The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

VIDEO: NSC Meeting On Ukraine; BHO & Biden Have A Wee Jog

Posted on | March 1, 2014 | 12 Comments

by Sissypuss the Blog Kitty



When done with the fun run, Sissypuss heard, Obama and Biden were to hear about plans to blame the Ukrainian crisis on some random B-movie film maker. “It’s one way to get attention off ObamaCare,” said Greasy Joe.

via Gateway Pundit and Pat Dollard

Category: Barack Obama, Farce, Joe Biden, Ukraine

She Craved the Taste of Boy Flesh

Posted on | March 1, 2014 | 23 Comments

“Allegedly,” I hasten to add: Utah teacher Brianne Altice pleaded not guilty Thursday to three counts of first-degree felony rape for having sex with a 16-year-old Davis High School student. However, previous reports indicate Altice “acknowledged to investigators that she had engaged in sex with the boy,” so her prospects for acquittal aren’t good. Her case was one I highlighted in January when I observed:

Ever since the Debra LaFave case, some people have marveled at instances of female teachers arrested for molesting teenage boys: “But she’s good-looking — why can’t she get a man?”
The assumption is that sexual desperation is the motive for these crimes, when in fact, it’s a matter of sexual preference: Sure, they can get men, but they don’t want men — they want boys.

Brianne Altice was married at the time of her alleged crime:

Altice’s husband filed for divorce shortly after his wife’s arrest. It was finalized in December.
Altice was originally arrested in October. Altice was believed to have had sex with a 16-year-old on many occasions, including at her South Weber home and at a park in addition to the church parking lot, a Davis County Jail report states.
Police have said there may be other potential victims.

The preferential appetite for boy flesh — allegedly! I said “allegedly”! — is particularly obvious in Altice’s case. She’s a slender 5-foot-7 blonde with high cheekbones, and she showed up for her court hearing Thursday looking like Hot Teacher Barbie:

The blonde former teacher appeared collected in the Utah courtroom and chose to wear a close-fitting top, slim pants and conspicuously high heels.

Is this what a felony sex criminal looks like? Every red-blooded male who remembers his 16-year-old self is perplexed at the thought: How could this woman be accused of a felony for fulfilling your wildest adolescent fantasy? But on second thought — when your responsible adult mind finally wrestles control of the mental dialogue away from your depraved inner teenager — you realize that to allow a legal loophole for blonde Barbie-looking hotness would be to undo the Rule of Law, to permit a special caste of protected perverts. If you let the attractive teachers get away with banging jailbait, the ugly teachers who get caught doing the same thing would claim that their prosecution was unfair.

A 30-year-old middle school teacher was arrested in Pennsylvania [Jan. 21] for allegedly entering into a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old student.
Jessica Saienni, of Landenberg, Pa., surrendered herself to the Berks County Detectives Office in Reading about 10am.
Detectives on [Jan. 20] obtained a warrant for Saienni’s arrest.
Investigators said Saienni was a science teacher at Southwest Middle School in Reading from June 2012 through August 2012, when she allegedly had an ‘inappropriate relationship’ with the male victim, according to The Express Times. . . .
Police say the initial sexual encounter took place in Saienni’s vehicle while she was parked near the Body Zone Sports and Wellness Complex, 3103 Papermill Road in Wyomissing, Berks County.
The victim told police that Saienni sent him sexually explicit photos, court records say.

Once you agree that fairness requires us to grant frumpy brunette teachers as much “right” to adolescent boy flesh as the slender blondes, the demands for equality would then follow in due course: If we’re going to let ugly women have sex with teenage boys, certainly we cannot deny gay male teachers their own “right” to do the same.

Mountain View police arrested Harlan Edelman, a longtime San Francisco teacher . . . after he allegedly agreed to meet a teenage boy in the park for sex.
The only problem is that “teenage boy” was actually undercover cops waiting to bust the former San Francisco teacher.
On [Feb. 4], police descended upon Peaceful Cuesta Park in Mountain View after exchanging social media messages with Edelman in the guise of being a 17-year-old boy. At the park, they found Edelman waiting for the boy with whom he had arranged a sex date.
“He was reaching out for sex,” Mountain View Police Sgt. Saul Jaeger told NBC News. “The initial contacts were explicit material, sexually explicit material and he ended up agreeing to meeting for sex.” . . .
Edelman was a teacher employed by the San Francisco Unified School District from 1995 to 2013; he most recently taught at the Academy of Arts and Sciences. He also held teaching positions at Lowell High School, Lincoln High School and the School of the Arts.
He resigned from the district in September 2013, according to Gentle Blythe, spokeswoman for SFUSD.

Next thing you know, lesbian coaches will demand their “rights,” too.

A teacher at a private all-girls Catholic school in Little Rock, Arkansas, had a sexual relationship with a teenage student. The teacher’s live-in lesbian partner, who was athletic director at the school, failed to report the crime. Kelly O’Rourke, 42, was sentenced to 10 years in prison in October 2013 for having sex with the girl beginning in 2010, when the victim was 16. O’Rourke’s partner Kathy Griffin, 55, was convicted in September 2013 after a trial where O’Rourke testified that Griffin knew about the illegal relationship months before the “distraught” mother of the girl contacted Mt. Saint Mary Academy principal Diane Wolfe. The girl had graduated in 2011. Her mother “said the victim wouldn’t get out of bed, was crying all the time, and wouldn’t go to her college classes.” O’Rourke’s sentence was initially suspended on condition that she have no further contact with the victim, but she violated the no-contact order. O’Rourke contacted the victim more than 50 times, telling her in one recorded phone conversation “that she wanted their relationship to continue.” O’Rourke was sent to prison.

“She took my daughter’s innocence away,” said the mother of a 17-year-old Catholic school girl who was molested by the lesbian who coached her swim team. Sarah Blessing, 28, taught fifth grade at a public school in Scotch Plains, N.J. and was also the swim team coach at Bishop George Ahr High School in Edison. When she was sentenced to a year in jail and five years of probation in 2010, Blessing defended her consensual relationship with the girl, telling the judge: “It wasn’t manipulative. It wasn’t predatory. I had feelings for this person.”

If women teachers and gay teachers have a “right” to sex with teenagers — consenting teenagers, of course — then it will be no crime for the football coach to bang the homecoming queen, and we will have arrived at what Matt Barber calls “sexual anarchy.”

Moral decadence encroaches steadily on our society in the age of the “Emerging Awareness” Doctrine, and we do not have to imagine the arguments for de-criminalizing sex with minors, because they are already being made. This was what the “Free Kate” movement was all about: The claim that it was an expression of homophobia to prosecute an 18-year-old lesbian for having sex with a 14-year-old.

Many in the media (notably, ABC’s 20/20) seemed strangely sympathetic to this attack on Florida’s age-of-consent laws. Yet if one extrapolates the known number of cases where adults have been charged with crimes for “consensual” sex with teenagers — male or female, gay or straight — into a trend, the risk involved in treating these cases with leniency becomes apparent. Even with the possibility of felony prosecution to discourage them, many adults seem unable to restrain their deviant desires, and how much more common would such crimes be, if the perpetrators believed they would likely face only probation if apprehended?

This was what I warned about in January: “Perversion is rampant and we may be in the midst of a complete societal breakdown.”

We cannot permit our sympathies — for the Barbie-doll teacher like Brianne Altice or the “cute” cheerleader like Kaitlyn Hunt — to influence our judgment in such cases. If society starts showing leniency on such a basis, we’ll be traveling the Highway to Hell at top speed.

 

Category: Crime, Education, Sex

#OccupyResoluteDesk Totally Knows Him Some Foreign Policy

Posted on | March 1, 2014 | 15 Comments

by Smitty

Look at Obama just mop up the floor with Romney during the 2012 debates:


Five years of observing BHO, from Zelaya in Honduras, to Chavez in Venezuela, to the Green Revolution in Iran, to Libya and Syria, and now Russia/Ukraine lead to the following observation: I daresay Obama’s sympathies are totally with Putin, and all the other hard workin’ world leaders just tryin’ to keep civilization goin’.

The peasantry craving old-fashioned notions like rule of law, budgets, political- and religious expression are merely a pesky detail to remove.

Category: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Russia, Ukraine

Palin Vindicated on Russia, Ukraine: ‘I Could See This One From Alaska’

Posted on | March 1, 2014 | 34 Comments

She who laughs last:

Sarah Palin may be having a bragging rights moment.
In 2008, when she was the GOP vice presidential nominee, Palin questioned in a speech whether then-Sen. Barack Obama would have the foreign policy credentials to handle a scenario in which Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.
“After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence — the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next,” she said in Reno, Nevada on October 21, 2008.
The former Alaska governor was happy to highlight her prediction on Friday and scold those who criticized her 2008 comments.
“Yes, I could see this one from Alaska,” she said on Facebook. That remark was a reference to a 2008 interview in which Palin argued that Alaska’s proximity to Russia helped boost her foreign policy experience.
Saturday Night Live parodied her remarks in a now-famous sketch with Tina Fey, who played Palin on the show, saying “I can see Russia from my house.”
On Facebook, Palin continued to explain how she anticipated a growing crisis between Russia and Ukraine, where there has now been an uncontested arrival of Russian military forces by air at a Russian base in Ukraine’s Crimea region. They are believed to be Russian land forces, according to a U.S. assessment.
“I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as ‘an extremely far-fetched scenario’ by the ‘high-brow’ Foreign Policy magazine.”

And while Vladimir Putin was reportedly sending 2,000 paratroopers to the Crimean peninsula, what was Obama’s reaction?

President Obama himself, having delivered a limp warning to Vladimir Putin, decamped for a meeting of the Democratic National Committee, where he told a cheering crowd: “Well, it’s Friday, it’s after 5:00. So this is officially happy hour with the Democratic Party.”

 


Category: Barack Obama, Russia, Sarah Palin, Ukraine

Federal Judge Issues Devastating Opinion in Brett Kimberlin Copyright Case

Posted on | February 28, 2014 | 15 Comments

Aaron Walker discusses this at his blog, but the order itself is delightful reading in its own right, particularly when the judge recites the numerous federal cases Brett Kimberlin has filed previously:

Memo Opinion

 

What’s the Latin phrase for “pimp slap”?

 


Category: The Kimberlin Files

The Feminist Fringe

Posted on | February 28, 2014 | 12 Comments

As mentioned previously, I’ve been re-reading Susan Brownmiller’s feminist memoir In Our Time, and what stands out — if one reads with an informed and critical eye — is how Women’s Liberation (a/k/a “Second Wave” feminism) originated on the far-left fringe among women whose life experiences were atypical, if not downright weird.

Brownmiller herself had three illegal abortions before 1968, and her book’s biographical profiles of other feminist pioneers are littered with examples of how the movement’s leadership came out of the anti-war New Left and the bohemian “alternative lifestyles” of ’60s hippie culture. Here is Brownmiller’s description (pp. 189-192) of the founders of the Denver-based feminist newspaper Big Mama Rag:

Chocolate Waters, a Navy brat from Pennsylvania (she legalized her childhood nickname), got dumped in the city by her old college boyfriend. “Yeah, we were traveling across the country and he took off and left me with no money in one of those old-timey women’s bars. I was bisexual then, so I started hooking up with the dykes. At a women’s festival somebody had an idea about doing a newspaper. We passed around a sign-up sheet.”
Jackie St. Joan — then Jackie Bryson — arrived in Denver with her husband and two children. Her interracial marriage, the first in Virginia after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s notorious antimiscegenation statute in 1967, began to founder when the couple moved west. Jackie swallowed her pride and went on welfare for five months before she found work as a secretary. At a potluck dinner sponsored by the Denver Peace Coalition, she heard about plans for a women’s paper. . . . Big Mama Rag came to fruition late in 1971. Maureen Mrizek, radicalized at college in Carbondale, Illinois, set the tone of the first issue by asking, “How can you conquer an oppressor when you sleep with him every night?” . . .
After leaving her husband, Linda Fowler from North Carolina had taken her child to a commune in the Colorado Rockies . . . “Those were my days of pot and acid,” she says. “I was smoking dope, chopping firewood, learning carpentry, and trying to figure out who I was, and how lesbianism fit into feminism.” On a trip into Denver she stopped into a radical bookstore and saw Big Mama Rag. “The fog lifted,” she exclaims. “Within a month I left the mountains and got involved with the paper.” . . .
Some of the women paired off: [editor] Carol [Lease] with Linda, and Chocolate with Jackie, who solemnly chose St. Joan as her new last name. . . .
[In 1975] the women learned via the establishment media that “Carla Weinstein,” who’d been in on their start-up, was the fugitive Jane Alpert, wanted in New York on bombing charges. . . .

Non-conformists, radicals, misfits, druggies, divorceés, lesbians and, of course, a terrorist bomber: Such were the freaky ingredients of the fringe movement that feminism was in its origins. And I point this out because one sometimes hears people who are ignorant of feminism’s radical beginnings express the mistaken belief that there is, or once was, a “mainstream” feminism which has somehow been “hijacked” by radicals.

No, the women’s movement was radical from the start, and if you ever thought feminism was “mainstream,” you just weren’t paying very close attention. Not paying attention to the radical fringe may seem like a safe bet — “Just ignore those kooks!” — until one day you notice that the kooks and radicals have taken over the country:

Outrage Over Sexist Remarks Turns
Into a Political Fund-Raising Tool
In the past few months, Republicans have called Wendy Davis, a Democratic candidate for Texas governor, “Abortion Barbie,” likened Alison Lundergan Grimes, a Senate candidate from Kentucky, to an “empty dress,” criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton’s thighs, and referred to a pregnant woman as a “host.”
Democrats do not just get mad when they hear those words. They cash in.
In fact, they are trying to find even more examples by tracking Republican opponents, their surrogates and conservative news media personalities, then blasting their comments out to supporters to build voter lists and drum up donations, casting aside the well-worn advice to shrug off sexist comments lest they draw attention to gender over issues.
It is proving effective. Emily’s List, the political action committee that backs female candidates who support abortion rights, has raised a record $25 million this election cycle. . . .

So, a pro-abortion group has raised a record sum to elect Democrats, who are now The Abortion Party. If you are against abortion, you’re anti-woman, see? And this startling turnabout — a revolution in morals, standing common sense on its head — has been accomplished by those weirdo radicals you ignored for so long.

 

Category: Feminism

Kimberlin Attacks @AceOfSpadesHQ’s Lawyer, Cites ‘Breitbart Unmasked’

Posted on | February 28, 2014 | 32 Comments

As a specimen of shamelessness, Brett Kimberlin has few equals in human history. The experience of being sued by Kimberlin offers a front-row seat to witness how utterly arrogant he is — as impudent as a four-year-old throwing a tantrum, lacking any regard for the rights of others, and with no sense of shame over the spectacle he creates.

In one of his most recent outbursts in the federal RICO lawsuit — dubbed Kimberlin v. the Universe, et al., by my co-defendant John Hoge — the perjuring bomber filed “Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Defendant Ace of Spades for Multiple Conflicts of Interests.”

This is noteworthy because:

A. Here you have Kimberlin, who once plotted from his jail cell to have a federal prosecutor assassinated, now presuming to appoint himself the arbiter of professional legal ethics.
B. Kimberlin actually includes among his exhibits a post at the pro-Kimberlin site “Breitbart Unmasked” attacking Ace’s lawyer, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen.

It’s astonishing, really, and a good occasion to remind you that Kimberlin’s self-described “associate” Neal Rauhauser was trying to “dox” Ace of Spades for months before I ever heard of Brett Kimberlin. This goes back to “WeinerGate” in 2011, which was the event that brought Rauhauser into the Kimberlin orbit. Patterico and Ace of Spades did some of the most effective blogging about the “WeinerGate” scandal, which made them a focus of Rauhauser’s obsession.

Is it merely coincidence, therefore, that identifying Ace is part of Kimberlin’s strategy in this federal lawsuit? Give me a break.

So, in the process of infringing Ace’s free speech rights, now Kimberlin wants to deprive Ace even of his right to legal counsel.

Utterly shameless.

Ace has handled this lawfare harassment with remarkable sangfroid, and let me quote what Ace wrote on Feb. 19:

[Levy] has kindly agreed to represent me in fighting Brett Kimberlin’s motion to compel a third party to give him my name and address, so he can then sue me in a suit which, in my opinion, is entirely baseless, and once again an attempt to chill Free Speech rights.
Which is what this has been about since the beginning.
What makes me particularly happy that Mr. Levy is representing me is that he is, by his confession, a “lefty.” It has bothered me from the outset of this entire affair that people who I thought might take an interest — people in the left-leaning media who ought to care about attempts to chill and punish Free Expression, left-leaning bloggers whose very jobs put them in danger of having the same tactics used against them — failed to do so.
Instead, what seems to have happened is everyone just “picked teams,” based on the typical tribal impulses. If anyone on the left wrote about this — not because they agreed, politically, with any of Brett Kimberlin’s targets, but because they supported the principle that people ought to be free to comment on news and newsworthy stories without the threat of a lawsuit hanging over them. (One person did cover it, briefly, in an “Interesting Thing Going on on the Internet” sort of way, but without actually examining the issues raised.)
And as far as the media, I’m afraid, the idea seemed to be “a pox on both their houses.” One guy is using the courts to pound critics and stifle free speech; but on the other hand, these guys are conservatives, so, of course, they are Unpeople, and They Were Probably Doing Something Bad Anyway. . . .

Please read the whole thing.

 

Category: Ace of Spades, The Kimberlin Files

‘Fairness’ and Feminism

Posted on | February 28, 2014 | 67 Comments

Just to refresh my memory, I’ve spent the past few days re-reading Susan Brownmiller’s feminist memoir In Our Time. You have to be a hard-boiled, strong-minded conservative not to be outraged by Brownmiller’s account of the extreme workplace inequality that once typified her own field, journalism. And the implicit assumption — this is one of those premises that the Left smuggles into arguments, hoping no one will notice — is that inequality is unjust and unfair.

The fact is that, at the time of the feminist revolution, nearly all adults were married. The median age at first marriage in the 1960s was about 21 for women, about 23 for men. The birth rate was high, the average woman had three or four children, and so the normal situation — the circumstance of the typical American adult — was that Mom was home with her children and Dad was working to support the whole family. Dad’s paycheck was the family’s entire income.

It was a man’s world, baby.

From our perspective in 2014, therefore, it seems completely shocking that women in journalism — an “enlightened” field, dominated by liberals — were consigned to subordinate roles, so that Newsweek, for example, mostly employed women as fact-checkers, and NBC News had only one woman as an on-air TV reporter.

This was the perspective of Brownmiller and other female journalists who joined the Women’s Liberation movement in filing discrimination lawsuits against news organizations in the 1970s.

However, the perspective of the unmarried childless career woman was statistically abnormal at the time  and, in point of fact, is still abnormal: Most women will marry and have children and, whether they work outside the home or not, it is in the interest of married mothers and their children that their husbands be able to earn enough to support them — what some have called the “family wage” concept.

If you have read Caroline Graglia’s Domestic Tranquility (and God knows, I have seized every opportunity to encourage people to read it for the past six year), you know that feminism was not really about women vs. men, it was about career professional women — the single and childless — against wives and mothers. In case the underlying significance of this is not clear, I’ll tell you that on page 6 of In Our Time, Brownmiller reveals that by 1968, she had already had “three illegal abortions, one in Cuba and two in Puerto Rico.”

Abortion and contraception — the Contraceptive Culture — are integral to the professional ambitions of a certain percentage of women, a percentage that is certainly larger now than it was in 1968, but it is only feminist ideology that claims the interests of the childless unmarried professional career woman are coterminous with the interests of all women, and which insists that every example of statistical inequality is evidence of discriminatory unfairness.

You have to be blind or brainwashed not to see the fraudulence of this argument, the claim that women benefit collectively from the privileges that feminist “fairness” provides to elite women. The truck driver’s wife has no stake in this game of “discrimination” played by professional career women. That is a self-interested game played for the benefit of the college-educated career elite, and the vast majority of American women don’t give a damn what percentage of Fortune 500 executives are female.

Once you recognize feminism as the attempt of an elite group of women to advance their own narrow interests by representing them as the collective interests of all women, the claims of “unfairness” and “discrimination” appear in a different light. Most women are not trying to climb the corporate ladder at a Fortune 500 company and yet the grievances of such career women are the engine that drives the constant reiteration of the formula “inequality = injustice.”

And this is where the Marxist origin of feminist ideology becomes highly relevant. When I describe feminism as the ideology of man-hating socialist lesbians, I’m not joking. Sure, there are heterosexual capitalist women who call themselves “feminists,” but if you examine the biographies and ideas of the women who contributed most to the development of feminist ideology, you cannot help noticing the preponderance of Communists and lesbians. For example, feminist “consciousness-raising” was directly borrowed from Marxism by two “Red Diaper babies” (i.e., children of Communist Party members), Kathie Amatniek and Anne Forer, the latter of whom explained to Brownmiller:

“In the Old Left, they used to say the workers don’t know they’re oppressed so we have to raise their consciousness. One night at a meeting I said, ‘Would everybody please give me an example from their o0wn life on how they experienced oppression as a woman? I need to hear it raise my own consciousness.’ Kathie was sitting behind me and the words rang in her mind. From then on she sort of made it an institution and called it consciousness-raising.”

This idea that every misfortune and disappointment experienced by women can be attributed to “oppression” by men is an analog of the Marxist concept that every problem of industrial workers — the proletariat — was the fault of the capitalist bourgeosie.

In other words, there are no coincidental, individual or random problems, but rather every problem is viewed as the result of deliberate, collective, systematic oppression — “class struggle,” in the Marxist idiom — and the challenge of the revolutionary vanguard is to inform the oppressed that they are, indeed, oppressed. That is to say, the oppressed must have their consciousness raised, which is what the entire academic field of Women’s Studies is about.

Conservatives recognize that the Marxist viewpoint in economics is an error, based on the false assumption that economic activity is a coercive zero-sum game, where the wealth of the rich is derived by imposing poverty on the exploited toiling masses. “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one,” as Ronald Reagan famously said.

Yet in recent years, it seems to me, conservatives have ceded the premise of feminism’s quite similar argument, so that people calling themselves conservatives are eager to make a “me, too” claim that they’re also in favor of equality, without bothering to examine the meaning or consequences of “equality” in this context.

Marriage is, or at least it should be, based on voluntary cooperation between men and women. If mothers wish to raise their own children, rather than outsourcing the care and education of their offspring to others, then their husbands must be able to earn an income sufficient to provide for the whole family. In such a family-oriented economy, men will be more likely than women to participate in the wage-earning work force; the consequence of this will be that men, on average, will have more years of continuous job experience; as a result, men will, on average, earn more than women and be more numerous in the ranks of management; and the resulting statistical inequality is not systemic unfairness, but a consequence of choices made by individuals.

In the past half-century, the “family wage” system has broken down even as divorce has become widespread and more than 40 percent of children are now born to unmarried women. Are these unrelated phenomena? Is this coincidental? I think not, and neither does Helen Smith, whose book Men on Strike is all about how social changes have harmed men.

All of this is mere preamble, however, to the latest zany ideological excursion by the woman Maetenloch calls “Everyone’s Favorite RadFeminist.” Yes, Radical Wind — she of “PIV is always rape, OK?” fame — has graced us again with her enlightened views:

That’s because the central cause of women’s impoverishment isn’t impersonal and institutional, but comes from men individually stealing from women in their individual homes. The owner, husband, master, stealing from the woman’s own pocket. I only realised how literal it was quite recently. This is the primary pattern of women’s crippling poverty. It became clear to me after hearing story after story of women being ransacked to the bone by their own husbands or boyfriends, it was typical of every abuse story I’ve heard of – these men systematically stealing their salary, signing credits, debts or mortgages in the woman’s name, binding women in suicidal financial situations or reckless business plans, stealing women’s property, flats or houses by signing it in their (the man’s) name, taking siege of the woman’s flat or house and refusing to move out, spending women’s income on drugs, cars, expensive restaurants, gambling, prostitution or whatever their pet fetish is, controlling access to their bank account, or systematically sabotaging their access to work, income or property in any form, by moving her far away from her work, wrecking her chances to find employment in any way possible, sabotaging her relationship with her employer, or finding ways to cut her benefits for childcare, preventing her from using the money she has for herself, etc, etc. The list is endless.

You can read the whole thing. Ask yourself: What kind of men is she hanging out with? This is the simplest explanation for why feminism is a left-wing phenomenon. Left-wing women hang out with left-wing men and left-wing men are selfish jerks.

Sic semper hoc.

By the way: Planned Parenthood will spend $16 million in the 2014 election cycle, because . . . equality!





 

Category: Abortion, Contraceptive Culture, Economics, Feminism, Planned Parenthood
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin