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

Fight The Bias - Home


Fight The Bias - Newsletter Issue #23















This particular government outrage comes from Seattle.  They had a bit of an earthquake up there.  It happened around February 28th and is known thereabouts as the Nisqually Earthquake.

This earthquake provides us with an excellent lesson on just what happens when a government can take the money you have earned then have no accountability to you whatsoever for how that money is spent.

The night before the earthquake about 75 urban outdoorsmen (that would be “homeless men” to the more insensitive among you) spent the night at the Compass Center in Seattle.  The Compass Center is a shelter near Pioneer Square.  The next day the Compass Center was destroyed in the earthquake.  That meant these urban campers had to find another shelter to run to the next evening.

A night or so after the earthquake one urban outdoorsman told his buddies that he had heard on television that the federal government was handing out checks to displaced residents.  All you had to do was call a toll-free number!  Hell, they were displaced, weren't they?  The shelter they had stayed in the night before the quake was gone!  Word spread like wildfire.  Homeless men started claiming displaced status.

So, guess what?  You got it!  Checks are being handed out.  They're not saying just how many have gone to the urban outdoorsmen … but dozens have already received their checks.  How much?  Well, how is $1,200 for starters?  That's what the feds say two months rent is worth in Seattle.  Many homeless men have also received additional checks for over a thousand additional dollars for stuff they claim they left at the Compass Center and couldn't recover after the quake.

And we can't afford a tax cut?






We're back to that absurd study about dreams and politics.  It seems some “researcher” in California interview 56 people about their sleep habits and their dreams.  A conclusion was reached - based on 56 people - that Democrats sleep better than Republicans.  Republicans have more nightmares, you see.  Democrats dream sweet, peaceful dreams.

Well, Atlanta's WSB-TV (Channel 2) got around to reporting this “study” this past weekend.  I won't mention the name of the reporter - she didn't write the copy, she just read it.  Some fresh-out-of-college weekend news writer probably wrote the actual script.  Fresh out of college and still under the insipid influence of the liberalism and political correctness that permeates university and college journalism schools.

Here's the script: --- straight from the teleprompter: 

New this morning … news about how the President may sleep at night.

Researchers say Republicans are three times as likely to have nightmares as Democrats.

A California dream researcher says that the ruling is based on interviews with 56 people chosen at random across the country.

The researchers believe left-wingers apparently sleep easier because they are more open to how things could be made better.”



Someone talks to 56 people and we have a RULING?  And all this time I thought that rulings came from courts!

And this research tells us how President Bush may sleep?  The implication is clear, obvious.  Bush, being a Republican - Bush, being a right-winger doesn't sleep well at night because he's not open to how things could be made better.

Now --- not naming the reporter.  But I'm quite sure I would refuse to read garbage like this if my name was on the report.  Maybe it's just not nice to make waves like that up there on the third floor.

OK … let's hear it again. The media isn't biased.  Yeah, right. 






This is a prime example of the essential idiocy of government.

This story first came to my attention on the Fox News Channel the other night.  It was about a forest fire last month in the Okanogan National Forest near the community of Winthrop, Washington.

A group of firefighters are fighting a relatively small fire.  There's a river running right through the fire area.  The firefighters call for a helicopter water drop.  Denied.  Denied why?  Because the river contains some endangered fish and there is a policy against dipping fire-fighting water out of streams or rivers with endangered fish.

While Forest Service and environmental experts were sitting in an air conditioned offices discussing whether or not they would permit a helicopter water drop from this river four firefighters burned to death.  Two young men aged 30 and 21.  Two young women aged 18 and 19.

Four courageous young lives sacrificed - for fish.




Another crop of self-defense stories that will leave your leftist anti-gun friends convulsing in shock and horror!  Why do I include these here?  Because somebody has to!  The mainstream leftist media in this country will anxiously scan the wires for any stories of children injured with firearms.  Any stories of self defense will usually be passed over.  Here's the latest::

Augusta, Georgia.  Early Wednesday morning, Tammie Thompson was in her home with another man when someone tapped on a bedroom window.  That man was Gregory Brown, the woman's ex-boyfriend.  When no one let him in, Brown let himself in.  He picked up a piece of concrete and shattered a window next to the front door.  Holding pieces of concrete in his hands, Brown confronted Thompson's new boyfriend and demanded to know where she was.  He went to another room and found her.  He raised his hand back as if to strike her with a piece of concrete.  Thompson raised a .38-caliber revolver and fired.  Her aim was true.  She hit him dead center in his right eye.  Gregory Brown is now taking an  eternal nap.  Tammie Thompson will not be charged.



Spartanburg, South Carolina.  Charles Lies intended to return to his home Monday evening to change clothes.  But he found a man standing in his kitchen!  The intruder was holding several firearms that belonged to Lies.  Lies pulled out a pistol he was carrying and shot the intruder twice, killing him.  It turns out that 28-year-old Robert Cannon was wanted by police for an outstanding criminal domestic violence charge.  The local sheriff's lieutenant said Cannon "had a history of taking things that did not belong to him."  Well, he won't do it anymore, thanks to Charles Lies.



Northwest Houston, Texas.  Stephen Hastings was on his way home early Sunday morning when he decided to stop and catch a nap.  He pulled off Interstate 45 and parked in front of a restaurant.  A few hours later, two men spotted Hastings.  They pulled their car in front of his truck to block his exit.  One man, armed with a .22-caliber rifle, banged on the driver's-side window and demanded that Hastings get out.  Hastings complied.  The man with the rifle told Hastings to get money out of his truck.  Hastings reached into his center console, pulled out a .40-caliber pistol, and shot the man.  Fearing for his safety, Hastings also shot the other man.  One of the robbers is dead.  The other is in critical condition.  Oh, and by the way...Stephen Hastings has been a deputy constable in Harris County for five years.


Two burglars in Shawnee, Oklahoma, got more than they bargained for on Friday night.  They kicked in a garage door and gained entry to a home.  But the homeowner, Thomas Winter, was armed with a pistol.  He confronted the two robbers in the entry hall.  One robber was armed with a sawed-off shotgun.  He tried to run up the stairs to escape.  But the homeowner managed to corral both suspects and hold them for police.


Road rage turned into a robbery attempt in Hermitage, Tennessee, Wednesday night.  Police are still trying to figure out what happened on the interstate, but it ended like this:  24-year-old Anthony Palazolo exited Interstate 40 and sat at a stoplight.  Another driver followed him off the interstate and stopped, too.  Jesse Bratcher and Chaz Ellis, angered at something Palazolo had done, walked up to Palazolo's car.  They cursed at him.  Bratcher slapped him.  Ellis pointed a gun at Palazolo and demanded his wallet.  Palazolo grabbed the gun away from Ellis and produced his own gun--for which he has a license to carry--and shot Ellis.  Bratcher and Ellis were caught by police shortly thereafter.  Bratcher was legally

drunk, and police found marijuana in the trunk of his car.  Ellis is in stable condition.  No charges have been filed against Palazolo.



Queens, New York.  19-year-old Robert Regent was hanging out with his friends when a mangy-looking black pit bull came charging towards them.  The dog caught up with Robert and grabbed his ankle.  Robert managed to kick the animal away and called his father, Ernest, on his cell phone.  Ernest Regent, a veteran of the Korean War, called 911 and then grabbed a 9mm handgun from his safe.  He's licensed to use it for target practice.  He drove to meet his son.  When he arrived at the scene, Ernest Regent saw that the dog had grabbed Robert's leg.  The sound of his screeching tires startled the dog into letting go...but the dog came after Robert again!  Robert jumped onto the hood of the car to escape the pit bull.  Ernest Regent got out of his car, retrieved his gun, and confronted the dog.  It charged at him...and Ernest Regent put a bullet in the animal's eye to stop the threat. 

Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves and their homes about 7,000 times every day.  The stories I bring to you are the ones that make the news.  Now imagine how these people would have fared if they hadn't been armed. 






Again, my thanks to a reader for alerting me to this document.   It can be found on the web site for the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research and is entitled “Removing Military Weapons from Civilian Hands.”  Here's your link if you want to read the whole thing:  <>

Now - you may have some sympathy for the concept of removing military weapons from civilian hands.  Before you sign on, however, stop to think about just how the UN would define “military weapons.”  Definitions --- it's always in the definitions.

Right now the UN is hosting a meeting in New York on “small arms.”  Basically, it's a meeting to discuss international gun control efforts.  Some of the delegates to this UN meeting have made it clear that (a) they consider all firearms to be “military weapons”; and, (b) that they favor a binding UN resolution banning the private ownership of all firearms with the exception of some specialized hunting weapons.

So --- why do I bring up this particular document?  It's because of one statement made by its authors.  Here's your quote:  "Such weapons distort societies … they make it harder for the State to regain the legitimate monopoly of force ... compromising the effectiveness of police forces and encouraging law-abiding civilians to arm themselves for protection..." (You'll find the entire quote in the 12th paragraph of the document.) 


Now .. read the paragraph again.  Do you see what's being presented as good and what's being presented as bad? 


Good:  “.. the (state's) legitimate monopoly of force…”

Bad:    “ … law abiding civilians (arming) themselves for protection.” 


Just call me old-fashioned, but I subscribe to the concept, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed.  The ONLY reason government is empowered to use force, then, is because the governed have allowed the government to use force for certain narrowly defined purposes … collective self defense, for instance. 

Inherent in the concept of wielding power with the consent of the governed is the idea that the governed (that's us) can, if we wish, decide to deny to government the power to use force.  Now just how in the hell would we ever enforce such a decision if we have been disarmed? 

Pay attention people.  The movement isn't limited to Sarah Brady and her leftist cronies in the United States.  There is a concerted world-wide movement to take all firearms out of the hands of all civilians.  This movement is based on the concept of the supremacy of government, not the people.  Government should and does have a monopoly on force, and the citizens should be powerless to change this.  We, after all, are just subjects.  We do as we're told … right?







We don't need to deal with all of the points from this Jimmy Carter led commission, just the high points:

One Person - One Vote

The commission recommends that the federal and state governments promote the “one person, one vote” principal.  Sorry, I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution which promotes “one person, one vote.”  The Constitution simply sets forth some criteria on which neither the federal nor the state governments can deny someone access to the polls.

The brutal fact of the matter is that we need to work on getting some people away from the polls.  There are folks out there with voter registration cards who simply should not be permitted to participate in the election process.  Voting should not be a right.  It should be a privilege earned by the voter. Read on.

First and foremost, parasites out!  Yeah, strong language, isn't it?  Look - it looks like society is going to have to endure the presence of welfare parasites for some time to come.  We just can't seem to come to grips with the idea that it is fundamentally wrong for one person to be able to use the government to commit an act which, if they set out to accomplish the task personally, would constitute a crime.  You want me to phrase that a little more plainly?  Fine.  It is just wrong for one person to use the police power of government to take money from another person for their own personal use.  Well, as I said - we're going to have to endure these parasites - does that mean that we have to give them a place at the decision making table?  Isn't it clear that their vote is going to be based simply on which candidate is going to be the better proxy-looter?

Those people who are not self-sufficient; those people who depend on government coerced income redistribution for their needs, have no business voting.  The inmates don't run the asylum.  The animals don't manage the zoo.

So - how do we limit the right to vote?  Income tax payers?  That would just serve to further institutionalize the income tax system - a downside.  Property owners?  That might lock out the transient businessman who pays heavy taxes and has every right to participate in the process.  Maybe we could just require the payment of some taxes in some form.  Show that you've paid an aggregate of $5,000 in ad valorem, property, state and federal income taxes, and here's your ballot?

Allowing felons who have served their time to vote.

You know who likes this idea?  Democrats, that's who.  And why do Democrats like this idea?  Because in areas where convicted felons are allowed to vote - guess what?  They vote Democratic?  Those of us who believe that the Democratic Party will be the eventual instrument of the destruction of the American experiment in freedom aren't surprised.

Make Election day a federal holiday.

This is a union-led idea.  Here's something for you to think about.  On days designated as federal holidays you will generally see more lower-income people off the job than higher-income people.  Why not just move the election to the weekend?  Open the polls on Saturday morning, close them on Sunday night!  Believe me - Democrats will never support that idea.  To many high-achievers might be set loose on the polls.

Forbid election reporting until all the polls close.

Yeah, now that's a great idea.  Let's impose some federal standards on the way television networks can report the news!  Again, the we have a better idea.  In fact, this one idea would be the easiest-to-implement highest-impact election reform idea you could come up with.  Read and marvel:  Every voting precinct in the entire country - from Puerto Rico to Guam - opens at 6:00 am Eastern time on Tuesday morning and closes at 6:00 am Eastern time on Wednesday morning.  With this plan every single voting precinct opens and closes at the same time - and every voter in the United States gets the chance to go to the polls and cast their vote at the very hour that is most convenient to them.  Again, I would suspect the strongest opposition to this idea would come from the left. 

There's sure to be much more argument on this subject to come.  In fact, Wednesday's Wall Street Journal has an editorial on the subject.  Here's your link: 






I'm talking about Democratic Class Warlord Dick Gephardt.  Last week he was spilling the beans on Democratic plans … plans that will go into effect if the Social Democratic Party gains control of the House in the next election.  At the top of the list?  Raise income taxes.  That's right !  Kill the Bush tax cut and raise taxes back to present levels - or more!  Oh, and you can be sure that this tax increase will only affect high achievers - Americans in the top 30 percent of income earners.  By the way, according to 1998 Congressional Budget Office Figures, if you make roughly $43,000 or more you fall into the top 30%.

Now --- you people make sure to sit on your rears when the election comes around next year.  They're after your money, but you shouldn't worry about it.  Why would you vote for anyone who believes you don't pay enough taxes already?





Now there's been a compromise on the Patient's Bill of Rights.  Bush has a bill he can sign, and that bill has been passed by the Republican House and sent to a House-Senate conference committee.

Democrats are royally ticked!  They are beside themselves!  And just why are the leftist so upset? Were any of the real patient protections in the bill removed or modified?  No, they weren't

The Democrats are upset because the Patient's Bill of Rights may not now accomplish what the Democrats wanted it to accomplish.  The bill was never about new private health care rights for patients.  It was all about moving the United States closer to nationalized - government controlled - health care.

To Democrats the primary provision of The Patient's Bill of Rights was the part that allowed patients to sue HMOs and employers for millions of dollars.  The Democrats wanted a cap of $5 million dollars, and they wanted those suits to be tried in state courts where trial lawyers have a better chance of finding high-award juries.  Furthermore, the Democrats wanted the patients to be able to bring these suits without any review of their claim at all.  The plan was to create so much fear among employers - and to boost the cost of HMO health plans to such an extent that thousands of employers would just throw up their hands and cancel all health coverage for their employees.

Think about it.  You're an employer providing health coverage to your employees.  Suddenly you have a contingent $5,000,000 liability for each employee if something goes wrong with their health care.  What are you going to do?  I'll tell you what you will do if you are a good businessman.  You are going to cancel your health coverage for your employees and just increase their pay by an amount equal to what you were paying for health care.  Now --- you would think that the employee would then be able to just take that money and buy their own policy, wouldn't you?  Well, hold on!  The Democrats took care of that eventuality too.  They recently defeated a Republican proposal to allow employees to deduct the cost of health insurance on their income tax.  Employers can deduct the cost, individuals cannot.  When you're trying to create chaos in health care you don't want to do anything that could possibly make it easier for an individual to carry their own health insurance policy.  Independent individuals are dangerous to statist dreams.

Well --- the new bill hits the Democrats on all of these fronts.  It reduces the pain and suffering awards to a $1.5 million cap, provides for a review system before these suits can be filed, and adds additional protection for private employers.

Trial lawyers, as you know, are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.  A full 90% of campaign contributions from personal injury and medical malpractice trial lawyers go to Democrats.  This money comes from the huge amounts of money these trial lawyers make from their contingency fee arrangements.  The lower the awards, the lower the fees.  The lower the fees, the less money you have to donate to Democrats.  Yet another reason Democrats are so outraged!

Some simple math here.  Let's lowball it and say that a typical medical malpractice lawsuit would cost $500,000 to prosecute.  The lawyers is going to have a contract with the client stating that the costs of the lawsuit will come out of the proceeds - then the lawyers will take 40% or more of what's left.  If your limit in pain and suffering damages is $5,000,000 that would leave about $1.8 million for the lawyer after all is said and done.  Reduce the cap to $1.5 million and the lawyer's take suddenly shrinks to $400,000.  Quite frankly, that's not enough for the high-powered Democratic Party donors to go after.

Fewer lawsuits, less chaos.  Les chaos, fewer constituents demanding solutions from their elected officials.  The Democrats were looking for the resulting chaos to produce demands for more government involvement in health care.  Their goal is complete and total nationalization - and their goal has been pushed back by George W. Bush.

No wonder they're upset! 




It's called "Creative Wellness."  It's a program that was launched under former Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo.  It was to be taught in public-housing centers in 26 cities.  The program identifies people as one of 14 different "types," depending on their "corresponding glandular points."  Men would be designated either an "Apollo" or a "Hermes" and women would be labeled either an "Artemis" or a "Minerva."


Pilot programs in Philadelphia and other cities taught government-housing residents to burn incense and surround themselves with feel-good colors and gemstones!  Documents show the program's expenses included $3,240 for color charts, $6,270 for gem bags, $3,174 for incense, $6,255 for aroma kits, $1,201 for aroma oils...and $624 for nutrition kits that included sugar, salt, candy--and Jim Beam whiskey!


One public housing recipient in Alabama was told she should avoid the color green.  In a testimonial, she says she's been sleeping like a baby since she "cleaned out my closet and removed the dark-green bedding."


Total cost to implement this inane program nationally?  How about $860,000 over three years.  The money would have come from HUD's anti-drug budget.


Fortunately for taxpayers, President Bush's housing officials have killed this program just before it was set to go national.  Documents show Cuomo didn't even know about the grant--it was a favor from career housing bureaucrat Gloria Cousar to a longtime friend, Michelle Lusson.  Both women were then leaders in a church called the Center for Holistic Healing in Herndon, Virginia.  Cousar got an assistant housing secretary to sign off on the "Creative Wellness" program.


Needless to say, this bizarre program is one of the many remnants of the last administration we won't miss.


This is what government does with your money when you're not looking, my friends.  This is the kind of program your government funds with your money.  Apparently teaching aromatherapy is a better use of your money than, say, saving up for your kid's college tuition.


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


Please visit our sponsors

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

Computer IT Data Backup Plans & Support