Free Republic

Well, the left constantly hurt itself when it concentrated on things like “the Patriot Act says the police can find out what you read in the library”.

A library is a public place that can have security cameras.

What the left should have said is that the Patriot Act can find out what websites you visited using your AOL account.

That would be where I draw the line.

The problem with the left is that they are mostly dummies who hate white male professionals and white male professional arguments.

They could have argued effectively against the Patriot Act if they had chosen the right parts of the law to complain about.

I also consider it a fundamental right to fly using the type of ID I have always used. That has usually been a passport, which I have to assume counts as a Real ID.

Freedom of movement is not in the Constitution? Let’s put it there. If a politician introduced a Constitutional Amendment calling for freedom of movement, he or she would win. The Republicans would NOT want to be on the wrong side of that issue.

Not enough planes are blown up to make me want to crack down on myself so much. ;-)

I would advise everyone to Google the Real ID issue.

We do not want to each end up in more efficient central data bases as technology gets better and better.

The moment one hear’s someone say “Why not. If you are innocent you have nothing to worry about” you know you are revisiting 1930s Germany where the same attitude prevailed.

Avoiding terrorist nukes must not involve so much control and information over ourselves. I would just prefer to steer clear of living and working downtown Washington or NY but otherwise live free.

Kronos,

You missed my point. The Serbians should be complaining about how liberal the US Republican Party has become and use concrete examples.

Talking about Kosovo will just put most Americans to sleep.

But for the government and media of other countries, in this case Russia and Serbia, to loudly talk about how the US is going off the liberal deep-end domestically...that could alter policy in Washington.

And you can get what you want, maybe, for Kosovo if you can succeed in getting the world to talk about our freefall into leftism.

But Serbian men should be more worried about US feminism being spread like imperialism. :-)

Your primary enemy will be the journalists of the west. But the journalists of Russia could say what you want (I am not just talking about Kosovo, which I have lost knowledge over since the Russians moved into Pristina in 1999).

I want to know who the attorney was for the players.

Can anyone give me contact information?

I want to go after the entire “Violence Against Women Act” in federal court.

I am dead serious. So are a few Iraq War vets who want to be plaintiffs and/or expert witnesses on how the new federal law turns men into second class citizens. This law makes the Duke case look like a minor media sensation in comparison.

Also, what district is best for a challenge that will permanently put feminism in its place?

The 9th is the worst of course, except for Judge Kazinski. Heck, there is a female 9th Circuit federal judge on the board of directors for several “women’s shelters” that lobby for new laws in Washington.

The 7th has got Posner and Easterbrook, which makes better odds.

The DC Circuit?

What federal circuit is North Carolina? This Duke case was not federal I understand, but it is in the federal courts where the real fight is going to be.

Regarding Alito and Roberts of the Supremes...are they aware of the definition of feminism as being always claiming “men are violent and need to be regulated”?

Or, like some other Republican federal judges...do they just condemn feminism on the issue of abortion while helping the fems “crack down on bad men”?

How do the other Supremes line up on feminism?

Lawyers reading this: Please provide resources.

You have heard of billionaire women dying and leaving hundreds of millions of $ to “women’s shelters”.

But how many billionaire men die and leave hundreds of millions of $ to organizations that will fight feminism?

None. Zero. Zilch.

In fact, conservative billionaires will die and leave all their money to their soon-to-be-lefty wife. Or they will leave hundreds of millions to a stripper.

She will then donate all the money to feminist organizations when she dies.

Don’t believe this hasn’t been happening slowly but surely over the past 30 years since victim-feminism gained power?

Look no further than Theresa Heinz-Kerry who was married to a conservative billionaire who left her the money.

If he is now rolling in his grave, it was his own fault. He needed to have rewritten his will a bit.

Note that Heather McCartney is pledging millions of her divorce settlement to women’s organizations that fight “domestic violence”. Will a portion of Beatles music sales now go via Heather into feminist organizations?

Rich old men: You might want to rewrite your last will and testament, and specificy specific men’s rights organizations and individuals who could use money to fight.

Supreme Doctrine,

While some people may be satisfied that light was shone on the feminist cockroaches in this case, the feminists are laughing over their victory with the socalled “Violence Against Women Act” or VAWA. Our Republican politicians, except Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, just rolled over for that one.

But there are still men left in the US. Check out http://www.mediaradar.org to a group that at least stopped the United Nations from “welcoming” Kofi Annan’s bogus report on “Violence Against Women”.

This RADAR group is politically active and they are determined to stop all Republican politicians who vote with the feminists.

So far, we are NOT winning this battle.

When was the last time you heard a Republican politician even mention the word “feminism”, much less condemn it?

When was the last time you contributed cash to a Men’s Rights Organization?

Unfortunately, most people here could not even NAME a Men’s Rights Organization.

This Duke Case might be where some men wake up, but I doubt it.

Read http://www.glennsacks.com and maybe also
http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com/index.php

Misandry is deeply entrenched in both political parties in the US. The leftists call all men rapists and the religious right call all men perverts (except themselves of course).

A tradition of “chivalry” is such that men are raised in the US to instinctively side with any woman over any man, or at least with women in general over men in general.

Meanwhile, Republican officials have made the temporary mistake of trusting “anti-feminist” organizations in the hands of women like Michelle Bernard of the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) who might be against abortion, but is not anti-feminist.

The Heritage Foundation, a supposedly conservative think tank, has feminist gatekeepers.

The job of “legislative aide” in Congress has been farmed out to “professionals” who all come from Wellesley and Smith, regardless of whether they serve Republican or Democrat Congresspeople.

In the judicial branch, court clerks are all former sorority sisters, regardless of which judge they are assigned to.

In Congress, the socalled “Bipartisan Women’s Caucus” is anything but bipartisan.

I can go on...

I guess I could read things online as well.

Kronos,

What we need to see is Putin himself making speeches along the lines of what you write.

Lots of educated Russian citizens, who have been to the USA, remark to me that “the USA lost the Cold War”.

This is because it is true that even many of our Republican politicians are infected with leftism (the desire to make more and more laws to regulate human behavior).

Can you write to the Russian media asking them to throw that concept out more?

I want to see Putin say on the White House lawn that he believes the US lost the Cold War and use as examples the fact that the New York Times and Washington Post, as well as CNN and even Fox News are solidly controlled by leftists.

What concerns me about Russia is that they are NOT trying to meddle in our affairs. Putin is NOT sounding the alarm about Hillary. It is like Putin, by not warning us, wants to let the Republican Party in the US self destruct and get wiped out in 2008.

Then again, Putin could be making great speeches to this end, but the liberal westerners who work as translators (low-paid jobs like journalism and translation do not attract alpha male conservatives) are not publishing English versions of the speeches.

Now I can read Russian newspapers to see what he is really saying...but I will not be back in Russia until July.

[But has anyone noticed that several of these things going on in Russia sound frighteningly similar to what’s going on with the American Left? Control of the media—the Left controls the media and flavors it with their propaganda, just as Putin’s cronies do in Russia. Squashing opposition candidates—a liberal newspaper in Texas refused to print an article endorsing Bush around the 2004 election. So much for freedom of the press. Brainwashing youth—what do think public schools do? The “Young Democrat”-type clubs are youth organizations supporting liberals formed after these kids have been indoctrinated in public school. The fact is, the US is going down the same path, and if the good people here don’t do something about it we too will become like Russia, because we have people here doing the exact same things as what’s going on in Russia. Their progress with it isn’t as pronounced as Russia’s is, because we have the conservatives here to taper its effect, but communists are at work in this nation, it’s no longer a TRUE land of the free.]

Exactly. Except Russia’s right wing controls the press. The lefties get no chance there.

This is why I love it there.

*there is a quasi exception in www.exile.ru which is a free newspaper in Moscow run by a few gay American men who pretend to be heterosexuals who like to party.

Plus, the right wingers who control the Kremlin are not religious types who want to control the lives of others (no attempts at Internet regulation there, unlike in the US where a new Internet regulation law passes every few months and then runs into trouble in court)...they are more the no-nonsense types who hate terrorists and traitors.

One can say that Putin is dictating down the center.

Now the people of Russia disliking Americans? I have never met a Russian who did not respect and like Americans. It is just that we are supposed to be rivals = equals to them. They have the largest country in the world and so they act like it.

It is just that Russians are not going to be doormats for Americans, the way the lefty Europeans will be doormats for US Democrats and the right wing Europeans will often be doormats for the US Republicans.

Am I on a Democrat forum here? :-)

I spend half my time in Russia. I have never seen any of these “Nashis” and the word is foreign to me although I speak the language more fluently than most Americans who aren’t Russian.

Putin cannot stand Left Wingers and won’t give them a chance. I don’t have a problem with that.

It is not as if our Left Wingers are giving us a chance.

They control the media in the US.

So why would we carry water for them when they complain that right wingers control the media in Russia?

It doesn’t make sense.

If you see a left wing western newspaper condemning Putin’s “control of the media”...you have to see that as a good thing. Putin’s popularity rises with me everytime I see some left wing columnist condemning him.

Let’s win back the media in our own country first, before we talk about how the media is biased in Russia (lets also win back Fox News which is owned by someone who purportedly wants Hillary to win in 2008).

I get the sense that a lot of FReepers have never tried to make an issue publicized in the American media that went against the grain of radical lefty progressiveness.

If they had, they would see that the articles that were already written and ready to publish by sympathetic journalists, are squelched by lefty editors or rewritten.

These dishonest people would take us out back behind the barn and shoot us if they could. Heck, they openly wish for the days of the commie dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

I can write a book on how the Iron Curtain has been rebuilt by the American left, not Putin.

Did you know that, in Russia and the Ukraine, it is entirely possible to buy a cell phone number (SIM card) within 10 seconds without an ID?

You just pop it into a $30 phone and voila, you are anonymous and easily reachable anywhere in the world.

Since when are Americans, in the land of the “free”, allowed to do that?

I know, one might say, that would allow terrorists to chatter with each other anonymously.

Maybe so...but if you spent even 1 month in Russia and experienced that kind of freedom (and this is just one example), you won’t exactly be lauding the US as being so much “free” as being “regulated”.

When it comes down to it, the US is best defined as “prosperous”.

It is good to be American because we stand for economic efficiency...and the wars we’ve fought all served the purpose of freeing things up enough so we can get on with our business lives and get married and have healthy kids, etc. The WOT allows us to congregate in cities to do business and see a baseball game without fear of nukes going off unexpectedly.

But freedom? The jury is out on whether Russia is more free than the US.

Now about the 80% popularity: I believe it because even young women, who in the west mostly vote left wing, are very proud of Putin in Russia.

They are not brainwashed. Instead, they remember or have been told by their parents about the LEFT WING dictatorship that was imposed on them for 73 years.

Unlike 66% of their American counterparts, the young women there know that leftism = poverty.

Like the Jews with the Nazis, they say “Nikogda bolshe” (Never Again).

Why would anyone in Russia trust a left winger to say boo after what they went through for 73 years?

Why should Gorbachev be allowed to blow his nose after being their dictator for so long?

We American Republicans chose to be proud of having allowed Michael Moore to make $300Million encouraging the Iraqi Insurgency 3 years ago (kickstarting the murder of 3500 American servicemen).

We proudly say “this is democracy” and we mean it.

The Russians deal with such traitors differently.

Take it or leave it. Russians are not going to let liberals run the show the way Americans do.

Don’t even begin to think the Russians view us as progressive.

[The man who would vote for Hillary Clinton is probably paying a dominatrix to beat him on weekends.
Who in the world could respect any man who would stoop so low?]

Around the Internet, they are called “manginas”.

These are mostly “males” who think they will be invited into bed by some babe if they put down other men.

There are, however, a lot of Republican manginas as well and I include Brownback as one of them.

These are “men” who feel they are being chivalrous by saying that most men are perverts and then backing every feminist law designed to regulate men in general a priori. These “guys” carry water for the NOW.

Meanwhile, the worst American manginas are the Democrat politicians, especially Joe Biden who took over as the slave boy of the “Key Street Feminists” in Washington, after Paul Wellstone, their previous slave boy, died in a plane crash in 2002.

Biden would do anything to subordinate men to women via laws.

And a key to Republicans winning in 2008 is to start talking about this. Look at the debates between Marc Rudov and Lis Wiehl on Fox News: the anti-feminist Marc Rudov keeps winning...showing that Americans are ready to vote Republican if feminism is made an issue once again.

There is a new video out called “I’ve Gotta Crush on Obama” where a gorgeous young singer says she has the hots for the leftie candidate. However, in a Fox News interview she admitted that she would “never date him if he were single”.

This said to me that the manginas aren’t even attracting their female constituents anymore.

At least one could say that Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton were selling men out in order to get nookie for themselves.

The current crop of manginas must be asexual.

Forget Brownback’s miserable record on immigration.

Check his record of supporting feminist laws.

The guy led the charge to get the VAWA passed, something that caused all divorced dads in the USA to stay home on election day in 2006.

Brownback doesn’t think that men vote.

The problem is these guys say they are trying to represent an entire 42% of the public, and then they go off and talk about something that much of the 42% probably doesn’t care much about. I want to control an entire third party myself, but I won’t try to stop globalization as my priority.

But I would prefer to control the Republican Party myself.

My friends and I are working on that. :-)

Ten years from now, I expect to be a welcome guest in the White House of an improved Republican Party.

There is room for a third party in the US however. That long eared rabbit guy what’s his name...Ross Perot...got about 20% of the vote in 1993 while acting obnoxious. A less eccentric candidate, backed with his money, might have won back then, if the electoral college would have allowed it.

It would only take $1Billion to run a third party properly. You would have to control a few TV channels and newspapers...but the Internet may soon make it so anyone can start an Internet TV station.

The thing is, the weirdo billionaires that are out there now don’t have much imagination and are clearly not being asked to sustain new political movements or new directions for the current parties. Much of the current Republican agenda is pushed via the money of Richard Mellon Scaith of Pittsburgh (the guy who pushed the Monica Lewinsky story as if a conservative man would stay true to Hillary). Rupert Murdoch is well known to be playing up to Hillary Clinton...meaning that Fox News ultimately doesn’t really mean it: they play softball.

And, of course, we all know that left winger Ted Turner isn’t going to question the radical left wingers on any bizarre topic they come up with.

[This does not mean that attempted legislation to codify feminism into federal law should not be resisted. Of course it should. Not because it is “feminism” but because that is not the job of the fed. Ron Paul hates feminism as much as I do, but that is NOT why he resists legislation, including what you mentioned. Ron Paul routinely votes no on ISSUES NOT DELEGATED TO THE CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION.]

Great. Now if you are on speaking terms with Ron Paul, please ask him to discuss in the next debate what kind of feminist laws he has resisted, because most of these laws are aimed at taking away the rights of men.

He is hiding his best argument for high office right now.

Heck, look at the new bill in New York where a woman can initiate a divorce and, for the purpose of leveraging alimony negotiations, declare that she is scared of the husband and that puts a homing device on him...even though everyone knows that it is all an act for leveraging the financial outcome of the divorce.

You don’t think Congress would vote for something like the homing device law nationwide? McCain would jump right on that for starts. He would think it would appeal to the “chivalrous” men out there.

Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo have been the only guys to say no to some of these laws, but they haven’t been loud enough.

There are millions of men who would vote for Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo if they only recognized that the male vote could give them double digits in the polls, and went after that vote.

[Simple. Feminism is not a political issue]

What?!

This shows that the only thing you know about Ron Paul’s legislative history and attitude is the one about the war.

Which proves a point that too many Ron Paul supporters are chasing his vehicle only because they are trying to bite the shining metal wheels that say “no war for oil”.

They know little of his more realistic policies and the actual good he could do if he were the attorney general or anything that had no effect on foreign policy.

My contention is that a good, but eccentric, politician’s campaign has been hijacked by the anti-war crowd who are single-issue voters or capital L Libertarian types who like tilting at windmills in, for instance, an all-or-nothing drive to be part of the 1% of Americans who vote to eliminate the IRS and DHS and the Fed immediately.

If you support Ron Paul, then help get him on the right track by concentrating on policies that would attract the white male Republican vote and the Military Vote.

Please do some research on what, exactly, Ron Paul has to say about the politicization of feminism and the unstoppable stream of lawmaking that has long since begun and shows no sign of stopping.

It kills me to see the guy supported for the wrong reasons, when there are actually things about him that one should support, at least long enough for those good policies to be adopted by the actual Rep nominee.

[It is not the job of our legislators to “fight feminism.”]

This is where you are being incredibly naive or willfully ignorant of what is going on.

Of course it is the job of our legislators to fight all proposed feminist legislation.

Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo both voted no to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 2005 while the rest of the entire Congress voted yes (the 2 were joined by two Dems voting no in Congress but not the Senate).

If you go to www.mediaradar.org, you will see that this anti-male law was passed by the socalled “Bipartisan Women’s Caucus” and the worthless shrinking violets that pass these days for white male Republican politicians mostly rolled over and voted yes.

Your problem, Polycarp, is that you are stuck on the war.

And that is where the DU and KosKidz are stuck.

Complaining about the war is a waste of time on FR because the military vote, especially, does not agree that OIF was not necessary...and most do not agree that it has not been necessary to “drain the swamp” over the past few years where the kill ratios have been in the west’s favor and no new terrorists are being created that wouldn’t have been recruited if Saddam were still in power (remember that the Saudis issued Bush an ultimatum before the Iraq War saying “if you do not remove Saddam, we will join him”).

We’ve created a killing field where most of the deaths are the type of guy who would otherwise drive a nuke into Washington on a speedboat five years from now.

The Europeans aren’t talking about the war now. Just the American left wingers and the type of Ron Paul supporter that Ron Paul does not need to be taken seriously for his other views.

America had no choice but to invade Iraq when it did. The Marines had no choice but to overrun Salmon Pak (sic) when they did.

The Libertarian Party made the same mistake as you in 2006 when they concentrated on the war and gay rights, not distinguishing themselves from the far left in the process.

What about heterosexual rights?

Why is the Christian website EHarmony now being attacked in the 9th Circuit because it won’t serve lesbians?

And, if you are a male, it is unacceptable to simply pretend that feminism is just a bad ideology that has no political power.

Have you read the minutes of the last session of the Bipartisan Women’s Caucus?

100% of US politicians, inluding Ron Paul these days, are terrified of mentioning the word “feminism” in public...showing how strong that ideology is within politics these days. Do you have any idea how many Republican Legislative Aides and Federal Court Clerks fully agree with the ideology even when their bosses do not?

Has it occured to you how that can hurt you personally? Ever been married?

The FR Mission Statement considers “fighting feminism” a priority.

But, sadly, that has not been happening much in the past year.

That, Polycarp, is where FR “didn’t used to be that way”.

If you think this forum has “dumbed down”, it is on this issue, not the war.

Consider concentrating on Ron Paul’s ability to stand up to feminists, at least with his votes, and maybe there will be a chance to make a difference in the primaries.

You clearly need to do a Google search on VAWA and feminism and look at why Paul and Tancredo tried in vain to stop some laws from being passed that make Sharia Law almost look like a better alternative.

Talk of the Iraq War will just drive Paul and his supporters into oblivion.

The Iraq War happened. Making it a political football now only serves to get the troops targeted more. The three captured troops that were killed were killed because the enemy figured it would score political points inside the USA.

You cannot win an argument here that the war should not have been fought.

I can write a book on why the war was necessary.

Let me make something clear:

1) The military vote will not go to an anti-war candidate
2) The military vote does not hang on the abortion issue
3) The military vote hates feminists with a passion
4) The military vote is split on porn but mostly for it
5) Ex-Military wants their VA benefits to be expanded

Now ask yourself: what candidate is even trying to get the military vote?

Answer: None so far.

Wow. I am shocked that you haven’t been zotted Polycarp because FReepers are normally extremely sensitive.

You are probably allowed to keep posting because JimRob thinks it is entertaining to see Ron Paul supporters where it is threatening to see Rudi supporters.

Since you are so hot on Ron Paul, why don’t you go back to the candidate and ask why he is afraid to talk about feminism?

He does have the best feminist-fighting record in Congress, which isn’t saying much.

So why is he talking about the war?

Does he really think he will get the important military vote with talk about how they put their lives on their line for nothing?

I can tell you that the military vote will go for the candidate who speaks out against the feminist takeover of both political parties.

The war is a fait accompli. It happened. We didn’t start it. Please get over it.

It doesn’t matter that it was Reagan who built up radical Islam as one of his 5 bulwarks against Soviet communism.

I meant to say that we mostly all agree here on the war and abortion. Where we may not agree is on the following:

Just because some of the support that most of us have for OIF comes from feminists who want Muslim chauvinists dead, it was NOT acceptable for anyone in the Bush Administration to accomodate these war supporters by cutting deals that would help feminists in the social arena (VAWA).

It should have been a deal-breaker for the Bush Administration to work with feminists at all.

Regarding abortion, there are many Catholic countries that have a deal on this issue that keeps it out of politics:

1) it is officiall illegal but not punished if
2) there is a 72 hour waiting period
3) and the woman was counseled by the church or pro-life organization
4) health insurance does not cover it and the state has nothing to do with it
5) the abortion must be within the 1st trimester unless it is necessary to save the mother’s life, in which case the father can decide if the mother is unconscious

The Republican Party in the USA could clean up if they offered the above conditions and the Democrats refused to negotiate.

But they won’t.

Is Ron Paul still in the race?

I haven’t looked at this thread for a week.

The media is ignoring him as expected.

But anything the media ignores is probably something a billionaire like Ted Turner, Richard Mellon Scaith or Rupert Murdoch does NOT want us to see.

I noticed that a Ron Paul “supporter” kept arguing above that it was wrong to give Iraqis a chance (the Shiites and Kurds at least - the Sunnis cheered on 9-11 and they’ve been getting payback ever since).

But much of the conservative interest in Ron Paul has been in spite of his stance on the war on terror, not because of it.

They don’t necessarily want Ron Paul to be a spoiler in the general election, but they do want him to be a power broker in the primaries if he can stop spewing anti-war nonsense and stick to his correct policy against lawmakers making so many new laws to fence us in.

Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo are the only candidates willing to vote against feminist laws that too many Republican women go along with the Democrats on.

Keep in mind that, on the subject of anti-feminism, Republican male voters are NOT going to lie down. For us, a Republican candidate who is afraid to even mention the word “feminism” is almost no better than her Heinous.

That said, Ron Paul has not been talking about his anti-feminism recently. So I see no reason to vote for him or care much if he becomes a power broker.

Keep in mind, BlackElk, that half the Republican Party is relatively anti-Socon, regardless of whether they consider themselves Libertarian or libertarian or even know what that means. They know the history of “Victorianism” where males agreed with Queen Victoria about regulating male behavior. Today’s Queen Victoria is the National Organization for Women and its various Republican offshoots (women’s organizations that pretend to be anti-feminist by saying they are pro-life and anti-lesbian).

Combatting abortionism and lesbianism might be a start, but is NOT combatting the greater scourge of gender feminism. To combat feminism, one has to make sure that the Bipartisan Women’s Caucus doesn’t get laws passed that men would disagree with (such as the VAWA).

When socons and feminists agree on everything else on the feminist agenda besides abortion...the 50% of male Republicans who aren’t socon aren’t happy.

On this thread, I have seen no discussion at all about the book “The Elephant in the Room”.

But the fact that half of Republicans are not socon, really is the elephant in the room or the 800 pound gorilla.

We are all going to lose the next election badly if we do not come together on something other than the war and abortion, where we mostly all agree.

The socons can start “agreeing” with the non-socons by immediately reading Robert Bork’s book “Slouching Toward Gomorrah” and reading the chapter on the danger of feminism.

Then the Republican candidates need to start mentioning the word “feminism” in their speeches and outlining concrete ways in which they will keep feminism from spreading.

But the Republican Party has, for the past 2 years, adopted a policy where they are embarrassed to mention the word “feminism”...because they think that Republican women embrace that ideology and they want to keep this “the women’s vote.”