Women are more depressed now than at any other time in the history of the United States. The Left, the Right, the Centrists and Moderates pretty much all concur.

Why should that be?

Women have more equality, better wages in the workplace, more freedom, more consideration, more targeted assistance programs, more laws written for, greater populatory percentile, occupy more positions of power, have more children absent male intrusion — than at any other time in recorded history.

Condoleezza Rice, for example, should be the literal Shining Star for Feminism — she is highly educated, a leader, possesses great power as the Secretary of State for the most commanding nation on the planet, she is black, she is single and she is child-less.

Yet she is not held as the epitome of Feminism. Why is that?

At their time of greatest power, why is it that women are more depressed than ever?

In a landmark ruling Thursday, the Heller decision:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Individual Americans have a right to own guns, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday for the first time in the country’s history, striking down a strict gun control law in the U.S. capital.

However, considering the 5 to 4 ruling on this, it’s truly frightening to think that four justices even would question the simple sentence in the Second Amendment that reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

One good aspect, I should truthfully write, is that the Supreme Court (at least in this case) didn’t attempt to rewrite our Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama said: “I have no intention of taking of taking away peoples’ guns,” but supported the DC gun ban, finding it Constitutional. And Constitutional law is allegedly his scholarly specialty. Now, today, Barack Hussein Obama says today’s ruling is essentially NBD.

Who formed the majority? Scalia (who wrote the decision), Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy.

Dissenting were Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Imagine that.

I’m quite disappointed that the DC Metro Police Chief Cathy Lanier disagrees with the ruling, but I make this judgment not in a closet. As a law enforcement officer I know she has to do her job. Gun violence is nasty in DC, that’s a given. But taking away national rights so she can mark down her homicide board is no solution. Her jurisdiction is no different than mine. Gun violence occurs. But here’s the difference: if witnesses refuse to stand up, refuse to testify, refuse to make themselves known then that’s a localized problem. And in DC that’s a black problem. And those communities, those people, need to lay down in the bed of their own making. OFW. Right or not, racist or not, that’s simply the truth.

Further, let’s continue to do what I call the Logical Extension, and that is this: in an area where there is precipitously more gun violence than most any other spot in the nation, and in consideration of the fact that violence is generally trending down in the nation according to FBI statistics, what does that tend to indicate in terms of gun ownership and protection?

I submit this: DC Police Chief Lanier isn’t doing her job or, at worst, is prohibited up to now from doing her job and allowing lawful citizens to do theirs.

But trust me: the fight isn’t over. Channel chatter indicates certain elements are building the arguments to go after any semi-automatic weapon, handgun or long gun.

FIVE TO FOUR:

Consensus, however, now apparently runs a good portion of the court, not legal precedent. In another ruling, SCOTUS on Wednesday outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child. In a 5-4 vote (Liberal jurists concur, Conservative Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia dissenting), the court said the Louisiana law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in such cases violates the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment as published in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 07-343.

In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote:

But Kennedy said the absence of any executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate “there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.”

My point: SCOTUS deciding by a national trend rather than on precedent? What is this? Equaling “No Child Rapist Left Behind?”

FIVE TO FOUR:

The prior vote on Guantanamo provides greater rights to terrorists than our own soldiers. Again, 5 Liberals concur, 4 Conservatives (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito) dissent. I wrote about the decision here and here.

Oh. And SCOTUS is “off” now until October 6th.

The stakes in this election are simply too high. In the next presidential term, the office-holder will have the opportunity to select, at minimum, at least two and possibly three SCOTUS appointments. It is a given that whomever Barack Hussein Obama selects will sail through the Demorat-controlled Congress. What kind of persons do you think they will be?

So just how important do you think control of SCOTUS is to the agenda of the Left?

Unless, of course, it’s speech they promote.

John Gizzi writes on HumanEvents.com (reproduced here in its entirety):

The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during ’08. In ruling out a vote on Pence’s proposed Broadcaster’s Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” — which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.

Experts say that the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force. Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time (my emphasis).

At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.

Oh keep reading, if you think the matter isn’t in the forefront:

No,” the Speaker replied, without hesitation. She added that “the interest in my caucus is the reverse” and that New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”

Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall. There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill. “So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,” Pelosi said.

“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.

“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation (my emphasis).

Pelosi perceives the power doesn’t quite exist to push this bill through just yet.

But when Barack Hussein Obama becomes President of the United Statesm, make no mistake, this shall be one of the first bills proffered.

Dissent, discussion, opinions, free and open markets, Demorats clearly indicate, must be stopped.

Get ready.

God is nothing save a projection of your chronic loneliness, says BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They’re looking to relieve a chronic loneliness. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them — that they are not just destined to travel down that long road toward nothingness.

And there’s your future President.

BZ

Barack Hussein Obama thinks it’s important to change the Presidential seal and eliminate “E Pluribus Unum” as the motto. What say you? (though he has now recanted due to remarkable arrogance)

P.S.

I had five different topics originally arranged here which Blogger did not pick up and, as it took me a good three hours to arrange so, I’m not exerting that effort again only to be eliminated.