Strong Successful Male on activism

Bill Burr nails the Karens on Saturday Night LIve

 

The funny thing is that the Karens in the audience were trying to manipulate Bill Burr into toning it down. Good luck on that. Bill Burr took on Philly and won so good luck on that one,Karens.

Feminist's son accused in sexual assault

Hollywood Feminist CEO Quits ‘Believing the Women’ After Son Accused of Sexual Assault
By Pluralist | Feb 24, 2019

“All of our actions were fully guided by our support for survivors.”

The CEO of a prominent new anti-sexual harassment organization abruptly resigned after her own son was accused of sexual assault.

Lisa Borders stepped down last week within 24 hours of telling the leadership of Time’s Up about the allegations against her 36-year-old son. The president and first CEO of the group, which came out of the #MeToo movement, she had been on the job for just three months.

Borders and Time’s Up announced that she was leaving in a joint statement posted to Instagram Monday, but they did not mention the reason. Only on Thursday, after the Los Angeles Times reported on the sexual assault allegations, did Time’s Up release a second statement admitting why Borders had resigned.

“All of our actions were fully guided by our support for survivors,” the second statement said.

Borders, a former WNBA president, told Time’s Up that she planned to aggressively defend her son, which put her at odds with the group’s stated ethos of believing women who claim sexual abuse, according to The Washington Post.

An unnamed Santa Monica woman told the Los Angeles Times that Borders’ son, a self-described life coach named Garry “Dijon” Bowden Jr., gave her a sexually inappropriate “healing session,” which left her surprised and feeling “violated.” She accused him of touching her genitals, kissing her neck, and brushing his erect penis against her body through his clothes.

Bowden Jr.’s lawyer, Alan Jackson, disputed the woman’s version of events. He shared with The Post text messages that Bowden and the woman exchanged after the session in which the woman thanked his client for the “gentle and authentic loving.”

In an interview with InStyle last month, Borders described her son as her version “2.0,” a “better version [of me] than I would ever be: more competent, confident and compassionate.”

Times’s Up, which has its own hashtag, was founded last year by women in the increasingly woke entertainment industry . The group been touted by Hollywood actresses at awards shows, with some walking the red carpet wearing black and a Time’s Up pin accompanied by survivors of sexual assault.

The Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, housed by the National Women’s Law Center Fund, has helped employees and McDonald’s and Walmart file sexual harassment claims and dispersed about $750,000 in grants to nonprofits that work with low-wage workers who have alleged sexual harassment and workplace retaliation.

In January, the group launched an initiative – #TimesUpX2 and #4PercentChallenge – to get Hollywood studios to commit to hiring women as directors and to double the number of female leaders in other industries.

Source

That reminds me of this.I wonder if they are the same case?

Feminist's son is accused of rape

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.

But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.

It began with a text of desperation. “CALL ME. URGENT. NOW.”

That was how my son informed me that not only had charges been brought against him but that he was ordered to appear to answer these allegations in a matter of days. There was no preliminary inquiry on the part of anyone at the school into these accusations about behavior alleged to have taken place a few years earlier, no consideration of the possibility that jealousy or revenge might be motivating a spurned young ex-lover to lash out. Worst of all, my son would not be afforded a presumption of innocence.

In fact, Title IX, that so-called guarantor of equality between the sexes on college campuses, and as applied by a recent directive from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice. On today’s college campuses, neither “beyond a reasonable doubt,” nor even the lesser “by clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof is required to establish guilt of sexual misconduct.

These safeguards of due process have, by order of the federal government, been replaced by what is known as “a preponderance of the evidence.” What this means, in plain English, is that all my son’s accuser needed to establish before a campus tribunal is that the allegations were “more likely than not” to have occurred by a margin of proof that can be as slim as 50.1% to 49.9%.

How does this campus tribunal proceed to evaluate the accusations? Upon what evidence is it able to make a judgment?

The frightening answer is that like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla, the tribunal does pretty much whatever it wants, showing scant regard for fundamental fairness, due process of law, and the well-established rules and procedures that have evolved under the Constitution for citizens’ protection. Who knew that American college students are required to surrender the Bill of Rights at the campus gates?

My son was given written notice of the charges against him, in the form of a letter from the campus Title IX officer. But instead of affording him the right to be fully informed, the separately listed allegations were a barrage of vague statements, rendering any defense virtually impossible. The letter lacked even the most basic information about the acts alleged to have happened years before. Nor were the allegations supported by any evidence other than the word of the ex-girlfriend.

The hearing itself was a two-hour ordeal of unabated grilling by the school’s committee, during which, my son later reported, he was expressly denied his request to be represented by counsel or even to have an attorney outside the door of the room. The questioning, he said, ran far afield even from the vaguely stated allegations contained in the so-called notice. Questions from the distant past, even about unrelated matters, were flung at him with no opportunity for him to give thoughtful answers.

The many pages of written documentation that my son had put together—which were directly on point about his relationship with his accuser during the time period of his alleged wrongful conduct—were dismissed as somehow not relevant. What was relevant, however, according to the committee, was the unsworn testimony of “witnesses” deemed to have observable knowledge about the long-ago relationship between my son and his accuser.

That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser’s email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to “discuss this matter” with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.

Thankfully, I happen to be an attorney and had the resources to provide the necessary professional assistance to my son. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed but not before he and our family had to suffer through this ordeal. I am of course relieved and most grateful for this outcome. Yet I am also keenly aware not only of how easily this all could have gone the other way—with life-altering consequences—but how all too often it does.

Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of this latest surge in political correctness. Few have a lawyer for a mother, and many may not know about the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which assisted me in my research.

There are very real and horrifying instances of sexual misconduct and abuse on college campuses and elsewhere. That these offenses should be investigated and prosecuted where appropriate is not open to question. What does remain a question is how we can make the process fair for everyone.

I fear that in the current climate the goal of “women’s rights,” with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.

Source

Karma. That is the best way to put it. Karma.

The other shadow presidency

Don't forget to call home,ET
One thing I don't like is the other shadow presidency. We have covered the one by Barrack Obama but now there is another one. The one by Ivanka Trump. When she was asked if she was going to be an adviser when she moved into the White House. She said she was there to be a daughter. She played it off very cutesy. I don't find it "cutesy" I take it as troublesome. Daughters have tremendous influence over their fathers and Ivanka is a feminist. She has admitted that to us. We've been getting loud and proud when it comes to men's rights and telling her father about it. I'm sure that has her very concerned. We can cause problems for the matriarchy and they know it. In fact we are very good at it. I like causing problems for the matriarchy especially big problems. I like keeping them up at night. This is a problem but not a major one. We've fried feminists before and this is no exception. Ivanka,if you are reading this,this song is dedicated to you:

Attention feminist/mangina troll

I received several comments from a feminist or mangina telling me I have a small dick,can't get laid and other material that has been used and abused over the years. This individual posted their comments on several posts. Rather than respond individually I would address them here. If you are a feminist then we got your attention and if you hate my blog that tells me I'm doing something right so I march on. If you are a mangina keep this in mind. Feminists eat their own. Especially male feminists. Men making deals with feminists in like making a deal with the devil. How close do you get before you get burned? Come back and tell us when they kick your ass. Then we'll see what tune you're singing then.

A scrape on campus: holes in the Stanford rape conviction

After years of faking campus rape cases (Columbia University, University of Virginia, Ohio University, Duke University, Occidental University, and so on) feminists finally found a supposedly legitimate case of campus rape and pushed it to a conviction in the Stanford rape trial of jejune Freshman Brock Turner. The judge sentenced Brock to a scanty six-month term of imprisonment, which has angered people across the political spectrum and calls and petitions are demanding the judge’s removal.

What could have motivated an otherwise law-and-order judge to issue such a light sentence, when he could have sent the first-time offender away for up to 14 years? I believe that a close reading of the victim’s own impact statement, delivered by her aloud in court after the guilty verdict, offers clues that tend to undermine the prosecution’s case and support Brock’s claims that “Updie” had consented to their ill-fated sexual encounter as a part of a scam to further push both her own enrichment and the feminist agenda.

You can read Updie’s statement here. It is long and harrowing so you may have to read it twice to see how badly she screwed up her case. Unfortunately, because of rape shield laws, the information she revealed was not used at trial – victim impact statements are not probative in trials because they are only given at sentencing and normally they only cover the aftermath of a crime. Updie, however, led the court through the entire evening of the alleged rape and in doing so wound up saying way too much.

The judge, who would have been keenly attuned to the many subtle admissions Updie let slip out, had to feel a growing horror as he realized his court had been subverted from a place of legal justice to a tool of the Social Justice vengeance against men. Updie is lucky that Brock got any more jail time at all – the judge could have let him off with time served.

Here are some of the howlers Updie revealed in her statement. Updie’s words are indicated with green font. My analysis follows each section.

Your Honor, if it is all right, for the majority of this statement I would like to address the defendant directly.

Slighting the judge to lambaste the accused directly was not a wise start. The judge wanted to hear items related to sentencing, not her vengeful verbal assault on the scared boy sitting at the defendant’s table. The judge’s ears had to be burning – what details and slip-ups was she going to give to self-sabotage her own case?

On January 17th, 2015, it was a quiet Saturday night at home. My dad made some dinner and I sat at the table with my younger sister who was visiting for the weekend. I was working full time and it was approaching my bed time. I planned to stay at home by myself, watch some TV and read, while she went to a party with her friends. Then, I decided it was my only night with her, I had nothing better to do, so why not, there’s a dumb party ten minutes from my house, I would go, dance like a fool, and embarrass my younger sister.

The virtue-signalling in her introduction is not only annoying, it hints at a guilty mind already spinning a fantastical account of an innocent encounter. Then, out of the blue, we get the first damning admission:

On the way there, I joked that undergrad guys would have braces. My sister teased me for wearing a beige cardigan to a frat party like a librarian. I called myself “big mama”, because I knew I’d be the oldest one there.

A man who fantasized about “big papa” partying with little girls in braces would be dealt with harshly. I see no reason to go easy on a female pedophile, either. The judge had to be paying full attention now. In fact, Updie was 22 and a college graduate at the time of the party. Brock was a freshman.

I made silly faces, let my guard down, and drank liquor too fast not factoring in that my tolerance had significantly lowered since college. The next thing I remember I was on a gurney in a hallway.

Updie admits she is an experienced hard-partier – she surely knew what the implications of over-drinking at a hookup frat party were. Notice also that her memory of the party and its aftermath was supposedly nil so that any other detail she gives about the experience is either concocted, or in direct contradiction to her own statement, or perhaps both.

I knew no one at this party.

Um, her sister was there, and Updie admitted to speaking to her sister earlier that same evening.

My boyfriend did not know what happened, but called that day and said, “I was really worried about you last night, you scared me, did you make it home okay?” I was horrified. That’s when I learned I had called him that night in my blackout, left an incomprehensible voicemail, that we had also spoken on the phone, but I was slurring so heavily he was scared for me, that he repeatedly told me to go find [my sister]. Again, he asked me, “What happened last night? Did you make it home okay?” I said yes, and hung up to cry.

Updie lies to her boyfriend about being okay at the party. One motivation for a woman faking a rape is to cover up infidelity in an established relationship. Updie had been caught by her boyfriend partying with a bunch of younger men. Suddenly the defense would’ve had a new avenue to explore – was the rape claim a ruse to get Updie off the hook for straying? – but this revelation came too late to be used at trial. The judge had to be cringing inside at this.

One day, I was at work, scrolling through the news on my phone, and came across an article. In it, I read and learned for the first time about how I was found unconscious, with my hair disheveled, long necklace wrapped around my neck, bra pulled out of my dress, dress pulled off over my shoulders and pulled up above my waist, that I was butt naked all the way down to my boots, legs spread apart, and had been penetrated by a foreign object by someone I did not recognize. This was how I learned what happened to me, sitting at my desk reading the news at work. I learned what happened to me the same time everyone else in the world learned what happened to me.

Up until this point Updie had no clue about what had happened to her, nor who had done it. The idea that she just stumbled onto her own anonymous case and recognized it as her own strains credulity. Her name has never been revealed, as far as I can tell. She had no memory of what happened – supposedly – yet now she just magically happened to remember that this was her? Oops. Even Updie admits this is miraculous:

When I read about me like this, I said, this can’t be me, this can’t be me. I could not digest or accept any of this information.

Perhaps that is because it is all confabulation? I have searched for the article she described without success.

The night after it happened, he said he didn’t know my name, said he wouldn’t be able to identify my face in a lineup, didn’t mention any dialogue between us, no words, only dancing and kissing…When the detective asked how we ended up behind the dumpster, he said he didn’t know. He admitted to kissing other girls at that party, one of whom was my own sister who pushed him away.

How does Updie know that Brock kissed Updie’s sister? Updie had claimed she didn’t remember anything and Brock had no way of guessing sororal relationships in a dark, drunken frat house. Perhaps in her haste to demonize Brock for hitting on her sister, Updie has accidentally shown that she was more functional than her other statements allow for.

He admitted to wanting to hook up with someone. I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me.

Updie was not alone, her sister was right there, making kissy-face with Brock. Jealousy is another reason women fake rape claims.

Sometimes I think, if I hadn’t gone, then this never would’ve happened. But then I realized, it would have happened, just to somebody else.

This is standard feminist boilerplate to excuse their own risky behaviors by claiming they were saving some other girl – another girl who might have been happy to hook up with a noted athlete. This is the third reason women fake rape claims – to further the feminist agenda that all men are bad. A judge hearing this might well realize that Brock was being used as a pawn in a feminist game.

The night after it happened, he said he thought I liked it because I rubbed his back. A back rub. Never mentioned me voicing consent, never mentioned us even speaking, a back rub.

More of the feminist agenda – although nonverbal clues are 80% or more of communication, feminists know they can artificially inflate rape rates by insisting on a verbal consent standard that no one actually uses during sex because there are better things do to with one’s mouth.

One more time, in public news, I learned that my ass and vagina were completely exposed outside, my breasts had been groped, fingers had been jabbed inside me along with pine needles and debris, my bare skin and head had been rubbing against the ground behind a dumpster, while an erect freshman was humping my half naked, unconscious body. But I don’t remember, so how do I prove I didn’t like it.

Do they really put details like that into public news about rape cases without contacting the victim? Again, credulity is strained.

I thought there’s no way this is going to trial; there were witnesses, there was dirt in my body, he ran but was caught. He’s going to settle, formally apologize, and we will both move on.

Settle? While one might well settle a civil case, “settling” a criminal case doesn’t really work in this context. Updie seems to be talking about some sort of civil case with monetary damages instead of a criminal trial. This is the fourth reason women fake rape claims: money. But, surprising Updie, Brock decides to fight the charges.

It is the saddest type of confusion to be told I was assaulted and nearly raped, blatantly out in the open, but we don’t know if it counts as assault yet.

Nearly raped? Doesn’t “nearly raped mean “not raped”?

When I was told to be prepared in case we didn’t win, I said, I can’t prepare for that. He was guilty the minute I woke up. No one can talk me out of the hurt he caused me.

More feminist agenda: get rid of due process of law, he is automatically guilty, and no counter-evidence could ever matter even if it proved him innocent. You, dear reader, can imagine why a fair-minded judge might rankle at this.

Was your phone on silent when your sister called? Do you remember silencing it? Really because on page 53 I’d like to point out that you said it was set to ring.

Rather helpfully, Updie reads one of her own contradictions into the victim impact statement, in essence reminding the judge that she had lied to them all, and yet they had convicted Brock despite her lies.

I was pummeled with narrowed, pointed questions that dissected my personal life, love life, past life, family life, inane questions, accumulating trivial details to try and find an excuse for this guy who had me half naked before even bothering to ask for my name.

She remembers being asked for her name after her clothing was removed, contradicting her claims about not remembering anything.

Then he asked if he could finger me and I said yes. Most guys don’t ask, can I finger you? Usually there’s a natural progression of things, unfolding consensually, not a Q and A. But apparently I granted full permission.

Even Updie thinks the feminist consent standard is ludicrous, and she blames Brock for following it!

Your attorney has repeatedly pointed out, well we don’t know exactly when she became unconscious. And you’re right, maybe I was still fluttering my eyes and wasn’t completely limp yet. That was never the point. I was too drunk to speak English, too drunk to consent way before I was on the ground. I should have never been touched in the first place.

Oops, now Updie is back to plugging the feminist verbal consent standard again. Could you please pick a standard and stick with it, maybe? Because your nonverbal YES is sounding more and more like a calculated feminist trap.

To sit under oath and inform all of us, that yes I wanted it, yes I permitted it, and that you are the true victim attacked by Swedes for reasons unknown to you is appalling, is demented, is selfish, is damaging. It is enough to be suffering. It is another thing to have someone ruthlessly working to diminish the gravity of validity of this suffering.

Yes, under feminism, men are not allowed to defend themselves. Dump due process of law.

The victim statement went on and on like this, full of unlikely details, political posturing and imagined suffering at something the supposed victim cannot remember. Explaining why the judge gave such a modest sentence should be clearer now – Updie should be glad she wasn’t laughed out of court.

For young men, the message should be clear – do not date or hook up with women on campus. Brock’s life is ruined: no college degree. No Olympic games. A lifetime as a registered sex offender.

Perhaps other young men can learn from his example.

Source

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.

A woman's perspective on rape and feminism

Enjoying rape; a woman’s point of view

OK, let’s start of by taking it as a given that a heterosexual man can enjoy raping a girl. We can all understand that he can find it pleasurable and get his rocks off by fucking her whether or not she wants him to.

The question is, though, what does a girl get out of being raped? How can she find anything pleasurable about being fucked against her will, often being brutally beaten into the bargain and maybe humiliated in various ways as well?

As someone who can speak from experience on this one, I’ll tell you for free. There are a lot of reasons why a girl can get off on being raped.

To begin with, it gives her the ability to avoid any kind of responsibility for her own actions, behaviour or attitudes. A “rape victim” can claim that she didn’t want to be fucked and that it was only the man who forced her to have sex. It’s sex without the guilt and that gives her a massive boost to her ego because she can have the most perverted type of sex and yet smile innocently and say to anyone listening, “hey, guys, it wasn’t my fault.”

A lot of the time a girl who is really a depraved slut will use that excuse to make it look as if it wasn‘t actually her fault when she knows perfectly well that it was.

That way she gets a double whammy of enjoyment from being “raped” because not only was she able to get the depraved sex she wanted but she also gets the smug satisfaction of thinking how she’s been able to con and manipulate people into thinking that she is some kind of “rape victim” rather than what she really is, a whore who not only wanted it but loved every second of it!

Obviously, a girl like that is going to thoroughly enjoy being raped. What about the ones who are not depraved sluts or professional whores, though? How can they possibly enjoy being raped?

Well, funnily enough, in the majority of cases the “rape victim” clearly does enjoy it! Most women who get raped orgasm while they’re being raped. I know I did when it happened to me at the age of 18 and even now it was the best sex I’ve ever had in my life! Other women who’ve been “raped” have told me the same thing, that they came and that it was the most intense, satisfying and pleasurable orgasm they’ve ever had.

Well, if you come when you’re being raped there’s only one possible explanation for that.

You’re having fun and you’re enjoying what’s happening to you!

You’ve suddenly realised that actually, in spite of what you thought before it happened. in reality you wanted to be raped and you’re fucking loving every miunte of it!

The mind can play many strange tricks on us and even lie to us; the body never lies. The fact that the girl is orgasming proves that she’s really thoroughly enjoying herself and that she really wanted to be raped whatever she says. Her body is telling the truth about how she felt and only her mind and mouth are lying about the pleasure she had.

That fact alone makes her “rape” an act of consensual sex. By the very act of climaxing she is demonstrating that she really wanted it all the time and is fucking loving it now that she’s getting what she wanted!

So let’s recap briefly. The guy gets what he wants, to fuck the girl; she gets what she wants (an orgasm); so both partners have been sexually fulfilled and enjoyed the experience.

How can that be called a crime? The very second the woman starts to get aroused by her rape it’s obvious that from that point on the sex is entirely consensual.

The guy has done nothing wrong; he’s obviously helped the girl by giving her an orgasm which otherwise she’d have had to frig herself off or whatever to get.

The girl’s done othing wrong either; she’s had an orgasm during the course of great sex which, as her body’s reaction clearly demonstrates, was entirely consensual.

Why then should this harmonious activity, of a man and woman fucking each other in an entirely consensual sexual behaviour, be considered a crime?

If anything the rapist should be praised because, thanks to him, the girl’s had a proper orgasm through fucking which otherwise would have been a lot harder for her to achieve.

Really, we can only admire the rapist and hope the girl realises how lucky she was that he raped her and that she is suitably grateful to him and thanks him for what he has done. The truth is that he’s done her a big favour and she should feel flattered that he chose her and, of course, she should express her gratitude and thanks to him for giving her the best orgasm of her life.

Far from being any sort of a “rape victim,” she’s really a very lucky girl and ought be happy that she’s just had the best consensual sex of her life!

Source

More reasons to legalise rape!

More reasons to legalise rape!
1) It’s fun – especially for the rapist!

2) It’s the rapist’s right to do what he likes with his own body!

3) It’s the rapist’s right to choose!

4) If the girl says no she’s being disrespectful and he’s got every right to show her that her own selfish and childish wishes don’t matter.

5) It’s the only REAL sex – everything else is just vanilla!

6) A girl who gets raped is either a worthless whore who’s fucking ASKING for it or else a disrespectful feminist dyke who DESERVES to be raped to show her what she’s missing!

7) A girl who gets raped is MORE likely to get pregnant so it assists the population growth if a rapist does what comes naturally.

8) Making rape a crime hasn’t stopped rape. It’s just made it more dangerous. The guy could get hurt with scratches, punches, kicks, or even hit with objects found nearby. If rape was legalised it would be safe and properly managed. Thee would be special “rape hotels” where needy guys could go and rape the girls with clean facilities and with doctors and nurses on hands to make sure that the girl isn’t carrying any sexually transmitted diseases and to look after the medical welfare of the rapist. The government could even make some money out of it by taking a percentage from the rape hotels so that rape would be contributing to the nation’s economy!

I can think of loads more reasons why rape is good and should be legalised but that’s a start!

Source

Why rape is a gift we should welcome

OK, I’ve put forward already some of the reasons why there’s nothing wrong with raping us girls. I reckon all men convicted of rape should be released from prison immediately and given full compensation for wrongful imprisonment. I’ve got some other ideas on how to help them get over the trauma of their time in prison but I’ll save them for another post!

I’m now going to explain why it’s positively right to rape us. Far from being a crime, rape is actually a public service and a gift to us girls for which we ought to be grateful.

In the first place, it’s equal opportunity sex. Any man can do it to a girl. He doesn’t have to be rich, good-looking, clever or charming or anything like that. All he needs is to have a cock and he can rape me or any other girl just as good as any rich Hollywood star or wealthy businessman can!

Just think of the advantages. Rape means never having to buy me dinner. Rape means never wondering how much it costs to fuck me. Rape means never having to take me out or buy me prezzies. Rape means never having to worry if his car is flash enough or eough of a top of the range model. Rape means never having to worry if he’s got a well-paid job or not! Rape means never having to buy me flowers or pay me compliments!

All a rapist needs is a cock and he can fuck me, or any other girl he wants.

That’s pretty much an equal-opportunity approach to sex, right?

Secondly, it’s obviously my fault that I got raped, isn’t it? After all, if I’d said “yes,” or, even better, “yes please, sir,” he’d never have had to go to all the trouble of raping me, would he? So, like I said, it’s all my fault that I got raped. He didn’t do anything wrong and I’m the only one that did.

Like I said, it’s my fault I got raped in the first place and I should never have said no instead of yes!

Because I did say no like an ungrateful and disrespectful fucking bitch of a twat, he had every right to rape me.

As well as giving him pleasure, he also had the right to rape me just because I was enough of an arrogant cunt to say no to him in the first place, right?

So he had the right to rape me as a just punishment for being arrogant and ungrateful enough to say no to him in the first place, see?

So actually I deserved to be raped for saying no!

Now let’s explain why rape is a gift to us girls and why we should welcome it if we’re lucky enough to get raped.

Rape is the only real sex; everything else is playacting. There’s nothing like the adrenalin rush a girl gets when she’s being raped. It’s amazing how nearly always she’ll have an orgasm just because she was raped rather than having vanilla sex.

So, you see, the rapist is actually doing the girl a big favour by raping her, right? He’s giving her an orgasm which she’s hardly ever going to get with vanilla sex, not just through fucking, anyway; only if the bloke knows how to get a girl’s clit aroused properly which a lot of them haven’t got a fucking clue about!

Another big favour he’s doing her is he’s giving her guilt-free sex. The girl was probably a totally depraved fucking slut anyway or at least secretly wanted to be. Thanks to the bloke who raped her she can get fucked as hard as a professional whore or the village bike that everyone’s rode and yet not have to take the blame for being a total fucking slut so she doesn’t have to feel ashamed or guilty about getting fucked! Once again, the rapist has done the girl a big favour by raping her!

She ought to be very grateful to him! It’s a win-win situation; he gets to fuck her, she gets fucked without having to feel guilty about what she’s done. Everyone ought to be happy about what’s gone down!

Another reason why she ought to be grateful to him is that rape, as some statistics that have been posted on Mansland from scientific geezers who’ve done research on this subject have shown, is more likely to make a girl pregnant than if she’s just fucked the vanilla way. So as well as all the other favours he’s doing her, he’s giving her an extra chance of having a baby by him!

Another reason why rape is so good is that it’s the most honest way to have sex. Hey, guys, you don’t have to tell me you love me; you don’t have to listen to my boring twat talk conversation; you don’t even have to say you think I’m beautiful (though it would be nice if you did but that’s just me being selfish and vain!)

All you have to do is come up to me and say something like, “hey, cunt, I want to fuck you.”

If I say yes then obviously I wanted it anyway so it couldn‘t have been rape in the first place, could it?

If I say no then obviously it’s my fault if I get raped because then you’ve got a perfectly legitimate reason to rape me and, more than that, you’ve actually got a positive right to rape me for saying no.

See how it goes? If I say yes it isn’t rape; if I say no it’s only rape because of what I did wrong, so it’s all my fault, right? The guy who raped me has done nothing wrong at all. In fact, he’s been positively good in the way he’s treated me! I’m the only one who’s gone and done anything wrong!

Now let’s look at some more benefits to the girl who gets raped. Apart from the higher chance of getting an orgasm and of getting pregnant as a result of rape, she’s also going to get the adrenaline rush that comes when you get the shit scared out of you. God, how fucking sexy it is being scared! It’s dead exciting for her to feel that kind of fear and it’s very good of the bloke to give her the chance to experience such a lovely feeling. It’ll almost certainly be the best sex she’s ever had; much better than a boring old vanilla fuck!

The more she fights her true inner desire to submit, and the more she resists her longing to be taken by force regardless of her own selfish desires, the stronger her sexual arousal will become. Yes, folks, our friend the rapist is doing her a favour yet again; he’s turning her on!

Maybe that’s why (as exhaustive psychological and physical studies of so-called “rape victims” have shown; even the lying feminist twats (or, as I prefer to call them, “cuntists” – I hate the fucking feminists with their bullshir, or as I call it when they come out with it, “cowshit”) haven’t been able to explain away or refute the data that shows, maybe surprisingly to a vanilla mind, that the more violence a man uses against a girl when he’s raping her, the less “trauma” she suffers.

To put it in plain English, the girl will actually benefit more from being raped with a certain amount of violence and intimidation than she would from being treated more “gently.”

So, all you rapists out there, if you want to beat us up while you’re raping us, don’t worry about it. You’re not only not doing anything wrong; you’re actually doing us a favour by beating the shit out of us when you rape us. You’re making it more pleasurable for us if you rape us like that so, hey guys, don’t even think about holding back when you rape us.

Just slap us about and punch us and kick us; we fucking love it! Just insult us verbally, telling us we’re all bitches and whores and sluts and cunts; just remind us that we’re not only fucking asking to be raped but that we really fucking love it and we’re just lying twats and hypocritical cunts for pretending that we don’t when we really do; and when you’ve finished having your fun don’t forget to remind us that it was all our fault that we got raped.

As for the girl, what should she do? There’s only one obvious or at least honest answer she can give.

She should say “thank you for raping me. I will be grateful to you for this precious gift for the rest of my life.”

Source

You can see she loves men. Feminists,OTOH,she let's have it with both barrels:

Why feminism sucks

I’m a woman, but I’m not a feminist.

Not at all; not even one tiny bit.

I’ve got NO sympathy for the so-called “women’s movement,”

When I say things like that to a lot of people, especially women, they look at me with a mixture of horror, embarrssment and disbelief. It’s as if I’d said some dirty word in church or something. Saying I don’t believe in feminism when I’m a woman, according to some “feminist thinkers,” supposedly makes me a “gender traitor.”

A gender traitor? Blimey! And I didn’t even know men and women were at war! I thought we were both supposed to be part of the whole cosmic thing, the greater scheme of things and all that.

I had no idea we were supposed to be enemies!

Anyway, what exactly do feminists want? Let’s take a brief overview of what they say they want. These are not in any particular order by the way.

1 Equality

2 Equal opportunity

3 An end to domestic violence

4 An end to rape

5 Affirmative action

6 Positive discrimination

7 Separate but equal treatment

8 Abortion on demand

9 Female empowerment

10Ban on pornography

There are others which some want and not all feminists agree on even some of the 10 I’ve quoted but that’s the broad brush stroke of what they say they want.

Let’s begin by pointing out some obvious contradictions and redundancies.

If a society is equal then obviously equal opportunity is part of that so point 2 is redundant. If a society is equal then points 5, 6 and 7 are in direct CONFLICT with what they claim they want. Point 9 also seems a bit iffy if you believe in equality,

Most people (including most MEN) would broadly agree with them about rape and domestic violence. There’s two problem there though IMO.

The first is that the definition of both has been stretched so widely that they’ve lost any meaning they might have had once. There’s a lunatic fringe of the feminists which is now calling for consensual sex between a man and a woman to be a criminal offence unless the guy is able to produce written consent to sex by the woman! Not just in general, either; a specific written consent to each and every act of sex. Otherwise the guy can be charged with rape!

How crazy is that? Maybe we should just get a lawyer standing in line in every bedroom with a written contract drawn up and the guy signs it every time he wants to have sex!

And it’s “gender discrimination” in any case because there’s no corresponding obligation on the woman to sign this paper stating that the man was a willing participant! Would that mean that a woman could now get away with rape but a man can’t even have consensual sex with his own partner without drawing up a legal document first?

Utter madness!

And, of course, the likes of Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller and others have argued that unless the woman directly initates and controls the act of sex then even consensual sex is rape!

So let’s get this right; if the man initiates and controls the sex it’s rape but if the woman does it isn’t?

Yeah, right.

Funny how all that talk about equality and equal opportunities went out of the window, isn’t it?

The whole idea of “separate but equal” treatment is a heap of lies. That’s what the segregationists in the south used to argue they had in terms of the treatment of African-Americans and the Supreme Court rhrew it out as unconstitutional. Yet again and again I’ve seen that exact phrase used by feminists to justify a more privileged position in society for women.If

That equality thing again, right?

Funny how much it reminds me of “Animal Farm” where Orwell gets the main character to say “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others!”

The fact is that the feminist claims to equality are a lie. They don’t want equal treaament; they want a privileged status for women and for the law and society to favour women more than men.

Well, ladies, that might be your gynocratic utopia but there’s no way it’s anything resembling either equality or equal opportunity!

The same thing goes for “affirmative action” or “positive discrimination” programmes. If you appoint the person you genuinely feel is the best for the job regardless of gender, skin colour or whatever that’s being non-discriminatory., If you have quota systems where you force employers or whatever to choose a less capable person simply because of their gender or skin colour or whatever that’s just being racist or sexist and there’s nothing “positive” about what you’re doing. Once again, the feminist claim that they want equality is just a lie.

The rape question is more complex. I know my views on rape are unconventional to put it mildly so I’ll just argue with feminism from the mainstream point of view.

Rape, according to the law, is a sexual act carried out against the wishes of the other person and without their consent. Men can rape women or other men and women can rape men or other women. The issue of consent is crucial in establishing whether or not a sexual act was an act of rape or a consensual encounter.

Now in normal criminal cases like if you’re accused of stealing something (probably the nearest legal parallel to rape) the court has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did commit the act of theft. There’s a presumption of innocence, the need to produce hard evidence and (ideally) eyewitness testimony. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you did it.

In rape cases, all this is stood on its head. There’s no requirement for eyewitness testimony (obviously that’s often difficult so we can let that one go)’ the burden of proof is shifted from the accuser to the defendant so instead of her having to prove that he did rape her, he is compelled to try and prove tha the didn’t; there’s a presumption of guilt; due process is routinely ignored or set aside; and no hard evidence against the defendant has to be produced. Routinely, innocent men are sentenced to prison for crimes they didn’t commit, as DNA tests have subsequently shown. Out of the men in the US who’ve been CONVICTED of rape and served time in prison and then subsequently got DNA testing, 60% turned out to have been NOT guilty. In other words, they not only hadn’t raped the woman; they couldn’t have raped her. The only reason the man was sent to prison was because the woman lied about what had happened.

So, OK, the woman lied about being raped. What happens to her? 9 times out of 10, nothing at all. At worst she might get a slap on the wrist. Once in a blue moon one will get sent to prison for about 5 minutes but that’s rare. Yet she’s c learly guilty of perjury and reckless endangerment by her lying about what happened. So why should she get a free pass?

Then there’s the question of “anonymity.” The feminists claim that it’s essential for the identity of the accuser, or as they habitually refer to her, the “rape victim,” to be protected.

Fine, let’s go with that. But what about the accused? Why doesn’t he get the same right to anonymity? Why is it OK to splash his name and photo all over the media but not hers? What’s sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander, as the saying goes.

That old “eqaulity” thing again, right?

Once again we see feminists demanding special privileges for women that they deny to men. They are quite happy to violate due process, set aside the presumption of innocence, and allow “evidence” in rape cases that would be thrown out of court in other types of criminal trial. Why? Do they really want equality? Or do they just hate men?

There’s also the fact that in 45% of cases in Britain where the woman goes to the police and it’s investigated, it’s found out during the course of the enquiry that the woman is lying about being raped. That means that nearly half of the cases brought to the attention of the cops are phoney raps.On top of that in 53% of cases where she makes an accusation and then withdraws it, investigation shows that, once again, she was lying about being raped.

Now I’m no greatr mathematician but whatever way you look at those statistics they add up to the same thing. Most claims by women that they were raped are false and downright lies.

So why do people believe in this vast conspiracy of rapists that the feminists put about? Search me! I guess it’s partly a genuine fear of crime, fear to the point of paranoia; partly because we’ve been brainwashed by lies; and partly just salacious interest. Whatever, the facts simply don’t support the feminist claims on rape and nor do they provide any excuse for the feminist subversion of due process, the presumption of innocence and lowering the bar for evidence and testimony in “rape” trials.

Out of the cases that DO come to court, in 40% of them it’s shown either at the trial or subesequently that, guess what, once again the woman was lying about what happened. No crime, except maybe domestic violence, is more often lied about than rape. Women use it as a weapon to intimidate a man they’ve fallen out with, as an excuse for their shame at the consensual sex they had, or even to cover up some other offence that they, not the man, committed.

On top of that even when an accused man can show beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not rape the woman he can still be convicted and sent to prison solely on the unsupported word of his accuser. That old equality again, right? Crime labs routinely knowingly falsify the results of DNA tests and other forensic items that are entered into evidence and lead to the conviction of wholly innocent men. Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit of the Ma nhattan DA’s office, says that 50% of the rape cases she dealt with were based on unfounded accusations and were entirely baseless. In other words, half of the claims just in the cases she dealt with were nothing more than malicious lies! Although they’re reluctant to publicise the fact, the majority of cases investigated by the Innocence Project concern allegations of rape.

Even when the claims of rape are so clearly false, feminists still maintain their fantasies in violation of the truth. In one notorious case a student at a university in America eventually admitted that she’d lied about being raped by a male student (they hadn’t even HAD sex!) and a “feminist thinker” commented, “well, maybe he didn’t actually rape her, but he clearly violated her in some way.” A VAssar assistant dean went even further, claiming that it was “good” for a man to be falsely accused of rape, since it forced him to think “well, if I didn’t violate her, could I have done?”

Most rape accusations are lies and the same, sadly, is also true of “domestic violence.” This is defined so loosely that almost anyone could be sent to prison for it. The U.S. Justice Department definition of “domestic violence” includes “extreme jealousy and possessiveness.,” “name calling” and “constant criticizing.” as acts of “domestic violence.” On the basic of such fantastic claims, men in America are routinely jailed, often even without ever being brought to trial! .

Even worse, according to officially reported figures released by police, allegation of domesitc violence by women against men now stand s at a figure of 38%. Given the extreme reluctance of men to report abuse by their wives and girlfriends against them, senior police sources unofficially admit that the majority of domestic violence in Britain is now carried out agaist men by women. Yet where is the publicity for the cause of “batterd men?” Where are the shelters for thme to hide away from their abusers? #where is the rapid intervention by the police to arrest the woman before she kills or seriusly injures her man?

Well, where is it? Nowhere, of course. Under the posionous influence of feminism, men are slowly being turned into second class citizens.

What we hear instead is a relentless and dishonest chorus about violence by men against women when even the police admit that nowadays the majority of domestic violence cases are actually assaults by women upon men! As the innate chivalry of men, to say nothing of their social embarrasment at having to report their wife or girlfriend, makes them disproportiobately less likely to file a complaint, the police s7uspect that the true figures show that around 66% of actual domestic assaults are carried out by women against men, Yet neither the media nor government addresses or even discusses the problem in any way. Women habitually portray themselves as the victims and men are castigated as brutal abusers who are battering their partners almost non-stop.

Bad as the situation is in Britain, it is even worse in America. The law is stacked against the male defendant to such an extent that cases of domestic violence now resemble the “justice” system in countries like North Kore3a or Iran. One judge in New Jersey, for instance, told his fellow jurists, “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating.” Even the official court publications of New Jersey admit that due process is routinely ignored in domestic violence cases because “it perpetuates the cycle of power and control wherby the perpetrator remains the one with the power and the victim remains powerless.” Look at the loaded language used as well – “perpetrator” and “victim” rather than “accused” and “defendant.” The guilt is assumed simply because charges have been brought. The presumption of innocence, likd eue process, is chucked on the scrapheap. A New York “feminist” judge describes the removal of the presumption of innocence as forcing “batterrers and abusers take responsibility for their actions.”

There are also Kafkaesque tribunals known as “integrated domestic violence courts” where the guilt of the defendant is automatically assumed and which have the power to seize property, including homes, even though the person accused has not been convicted or even charged with any offence. Nor is it necessary to allow them to be present at the “hearings” where such decisions are taken to defend himself , or represented by a lawyer at them. These “domestic violence courts” are deliberately set up to evade the constitutional rights of the citizen and even the existing criminal law with its guarantees of protection., The presumption is of guilt and not innocence, the burden of proof is done away with altogether, and it has become standard practice for “confessions” to be extorted from the accused by a variety of means.

Pennsylvania is in a class of its own when it comes to this issue. In that state, men are routinely arrested and held in custody until they sign a “confession” stating “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner.” The man is then order to “descibe” his “violence,” even if he insists that he did notr commit any. His “confession” also includes the words “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behavior was not provoked.” If he does not sign these forms, he can be held indefinitely in prison, without any chafrge, until he does sign them.

So what we have is a situation where a man accused of domestic violence can be held in prison without charge, have his property and assets seized without trial, even if he insists on his innocence. If a man accuses his partner of the same offence, she will not be subjected to the same kind of treatment and is far less likely to be convicted if the case comes to court. And that’s in spite of the fact that women are the aggressors in two-thirds of the cases!

And, of course, unlike the law in Britain, where the violence at least has to be physical, in the Stater you can be treated like this just on the basis of “”extreme jealousy and possessiveness.,” “name calling” and “constant criticizing!.”It’s like the old days where a “nagging wife” could be subjected to the “scold’s bridle” except that these days its’ a “nagging husband!” .

That old feminist equality thing again, right? Yeah, right!

For all their gobby ranting about equality, feminists don‘t want it at all. They want to rule men in the same way the slaveowners ruled the slaves in the old days. They’re gynocrats and not democrats. They compalin about patriarchy but want to institute a matriarchy.

The obvious incompatibility between affirmative action, positive discrimination and “separate but equal” claims with their boasted belief in equality is just total hypocrisy. They just want the hens to rool the roost.

Feminism is an essentially Nazi way of looking at the world. Feminists look on men in the same way the Nazis looked at the Jews and gypsies and they’re every bit as ruthless, dishonest and indifferent to the sufferings of their victims. A lot of people don’t know this but Nazi Germany was the first state where openly feminist women got positions of power. Guida Diehls, Lydia Gottschewski, Gertrude Scholtz-Klink wielded huge power, greater than any woman had had since the days of Catherine the Great or was to see again before Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher. Gottschweski, a loathsome racist and militarist, is listed on a feminist website as one of its “Women of Wisdoms” and coyly described as “a German political activits,” though the site carefully avoids saying which ;party she was active on behalf of!

Feminism doesn’t even respect women. It might hate and demonise men but its greatest contempt and hatred is reserved for what it calls, in a phrase reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan’s “race traitors,” “gender traitors.” Women like me who are “just” mothers and wives are looked upon with total contempt, regarded as stupid, unambitious, lazy and as “perpetuating the patriarchal power structure.”

Bollocks!

Because these people are incapable of feeling love and compassion themselves, or tolerance for other points of view, or respect for other humans simply because we all share that rich humanity, they hate and demonise anyone who does.

The only “crime” of “gender traitor” me is the crime of love.

In the words of the poeet Pope, “is it, in heaven, a crime to love too well?”

Yes, Your Honour, I plead guilty to the crime of love.

As Luther said at his trial for heresy, “here I stand; I cannot do otherwise.”

Source

Feminist gets owned

My response to Dave Futrelle

I left a comment on Dave Futrelle's webpage about him being being screwed in the butt. Instead of publishing the letter he gives me a post dedicated to me. An entire post dedicated to me yet he won't link to my site like he does the other MRA sites. First of all I didn't threaten anyone. All I said was I agree with a comment that ask how Dave Futrelle is blind to the truth about feminism and feminists. That they are highly misandric and that once a male no longer suits them he is expendable. Look at what happened to ex-Senator Bob Packwood from Oregon,he served feminists interests for a long time but when he was no longer useful they threw him to the wolves. We were wondering what it would take to make Dave Futrelle see the truth about feminism and feminists. Dave Futrelle is worse than other feminists. Other feminists use straight out lies while Futrelle uses half truths. Yes I did list In The Company of Men as one of my favorite movies but then again how many feminists loved Thelma and Louise? A lot. In fact here is some misandric garbage and very recent too. I think it is hypocritical to give them a pass yet hold me accountable. Yes,I am allied with A Voice For Men and The Spearhead. But then again I'm allied with a lot of MRA sites.Futrelle really needs to get over his persecution complex.

UPDATE:I've let Dave Futrelle and his audience know about this post so that I may present my side of the story. I would try but it's not posted and I posted it a while ago. I mean if Futrelle is this helpless victim and I'm this mean evil man then he would certainly want his audience to know that but he doesn't. Why is that? Because only half truths exist with the likes of Futrelle. Half truths are worse than any lie.

UPDATE2: Futrelle has labeled me a "dick". Thank you,dave I take that as a compliment. You see dicks like me fuck pussies and assholes,royalfuckingly. I see a lot of feminists love the Starcrash video someone posted. In fact here it is. Fucktrelle heaps more shit upon men who end up being martyrs while excusing violent women who only get violent because they are bored. Typical feminist.

Keep Hillary out of the Whitehouse

From Stop Hillary PAC:

Hillary Clinton and her SuperPAC cronies have declared war on Stop Hillary PAC.

That's why I'm writing you this urgent email today – just hours from our critical fundraising deadline.

If you can step up right now and support our efforts to defeat Hillary Clinton, I need your contribution in the next few hours – before our make-or-break August 31st fundraising deadline.

I needyour immediate support to enable Stop Hillary PAC to fight back against the MILLIONS being spent right now to install Hillary in the White House.

As you know, Hillary Clinton's team has announced a multi-million dollar fundraising haul.

Hillary Clinton must never become president of the United States. I know it, you know it, and millions of Americans – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike – know it.

But massive forces are aligning to begin the coronation of "President Hillary."

I need everyone who has pledged to defeat Hillary in 2016 to donate at least $35 before this important fundraising deadline to have any chance of keeping pace with the Clinton machine.

Friend, can I count on your immediate donation of $35?

They may have the fat cat donors...but we have the American people.

Thousands of great supporters have already stepped up again, and I need your support once again. but so far. So please click the link below to make an important gift today.

If supporters like you – who have already signed our pledge to defeat Hillary – step up immediately, we will send a strong message to Hillary and the liberal elite. Otherwise, we will be crushed by shady special interest money.

I urgently need you to back us up on this.

Thanks for your support.

Ted Harvey

Senator Ted Harvey (R)
Colorado State Senator
Co-Founder, Stop Hillary PAC

Click here to contribute.

I can think of a lot of reasons why Hillary should never be President. Benghazi proves she should have never been Secretary Of State. Let's cut to the chase: Hillary Clinton is a feminist statist. Do you want to give a feminist statist the power to issue Executive Orders? Think about it.

For your information

On matriarchal society

Let's take a look at today's society. A few days ago some women did a sting on planned parenthood in which they asked the abortionist if they could abort the child because it was a girl and the abortionist said that was no problem. This organization got a lot of media exposure and comparing what was on the video to China and their preference for male children. What about male children? I wonder how many boys have been aborted because of their gender? Everyone points to China and its large male population but forget about America and its large female population. Certainly not all the men died in wars others died in other ways perhaps some of those were boys who were never given a chance at life. I sure the abortionist would have aborted a boy if asked but that wouldn't be done,certainly not by this organization because of its female preference. This story got exposure on O'Reilly which gave O'Reilly a chance to play white knight once again. But that brings us back to the original question: what about boys? Would some organization send in someone posing as a radical feminist who wanted to abort her unborn son? We are inundated by some so-called "war on women" that we forget the very real war on men. This blog is dedicated to exposing that war and fighting misandry. To give an example let's take the case of Desmond Hatchett,the man who fathered 30 children and has trouble paying child support. The reaction to Hatchett's situation has been extreme some even calling for Hatchett's castration. No one blames the women who had unprotected sex with Hatchett and to the best of my knowledge he hasn't been accused of rape so it appears the women were willing. On the other hand when Sandra Fluke demanded that we all pick up the tab for her birth control no one said to give her a hysterectomy. Rush Limbaugh made a comment that he didn't think the taxpayers should pick up the tab and for that he was crucified. So let me get this straight. A man who states he doesn't want to pay for someone else's birth control is worse than women who make castration threats? Sounds very loopy to me. What we have in America is a matriarchy that is basically one big S&M trip. With the women as the queen bees and men as the eunuch workers. The queens issue the orders and the pussywhipped enforcers carry out those orders. It's dominatrix/slave trip that the matriarchy has imposed upon us.