The Gateway Pundit exposes Trump's accusers

Here is a website that debunks the charges against Donald Trump. It seems that a large proportion of these women are either Hillary supporters or women hiding their own transgressions by implicating Trump.

On Trump's accusers

I found the following in the comments section and I've decided to run with it:

Funny that they all speak out NOW. Why not come forward during the Nomination?
JUDGE JEANINE Speaks With Witnesses Who TOTALLY DEBUNK Trump Groper Accusers.
Jim Hoft Oct 16th, 2016 Judge Jeanine spoke with two witnesses who totally debunked two Trump accusers.

trump-allegations-witness

Anthony Gilberthorpe, who was on the flight where Jessica Leeds claimed sexual harassment by Donald Trump.

Anthony totally debunked Jessica’s bizarre accusations. Anthony said he would speak out against these lies whether it be Trump, Obama or Clinton.
“I will prove that I was on that flight with that woman and I was witness not to any sexual misdemeanor on the part of Trump. That man did not touch that woman… She said, “I can’t believe my luck that I’ve met one of the richest men in the world.”
trump-witness-accuser

And John Barry, cousin of Summer Zervos, refuted her Friday accusations with Gloria Allred. John told Judge Jeanine that she was unhappy that Trump would not visit her restaurant. John added that his cousin likes to sue people.

HERE IT IS= List of Debunked Groper Allegations by Corrupt Media Against Donald Trump
Jim Hoft Oct 15th, 2016
The Democrat-media complex carpet bombed Donald Trump with several alleged groping stories this week from several women.

The media clearly did not fact check these stories. They ran the stories no matter how farfetched they were. It is clear from the number of stories dropped in the last week that this was a coordinated effort, probably from inside the Hillary Clinton campaign. The goal was not to present facts to the public. Their goal was to destroy Donald Trump.

In 2008 the Democrat media hit Republican John McCain with similar allegations. Vicki Iseman, the woman named in the hit piece, settled with The New York Times after the election.
So, it is clear that this is a commonly used tactic by Democrats – use the media to slander and destroy their opposition before the election.
Thankfully, today the conservative media is much stronger than it was eight years ago.
Here are a few of the alleged “groping” incidents against Donald Trump that have now been debunked.

1.) Jessica Leeds
nyt-accuser
Jessica Leeds accused a young Donald Trump of groping her in first class on a flight from Dallas to New York City on Braniff Air in 1979.
Leeds said young multimillionaire Trump lifted the armrest to grope her during the flight.
braniff-air-armrest
The armrests on Braniff 727s appear to be stationary, they can’t be raised.
She also used lyrics from the Velvet Underground song to describe the alleged “groping.”
Leeds also said if Trump had kept his hands above the waist she might have been ok with it

…Huh?

Tonight a British passenger on the same plane as Trump and Leeds refuted her claims.
Anthony Gilberthorpe said Jessica Leeds was flirting with Trump and Trump never touched her.
Anthony Gilberthorpe
The New York Post reported:
Donald Trump’s campaign says a British man is countering claims that the GOP presidential nominee groped a woman on a cross-country flight more than three decades ago.
The man says he was sitting across from the accuser and contacted the Trump campaign because he was incensed by her account — which is at odds with what he witnessed.
“I have only met this accuser once and frankly cannot imagine why she is seeking to make out that Trump made sexual advances on her. Not only did he not do so (and I was present at all times) but it was she that was the one being flirtatious,” Anthony Gilberthorpe said in a note provided to The Post by the Trump campaign.
In an exclusive interview arranged by the campaign, Gilberthorpe said he was on the flight — in either 1980 or 1981— where Jessica Leeds claimed Trump groped her.
Gilberthorpe, 54, said he was sitting across the first class aisle from the couple and saw nothing inappropriate. Leeds was wearing a white pantsuit, he said, while Trump was wearing a suit and cuff-links, which he gave to his British flight companion.
Indeed, Gilberthorpe claimed, Leeds was “trying too hard” in her attempt to win Trump over.
“She wanted to marry him,” Gilberthorpe said of Leeds, who apparently made the confession when Trump excused himself and went to the bathroom.
There was no kissing, but the “shrill” Leeds was “very much in your face” with the real estate developer.

2.) Natasha Stoynoff
donald-trump-butler
Anthony P. “Tony” Senecal
Donald Trump’s former butler stepped forward to debunk another accuser’s story.
Anthony Senecal said the so-called incident with the People magazine hack “never happened.”
The Palm Beach Post reported:
Donald Trump’s former Mar-a-Lago Butler backed up the Republican nominee for president in denying the billionaire groped a reporter from People magazine.
“No, that never happened. Come on, that’s just bull crap,” said Anthony “Tony” Senecal.
People magazine writer Natasha Stoynoff wrote an essay this week about how she was groped by Trump at Mar-a-Lago during an interview in the early 2000s. She is one of four women to make accusations against Trump of unwanted sexual advances.
The issue has become central to the presidential race since a 2005 hot-mic video surfaced of Trump bragging about using his celebrity to grope women. He has downplayed the incident as “locker-room talk.”
Trump, at his rally in West Palm Beach on Thursday, said he was always in a public place with Stoynoff and denied he ever acted inappropriately.
So Donald Trump has one witness who said the alleged groping never happened. The People magazine writer has NO witnesses.
And then there’s this…
Melania Trump, wife of Donald Trump, sent a cease and desist letter to People Magazine on Thursday for its fraudulent article on Mrs. Donald Trump.
Melania wrote:
The following statements in the Story, among others, are false and completely fictionalized. We therefore demand that you immediately and permanently remove each of these statements from the Story, and print a prominent retraction and apology:

1. “That winter, I actually bumped into Melania on Fifth Avenue, in front of Trump Tower as she walked into the building, carrying baby Barron.”

2. “‘Natasha, why don’t we see you anymore?’ she asked, giving me a hug.”

3. “I was quiet and smiled, telling her I’d missed her, and I squeezed little Barron’s foot.”

The true facts are these: Mrs. Trump did not encounter Ms. Stoynoff on the street, nor have any conversation with her. The two are not friends and were never friends or even friendly.
The Clinton media is just throwing crap out there hoping something will stick.

3.) Summer Zervos (and her representative Gloria Allred – a Hillary Clinton delegate at the Democratic convention)

WELL ISN’T THIS INTERESTING….
apprentice-summer-liar-trump

Another day, another sexual harassment smear on GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump by the mainstream media.
Except this one just fell apart.
The latest woman, Summer Zervos who was a contestant on ‘The Apprentice,’ claimed today that Trump sexually harassed her.
But, as it turns out, it was Zervos who continued to stay in contact with Trump.
Via the Donald Trump Facebook page:
trump-apprentice-accuser
If Trump did sexually harass Zervos, why would she be reaching out for help with her business by contacting him? Wouldn’t she be afraid and disgusted by him?

4.) Mindy McGillivray
Mindy McGillivray says Donald Trump nudged her at a concert at Mar-a-Lago at a concert on January 24, 2003. She went public with her story this week.
There was no such concert at Mar-a-Lago on January 24, 2003.
GOT News reported:
Mindy McGillivray is falsely claiming that Donald Trump “nudged” her at a Mar-a-Lago concert that never happened. “Sexual assault”? Give us a break.
The hoaxing media has thrown a slew of “sexual assault” allegations at Donald Trump, hoping one sticks and to create a haze of controversy around the GOP nominee.
Melinda Rose “Mindy” McGillivray, told the Palm Beach Post after the second presidential debate that someone bumped her backstage at a Ray Charles concert held at Mar-A-Lago on January 24, 2003:

After the show, [Ken] Davidoff and McGillivray were standing in a pavilion behind the main house in the middle of a group of people. To their left was Regis Philbin and his wife, Joy, according to Davidoff. To McGillivray’s immediate right was Trump and his fiancée, Melania.
“Ray already performed. He’s ready to leave. He’s saying his goodbyes to everyone,’’ McGillivray recalled.
“All of a sudden I felt a grab, a little nudge. I think it’s Ken’s camera bag, that was my first instinct. I turn around and there’s Donald. He sort of looked away quickly. I quickly turned back, facing Ray Charles, and I’m stunned.’’
McGillivray said she remembers saying to herself, ‘’‘OK, am I going to say something now and make a scene or be quiet?’ I chose to stay quiet.’’
Davidoff said he did not witness the alleged groping but he said he has never had any reason to doubt McGillivray.

Asked about the possibility that what she felt was Trump or someone accidentally bumping into her, McGillivray said no. “This was a pretty good nudge. More of a grab,’’ she said. “It was pretty close to the center of my butt. I was startled. I jumped.’’
…
…Critical details of McGillivray’s story don’t add up.
McGillivray claims that when she was nudged in 2003, Trump and his wife Melania were engaged. But a quick Google search proves this is false: Trump proposed to Melania in April 2004. Why didn’t the Palm Beach Post or McGillivray check this obvious detail?
Perhaps because they never bothered to verify a Ray Charles concert at Mar-A-Lago even happened on January 24, 2003. A Getty Images search shows Trump and Melania posing with Ray Charles at Mar-A-Lago … in a photo by Davidoff Photos Studio, created on January 1, 2003, more than three weeks before McGillivray claimed she was “grabbed” at a Ray Charles concert. A Ray Charles concert chronology shows that on January 23, a Ray Charles concert in Seattle was canceled, but nothing was scheduled for January 24.

5.) Kristin Anderson
Kristin Anderson claims a young Donald Trump groped her while he was sitting alone at a nightclub in New York City in the 1990s. She gave her story to the Washington Post, one of many careless anti-Trump rags.
She claims Trump touched her vagina at a club, while sitting alone, in the 1990s.
She never came forward until now – three weeks outside of a national election.
Here’s Trump’s response:
“It’s nonsense. It’s false… They are coming after me to try to destroy the greatest political movement in our country. The political establishment is trying to stop us because they no we are a threat… Hillary is the most corrupt person to ever seek the presidency of the United States… These allegations are 100% false. They’re made up. They’ve never happened.

Source

3 traitors in our midst

Even Some Men's Rights Activists Are Worried About a Trump Presidency
"I care about this country being led by the most competent person."

At a Trump campaign rally last week in Spokane, Washington, Donald Trump slammed Hillary Clinton for "playing the women's card" to gain campaign support. When citing Clinton's criticisms of him, Trump mimicked the candidate, straightening his shoulders and flattening his voice to convey a cold, prim demeanor. He concluded the performance with the pronouncement: "All of the men, we're petrified to speak to women anymore…You know what? The women get it better than we do, folks. They get it better than we do."
The audience erupted into cheers and applause.

Moments like this one—where Trump's unabashed political incorrectness and machismo are on display—resonate with many of his supporters. But his message in Spokane made headlines in part because the notion that men have it worse off than women echoes a central tenet of the Men's Rights Movement (MRM), a network of activists who believe that in many contexts, men are a disadvantaged class. New York magazine even offered its readers a quiz: "Who Said It, Trump or a Men's Rights Activist?"

It seems like a no-brainer that men's rights activists would admire Trump's rhetoric on gender and thus support his candidacy for president. But several leaders of the movement who spoke to Mother Jones are ambivalent about Trump, at best—one has even donated to Clinton—and say that many others in their community haven't been won over by Trump's bluster. But why do many members of a group that would appear to be his natural constituency not support Trump for president?

"It's nice to hear him say" things that align with the men's rights movement, says Dean Esmay, now a contributor to and formerly the managing editor of A Voice for Men, a blog and men's rights discussion hub, but those talking points aren't enough. "Somebody had the guts to say that men have it tougher than women, it gives you an emotional rush," he continues. "But when you listen, where's the meat behind it? What's he offering? I see nothing." Trump isn't offering much by way of policy substance, Esmay says, both on issues key to MRAs, such as incarceration or the treatment of fathers in family courts, or on others.

"Why do I think he would make a bad president?" asks Esmay. "Because he is a loose cannon. You don't know what he's going to do. We have a student loan debt bubble that's going to burst. We have a middle class that's imploding. And Donald Trump is going to fix it all by saying, 'Believe it, baby?' Give me a break."

Warren Farrell, widely considered the father of the men's right's movement and the author of one of its foundational texts, The Myth of Male Power,  says he's a "very strong supporter" of Clinton. He has attended several campaign events for Clinton and has donated the allowed maximum of $2,700 to her primary campaign. Still, Farrell says he thinks Clinton is "the worst candidate in recent history, in my lifetime, on gender issues from the perspective of understanding and having compassion for men." But Farrell, who has a Ph.D. in political science, still supports Clinton in part because, he says, "even though I care about men's issues a lot, I care about this country being led by the most competent person."
"Trump is the quintessential example of the immature man and men at their worst."
"Its very hard for me," he continues, "because Trump does have a clue about what's happening with men's issues. But Trump is the quintessential example of the immature man and men at their worst."

Farrell falls into a more liberal faction of the men's rights community, says Gwyneth Williams, a professor of politics at Webster University who also studies men's movements. But some of Farrell's more conservative colleagues also have serious concerns about Trump.
"I think Trump was right on for saying that men are afraid of upsetting women," says Paul Elam, the CEO and founder of A Voice for Men. But Elam notes that he doesn't buy that Trump would be "some sort of savior for" the men's rights movement, and that there are other Trump positions he finds especially worrisome.

"Trump talks a lot about building a wall and the outlandish proposition that he's going to stop drugs from entering the country—which is impossible," says Elam. He's wary of a candidate who would further criminalize drugs, leading to greater incarceration of men. While Trump hasn't directly promised this, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one of Trump's surrogates and a potential vice presidential pick, has said he supports the criminalization of marijuana use. That's why both Elam and Esmay say the possibility that in a Trump administration Christie might be elevated to a position of power might push them to vote for Clinton.

But many men's rights activists are definitely not Clinton fans: Both Elam and Esmay referred to her as a "lizard" while speaking with Mother Jones, and men's rights forums on Reddit and elsewhere are filled with anti-Clinton sentiments. But despite their Clinton scorn, many MRAs say it's obvious Trump is more swagger than substance. "Trump doesn't have the ability to successfully call out Hillary on her sexism. He is to [sic] crass and doesn't grasp the issues," writes one user on the men's rights subreddit. Another sums things up: "Trump VS Clinton. Whoever wins, America (and the world?) loses."

Source

Fuck you Paul Elam,fuck you Warren Farrell,fuck you Dean Esmay. A double fuck you to Farrell for donating to her cause. If they chose to vote for Gary Johnson or wrote in Donald Duck for president while keeping their money in their wallets that would have been acceptable. But to vote for this misandric witch is crossing the line. Bernard Chapin said if you call yourself an MRA and you vote for Hillary you are a traitor. End of story. I don't always agree with Chapin but he is right on this. You know whom a real MRA supports in this election? The Donald that's who.

The truth about the National Organization for Women

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill wrote this over a century ago.

During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment. I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you'll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!"

What a giggle we girls had over that. "How ridiculously unsophisticated these nuns are," we thought. Then I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me.

Sometime later, I was a young divorcee with a small child. At the urging of my sister, I relocated to NYC after spending years married to an American executive stationed in Southeast Asia. The marriage over, I was making a new life for my daughter and me. Katie said, "Come to New York. We're making revolution! Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it."

I hadn't seen her for years. Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint after my Asian traumas and the break-up of my marriage. I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm. With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability.

And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a "consciousness-raising-group," a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

"Why are we here today?" she asked.
"To make revolution," they answered.
"What kind of revolution?" she replied.
"The Cultural Revolution," they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?" she demanded.
"By destroying the American family!" they answered.
"How do we destroy the family?" she came back.
"By destroying the American Patriarch," they cried exuberantly.
"And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
"By taking away his power!"
"How do we do that?"
"By destroying monogamy!" they shouted.
"How can we destroy monogamy?"

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

"By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!" they resounded.

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was "to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’": The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.

It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.

To me, this sounded silly. I was enduring culture shock after having been cut-off from my homeland, living in Third-World countries for years with not one trip back to the United States. I was one of those people who, upon returning to American soil, fell out of the plane blubbering with ecstasy at being home in the USA. I knelt on the ground covering it with kisses. I had learned just exactly how delicious was the land of my birth and didn't care what anyone thought because they just hadn't seen what I had or been where I had been. I had seen factory workers and sex-slaves chained to walls.

How could they know? Asia is beyond our ken and, as they say, utterly inscrutable, and a kind of hell I never intended to revisit. I lived there, not junketed, not visited like sweet little tourists -- I’d conducted households and tried to raise a child. I had outgrown the communism of my university days and was clumsily groping my way back to God.

How could twelve American women who were the most respectable types imaginable -- clean and privileged graduates of esteemed institutions: Columbia, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, Vassar; the uncle of one was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt -- plot such a thing? Most had advanced degrees and appeared cogent, bright, reasonable and good. How did these people rationally believe they could succeed with such vicious grandiosity? And why?

I dismissed it as academic-lounge air-castle-building. I continued with my new life in New York while my sister became famous publishing her books, featured on the cover of “Time Magazine.” “Time” called her “the Karl Marx of the Women's Movement.” This was because her book laid out a course in Marxism 101 for women. Her thesis: The family is a den of slavery with the man as the Bourgeoisie and the woman and children as the Proletariat. The only hope for women's "liberation" (communism’s favorite word for leading minions into inextricable slavery; "liberation," and much like "collective" – please run from it, run for your life) was this new “Women’s Movement.” Her books captivated the academic classes and soon "Women's Studies” courses were installed in colleges in a steady wave across the nation with Kate Millett books as required reading.

Imagine this: a girl of seventeen or eighteen at the kitchen table with Mom studying the syllabus for her first year of college and there's a class called "Women's Studies." "Hmmm, this could be interesting," says Mom. "Maybe you could get something out of this."

Seems innocuous to her. How could she suspect this is a class in which her innocent daughter will be taught that her father is a villain? Her mother is a fool who allowed a man to enslave her into barbaric practices like monogamy and family life and motherhood, which is a waste of her talents. She mustn't follow in her mother's footsteps. That would be submitting to life as a mindless drone for some domineering man, the oppressor, who has mesmerized her with tricks like romantic love. Never be lured into this chicanery, she will be taught. Although men are no damned good, she should use them for her own orgasmic gratification; sleep with as many men as possible in order to keep herself unattached and free. There's hardly a seventeen-year-old girl without a grudge from high school against a Jimmy or Jason who broke her heart. Boys are learning, too, and they can be careless during high school, that torment of courting dances for both sexes.



By the time Women's Studies professors finish with your daughter, she will be a shell of the innocent girl you knew, who's soon convinced that although she should be flopping down with every boy she fancies, she should not, by any means, get pregnant. And so, as a practitioner of promiscuity, she becomes a wizard of prevention techniques, especially abortion.

The goal of Women's Liberation is to wear each female down to losing all empathy for boys, men or babies. The tenderest aspects of her soul are roughened into a rock pile of cynicism, where she will think nothing of murdering her baby in the warm protective nest of her little-girl womb. She will be taught that she, in order to free herself, must become an outlaw. This is only reasonable because all Western law, since Magna Carta and even before, is a concoction of the evil white man whose true purpose is to press her into slavery.

Be an outlaw! Rebel! Be defiant! (Think Madonna, Lady Gaga, Lois Lerner, Elizabeth Warren.) “All women are prostitutes,” she will be told. You're either really smart and use sex by being promiscuous for your own pleasures and development as a full free human being "just like men" or you can be a professional prostitute, a viable business for women, which is "empowering" or you can be duped like your mother and prostitute yourself to one man exclusively whereby you fall under the heavy thumb of "the oppressor." All wives are just "one-man whores."

She is to be heartless in this. No sentimental stuff about courting. No empathy for either boy or baby. She has a life to live and no one is to get in her way. And if the boy or man doesn't "get it" then no sex for him; "making love" becomes "having sex." "I'm not 'having sex' with any jerk who doesn't believe I can kill his son or daughter at my whim. He has no say in it because it’s my body!” (Strange logic as who has ever heard of a body with two heads, two hearts, four arms, four feet?)

There's no end to the absurdities your young girl will be convinced to swallow. "I plan to leap from guy to guy as much as I please and no one can stop me because I'm liberated!” In other words, these people will turn your daughter into a slut with my sister's books as instruction manuals. ("Slut is a good word. Be proud of it!") She'll be telling you, "I'm probably never getting married and if I do it will be after I've established my career," which nowadays often means never. "I'll keep my own name and I don't really want kids. They're such a bother and only get in the way." They'll tell her, “Don't let any guy degrade you by allowing him to open doors for you. To be called ‘a lady’ is an insult. Chivalry is a means of ownership.”

Thus, the females, who are fundamentally the arbiters of society go on to harden their young men with such pillow-talk in the same way they’ve been hardened because, "Wow, man, I've gotta get laid and she won't do it if I don't agree to let her kill the kid if she gets knocked-up!” Oppressed? Woman has always had power. Consider the eternal paradigm: only after Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit did mankind fall. I.e., man does anything to make woman happy, even if it's in defiance of God. There’s power for ya! Without a decent womankind, mankind is lost. As Mae West said, "When women go wrong men go right after them!"

I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they'll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live with no way of going back. “Where are my children? Where are my grandchildren?" they cry to me.

"Your sister's books destroyed my sister's life!" I've heard numerous times. "She was happily married with four kids and after she read those books, walked out on a bewildered man and didn't look back." The man fell into despairing rack and ruin. The children were stunted, set off their tracks, deeply harmed; the family profoundly dislocated and there was “no putting Humpty-Dumpty together again.”

Throughout the same time these women were “invading” our institutions, the character of the American woman transformed drastically from models portrayed for us by Rosalind Russell, Bette Davis, Deborah Kerr, Eve Arden, Donna Reed, Barbara Stanwyck, Claudette Colbert, Irene Dunn, Greer Garson. These were outstanding women needing no empowerment lessons and whose own personalities, as well as the characters they interpreted, were strong, resilient and clearly carved. Their voices were so different you could pick them out by that alone. We all knew Rita Hayworth's voice. We all knew Katherine Hepburn's voice.

I dare you to identify the voices of the cookie-cutter post-women's-liberation types from Hollywood today. How did these “liberated” women fall into such an indistinguishable pile of mush? They all look exactly the same with few individuating characteristics and their voices sound identical, these Julies and Jessicas! My friend, Father George Rutler, calls them "the chirping fledglings of the new Dark Ages." The character of the American woman has been distorted by this pernicious movement. From where did this foul mouthed, tattooed, outlaw creature, who murders her baby without blinking an eye and goes partying without conscience or remorse come? And, in such a short little phase in history?

Never before have we heard of so many women murdering their children: Casey Anthony killing her little Caylee and partying-hearty for weeks; Susan Smith driving her beautiful little boys into a lake, leaving them strapped in the water to die torturous deaths; that woman who drowned her five children in the bathtub? “Hey, if I can kill my baby at six months of gestation why not six months post-birth, just call it late late-term abortion.”

I insist that woman always has been the arbiter of society and when those women at Lila Karp's table in Greenwich Village set their minds to destroying the American Family by talking young women into being outlaws, perpetrators of infanticide, and haters of Western law, men and marriage, they accomplished just what they intended. Their desire -- and I witnessed it at subsequent meetings till I got pretty sick of their unbridled hate -- was to tear American society apart along with the family and the "Patriarchal Slave-Master," the American husband.

We're all so busy congratulating each other because Ronald Reagan "won the Cold War without firing a shot" entirely missing the bare truth which is that Mao, with his Little Red Book and the Soviets, won the Cold War without firing a shot by taking over our women, our young and the minds of everyone tutored by Noam Chomsky and the textbooks of Howard Zinn. Post-graduate Junior is Peter Pan trapped in the Never Neverland of Mom's (she's divorced now) basement. Christina Hoff Sommers says, "Moms and dads, be afraid for your sons. There's a 'war on men' that started a long time ago in gender studies classes and in women's advocacy groups eager to believe that men are toxic… Many 'educated women' in the U.S. have drunk from the gender feminist Kool Aid. Girls at Yale, Haverford and Swarthmore see themselves as oppressed. This is madness."

If you see something traitorous in this, a betrayal of my sister, I have come to identify with such people as Svetlana Stalin or Juanita Castro; coming out to speak plainly about a particularly harmful member of my family. Loyalty can be highly destructive. What about Muslims who refuse to speak out right now? I was one of the silent but at last I'm "spilling the beans." The girls have been up to something for years and it's really not good. It's evil. We should be sick to our souls over it. I know I am. And so, mass destruction, the inevitable outcome of all socialist/communist experiments, leaves behind its signature trail of wreckage.

So much grace, femininity and beauty lost.

So many ruined lives.

Source

The hit piece on JTO that should have never been published

I was at A Voice For Men and I was reading an article which state that JTO is a traitor. I always thought JTO was a loyal MRA so this can't be true. I read the article,links and everything. If you haven't read this then by all means do read it. The article is by Diana Davison. So if you haven't read it then do so. Now that you've read the article you can see why I'm not too fond of this. First of all JTO is innocent of the charges against him and he was falsely accused by a drama queen. The point is this should have never been published. What was the purpose? You were bored and wanted to stir shit up? That is how we got here: bored women who wanted to stir shit up. One of the posters there echoed what I've been saying about women in the movement and this proves it. I noticed the women on A Voice For Men are blaming men for not understanding it is satire. Again men are attacked for "not getting it". Where have we heard that before? The point is the article does nothing but cause division and division at this time is not good for the movement.

Update: Here is Diana Davison's response to those that "misinterpret" her article. It is either she wanted to go after JTO,had second thoughts and is now trying to play this off as a joke or she sucks as a writer. Read the following:


Diana Davison says

February 1, 2014 at 1:37 PM

“the canyon of my despair”
“a flimsy staple gun that is somehow shooting

seven inch nails.”
“Why, John?…For the love of all good things,

WHY?”
“What are they paying you, John? And was it

worth your soul?”
“I am still too mortified and embittered to

feign the proper etiquette.”
“there is a small chance John the Other is not

dead to us.”
“It is entirely feasible that JtO hasn’t

actually abandoned the ship for a douche canoe

after all.”

“Run, John, run!”

Those are just a few of the reasons this is obvious satire. If anyone doesn’t see that, there isn’t much I can do to help them. It would be like trying to teach Borat to use the word “NOT!”

If feminists want to try and use this article to claim the MRM is falling apart it would be the funniest thing that could happen. I hope they do.

Source

No,it is not obvious. A lot of questions being asked by those outside of AVFM are being attacked. Blame and deflect. Typical feminist's tactics. I wouldn't trust these women for anything. It's all about them and if AVFM let them these same female "allies?" will put knives in the backs of those white knights and manginas that they will have a major WTF moment.

Update: this article is published after the interview with pro-male candidate Erick Bennett (see preceeding post) who is running to be U.S. Senator for Maine. I find it very interesting that this piece was published after that interview. An interview that gained ground and now this piece is published. A piece that is divisive. Notice how the women are defending each other and discounting what the men have to say. Like usual a lot of guys are playing white knight/mangina games by agreeing with the women. AVFM appears to have been infiltrated by the feminists.Coincidence? I don't think so. At Least that is what the circumstantial evidence shows.

Brown University stands up to rape lies

Lies, Damn Lies, and Rape Statistics

April 26, 2013 4:00 pm
Ryan Fleming

Brown is in the midst of a pandemic. All across America, colleges are cesspools of forcible sex crimes, including rape, which make the college campus one of the most dangerous places for women. According to many activists and politicians, one in every four women will experience rape or attempted rape in their college career.

The problem is so severe that the federal government has intervened with the “Safe Campuses for Women” subsection in the Violence Against Women Act of 1993. Brown itself has set up a 24-hour support line and has a full-time staff member dedicated to sexual assault prevention, along with numerous programs in Health Services. Popular campus events such as Consent Day and the recent One Billion Rising are dedicated to tackling the issue.

Brown Daily Herald opinions columnist Cara Newlon recently wrote in her piece “Don’t Rape” that despite the fact that one in four coeds are victims of rape or attempted rape, and that one in 12 male students commit these crimes, people are not talking about the subject enough.

So why is no one talking about this widespread issue? One reason is that it is not widespread. The campus rape pandemic seems to be a theory based upon poor survey methodology and repeated lies.

The Slutwalkers’ objectives are praiseworthy. Their statistics aren’t. ?

Newlon and numerous other activists make the bold claim that one in every four college women is a victim of rape or attempted rape. This number is astonishing and no doubt eyebrow-raising. To put it in perspective, in the nation’s most violent city (Detroit), the total violent crime rate was 2.1 percent in 2012. That figure includes murder, rape, assault, and robbery. If the one in four figure shouted at feminist rallies is correct, the nation is willingly sending its daughters to places with a violent crime rate several times that of the most dangerous city in the country.

The number seems even more dubious when compared to statistics put forth annually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Bureau interviews a random sampling of nearly 150,000 Americans about their criminal victimization, and in 2009 and 2010 they determined that the occurrence of rape of women was 0.23 percent and 0.21 percent, respectively.

So with the figure in mind, it is prudent to see where the one in four statistic comes from. In 1985, Ms. magazine published a study by Mary Koss in which she surveyed over 3,000 college females nationwide asking them ten questions about sexual violence. When determining whether the female was a victim of rape, Koss did not explicitly ask if she had been raped; rather, Koss used her own criteria. From her survey, she determined that 15.4 percent had been raped and 12.1 percent had been victims of attempted rape.

However, the survey came with a curious caveat: when directly asked if they had been raped, only 27 percent of the women whom Koss had determined were victims of rape answered in the affirmative. So of the highly publicized (and already exaggerated) one- in-four statistic, 73 percent of those women did not even believe they were raped, and an astonishing 35 percent had intercourse with the alleged rapist again.

The discrepancy arose from a question that asked, “have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?.” While Koss determined that this was qualified as rape, the overwhelming majority of victims did not agree.

When held up to such scrutiny, Koss’s survey holds as much water as a sieve. If one looks at the actual numbers for sexual assault on college campuses, her results seem almost laughable.

Thanks to the Clery Act, universities in America make public all reported campus crimes. This allows anyone to look at every instance of reported crimes on the campus and, in particular, all incidents of sexual violence. I decided to take a look at the reported violent sexual crimes for Brown, and fortunately for women but perhaps disappointing for feminists, the result came nowhere near Koss’s figures. For the past three years, the average number of reported forcible sex offenses (which range from groping of private parts to penetration) was 8.66. The number varied from as low as seven to as high as 10. With an estimated 3,141 female undergraduates, 0.28 percent are victims of reported sexual violence each year. This is inconsistent with the one in four statistic, but on par with the national average.

I wondered if Brown was unique in avoiding the campus rape pandemic, and perhaps Consent Day and SlutWalk had managed to temper our desire to rape on College Hill, so I consulted statistics for Providence College and the University of Rhode Island. Their respective three-year averages were 0.08 percent and 0.18 percent. It seems that nowhere in Rhode Island are women raped as often as feminists maintain. So what is the problem with the myth of the campus rape pandemic? Even if women aren’t being violated as often as stated, what is the harm in raising awareness? Women are told they are going into college with aone in four chance of being raped, which is no doubt extremely terrifying. It makes the adjustment to college scarier than it needs to be, and it makes women fearful of any guy’s intentions. These absurd statistics make every man a potential rapist.

More dangerous, though, is that when these statistics came out, they frightened elected officials into giving universities vast authority in handling rape cases, thanks to Title IX and other documents like the recent “Dear Colleague” letter. This unreasonable amount of power bestowed on universities led to situations like the 2006 William McCormick case, in which Brown knowingly expelled a student for a rape that he did not commit.

Situations like that are unacceptable, and it is even more lamentable when they come about from perpetuated myths that people continue to shout at rallies without ever looking into the facts. So from now on, the “one in four” chant should be abandoned and replaced with the more appropriate, albeit less catchy, 1 in 400.

Source:click here

Women kill infants and have fun doing it

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH

Feminists joke about
roasting babies

Trendy magazine's online political forum goes south on abortion Published: 01/23/2003 at 1:00 AM

“Roast baby?” “Baby margaritas?” “Bloody baby marys?” These are the sassy intrigues of participants in a discussion about abortion on the website of an international feminist magazine.

Bust magazine styles itself as a hip “girl” resource with a website that offers a “lounge,” or discussion forum.

A WND reader who has contributed for about three years to a politics forum on the site, called “As the World Turns,” said he recently has become “absolutely shocked by the statements I’ve read there, of feminists so jaded that they are freely joking about eating dead babies, and of the many ways that they could cook up their own abortions and dine on them.”

Earlier this month, a contributor who goes by “isobel123,” wrote that “the problem with adoption is, we really enjoy killing babies and would hate to have to miss out on that. We love squishing their little baby heads and watching their little baby brains come out their little baby eyesockets as their little chubby baby arms writhe helplessly in little chubby baby pain.”

Last Thursday, “charliebaby,” in response to a previous post, wrote “your roast baby sounds like a wonderful thanksgiving/christmas dinner. mmmmmmmm….. ”

“Lilacwhine,” on Jan. 15, wrote of sipping a martini and twirling “the dead baby around in it.”

“Charliebaby” responded that “of course there are baby margeritas! [sic] but you really must try the bloody baby marys!”

“It’s a weakness we feminists have, us and our baby killing,” wrote “dinaofdoom.”

A poster called “angstgrrl” offered a poem:

“I kill children
I love to see them die
I kill children
And make their mamas cry
Crush ‘em under my car
I wanna hear them scream
Feed ‘em poison candy

To spoil their Halloween

So your’re in the kids’ ward
You’re in there cos you’re ill
How about some Pavulon
So I can see you chill

Time to hit the scool bus
I think I’ll shoot the tires
Offer them a helping hand
Of open telephone wires”

A review of Bust’s quarterly print publication on Epinions.com, praising its “professional quality” and “amazing content,” said it’s what “MS magazine was supposed to be.”

“With the edginess and energy of a home-grown ‘zine, but the look and readability of a mainstream magazine, Bust does a great job of capturing what modern young women are thinking and caring about,” the reviewer said.

Another Epinions reviewer said, “In an effort to make feminism appeal to young women, Bust Magazine has unknowingly fallen into the same trap that the likes of every young women’s magazine today has fallen into, with the exception of B*tch Magazine. From cover to cover, profanity runs rampant, and hypersexuality is a common theme. Although feminism promotes sexuality, and the right to say what you need to, Bust has over used this aspect to appeal to a mainstream audience.”

Source:click here

If there is anything that either makes you speechless or if you do say something chances are it's going to be WTF??? This is some fucking insane shit and it is very telling of women. No wonder they oppose adoption they get off on killing infants. That is fucking disturbing.

The Dominique Strauss-Kahn case

Nafissatou Diallo


By now you've probably heard of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn situation and how his name and face are plastered all over the place and you've probably heard the talking heads,feminists and manginas alike,condemn Dominique Strauss-Kahn without having all the facts. Pretty much what the media did with Duke and Holfstra they are doing here and that is licking feminist boots. That won't happen here. Now what the MSM won't devulge is the woman's identity however I will and her identity is Nafissatou Diallo. Who is Diallo? Well for one thing she is an immigrant woman who is fluent in French. Let's take it from the immigrant angle:she currently has a green card and authorization to work in the US. If she is pursuing citizenship a false accusation can get her on her way. Can you say VAWA? A charge such as this is a fast track for women seeking citizenship considering she can now be her own sponsor. Also the fact that she speaks French is also interesting and pretty damn convenient. A little too convenient to be a coincident. I'm sure Kahn being an international man probably speaks English and would be considering he was in the United States at the time so a French speaking maid would be unnecessary. Also maids usually stop by the room after the guest has checked out so there would be no conversation taking place.Something to think about.


I'll let Human Stupidity take if from here:


Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF Managing Director and French presidential candidate, has been accused of rape. As the feminist dominated press is scared to even think that the rape accusations are false, Human-Stupidity has to speak up. The story is very strange, and dominated by clear mistakes and screwups committed by the accuser. A five-star hotel maid trespasses into a naked client’s room? Unforgivable.

Five-star hotel security let a rapist check out without complaint? The maid wasn’t trained to instantly report crimes to security staff?


Maid Violates Professional Ethics and Walks Into a Prominent, Naked Guest’s Room
The New York Police Department claims that at about 1 p.m. on Saturday, a hotel maid entered a $3,000-a-night suite at the Sofitel near Times Square, believing that it was empty.


Talk about a bad start! She mistakenly entered a room thinking it was empty? This is not supposed to happen in a high-class hotel. Were the sex roles inverted, were a male employee to walk in on a prominent female guest, like Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the male employee would be fired and arrested for sexual harassment. Usually,hotels have a policy to ensure their staff avoid such embarrassments: cleaners are supposed to knock on the door, ring the bell, or yell “room service” when entering rooms.


Strauss-Kahn then emerged naked from the bathroom, and grabbed her, pulled her into the bedroom and threw her on to the bed, before trying to lock the suite’s main door, according to New York Police Dept. Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne, who outlined the charges to reporters. “She fights him off, and then he drags her down the hallway to the bathroom,where he sexually assaults her a second time,” he told Reuters.


Wait, what? A hitherto well behaved, civilized man, suddenly goes crazy? Just because he was naked, he wanted to take advantage of her and rape her?


A man pictured on the covers of magazines, admired by millions of women, who could get any woman he wanted with a snap of his fingers. A man from a country with legalized prostitution who could afford two luxury prostitutes per day, if he happened to be a sex addict. And this guy, exactly the moment the woman walks in, illegally, incorrectly, grabs her and rapes her?



The maid, 32, finally managed to push Strauss-Kahn away and escape, according to Browne,and her colleagues called 911. Strauss-Kahn had checked out by the time police arrived at the hotel, leaving behind his cell phone.


Very strange. No rapist should be able to just leave a
five-star hotel, packed full of security agents who are trained to catch thieves, impostors,and other ne’er do wells – ESPECIALLY people who cause trouble and then want to slip away without getting caught. High-class hotels have a very professional security staff. I am sure maids are trained to instantly report crimes to security. So any delay in reporting would be her second professional failure of the day.


The NYPD usually does not take longer then five minutes to arrive on the scene of a crime,and Strauss-Kahn made it all the way onto the plane before they got to the hotel? Check out,check into the airport, pass through security?


Strauss-Kahn was arrested on charges of attempted rape, conducting a criminal sexual act,and unlawful imprisonment of the woman.
“Arrest of IMF Chief on Attempted Rape Charges Throws French Presidential Race Into Chaos” Time Magazine


A VIP, at that:


In fact DSK, as the French call one of the country’s leading political figures, happens to be on the cover of virtually every French magazine this week as the country’s possible next President…


Across Europe, too, Strauss-Kahn’s arrest will have a major impact. It could impact critical negotiations over the E.U.’s deep debt crisis, in which Strauss-Kahn has been a key — if not the key — player. He was due to be at emergency debt meetings in Brussels this week, and perhaps mindful that he could soon be one of the E.U.’s most powerful leaders


False Rape Charges to Cover Up Her Screwup, or for Political Reasons? What are the alternative explanations? Don’t forget that she committed a serious professional lapse, almost a crime. So it is quite likely that she did that for a reason,with intent.


1.Many political and economic enemies would pay millions to get Strauss-Kahn out of the way.Is is inconceivable that they would bribe a lowly hotel maid to lodge a phony rape charge against him? But there is a much more plausible and more parsimonious explanation:


The room maid, in a SERIOUS violation of her professional duties, walked into a client’s room while he was buck naked. Even if that was a honest mistake, it could have serious consequences for her.


2.Maybe he became angry and threatened to get her fired (for good reasons). That scared her.


3.Maybe she walked in with the intent to steal and was caught.


4.Maybe she walked in with the intent to seduce a famous man.


5.Maybe she planned to seduce him and was rejected. “Hell hath no fury like a woman
scorned!”


6.Maybe she walked in with the intent to seduce a famous man and then blackmail him by threatening to cry rape. As we’ve learned, time and time again, from The False Rape Society, many women have a knee-jerk reaction to cry “rape” in order to save them from their own problems. Have you noticed that nobody in the media is saying that the maid should be fired for her transgression?


Let us see if there is any hard, corroborating evidence for this case, and if it isn’t merely another “cry wolf” story by a guilty woman seeking to salvage her job after committing a serious, unforgivable professional mistake.


Jacques Attalli, the economist, a prominent Socialist and friend of Strauss-Kahn said:“The most likely outcome is that this case will stick and even if he pleads not guilty,which he may be, he won’t be able to be candidate for the Socialist primary for the presidency and he won’t be able to stay at the IMF.”


Michel Taubmann, author of a new official and approved biography of Strauss-Kahn, said: “He is a well-known seducer but does not have the profile of a rapist.”
“Dominique Strauss-Kahn Charged with Sex Attack on New York Hotel Maid“ The Guardian


Source:here