Hilare Klintan's Aakchuewal Bieyografe; Deefending Agenst Raadikal Feminist Taekoever

(This blog is published, first, in phonetic (Fanetik) spelling and only then in standard English spelling. If you wish to skip to the traditionally spelled text (albeit with a few simplifications here and there), click here.)
+
In tha Nu Haampsher deebaet, Msz. Klintan daird tu sae, in a fit uv peek, "I'm not just runing on a promis uv chaenj, I'm runing on 35 yeerz uv chaenj." O? Her afishal bieyografe on the Hwiet Hous websiet sez no such tthing. She haaz no guvernmant servis aat aul in her paast, no eelektad naur apointad aufis, until she beekaem a korpatbaager Senater in Nu Yaurk, a staet witth hwich she haad no prieyer kontacts uv konsakwans. She haaz servd wun term aand wun yeer in tha Senat. Thaat iz tha fool ekstent uv her guvernmant servis. Aaz Ferst Laede duering tha Klintan yeerz, she maed a fyu goodwil trips. Big deel. She wuz a lauyer aand werkd in sum plezant litool kauzas, such aaz tha Childran'z Deefens Fund. Nun uv her werk faur thoez kauzaz ifektad ene kiend uv palitikal chaenj. In tha wun tthing she wuz aaskt tu du in reegord tu chaenj in a signifikant publik aireeya, yueniversal heltthkair, she poot faurwerd a prapoezal thaat wuz so feersle ataakt thaat she reetreetad frum it instantle aand didan't eevan tri tu deefend it, much les enaakt it. So hwen Hilare Klintan sez thaat she haaz bin kreeyaeting chaenj faur 35 yeerz, she iz, in shaurt, a maasive, braezan lieyer.
+
Msz. Klintan iz not entietoold tu klaem kredit faur Bil Klintan'z ekspeereeyans, unles she iz reegordad aaz port uv the saem leegal persan witth her huzband, in hwich kaes she iz not elijibool tu run faur Prezidant, beekauz thaat persan haaz aulrede bin Prezidant faur tue fool termz. Hwi iz Hilare Klintan elijibool tu run faur Prezidant if tha reel Prezidant if she iz eelektad wil be not Hilare but Bil?
+
Hilare haaz klaemd, in ifekt, thaat she wuz saurt uv "koe-Prezidant" faur Bil'z tue termz. Woodan't thaat meen thaat Bil wood be "koe-Prezidant" witth Hilare if she iz eelektad? He iz not ENTIETOOLD tu be koe-Prezidant beekauz he iz not konstitueshanale permitad tu be Prezidant. Tha Klintanz or plaenle trieying tu siedstep tha Konstitueshan'z baan on eneewun serving maur thaan tue termz aaz Prezidant bi pooting tha Hwiet Hous in tha wief's naem. Buf if tha reel oener uv tha hous iz tha huzband, we haav aan obligaeshan tu se paast tha sharaed tu tha reeyaalite: the Klintanz or trieying tu maek aan end run around tha 22nd Amendmant.
+
Msz. Klintan thus needz tu reekansider her klaem tu haav bin "koe-Prezidant" witth her huzband duering hiz tue termz in aufis. But her apoenants shood taek thaat klaem vere seereeyasle, aand su in Federal kaurt tu haav her bord frum tha raes faur tha Hwiet Hous on tha ground that this iz a vere tthinle vaild atempt tu poot Bil Klintan intu the Prezidanse faur a ttherd (aand faurtth?) term.
+
Aaz faur Hilare's tthin viktare — 3 persentaj points — in Nu Haampsher, hwich meedeeya maed intu aan eenaurmas trieyumf, thaat entieyer 3-point aadvaantaj wuz due tu wiman voeting faur a wooman oenle beekauz she iz a wooman. If wiman misyuez tha voet thaat wae, men or perfaktle kaepabool uv taeking the voet awae frum wiman. Feminists wil laaf aat such a sagjeschan, but tha voet wuz a gift frum men. Wimen didan't ern it. It wuz givan tu them. Hwut wuz givan kaan be taekan awae.
+
Tha preetens thaat histare muevz in oenle wun direkshan, taurd ever wieder enfraanchiezmant, iz ilojikal. Histare muevz in aul saurts uv direkshanz, aufan in penjalum faashan. In tha werld aat lorj, Komyoonizam maed the klaem tu be "Tha Waev uv the Fyuecher", aand agresiv Komyoonist waurz aand reepreshanz around tha werld kild 110 milyan peepool tu kreeyaet thaat fyuecher, acheeving fool aur porshal taekoever uv neerle wun-faurtth uv tha plaanat's aireeya aand popyoolaeshan. A faurm uv palitikal Komyoonizam maentainz kantroel oever wun-fiftth uv this plaanat's popyoolaeshan, sapaurtad bi hyuej traed defisits frum the Y.S. aand Yuerap, aand thair or stil Komyoonist gerila waurz in Laatin Amairika aand ports uv Aezha, but no wun ene laungger feerz a werldwied Komyoonist taekoever.
+
Hwen tthingz go tue for in wun direkshan, a karekshan, in the opasit direkshan, aufan reezults. Aaz a sasieyate, we or reetthingking divaurs on deemand; we haav reezistad abaurshan on deemaand aand the leegalizaeshan uv drugz. Tha Federal Guvernmant haas undun staet atempts tu leegaliez "medikal" maarihwona, aand a naashanal iedentite kord, laung reezistad aaz aan inkerzhan on baesik riets, iz about tu be enaaktad in tha faurm uv a Federale maandaetad 'sikyuer' staet driever's liesans. In this "laand uv tha fre", sitizenz or sercht hwen thae tri tu enter a guvernmant bilding aur airplaen. Aand peepool aaksept ever graeter reestrikshanz on thair sivil liberteez in tha naem uv "sakyuerite" in tha "Waur on Terer". The FKK iz mueving tu alou fyuewer aand fyuewer megakaurparaeshanz tu bie up maur aand maur raedeeyo aand TV staeshanz, reeduesing vyuewer chois aand naaroewing tha raenj uv apinyanz we wil heer. Tha fyuecher iz looking tu be not freeyer thaan tha paast, but les fre. So in aat leest sum waez, histare iz goewing the opasit uv hwut we wuns ekspektad.
+
Ene aakt uv ene lejislaecher kaan be reeverst. Ene pravizhan uv tha Konstitueshan kaan be amendad awae. Aand wiman du not fiet faur thair riets. Thae hwien faur thair 'riets'. Aat end, men doen't haav tu heed such hwiening. Benazeer Bueto diskuverd thaat men or not helplas agenst feemail pouwer grabz, aand aul wiman, aul oever tha werld, must reemember thaat asaasinaeshan, tha trieyumf uv tha feersle aantee-feminist Taalibaan in tha yeerz foloewing tha witthdrauqal uv tha Soeveeyat Yuenyan frum Aafgaanistaan, aand uther "setbaaks" tu Raadikal Feminizam. Men or not helplas tu deefend themselvz frum feemail taekoever, aand vieyalant reevoelt iz the ultimat deefens agenst Raadikal Feminizam.
+
Raadikal Feminists, hu wont tu reevers bieyolaje aand tthouzandz uv yeerz uv sivilizaeshan tu poot wiman on top of sasieyate, diktaeting tu men in aul tthingz, kaan be stopt, aand it duz not reekwieyer aan eelektaral reejekshan. Wun boolat wil du tha trik vere niesle.
+
Wiman hu tthingk thaat Amairikan men or woosaz hu haavan't tha guts (aur uther aurganz) tu staand agenst the 'inevitabilite' uv Raadikal Feminizam'z verzhan uv "eekwolite" (wiman dominant, men sabserveeyant) need tu reekaalkyoolaet in liet uv Benazeer Bueto's vieyalant detth. Men kaan fiet baak aafter aul.
+
Let's not maek wiman intu inasant "viktimz" uv mail bruetaalite. Tha reeyaalite iz thaat tha graet preeponderans uv merderz in tha werld toodae or kamitad bi aur aat tha beehest uv wiman, sum 42 milyan abaurshanz eech aand evre yeer around tha werld. Maetreeyorke in tha faurm uv hyuej numberz uv singgool-muther faamileez haaz raavajd blaak sasieyate in the Yoonietad Staets, aand praduest maasiv laulasnas bi yung men hu wil not aaksept feemail autthorite but hu tern agenst feemail dominans witth bruetal finaalite. Wood-be siekalojikale kaastraeting blaak wiman hu moutth auf tu tha men thae hook up witth sumtiemz fiend themselvz saveerle beetan, eevan tu detth, hwen the men thae taunt snaap aand pruev thair bieyalojikal dominans.
+
The Yoonietad Staets toodae tue aufan preetendz thaat bieyolaje duzan't maater. Evre nou aand then, houwever, bieyolaje poeks its hed tthru tha fog uv maek-beeleev, aand sez beeyond deenieying: "This for aand no forther."
+
Thair iz sumtiemz a pries tu be paed in trieying tu deeni bieyolaje aand tern tha werld on its hed. Benazeer Bueto paed thaat pries laast muntth. Hilare Klintan mae pae it ene tiem nou. Hwether thaat iz a teribool tthing aur graet tthing deependz apon yaur point uv vyu. Raadikal Feminists wer livid, indignant, aand horified aat the asaasinaeshan/merder/eksakyueshan uv Benazeer Bueto. Men hu se men under ataak evreehwair, houwever, wer deelietad. Wil thae sae so? Probable not.
+
This iz a perfakt egzaampool uv tha limits uv publik-apinyan poeling. Peepool li tu poelsterz. I diskust thaat heer in kanekshan witth tha kontradiktare reezults uv poelz aand the aakchuewal voet heer in Nu Jerze in reegord tu a baalot inishativ tu fund aan agresiv embreeyonik stem-sel reeserch projekt. Tha poelz haad tha propazishan wining bigtiem. The aakchuewal voet sent it kraashing tu Ertth in flaemz. Hwi? Beekauz peepool or loetth tu be seen in a baad liet hwen thae or aaskt kweschanz bi poelsterz, aand faevering stem-sel reeserch wuz perseevd in liberal Nu Jerze aaz the "apruevd" staans, apoezing it the "unjeneras", "baakwerd", "koeld-hortad" staans. But hwen tha voeterz stept beehiend tha kertan uv tha voeting masheen, thae voetad thair oen hort: yu doen't kil baebeez tu chop them up faur ports.
+
In liek faashan, no poel kweschan iz liekle eevan tu be aaskt such aaz, "Wuz kiling Benazeer Bueto tha riet tthing tu du?" aur "Wuz the asaasinaeshan uv Benazeer Bueto a setbaak faur Paakistaane sivilizaeshan aur a nesasere ajustmant tu a kanfyuezd sasieyate goewing maad?" Sertanle no such kweschan about vieyalant reeyaakshan tu Raadikal Feminizam heer wood be aaskt in the Yoonietad Staets. Aand if it wer, yu koodan't trust tha reezults, broekan doun bi tha jender uv reespondants, unles a stortlingle hi — feminists wood sae "apaulingle" hi — persentaj uv men reeplied thaat it wuz indeed tha riet tthing tu du, nesasere tu riet a sasieyate beeying ternd upsied doun.
+
We or aul tue yuest tu taemd "men" in this kuntre, holo, eemaaskyoolaetad shelz. This iz shoen in a videeyo availabool on the Internet thaat iz sapoezd tu be fune. Faur men hu se men endlasle deemeend aand ridikyueld, thair iz aabsaluetle nutthing fune about it. Kamerhsalz aand sitkomz paurtrae men aaz bufuenz, fuelz, aand mauronz. I'v bin saeying this faur yeerz, aand reesantle sau thaat sumwun els haaz taekan up tha chorj. I did not get hiz naem, but I saw a raukas konfrantaeshan beetween sum maan aand a wooman hu didan't wont tu let him speek, on Foks Nuz Chaanal'z O'Riele Faakter a fyu weeks ago. Sins tha maan wuz beeying aaktivle disreespektad bi tha wooman aand O'Rile did not tel her tu shut tha hel up aand let him haav hiz sae beefaur she laambaestad him, I ternd auf in disgust: maur uv tha saem, endlas disreespekt faur men in ouwer toksik meedeeya kulcher.
+
Dekaedz ago I roet tu tha maekerz uv Ornald bred tu kamplaen thaat its kamershalz then runing wer dastruktivle deemeening tu men, espeshale givan thaat maasiv divaurs in this kuntre haaz givan riez tu milyanz uv housqhoeldz in hwich litool boiz haav no mail roel modal tu kounter in reeyaalite tha propagaanda thae se on talavizhan. Tha werld thaat meedeeya preezent shoez thaat litool boiz haav no fyuecher in this kuntre. Tha hoel werld iz beeying ternd oever tu wiman, aand thoez wiman haav litool but kantempt faur men. Self-haetrad, eevan suewisied in boiz, wuz beeying pramoetad bi such kamershalz. Not laung aafter, Ornald diskantinyued thaat lien uv aadvertiezing. Hwether mi leter haad eneetthing tu du witth it, I kaanot noe. But if mi kamplaent, aadad tu utherz', did influewans wun kaurparaeshan tu stop ridikyueling men, thaat iz aul tu tha good, aand shood enkeraj evreewun hu seez such aadvertiesing aaz dastruktiv tu sasieyate aand speshale pernishas in its ifekt on boi childran uv divors, tu speek out tu end it. Not lesan it. End it.
+
Men'z "privilaj" haaz bin pragresivle dastroid aand reeplaest bi feemail privilaj. Hwen Prinstan aand uther Ieve Leeg kolajaz aadmitad wiman, thae didan't dubool tha number uv plaesaz in eech entering klaas. Thae just took awae seets faurmerle availabool tu yung men aand gaev them tu yung wiman. Men laust, pyuer aand simpool. Thaat's not hwut we wer toeld feminizam wuz aul about: "It's not thaat men wil luez out. It's just thaat wiman wil be givan maur opartuenite." Yup: opartueniteez stoelan frum men aand haandad oever tu wiman. Aand a lot uv tha wiman hu took thoez plaesaz awae frum men did it priemerile faur huzband-hunting. Thae didan't yuez tha digreez thae stoel frum men. Thae took jobz oenle aaz laung aaz it took tu fiend a rich huzband, aand then, aafter geting maareed, reetieyerd frum tha werkfaurs. Aul thaat ekspensiv ejookaeshan, stoelan frum men, wuz tthroen awae. Aand tha men hu wood haav taekan thaat ejookaeshan intu tha werkfaurs faur faurte yeerz aand maur didan't get tha buest tu thair kareer thaat aan Ieve Leeg ejookaeshan wood haav givan them. Thae just laust out.
+
In 42 staets, wiman haav bin graantad tha riet, tthru "Saef Haevan" lauz, tu abaandan thair childran witthout penalte. Men hu abaandan thair childran or kauld "dedbeet daadz" aand not just vilified but houndad aand eevan imprizand. Thair waejaz or gornisht, thair properte seezd aand soeld tu pae chieyald sapaurt faur childran thae haad no intenshan uv praduesing. Wiman hu toeld men thae wer on tha pil aur steril or reeleevd uv reesponsibilite faur fraud; aand in sum kaesaz, men hu haav bin trikt intu tthingking a chieyald not thairz iz thair reesponsibilite haav eeven bin found lieyabool bi kaurts faur kantinyuewing chieyald sapaurt tu anuther maan'z chieyald! (Meer ouwerz aafter I uploedad this blog entre, ABK Werld Nuez did a staure about this vere injustis, hwich 17 staets haav lejislaetad tu fiks, but haav reefyuezed tu simple outlau, aand tha reefaurms aakchuewale preezerv the baesik injustis in mene kaesaz, faur instans, the 'fother' duzan't diskuver tha deesepshan until tha chieyald iz 4 yeerz oeld. Tha Soopreem Kaurt's maaksim, "Justis deelaed iz justis deenied" haaz nou apaarantle bin traansfaurmd tu "Justis deelaed is injustis faurever." 'Childran'z aadvakats' (wiman'z grueps), tha reepaurt sez, tthingk such viktimizaeshan uv men iz just fien, beekauz it iz in "tha best interest uv the chieyald". So just ene persan kaan be reekwieyerd tu sapaurt a bieyalojikal straenjer, beekauz thaat chieyald needz sapaurt? Let us, then, raandamle salekt straenjerz tu pae chieyald sapaurt faur kidz not thair oen. Shuerle it wood be in "tha best interest uv the chieyald" tu haav sumwun, eneewun, sapaurt them, riet? I haav aan eevan beter iedeeya: Let's send chieyald-sapaurt bilz tu thoez chieyald aadvakase grueps' egzekyootivz aand memberz. Maebe if thae or eech indivijoowale reekwieyerd tu pae $638 a muntth faur 14 yeerz, faur a straenjer, thae wil waek up tu the injustis. Thae shoodan't kamplaen. It's in "tha best interest uv tha chieyald"! Faur hwutever reezan, this staure, hwich kaem taurd the end uv the haaf-ouwer eevning nuez sho, iz not on thaat proegraam'z websiet. Iz thaat meer deelay, aand tha staure wil be aadad bi toomoro? Aur haaz it bin sooprest?)
+
Tha "faamile" kaurts uv the Yoonietad Staets or intensle, neerle vieyalantle aanteemail, aand a lorj prapaurshan uv tha jujaz uv such kaurts or wiman hu haav aabsaluetly no simpatthe faur men, ever.
+
Eevan tha sapoezd man, "Dr. Fil", huez audeeyans iz preeponderantle feemail, iz so freekwantle hostool tu men thaat yu haav tu wunder if he haaz bin fizikale aur oenle siekalojikale kaastraetad. Uv kaurs, he miet just be a lieyer, teling wiman hwut thae wont tu heer in aurder tu keep hiz audeeyans aand the aadvertiezerz thaat audeeyans apeelz tu. Aat end, hiz moetivz doen't maater. Hiz retarik aand aanteemail bieyas, houwever, du maater. In koutouwing tu Raadikal Feminizam aand feeding hiz feemail audeeyans tha klaaptraap thae wont tu heer, Dr. Fil iz "in on it", this endlas kaampaen tu deemeen, reedues, eevan ultimatle dastroi men. Aand he duz so in tha giez uv "helper".
+
The Oksijan! kaebool chaanal haaz a sho kauld Snaapt in hwich wiman hu kil men or 'studeed' — thaat iz, justified, eevan glaurified in thair merderz uv men. Frum tha faemas/infamas TV mueve Tha Berning Bed, in hwich a wooman iz treetad aaz a heero (never, uv kaurs, "heroewin", beekauz tha saem peepool hu sagjest men or so aufool wont wiman tu be kauld bi maaskyoolin termz) merderz her huzband, tu the akwital uv Laraena Bobit, on tha groundz uv temparere insaanite thaat kauzd her tu haav aan "eereezistibool impuls" tu myuetilaet her huzband in a fashan thaat kood eezile haav praduest hiz detth, tha vieyalant bieyas uv this sasieyate agenst men iz atroeshas aand unfargivabool. Men hu kil wiman or monsterz; wiman hu kil men or heeroez.

Aafter tha trieyal, Laraena wuz treetad aaz a feminist "heero", tho she atemptad tu keep a lo proefieyal aand reezuemd tha yues uv her maedan naem, Gaalo. In Deesember 1997, Laraena maed nuez hwen she wuz chorjd witth asault faur punching her muther, Elveeya Gaalo, aaz she wotcht telavizhan. She wuz eevenchuewale found gilte uv asaulting her muther.

Hwen she ataakt a maan, she wuz a heero, aand haandad aan akwital. Hwen she ataakt a wooman, she wuz kanviktad.
+
Tha vishas aanteemail verdikts aand aanteemail lauz (e.g., divaurs aand chieyald kustade lauz) we sufer aker eevan hwen tha bulk uv lejislaeterz aand jujaz or, unbileevable, men! Aur or thae so siekalojikale kaastraetad thaat thae no laungger kwolifi aaz men?
+
Fieting brest kaanser iz endlasle poosht aaz a kauz evreewun shood sapaurt, but men'z kaanserz get aabsaluetle no atenshan.
+
Raadikal Feminizam haaz not smuethd reelaeshanz beetween tha seksaz. Kwiet tha kontrere. Thair iz good reezan tu tthingk thaat wiman or maur aufan tha viktim uv vieyalans in the Yoonietad Staets thaan in tradishanal, mail-dominaetad sasieyateez. Raadikal Feminists insist on repreezenting wiman in tradishanal sasieyateez aaz sufering frum "institueshanaliezd vieyalans" agenst thair "iedentite", "dignite", aand eevan "soel". But I saspekt thae or not, in moest such sasieyateez, tha viktimz uv tha hi levalz uv raep, spousal abyues, aand merder thae sufer in the Yoonietad Staets. Tha waur beetween tha seksaz haaz a kaazhuewalte raet, in the Y.S. aloen, in tha hundradz uv thouzandz, aand milyanz uv inasant biestaanderz (abortad infants) li ded on tha siedlienz.
+
So Benazeer Bueto iz ded. Wil eneewun in this kuntre se thaat hwut kaan haapan in Paakistaan kaan haapan heer? Uv kaurs not. We or tu beeleev thaat hwut kaan haapan in Aafrika (sapoezd maasiv "AIDS") kaan haapan heer, but hwut haapanz in Paakistaan kood never haapan heer. Tha revers iz maur liekle tru. Tha reeyaalite iz thaat thair iz no such tthing aaz a maasiv AIDS epidemik in Aafrika; thaat iz aul fraud. But vieyalant mail reejekshan uv a werld ternd upsied doun tu poot wiman on top aand men on tha botam kaan indeed haapan heer. Aand no Raadikal Feminist wood-be Prezidant shood feel saef, eevan witth bodeegordz. Indira Gonde'z bodeegordz kild her.
+
(Tha kerant Y.S. militere detth toel in Eerok, akaurding tu tha websiet "Eerok Koewalishan Kaazhuewalteez", iz 3,922 — faur Izreeyal.)
+
Hillary Clinton's Actual Biography; Defending Against Radical Feminist Takeover.

In the New Hampshire debate, Mrs. Clinton dared to say, in a fit of pique, "I'm not just running on a promise of change, I'm running on 35 years of change." Oh? Her official biography on the White House website says no such thing. She has no government service at all, no elected nor appointed office, until she became a carpetbagger Senator in New York, a state with which she had no prior contacts of consequence. She has served one term and one year in the Senate. That is the full extent of her government service. As First Lady during the Clinton years, she made a few goodwill trips. Big deal. She was a lawyer and worked in some pleasant little causes, such as the Children's Defense Fund. None of her work for those causes effected any kind of political change. In the one thing she was asked to do in regard to change in a significant public area, universal healthcare, she put forward a proposal that was so fiercely attacked that she retreated from it instantly and didn't even try to defend it, much less enact it. So when Hillary Clinton says that she has been creating change for 35 years, she is, in short, a massive, brazen liar.
+
Mrs. Clinton is not entitled to claim credit for Bill Clinton's experience, unless she is regarded as part of the same legal person with her husband, in which case she is not eligible to run for President, because that person has already been President for two full terms. Why is Hillary Clinton eligible to run for President if the real President if she is elected will be not Hillary but Bill?
+
Hillary has claimed, in effect, that she was sort of "co-President" for Bill's two terms. Wouldn't that mean that Bill would be "co-President' with Hillary if she is elected? He is not ENTITLED to be co-President because he is not constitutionally permitted to be President. The Clintons are plainly trying to sidestep the Constitution's ban on anyone serving more than two terms as President by putting the White House in the wife's name. But if the real owner of the house is the husband, we have an obligation to see past the charade to the reality: the Clintons are trying to make an end run around the 22nd Amendment.
+
Mrs. Clinton thus needs to reconsider her claim to have been "co-President" with her husband during his two terms in office. But her opponents should take that claim very seriously, and sue in Federal court to have her barred from the race for the White House on the ground that this is a very thinly veiled attempt to put Bill Clinton into the Presidency for a third (and fourth?) term.
+
As for Hillary's thin victory — 3 percentage points — in New Hampshire, which media made into an enormous triumph, that entire 3-point advantage was due to women voting for a woman only because she is a woman. If women misuse the vote that way, men are perfectly capable of taking the vote away from women. Feminists will laff at such a suggestion, but the vote was a gift from men. Women didn't earn it. It was given to them. What was given can be taken away.
+
The pretense that history moves in only one direction, toward ever wider enfranchisement, is illogical. History moves in all sorts of directions. In the world at large, Communism made the claim to be "The Wave of the Future", and aggressive Communist wars and repressions around the world killed 110 milyan peepool to create that future, achieving full or partial takeover of nearly one-fourth of the planet's area and population. A form of political Communism maintains control over one-fifth of this planet's population, supported by huge trade deficits from the U.S. and Europe, and there are stil Communist guerrilla wars in Latin America and parts of Asia, but no one any longer fears a worldwide Communist takeover.
+
When things go too far in one direction, a correction, in the opposite direction, often results. As a society, we are rethinking divorce on demand; we have resisted abortion on demand and the legalization of drugs. The Federal Government has undone state attempts to legalize "medical" marijuana, and a national identity card, so long resisted as an incursion on basic rights, is about to be enacted in the form of a Federally mandated 'secure' state driver's license. In this "land of the free", citizens are searched when they try to enter a government building or airplane. And people accept ever greater restrictions on their civil liberties in the name ov "security" in tha "War on Terror". The FCC is moving to allow fewer and fewer megacorporations to buy up more and more radio and TV stations, reducing viewer choice and narrowing the range of opinions we will hear. The future is looking to be not freer than the past, but less free. So in at least some ways, history is going the opposite of what we once expected.
+
Any act of any legislature can be reversed. Any provision of the Constitution can be amended away. And women do not fite for their rights. They whine for their 'rights'. At end, men don't have to heed such whining. Benazir Bhutto discovered that men are not helpless against female power grabs, and all women, all over the world, must remember that assassination, the triumph of the fiercely anti-feminist Taliban in the years following the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, and other "setbacks" to Radical Feminism. Men are not helpless to defend themselves from female takeover, and violent revolt is the ultimate defense against Radical Feminism.
+
Radical Feminists, who want to reverse biology and thousands of years of civilization to put women on top of society, dictating to men in all things, can be stopped, and it does not require an electoral rejection. One bullet will do the trick very nicely.
+
Women who think that American men are wusses who haven't the guts (or other organs) to stand against the 'inevitability' of Radical Feminism's version of "equality" (women dominant, men subservient) need to recalculate in lite of Benazir Bhutto's violent death. Men can fite back after all.
+
Let's not make women into innocent "victims" of male brutality. The reality is that the great preponderance of murders in the world today are committed by or at the behest of women, some 42 million abortions each and every year around the world. Matriarchy in the form of huge numbers of single-mother families has ravaged black society in the United States, and produced massive lawlessness by young men who will not accept female authority but who turn against female dominance with brutal finality. Would-be psychologically castrating black women who mouth off to the men they hook up with sometimes find themselves severely beaten, even to death, when the men they taunt snap and prove their biological dominance.
+
The United States today too often pretends that biology doesn't matter. Every now and then, however, biology pokes its head thru the fog of make-believe, and says beyond denying: "This far and no farther."
+
There is sometimes a price to be paid in trying to deny biology and turn the world on its head. Benazir Bhutto paid that price last month. Hillary Clinton may pay it any time now. Whether that is a terrible thing or great thing depends upon your point of view. Radical Feminists were livid, indignant, and horrified at the assassination/murder/execution of Benazir Bhutto. Men who see men under attack everywhere, however, were delited. Will they say so? Probably not.
+
This is a perfect example of the limits of public-opinion polling. People lie to pollsters. I discussed that here in connection with the contradictory results of polls and the actual vote here in New Jersey in regard to a ballot initiative to fund an aggressive embryonic stem-cell research project. The polls had the proposition winning bigtime. The actual vote sent it crashing to Earth in flames. Why? Because people are loath to be seen in a bad lite when they are asked questions by pollsters, and favoring stem-cell research was perceived in liberal New Jersey as the "approved" stance, opposing it the "ungenerous", "backward", "cold-hearted" stance. But when the voters stepped behind the curtain of the voting machine, they voted their own heart: you don't kill babies to chop them up for parts.
+
In like fashion, no poll question is likely even to be asked such as, "Was killing Benazir Bhutto the right thing to do?" or "Was the assassination of Benazir Bhutto a setback for Pakistani civilization or a necessary adjustment to a confused society going mad?" Certainly no such question about violent reaction to Radical Feminism here would be asked in the United States. And if it were, you couldn't trust the results, broken down by the gender of respondents, unless a startlingly high — feminists would say "appallingly" high — percentage of men replied that it was indeed the right thing to do, necessary to right a society being turned upside down.
+
We are all too used to tamed "men" in this country, hollow, emasculated shells. This is shown in a video available on the Internet that is supposed to be funny. For men who see men endlessly demeaned and ridiculed, there is absolutely nothing funny about it. Commercials and sitcoms portray men as buffoons, fools, and morons. I've been saying this for years, and recently saw that someone else has taken up the charge. I did not get his name, but I saw a raucous confrontation between some man and a woman who didn't want to let him speak, on Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor a few weeks ago. Since the man was being actively disrespected by the woman and O'Reilly did not tell her to shut the hell up and let him have his say before she lambasted him, I turned off in disgust: more of the same, endless disrespect for men in our toxic media culture.
+
Decades ago I wrote to the makers of Arnold bread to complain that its commercials then running were destructively demeaning to men, especially given that massive divorce in this country has given rise to millions of households in which little boys have no male role model to counter in reality the propaganda they see on television. The world that media present shows that little boys have no future in this country. The whole world is being turned over to women, and those women have little but contempt for men. Self-hatred, even suicide in boys, was being promoted by such commercials. Not long after, Arnold discontinued that line of advertising. Whether my letter had anything to do with it, I cannot know. But if my complaint, added to others', did influence one corporation to stop ridiculing men, that is all to the good, and should encourage everyone who sees such advertising as destructive to society and specially pernicious in its effect on boy children of divorce, to speak out to end it. Not lessen it. End it.
+
Men's "privilege" has been progressively destroyed and replaced by female privilege. When Princeton and other Ivy League colleges admitted women, they didn't double the number of places in each entering class. They just took away seats formerly available to young men and gave them to young women. Men lost, pure and simple. That's not what we were told feminism was all about: "It's not that men will lose out. It's just that women will be given more opportunity." Yup: opportunities stolen from men and handed over to women. And a lot of the women who took those places away from men did it primarily for husband-hunting. They didn't use the degrees they stole from men. They took jobs only as long as it took to find a rich husband, and then, after getting married, retired from the workforce. All that expensive education, stolen from men, was thrown away. And the men who would have taken that education into the workforce for forty years and more didn't get the boost to their career that an Ivy League education would have given them. They just lost out.
+
In 42 states, women have been granted the right, thru "Safe Haven" laws, to abandon their children without penalty. Men who abandon their children are called "deadbeat dads" and not just vilified but hounded and even imprisoned. Their wages are garnished, their property seized and sold to pay child support for children they had no intention of producing. Women who told men they were on the pill or sterile are relieved of responsibility for fraud; and in some cases, men who have been tricked into thinking a child not theirs is their responsibility have even been found liable by courts for continuing child support to another man's child! (Mere hours after I uploaded this blog entry, ABC World News did a story about this very injustice, which 17 states have legislated to fix, but have refused to simply outlaw, and the reforms actually preserve the basic injustice in many cases, for instance, the 'father' doesn't discover the deception until the child is 4 years old. The Supreme Court's maxim, "Justice delayed is justice denied" has now apparently been transformed to "Justice delayed is injustice forever." 'Children's advocates' (women's groups), the report says, think such victimization of men is just fine, because it is in "the best interest of the child". So just any person can be required to support a biological stranger, because that child needs support? Let us, then, randomly select strangers to pay child support for kids not their own. Surely it would be in "the best interest of the child" to have someone, anyone, support them, right? I have an even better idea: Let's send child-support bills to those child-advocacy groups' executives and members. Maybe if they are each individually required to pay $638 a month for 14 years, for a stranger, they will wake up to the injustice. They shouldn't complain. It's in "the best interest of the child"! For whatever reason, this story, which came toward the end of the half-hour evening news show, is not on that program's website. Is that mere delay, and the story will be added by tomorrow? Or has it been suppressed?)
+
The "family" courts of the United States are intensely, nearly violently antimale, and a large proportion of the judges of such courts are women who have absolutely no sympathy for men, ever.
+
Even the supposed man, "Dr. Phil", whose audience is preponderantly female, is so frequently hostile to men that you have to wonder if he has been physically or only psychologically castrated. Of course, he might just be a liar, telling women what they want to hear in order to keep his audience and the advertisers that audience appeals to. At end, his motives don't matter. His rhetoric and antimale bias, however, do matter. In kowtowing to Radical Feminism and feeding his female audience the claptrap they want to hear, Dr. Phil is "in on it", this endless campaign to demean, reduce, even ultimately destroy men. And he does so in the guise of "helper".
+
The Oxygen! cable channel has a show called Snapped in which women who kill men are 'studied' — that is, justified, even glorified in their murders of men. From the famous/infamous TV movie The Burning Bed, in which a woman is treated as a hero (never, of course, "heroine", because the same people who suggest men are so awful want women to be called by masculine terms) murders her husband, to the acquittal of Lorena Bobbitt, on the grounds of temporary insanity that caused her to have an "irresistible impulse" to mutilate her husband in a fashion that could easily have produced his death, the violent bias of this society against men is atrocious and unforgiveable. Men who kill women are monsters; women who kill men are heroes.

After the trial, Lorena was treated as a feminist "hero", though she attempted to keep a low profile and resumed the use of her maiden name, Gallo. In December 1997, Lorena made news when she was charged with assault for punching her mother, Elvia Gallo, as she watched television. She was eventually found guilty of assaulting her mother.

When she attacked a man, she was a hero, and handed an acquittal. When she attacked a woman, she was convicted.
+
The vicious antimale verdicts and antimale laws (e.g., divorce and child custody laws) we suffer occur even when the bulk of legislators and judges are, unbelievably, men! Or are they so psychologically castrated that they no longer qualify as men?
+
Fiting breast cancer is endlessly pushed as a cause everyone should support, but men's cancers get absolutely no attention.
+
Radical Feminism has not smoothed relations between the sexes. Quite the contrary. There is good reason to think that women are more often the victim of violence in the United States than in traditional, male-dominated societies. Radical Feminists insist on representing women in traditional societies as suffering from "institutionalized violence" against their "identity", "dignity", even "soul". But I suspect they are not, in most such societies, the victims of the high levels of rape, spousal abuse, and murder they suffer in the United States. The war between the sexes has a casualty rate, in the U.S. alone, in the hundreds of thousands, and millions of innocent bystanders (aborted infants) lie dead on the sidelines.
+
So Benazir Bhutto is dead. Will anyone in this country see that what can happen in Pakistan can happen here? Of course not. We are to believe that what can happen in Africa (supposed massive "AIDS") can happen here, but what happens in Pakistan could never happen here. The reverse is more likely true. The reality is that there is no such thing as a massive AIDS epidemic in Africa; that is all fraud. But violent male rejection of a world turned upside down to put women on top and men on the bottom can indeed happen here. And no Radical Feminist would-be President should feel safe, even with bodyguards. Indira Gandhi's bodyguards killed her.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 3,922 — for Israel.)

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 2:34 PM