writes that person a check for $1350.  That $1350, of course, was taken from someone else who actually worked for it.  It’s a transfer of income.

Now the Democrats are pushing for an expansion of the EITC program to cover “payroll” (Social Security and Medicare) taxes as well as income taxes.  The goal?  To put more and more people on a complete free ride.

I’ll say it again, folks, and maybe it will sink through a few more skulls.  These politicians are moving us toward a taxing and voting system where the tax load  -- and we’re talking income taxes, Social Security taxes and Medicare Taxes -- is shouldered by high-producers and achievers in the upper 30% of income-earners while those in the lower 70% get a free ride.

Can’t you see the political campaigns of the future?  Democrats will be warning voters “If you vote for Republicans, they’re going to make you pay income taxes and they’ll make you pay for your Social Security and your Medicare.”





And now here's the medical evidence.

There's a new article that appears in the spring issue of the Medical Sentinel, the official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.  It's a study that finds most gun violence studies from the last 20 years are based on flawed methodology, and they're unduly influenced by political agendas--thus leading to biased and incorrect conclusions.  Supposedly objective studies weren't objective at all, because the people conducting them were blinded by their own prejudices.  They set a goal and then tweaked the data to achieve it.

The author of this study is Dr. Miguel Faria, editor-in-chief of Medical Sentinel.  Faria found that:

  • Women in particular are NOT in more danger if they carry or own guns.
  • The ease of access to or availability of guns is NOT the cause of crime.
  • Mass killings would NOT be avoided if guns were not available.
  • Gun violence is NOT the leading accidental cause of death in children.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has long been a thorn in the side of the anti-gun groups.  They've recently held the feet of several doctors' groups to the fire for their obvious left-leaning anti-gun biases--and their decision to ask patients about gun ownership.

Will the gun-grabbing doctors be able to come up with a logical argument against Miguel Faria and the AAPS?  Not likely.  Because Faria's statistics are based in rock-solid fact...and the only arguments anti-gunners can counter with are based in emotion.  In this battle of wits, they're the ones who are unarmed.






As you know, or as you should know, government has one asset that you don’t have. One valuable asset that private businesses don’t have.  That asset is the ability to use force to accomplish its goals.

Just by way of example --- If the government sets up an absurd retirement and disability insurance program with a net zero rate of return on your investment, and if you chose not to purchase this insurance program, the government can pull out a gun and force you to buy the product.  Could a private insurance company do this?

The government can also use this force to seize your money and other property to be used for it’s goals and purposes.

Ok … so if the government has the legal power to use a gun to take your money from you, can’t we at least expect that the money would be used for legitimate purposes?  Do you think that the government should be able to use this police power to, say, take your money from you and then offer to give that money back if, and only if, you agree to do certain things that the government wants you to do?

That brings us to a little proposal from a physician in Texas named Kenneth H. Cooper.  This man matters to you because he is the odds-on favorite to become the next Surgeon General of the United States.  Cooper is already excited about his upcoming job.  He has submitted a 15-point “national health agenda” to his pal George W. Bush.

Here’s the plan.  Cooper wants the government to take $1000 from you and then offer to let you have that money back if, and only if you engage in certain personal behavior the government likes.  In this case the government wants you to not smoke, control your weight and watch your cholesterol.  You will be entitled to recover $250 of your own money if you keep your body mass index under 25, don’t smoke, keep your cholesterol under 200 and manage your blood pressure. Each item is worth $250 of your own money.

Is this the type of government you want?  A government that allows you to work, then steps in to seize your money, and holds that money over your head to be returned if you behave like a good little government subject? 

Neil Boortz is a syndicated talk show host based in Atlanta Georgia. You can visit his website at


Resources    Archives    Mission    Quotes    News    Links    New Items    Site Guide

Contact Us     Privacy Policy



Student web gratuitously hosted by AVAREN .COM


Please visit our sponsors

Computer Services Dallas Tx - Computer IT Services Dallas-Fort Worth

Computer IT Data Backup Plans & Support