Monday, May 23, 2016

How Hillary’s “Feminist Army of Anti-Male Journalists” are Now Attacking Bernie Sanders

Feminist Journalists Are Completely Bias and Can’t Be Trusted to Report The News Accurately!

Sometimes, just for kicks, I will browse the Huffington Post’s Women’s Section for great laugh of what these liberal/progressive radicals think about the 2016 presidential election. Although I had some preconceived notions before I clicked on the page, my jaw dropped once I read a few articles about Bernie Sanders. These articles, for the most part, painted Bernie Sanders and his supporters in such a negative light I almost felt sorry for the guy.

Now, just to clear the air I am not a liberal, a progressive or anything remotely matching those two descriptions politically. But reading the feminist section of the Huffington post made me realize how truly manipulative and radical modern-day feminism has become. It is clear these liberal feminist within the Democratic Party had already anointed Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate well before she collected a single signature.

With the help of liberal feminist within national journalism spearheading Hillary’s campaign she had even more so-called “new stories” painting her in a positive light. Sadly, this might work for a large number of uneducated voters who are not familiar with the Clinton’s shady past including their own “anti-woman” actions.

Most, if not all liberal feminist journalist writing at the Huffington post know Hillary’s history of demeaning “rape and sexual assault victims” when she was the first lady in the White House. Additionally, this should also be fully aware of the multiple acts of domestic violence Bill Clinton suffered through during all those years of marriage to the “Queen feminist Nazi”, also known as Hilary. Nevertheless, these anti-male feminist are willing to sweep this under the rug for the simple fact of getting “a woman in the White House.” Qualifications and personal history be damned!

Not only are feminist journalist willing to look the other way in defending Hillary, they are now turning their sights on one of their own. The feminist at the Huffingtion Post are now aiming to devour a fellow progressive feminist in a presidential election, not because he did anything wrong. Basically, they are turning on him simply because Bernie Sanders is male.

The Huffingtion Post Women’s section has painted Bernie Sanders in a very negative light over the past couple of weeks. Both he and his supporters (who are largely young and male) are now labeled as misogynist, “anti-woman” haters for stating the truth about Hillary, her campaign and the political process.

Recently, Jenavieve Hatch with the Huffingtion Post wrote a column explaining how the Bernie Sanders campaign has incited anti-woman and anti-feminist rhetoric. She writes,

the Sanders campaign’s insistence on being “robbed” has incited unnecessary aggression from its base. The messages Lange received show that poorly-channelled anger at the political process can easily spread, causing harm to those who cross its path — women in particular.

Ah, poor Hillary… She’s only woman who can’t stand on her own two feet. Make sure wonder what’s going to happen if she becomes president? Will she run to England or Canada when Russia or China fails to “play fair” with a female President of the United States? What a crock!

To add substance to her argument, Hatch explained when female reporters support Hillary Clinton they are often targets of sexist language, aggressive behavior and even threats regarding their news columns regarding Hillary. Sadly, this aspect occurs to all journalists today, not just feminist writers.

If I posted all the hate mail I receive from feminist on a weekly basis it could be 8 to 10 pages long. Do I cry about it? No! Why? Because it’s part of the business of being a men’s rights journalist. So Ms. Hatch needs to put her big girl panties on and get to work and stop bitching about how our society has evolved under liberal leadership of the last eight years.

But this should be a lesson to Bernie Sanders and his campaign. Although he considers himself a male feminist the moment he or his campaign staff “accurately criticizes” the supreme feminist Nazi known as Hillary Clinton you will be attacked viciously. Not only will you be attacked for honestly criticizing and pointing out the misdeeds of Bill and Hillary Clinton, you will also be attacked as a male.

So welcome Bernie Sanders to the new reality men face in the 21st century… male feminist or not! Good luck with the feminist crazies because it looks like they’re coming after you in a big way.


Source

I'm not surprised by this. I knew sooner or later they were going to play the woman card against Sanders. I told you democrat men this would happen. I hope none of you are stupid enough to support Hillary Clinton. She will turn on you.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Due process is still being kicked off campus

Academia’s descent into perpetual hysteria and incipient tyranny is partly fueled by the fiction that 1 in 5 college students is sexually assaulted and that campuses require minute federal supervision to cure this. Encouraged by the government’s misuse of discredited social science (one survey supposedly proving this 1-in-5 fiction), colleges and universities are implementing unconstitutional procedures mandated by the government.

The 2006 Duke lacrosse rape case fit the narrative about campuses permeated by a “rape culture.” Except there was no rape. In 2014, the University of Virginia was convulsed by a magazine’s lurid report of a rape that buttressed the narrative that fraternities foment the sexual predation supposedly pandemic in “male supremacist” America. Except there was no rape. Now, Colorado State University at Pueblo has punished the supposed rapist of a woman who says she was not raped.

Grant Neal, a CSU Pueblo pre-med major and athlete, began a relationship with Jane Doe (as identified in Neal’s lawsuit), although she, as a student in the Athletic Training Program, was not supposed to fraternize with athletes. Jane Doe texted an invitation to Neal to come to her apartment. The following is from Neal’s complaint against CSU Pueblo:

“As the intimacy progressed, knowing that they both wanted to engage in sexual intercourse, Jane Doe advised Plaintiff that she was not on birth control. Accordingly, Plaintiff asked if he should put on a condom. Jane Doe clearly and unequivocally responded ‘yes.’ . . . They proceeded to engage in consensual sexual intercourse, during which Jane Doe . . . demonstrated her enjoyment both verbally and non-verbally.”

The next day, one of Jane Doe’s classmates, who neither witnessed nor was told of any assault, noticed a hickey on the woman’s neck. Assuming an assault must have happened, the classmate told school officials that an assault had occurred. Jane Doe told school officials the sex was consensual: “I’m fine and I wasn’t raped.” Neal’s lawsuit says she told an administrator: “Our stories are the same and he’s a good guy. He’s not a rapist, he’s not a criminal, it’s not even worth any of this hoopla!” Neal recorded on his cellphone Jane Doe saying that nothing improper had transpired, and soon the two again had intercourse.

Undeterred, CSU Pueblo mixed hearsay evidence with multiple due process violations, thereby ruining a young man’s present (he has been suspended from the school for as long as Jane Doe is there) and blighting his future (his prospects for admission to another school are bleak).

Title IX of the Education Amendments enacted in 1972 merely says no person at an institution receiving federal funds shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex. From this the government has concocted a right to micromanage schools’ disciplinary procedures, mandating obvious violations of due process.

In 2011, the Education Department’s civil rights office sent “dear colleague” letters to schools directing them to convict accused persons on a mere “preponderance” of evidence rather than “clear and convincing” evidence. Schools were instructed to not allow accused students to cross-examine their accusers, but to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty verdicts, a form of double jeopardy.

Although a “dear colleague” letter is supposedly a mere “guidance document,” it employs the word “must” in effectively mandating policies. While purporting to just “interpret” Title IX, these letters shred constitutional guarantees. And the letters evade the legal requirement that such significant rulemaking must be subject to comment hearings open to a properly notified public. Even were CSU Pueblo inclined to resist such dictates — academic administrators nowadays are frequently supine when challenged — it would risk a costly investigation and the potential loss of the 11 percent of its budget that comes from Washington.

The Chronicle of Higher Education says the case raises this “intriguing” question: “What responsibility does a college have to move ahead with a third-party complaint if the supposed victim says she consented?” This question, which in a calmer time would have a self-evident answer, will be explored in Neal’s lawsuit. It should reveal what the school thought of Jane Doe’s statement exculpating Neal, who says a school official “brushed off” the recording and said that Jane Doe said what she said “just because she was scared of you.” Neal’s lawyer says he suspects that Jane Doe might now be intimating something “inappropriate” and is perhaps scared of losing her place in the Athletic Training Program.

CSU Pueblo should be scared of joining those schools that have lost lawsuits filed by students denied due process. Such suits are remedial education for educators ignorant of constitutional guarantees.


Source

Several distinguished law professors have spoken up protesting "Dear Colleague". "Dear Colleague" has its critics in the Senate. Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator James Lankford are not big fans of "Dear Colleague" so let's let them know. Demand that Catherine Lhamon be brought up on criminal charges.

Inspirational words

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Way to go Australia

Lesbian, psychoctic, drug addict, Hillary

“Hillary hates kids. She was one nasty bitch when she was pregnant. My God, for nine months, she made my life a living hell and blamed me!

One has always believed it to be the case that psychotic Hillary was indeed a lesbian as well as being a loose, unhinged, lefty lunatic and here is a statement made by one of Bill's sperm chambers statements.

Not only are these people completely vacant, void of morals, dignity and normal behaviour, they are sexual deviants and drug addicts as well. None of these revelations comes as any surprise..

Here is just a small sample of these deviant's "normal" behaviour. No wonder it runs with "women's rights" as that would give it access to more fresh meat..

“What a joke! Sex is a waste of time to Hillary. When we were dating, she talked about making-out with her girlfriends in college because she knew it turned me on. Hillary seemed worldly and more sexually-experienced than me and, at the time, I liked it.”

SALLY MILLER: Hillary and her ‘coke habit’

Like other men I’ve known, Bill Clinton fantasized about having a covey of females, all with full breasts, shapely long legs, and tight, eager vaginas in bed with him.

After watching his bed-mates kiss and fondle each other for a while, then he’d join the action.

When I asked Bill if he shared his fantasies with Hillary, he laughed.

“What a joke! Sex is a waste of time to Hillary. When we were dating, she talked about making-out with her girlfriends in college because she knew it turned me on. Hillary seemed worldly and more sexually-experienced than me and, at the time, I liked it.”

“Before we married, I got her pregnant and she had an abortion. It bothered me because I didn’t know about it until it was over. Then, several months after the wedding, she slipped up again because she was too lazy to take the pill.

“Hillary hates kids. She was one nasty bitch when she was pregnant. My God, for nine months, she made my life a living hell and blamed me!

“From the beginning, our political advisors warned us that Hillary must take my last name and concentrate on having a child if I was going to have a future in politics. I saw the real Hillary after we got married.

“She’s a damn frigid bitch who prefers women; she won’t even compromise and be bi-sexual. All I hear is how much she despises penises; she thinks they are fucking ugly, like snakes.”

Bill mentioned, “The only time Hillary gets aroused or agree to ‘play sexy’ is after she snorts coke. But, even then, she’s rigid and frigid. Hillary goes ape-shit crazy–I mean screams, hits, and cusses–if I touch her breasts! Right after we started fooling around, she warned me to stay away from her tits, even telling me: ‘If you want to nurse–go home to your momma!’”

Hillary Clinton despised Bill’s brother Roger but, she had to be nice to him since he supplied her coke habit.

(Roger Clinton was charged with and convicted of a cocaine-related offense in 1985 and pardoned by Bill in 2001.)

Bill talked about Hillary taking off work lots of times, desperate to find Roger. She cursed Roger but, at the same time, she had to be nice since he was her only source of coke.

She smoked weed but coke was her addiction.

RELATED: Bill Clinton snorted cocaine off my coffee table, former lover says

I recall Bill saying, “Everyone, including my staff, people at the law firm, even friends, knows Hillary is a cokehead but that’s okay. We tolerate Hillary on coke cause without it, Hillary’s a raving maniac.

“My God, we’ve had to borrow money to replace lamps, chairs, all kinds of valuable shit in the governor’s mansion just because of Hillary’s temper! I’ve had to take Chelsea outside many times to keep her out of Hillary’s ‘line of fire.’ Without her ‘fix’ Hillary’s Hell on Wheels.”

All these years later, I think Hillary is completely selfish and unstable; she’s a fa├žade when it comes to dependability, commitment, and dedication.

Hillary has an attitude of entitlement; she believes anything and everything she does is okay and no one can question her. She never stops talking out of both sides of her mouth.

I continue to ask Hillary supporters, “What has Hillary accomplished other than keeping herself in politics, garnering enormous sums of money—all for her, and, like a rock star, maintaining a presence in the media? What has Hillary Rodham Clinton EVER done for anyone, other than herself?”

I may not know men but I know women. I speak from experience: Hillary Clinton is a FAKE. If you can prove otherwise, I’ll kiss Hillary’s caboose!


Source

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Feminist content to let only men die in wars

Though our nation hasn't had a draft since the 1970s, selective service registration remains a reality for young men. I admit that, as a mom to two young girls, selective service is not something I have ever given much thought to. It was only when I heard that Congress is seeking to expand the draft to include both genders that I realized how much I oppose it.

Earlier this year, a dramatic change was made to the nation’s military policies that opened nearly all combat roles to women. The next question to follow was, if women are eligible to participate in all combat roles, should selective service enrollment be made mandatory for women as well?

We are now one step closer to that becoming a reality.

The National Defense Authorization Act, headed for a House vote later this month, has attached to it an amendment titled “Draft America’s Daughters.” Some feminists are hailing it as a boon toward their cause, calling America’s history of the all-male draft discriminatory and the addition of women to selective service a huge leap for equality.

But being a feminist doesn't have to mean standing up for sending our daughters to war.

I am a feminist, and I do not support including women in selective service.

When you are not included in something that no one wants to do — in this case, going off to war — it’s not discrimination; it’s a privilege. Some say women should give up that privilege in the name of equality between men and women. But here’s the thing about equality: Men and women are not equal.

That’s right — I’m a feminist, I am a mother of two girls, and I am saying that men and women are not equal.

In the event of a draft, sending women off to war does not present an equal opportunity to women by nature of the fact that women are physically different from men. As much as we may work to try to level the playing field between men and women, the physical differences between us as created by nature make us inherently unequal and cannot be universally overcome.

Combat is not an equal opportunity situation for men and women, because the average woman does not have an equal opportunity to survive a combat situation. The Army's own studies have shown that women have more than double the rate of injury of their male counterparts in combat training. I can only imagine that those numbers would be even more dramatic in actual combat. I can't fathom sending my daughters off to fight in an already dangerous situation, where they are known to be at a physical disadvantage.

There are women who have made great contributions to our military. Women who have chosen a career in military service should be able to serve in whatever capacity their particular skills and abilities allow. But that doesn’t mean the average American woman is prepared to join our armed services and become the next G.I. Jane.

No mother, whether she has sons or daughters, ever wishes to send her child off to war. However, if I had sons, I could at least take comfort in knowing that our nation's young men are the most able-bodied people to take on this task and therefore most likely to return home to us safely. Should my daughters grow up to choose a career in military service, I would support them 100 percent, but the number of women who feel physically and emotionally capable of taking on that role are the exception and not the rule.

As much as feminism celebrates the women who feel they can take on any role a man can fill, we must also embrace the women who feel they can’t. If feminism, at its core, is about the power to fully empower women, then we have to make space for both sides. We can support our sisters in the armed forces while not subjecting the rest of the civilian female population to conscription.


Source

Talk about fucking gall. I was floored while reading this. Talk about entitlement attitude. She is content sending men off to die so that fucking cunts like herself can sit around and bitch how bad men are. That;s women for you. If the position is CEO of a large company they are strong empowered superwomen. If the position is front lines of a war then they are dainty little flowers that need men's protection. This bullshit. We are tired of it.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Teacher gets prison for sex with student


Kathryn Ronk

Pontiac — An Oakland County judge came down hard Tuesday on a 30-year-old former high school teacher who pleaded guilty to having sex with a 15-year-old student.

While state guidelines suggest 51-85 months for the offense, Judge Nanci Grant sentenced Kathryn Ronk of Birmingham to 6-15 years in prison.

Ronk appeared stunned at the sentence. The former Bishop Foley High School Spanish teacher, who faced up to life in prison under the original charges, pleaded guilty last month to two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct under a sentencing agreement that ranged from no prison time to a maximum of 15 years. She can be considered for parole in 51/2 years.

While Ronk was contrite, Grant was unmoved.

The judge noted that Ronk attended University of Michigan on a scholarship, graduated with the highest of grades and went on to graduate work.

"You're really very smart, an intelligent woman," Grant told Ronk, reminding her she had to know what she was doing with the 15-year-old sophomore was wrong.

Grant noted she was disturbed by "a double standard in this society."

"If this was a male teacher who had been involved with a 15-year-old female, there would be people here hanging from the ceiling trying to get every drop of blood," Grant said. "But because it is a woman, there seems to be a winking about what happened."

In addressing the court before sentencing, Ronk sobbed as she said she was "so sorry for the victim and his family, for the school and the community, my family ... and I'm so sorry for my husband."

"With (psychological) treatment, I'm getting better," she said. "I know I have to go away but this is a lifelong journey, and I am meeting it. ... I'm so sorry for those who I have hurt."

Grant told Ronk she appreciated her contrition, especially considering letters of support she had received from the woman's family and friends, which the judge found offensive.

"I have never seen letters of support for a defendant with nothing about the victim," Grant said. "They were all about you and what you were going through. Poor you. To ignore a crime and a victim and an ongoing involvement in school, outside school, in a car. You did something you shouldn't have done."

The victim, the judge said, is "still a boy figuring out the ways in the world," and may not feel the impact of the teacher's actions "for years to come."

Assistant prosecutor Heather Brown said the boy's family felt victimized and hoped Ronk "finds her faith and it will keep her strong. (Faith) is what is helping them and will help them forgive at some point."

Prior to sentencing, defense attorneys James Thomas and Steven Lynch told Grant their client was doing her best in a "very difficult situation," including daily psychological treatment and volunteer work at a food bank.

"There's no chance of this happening again," Thomas told Grant. "She will not be in a position to teach and will not be around children (after parole)."

Both attorneys declined comment outside the courtroom.

Ronk faces more charges in Macomb Circuit Court, including rape and engaging in sexually abusive activity with children, involving the boy at his home in Macomb Township and in a car in Sterling Heights.

A trial on the Macomb charges is scheduled for March 31.


Source

Spanish teacher,huh. Ay Caramba. She has that look on her face that says it all. It would a crime in itself not to include this photo of her. After all it does say a lot. I hope during the second trial she gets the book thrown at her.