Hillary Clinton Plans to Put Men on “Reservations” for Failing to Respect her “Progressive-Liberal Views!”

Hillary Clinton
The Open War Against Men is Finally Here Thanks to Hillary Clinton

On April 29, Hillary Clinton made some head spinning comments about men in her world view. In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Hillary Clinton has a plan for misbehaving men in American society. She plans to place them on a reservation where they apparently don’t have a voice and no rights to their opinion.

Hillary Clinton said, and I quote,

I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak.

I guess men should not say thinks in public that may be truthful, their opinion on social issues or exercise their constitutional rights. According to Hillary Clinton, men speaking out on women’s rights (otherwise known as female privilege) should all be sent to reservations for “social reeducation”.

According to CNN’s report,

The Democratic presidential front-runner did not elaborate which men she was referring to.

Of course, Hillary Clinton was meaning all men.

Progressive-feminism is becoming more radical by the month and with Hillary Clinton in the White House this outrageous feminist radicalization will get out of control in a hurry.

Recently, progressive-feminist have demanded radical changes to our society by treating men like cattle or sperm banks.

For example, a 22- year old single mother and university student suggested society should reduce the male population by 90% and the remaining 10% should be treated like slaves.

Then, progressive-feminist authors call for the “end of men” as the dominate sex in our society and happily flaunt their opinions in mainstream media. Sadly, there is not even the slightest push back by our social or political structures. I’m guessing, men are afraid to speak up about these issues for fear of ridicule.

Many white, middle-class women who are “Hillary” supporters are the same feminist who cry out “kill all men” and “blame the patriarchy” but fail to see their own, vast female privilege in American society.

So far, it seems when Hillary Clinton is called out for her scandals, many failures as a Sectary of State and mishandling of classified material she brushes the questions off. Now it seems when a question of accountability comes up, Clinton tells Trump to get back on the reservation with the other non-feminist males.

If Clinton is voted into office and we happen to get into a war with another superpower and we loose, will she blame the men for giving their lives in the war she created? If our economy crumbles will she blame men to stealing women’s money? Or, if her Presidency turns into a failure will she blame Bill Clinton for not being supportive to her and her needs?

With Hillary Clinton’s statements and progressive-feminist supporters only time will tell how they will react towards men once they get into power. For sure, if Hillary does loose this election she may regret not placing men in these no vote, no voice “reservations sooner? Or maybe just conservatives, including Donald Trump are the only people ?

Source

I told you guys about castration camps and if Hillary gets into the White House they will become a reality. If you didn't believe me then you better believe me now. Democrat men: don't think you're immune. There have been male feminists who've been betrayed by their sisters so you are not immune. If you want to save your own necks I suggest you make sure Bernie Sanders gets the nomination. If Hitlery gets into the White House your nuts on on the chopping block just like ours are. No men will be exempt. Femitheist made that quite clear.

If that doesn't convince you then maybe this and this will.

Glenn Reynolds: The unilateral war on college men

Glenn Reynolds: The unilateral war on college men
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 11:01 a.m. EDT September 30, 2015

An assistant secretary of education thinks she can rewrite rape law by writing a letter.

It appears to many — including me — as if the Obama administration is engaged in a war on college men. Using debunked statistics, the president, the vice president and various other political officials have falsely claimed that there’s an epidemic of rape on college campuses, even though campus rape is, in fact, falling, just as off-campus rape is. (And, in fact, rape is less common on campus than off).

And, ever since the Department of Education issued a ”Dear Colleague" letter to universities in 2011, in essence ordering them to adopt new and draconian campus “sexual assault” rules that treat accusations as presumptively true and force the accused — almost always men — to prove their innocence, sometimes even very strong evidence of innocence is ignored.

Spearheading this effort has been Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon, who has characterized the letter as binding on colleges and universities even though it is not a law, was not adopted as a formal or informal rule making after notice and comment under any law, and appears to have very little to do with the federal anti-discrimination law Title IX, which says only that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

Title IX was supposed to force colleges to admit women to programs formerly reserved for men. The law says nothing about sexual assault, sexual harassment, or the duty of universities to investigate criminal behavior on their own instead of referring crimes to law enforcement. But through a period of interpretation and reinterpretation, that simple statutory language has produced reams of federal paperwork that, in effect, turn a simple academic non-discrimination rule into a rape law that lacks the due process protections and evidentiary standards of actual rape law.

Now it appears that Congress has noticed. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., crashed a Senate hearing last week to grill Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education Amy McIntosh about past statements by Lhamon that purported to establish the “guidance” letter as binding law. How could this be binding, asked Sen. Alexander, when it’s simply a letter issued without any of the procedures required for administrative rule making?

McIntosh didn’t offer much of an answer, and that’s because there isn’t one. As some, including Ari Cohn, have argued for a while, the Department of Education is acting unlawfully here.

A law, to be binding, must pass both houses of Congress and be presented to the president's desk, where it must either pass into law or be vetoed and then overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house. Because this procedure, which the framers of our Constitution designed in order to make lawmaking difficult, turns out to make it difficult to pass laws, we also allow administrative agencies to issue regulations that are binding as law. But those regulations can be issued only after a draft is published and the public has a chance to comment, via either formal or informal rule making.

A mere letter from a bureaucrat, which is all the “Dear Colleague” letter is, has no binding authority. At most, it suggests that the bureaucrats might be willing to go to court to try to convince a judge that their interpretation of the statute is correct.

So why did colleges roll over? Law blogger Scott Greenfield suggests that it’s because the colleges are also warring against college men: “After all, why should a college risk the loss of its lifeblood (federal money) for the sake of protecting a few guys, particularly when the colleges pretty much agree with Lhamon’s progressive ideals?”

Greenfield notes that once Columbia University was sued by a male student claiming that his Title IX rights were violated because of the university’s response to a false accusation, it changed its mind and decided that Title IX didn’t create much in the way of student rights after all. Greenfield concludes: “Regardless of whether one embraces the policy choice embodied in Lhamon’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letters or not, there is no doubt but that it was imposed without lawful authority and adopted by schools who chose to sacrifice one segment of their student population to appease another segment. This is not the law. This is not what Title IX mandates. And they know it, even if you don’t.”

Greenfield is right. It’s nice that members of Congress are taking notice. But male college students and their parents, as well as alumni and trustees — and those women noticing that there’s a shortage of college-educated men all of a sudden — need to ask why there’s a war on college men, and why colleges, seemingly, are on the other side.


Source

Join with the NCFM to oppose VAWA

From the National Coalition For Men:

The “War on Women” essentially is a power and control grab and guilt trip diversion by the National Organization of Women (NOW) cartel. No one is waging war on women. However, it is impossible to rationally conclude that political forces are not waging “War on Men.”

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is center stage to the War Against Men. NCFM Advisor Phil Cook and I over a decade ago discussed what I call the Women Industry Wheel (WIW), though it might be more aptly called the Women Industry War Wagon Wheel (WIWWW).

Phil thought VAWA was the hub of the wheel while I still think VAWA is the grease that keeps it turning. The hub, in my opinion, is radical feminism’s “politically correct” influence and resulting control of our educational system, especially in higher education. Looking at things rationally, Women Studies, female oriented graduate schools, misuse of Title IX, and so forth, though such influences are broader and more debilitating mechanisms of social control and cultural revision.

Every American and millions of others around the world have been impacted by VAWA directly or indirectly. If you think not, then take a few minutes to think about that which you take for granted regarding relationship violence, that which you have been taught to believe as true. Think about it in the context of those you care about, know, or have heard about, who have been involved in a situation involving family violence. It is precisely that reason – every American and more being impacted – that pressures applied by a group of independent men, women, and family organizations finally were able to apply the brakes to slow VAWA down long enough to check the grease.

For the first time in the history the reauthorization of VAWA is stalled in Congress.

As I type, Congress is in the final throes of the current session and headed for holiday recess. Washington wants to go home. It’s rumored that secret negotiations are taking place; specifically it is rumored that Vice-President Biden – father of VAWA – is putting the bum’s rush on House members to pass the reauthorization before the recess. Hence the letter above to Congress.

Hopefully the letter will remind our all Senators and Representatives that everyone bleeds, everyone needs services, and everyone needs protection from violence, even violence committed by women.

There is no more absurd legislation than VAWA. As Dr. Finley says in the letter above;

“…the ideological foundations of VAWA discriminate against men. Conceptually, VAWA is based on the Duluth Power and Control Wheel model, which falsely presumes that all domestic violence is perpetrated by evil patriarchal males against virtuously innocent females. There is no research support for this false gender ideology.”

If you took the time as I suggested above to think about what you think you know about VAWA and relationship violence, including those you know or may know of who have been impacted by it, know this too… The Duluth Power and Control Wheel and associated programs condemn the use of guilt, power, and control. Exactly the same concepts used today by NOW and their cartel to continue to wage their war on men. The identical power and control tactics are used by VAWA supporters to bully Senators and Representatives into compliance.

Such bullying mocks claims of evil patriarchal males and virtuous innocent females, but yields insight into the darker power and control psyches of radical feminism. They have to keep the wheels of the War on Men wagon freshly greased at any and all costs.

VAWA is a farce of incredibly dangerous proportions in its present form. Let us hope that our elected officials are not bullied into reauthorizing VAWA this session, especially if it continues to discriminate against half our population. Better to wait until the next session when more considered and well reasoned negotiations might result in a non discriminatory version of VAWA, a version that protects all of us.

Please call your elected officials and demand it.

It could happen.

President

Become part of the solution…

To contact your Congresspersons and Senators click here

Also check out Gordon Finley's War on Men article. It is very good.

Misandrist shoots men

Armed Robber Taken Down by Witnesses

(KCEN) -- Two people were shot in a Washington State grocery store before other shoppers tackled the suspect.

It happened in Gig Harbor about ten miles northwest of Tacoma.

Before police flooded the store parking lot Saturday afternoon, Peggy Ensor was sitting outside the local food mart selling raffle tickets.

"I asked her if she wanted to buy a ticket, she was very calm and she said no not today and she went into the store."

She says moments later, that the woman's demeanor completely changed.

"She was in there screaming and hollering I couldn't hear what she was saying, but the next thing I knew she threw her arms up, and pop, pop, pop and the next thing I know there was two men down."

Investigators say several shots were fired, and A 76-year man was hit in the leg, a man in his 30's in the stomach.

"They were laying in a pool of blood."

"After she looked at me I thought oh my God she don't want no witnesses maybe she'll come after me I don't know."

Peggy took off running, while two customers stopped the armed woman.

Pierce County Sheriff Paul Pastor says, "Two of the citizens here courageously threw this woman to the ground and sat on her to control her."

Police arrived and made the arrest.

"We believe at this time this was a random shooting situation,"

As detectives collected evidence, like the suspect's car the two men shot were rushed to the hospital.

A clerk was injured too, according to Shopper Ian McKnight

"He turned to me and said well I got a ricochet and he showed me his leg and it was dripping with blood. It's sheer terror a gun and someone getting shot is not something that happens everyday."

According to witnesses, the shooter was targeting men. She even apologized to a female shopper for scaring her and allowed her to leave.

Source:click here

Don't tell me there is no war on men. This proves it. Today's women are anxious to kill men if you don't believe me this should prove it.

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.