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 if red blooded foreign 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 thing is certain: this woman does not care about equality 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. She is likely to have helped illegally influence federal Judge Clarence Cooper to reverse his early opinion against 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 in stopping a President Hillary before the disaster actually happens, is that 100% of the candidates lined up against her are afraid to even mention the phrase “gender feminism” much less talk about any of the outrageous anti-male legislation that Congressional male politicians have been voting for over the past 6 years as 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 and Fred Thompson let feminists write their speeches. On the Democrat side, the Breck Girl and Obama are obviously campaigning to be Hillary’s VP already.ÂÂ
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 society the 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 to pander 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 Giulianineleven clearly 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.
