Any foreign male, especially any foreign Muslim or Russian male, can see at a glance that the 2008 US Presidential race is all about whether American men are willing to let a radical feminist lead them and if they will even bother to try to put up a fight by even mentioning the word “feminism” in their campaigns.
All the military posturing the US has ever done as well as all the wars we’ve ever won, will come to nought ifred bloodedforeign males see American men completely wimp out in 2008.
To be sure, Hillary Clinton is a radical feminist.She is the one who installed a huge unconstitutional Office on Violence Against Women with an overbloated budget at the Department of Justice in 1995. One could describe her in Naomi Wolff’s terms as a”victim feminist” or in Suzanne Hoff Somers’ terms as a “gender feminist,” but one thingis certain: this woman does notcare aboutequality or the rights of males. Among other things, she was very much behind the new anti-male version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which allows women to profit handsomely from false abuse claims where the man has no chance to defend himself. Sheis likely to havehelped illegally influence federal Judge Clarence Cooper to reverse his early opinionagainst the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) which forces American men to undergo background checks just to say hello to foreign women online.
The big problem American men face instopping a President Hillary before the disaster actually happens, is that 100% of the candidates lined up against her are afraid to even mention thephrase “gender feminism” much less talk about any of the outrageous anti-male legislation that Congressional male politicians have been votingfor over the past 6 yearsas if they all just had secret sex change operations (or preferred little boys or bathroom buddies).
It seems that all US politicians believe that all American women support gender feminism. Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee andFred Thompsonlet feminists write their speeches.On the Democrat side, the Breck Girland Obama areobviously campaigning to be Hillary’sVP already.
I have written before about how 9-11 gave feminists the opportunity to take over the Republican Party: they were the ones who already viscerally hated Muslim male societythe most, they could be the best cheerleaders in the War on Terror. Such women were immediately hired as spokespeople and legislative aides for Republican and Democrat politicians alike. Even Rush Limbaugh retired the word “Feminazi” after 9-11, in deference to his new allies in fighting a new enemy.
But the Republican Party will be history as of November 2008 unless at least one Republican candidate stands up to the gender feminist Hillary Clinton and calls her out on her most virulent ideology: women as victims, men as abusers. If American male voters see a Republican candidate who seems to share her ideology, they will simply refuse to vote or vote third party. Male voters will not reelect Republican senators like Norm Coleman and John Sununu,as long as they continue topander to feminists in what they mistakenly figure is a strategy of playing toward “moderates”.
There is some hope here.
Ron Paul, bless his heart, has captured the imaginations of a lot of Americans who want a free society where special interests do not pass laws that control the personal lives of the rest of us. As of November 9th, Ron Paul is polling at 6% of Republican voters nationally and his newfound $4 Million “money bomb” is surely going to bring him up to at least 12% by the time the primaries come around. Although Ron Paul joins the other nerds in not confronting Hillary’s nasty anti-male ideology, his love for the Constitution makes him the default bulwark against the inequality that the gender feminists have established and want to continue implementing.
Why are Romney, Huckabee, Thompson or McCain allowing Ron Paul to claim such obvious voter territory?
One would think that, since most Republican males are OK with the war on terror but not OK with losing their personal rights and not OK with gender feminists like Hillary, that Romney, Huckabee, Thompson and McCain would all be trying to outdo themselves to say “I will play offense against terrorists, feminists and abuses of the Constitution.”
Because Giulianinelevenclearly believes that he will coast to victory simply by saying “I will protect you from the Terrorists War on Us ”, and because Ron Paul will otherwise be taking their voters away from them over the Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons,it is now or never for the other Republican contenders to try to grab the male vote. Being pro-war does not achieve this while being anti-gender-feminist does.
Rasmussen Reports says that 25% of Republican women are planning to vote for Hillary while 25% of Democrat males are planning to vote against her if they see an alternative.
Since Fred Thompson is clearly hoping to be Giuliani’s Vice-President pick, now is the time for Romney, McCain or Huckabee to fire their pro-feminist campaign managers and work hard to get the male vote for 2008.
They will be surprised at how many fair and balanced American women will admire them for their courage and their common sense.
It goes without saying that Ron Paul can rocket to frontrunner status if he, himself,starts to mention the overbloated gender feminist juggernaut in Washington DC.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Thom said,
But like I said, I agree with you. Heck, I’d likely campaign for the presidental canidate who says the VAWA or the IMBRA was unconstitutional.
November 10, 2007 at 9:28 am
CaptDMO said,
Because they’re too busy figuring out how to present their own
“adjusted interpretations” of The Constitution, {based on the Federalist Papers),
on talking head Tee Vee shows- in such a way that they can get more
attention than un-prosecuted socialite antic reporting?
Here’s a phrase that seems to be forgotten from the past.
I learned it in seventh grade Social Studies
Dark Horse
November 10, 2007 at 11:29 am
Roger Knight said,
This is the first time I have ever heard of Paul lifting a finger against this assault on American freedom.
Of course, the Bill of Attainder Clauses, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, and the 13th Amendment also prohibit it.
However, I just wish Ron Paul would be louder and more upfront with his positions that the Constitution should regulate family law and the Child Support Crusade.
I agree with Dave Usher that thundering silence is not the best way to reassure those of us who have been hrut the worse by our governmetn’s walk away from the Constitution that your man is the one who will restore American freedom.
There is a huge voting block just waiting for someone like Ron Paul to SAY what we need to hear. And then reassure us that he is not just saying it.
And if he were to promise enforcement of the Peonage Law, duly authorized by the 13th Amendment Appropriate Legislation Clause, against the support enforcers and the corrupt judges who enable them,
that alone might win him the nomination and the White House
November 10, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Jim Peterson said,
Yes, this article was in response to Dave Usher’s article which was partly a response to my glowing article about Ron Paul from a week ago.
THUNDERING SILENCE is about what Ron Paul is doing on the subject but he is using most of the codewords that we could take as hints that he is on our side.
He should not worry however. The fear that mentioning VAWA and IMBRA would cause negative publicity toward the speaker is like The Emperor’s New Clothes. The moment this topic gets mentioned on national TV, the entire country will be like “what the Hell kind of laws are these? Why did we not ever hear about this before”?
The other Rep candidates are using codewords that let us know we are enemies:
Romney: Declared recently that “sex offenders are mine”. This showed that he knows nothing of the MRM or despises men’s rights people deeply. If he had any respect for the Men’s Rights Movement, he would have mentioned the possible 20% of sex offenders who were guilty of nothing more than having sex with their girlfriend in the back of a car or skinny dipping with her or streaking at a campus football game.
Julie Annie: Was my favorite until a newsletter in July, obviously aimed at terror moms (soccer moms) said he would make sure he dealt with “sex trafficking and sex tourism”. These are feminist codewords for supporting wacky laws like IMBRA and for possibly getting laws passed that require background checks to get passports and for making it illegal, for instance, for an American to see a prostitute in a foreign country (total regulation of the behavior of Americans outside the jurisdiction of the United States).
McCain: Best friends with Sam Brownback, who is outrageously now his campaign manager. McCain and Brownback are the principle Republicans behind Internet Regulation and especially background checks of American men who use the Internet.
Huckabee: Too easily influenced by feminists who probably have his ear.
Thompson: Just wants to be Gialianineleven’s VP. Would never stick his neck out for any subject.
November 10, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Denis said,
The best men can hope to do is prevent Hillary from becoming President. Any GOP choice will be better. But not ideal for men. Not even close. Among these there are front runners who are doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire. Whoever wins both of these will be hard to stop. The decision then is who MAY be better for men and father’s whether directly or indirectly. This is the second best thing that men can do.
I will be happy in this election cycle to see men break into the national dialogue to raise the important issues concerning men and fathers. I don’t expect to see it. I would like to hear politicians make statements regarding the rights of men and fathers and to make committments to them when elected. I don’t expect to see it.
Even Ronald Reagan was pro-abortion once before he became President. He also signed the first legislation as Governor of California legalising no-fault divorce. In 15 short years that legislation became the law of the land. Reagan came to regret that decision.
I can come up with plenty of reasons to be dissatisfied with politics as it exists. Men have to own up that they have been absent from the political dialogue and political process for decades. When important decisions have been made, men were not sitting at the table making their voices heard. And you are now dissatified that politicians have made political decisions (in your absence) that you dislike? They won’t work for any of you unless they hear from you and see that it is in their political interests to back you up. Until that day comes you only have the choice to vote for the lesser of two evils and not THE candidate that speaks directly to your issues.
November 10, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Denis said,
November 10, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Jim Peterson said,
To further what Denis just said: When I called the Senate offices to try to stop the CJS Appropriations bill last month, 100% of the legislative aides said that I was the first person in their careers to call with a beef related to men’s rights.
I was not just the first person calling US Senators offices about IMBRA, but the first person calling about men’s rights at all. They said, for instance, that not one man had called them since 2002 about “feminism”.
Yes, I am saying that easy-to-call US Senators have mostly NEVER received a phone call from any man about the dangers of feminist overreach.
Let’s understand that the average legislative aide started working on Capitol Hill only within the last 5 years.
If a constituency gives up in that 5 years, or hasn’t been around for 30 years with any lobbyists, then they will of couse be completely ignored.
So each of you reading this, please be sure to call your Senators and Congressman on Monday. Get the email address. Post it here. Viral marketing.
Support for Ron Paul up to the September Convention would be a great way to blackmail the others in the Republican Party to take the message of Constitutional rights seriously.
Right now, the dumber pro-war hawks (as compared to smarter pro-war hawks like I might be called) are thinking that the word Constitution is a codeword for wanting to give Jose Padilla and Johnny Taliban their freedom.
Growing support for Ron Paul might force this community to realize that the fight for our “rights” has got nothing to do with fighting to get Jose Padilla free and fighting to get American Muslims to be free of wiretapping when they call Pakistan.
Ron Paul needs to explain better exactly which rights are being lost by normal Americans.
IMHO, Ron Paul should start talking about IMBRA and VAWA. But, in the absence of that, he better come up with similar examples or just keep saying “I am the only one who does not want the Internet regulated”.
November 11, 2007 at 4:44 am
Jim Peterson said,
She is incredibly knowledgeable about the issues.
But we, as a movement, don’t even have the finances or organization to get someone like that paid $500 per week to visit key government officials for us part time every week.
None of us has any kind of money at all. None of us could spare $500 per week even for a few weeks.
That is why we are losing.
November 11, 2007 at 4:47 am
Roger F. Gay said,
RE: Thompson - you may recall his comment in one debate. On the subject of education, he say something to the effect that many problems stem from the fact that more fathers are needed in families. We all wanted to know what he meant by that. I checked his website, and found under education - he was promising more funding for child support enforcement. We’ve heard that one before; fathers involvement in family is to be forced to pay. He’s a Republican.
I mentioned that in a few discussion forums, and later found that the comment had been removed from the website. I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant though. Most of the Republican politicians today are Ronald Reagan copy-cats without enough brains to even make up new cons based on Reagan’s style of packaging far left policy proposals in conservative rhetoric. So far as talking up the Constitution while doing everything possible to violate it behind our backs - I thought Newt Gingrich owned that: wonder if he’ll sue for copyright violations.
November 11, 2007 at 5:46 am
Roger Knight said,
it is quite possible they are lying.
It has been my experience that when I go and talk to these people, they do everything they can to discourage me and convince me that I am talking to brick walls.
The few that pretend to be on our side, switch on us when a license suspension for child support bill or some other attack on our persons and our rights is comeing down the pike.
I was able to sabotage one RINO lying sack of shit’s re-election campaign by handing out flyers to people coming to a meeting he was holding on property taxes. My flyers stated that he sold our driver’s licenses for a bag of federal money.
Worked terrific with a bunch people who think their property taxes are too high!
But having the re-election sabotaged by an angry divorced father does not seem to frighten the pols as much as whatever is coercing them into selling our rights for that bag of federal money.
November 11, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
November 11, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Jim Peterson said,
I know of 3 phone calls he received at the time before Coleman voted for the $430 Million pork funding of the Office on Violence Against Women in October.
November 11, 2007 at 5:29 pm