Can a dishonest justice system be just?

I consider myself very pro-law enforcement. Most of the time, when disputes arise over police conduct, I find myself siding with the officer. Not always, but the vast majority of the time. But in all honesty the events surrounding Steven Avery's murder trial, depicted in the TV series Making A Murderer (MAM), caused me to significantly reflect upon my beliefs. This contribution isn't "about" MAM by the way. Watch the show if you want the details; they won't be provided or expounded upon in any great detail here. Suffice it to say, MAM is the kind of show that gives you the impression that the purpose of the justice system is purely self-affirmation, as opposed to seeking actual justice. And that the appeal process exists solely to give people the illusion there's a recourse to bad verdicts.

I'm still pro-law enforcement. That hasn't changed. That will no doubt disappoint and offend some people. I don't really care. The officers depicted in MAM probably aren't even representative of all the officers in Manitowoc County much less the entire country. As a Conservative, I realize what LEOs do for society, and value and respect that in a general sense. And unless things change pretty drastically that will continue to be the case. So despite watching MAM, I don't think all police are manipulating and fabricating evidence to frame people, because the officers depicted in MAM have what most police officers do not. Motive. The Manitowoc County Sherrif's Department had a reason to do this to Steven. 36 million reasons to be precise. And that's why you see them so egregiously and repeatedly engaging in, and excusing, conflicts of interest. But that's simply not the case with the vast majority of police investigations. So I feel like this was, objectively, a rather atypical incident. 

I do feel like the culture of camaraderie that exists among police facilitated Stephen's framing. Officers and prosecutors are inclined to believe each other and take the word of their colleagues over the word of suspects. And this is not without good cause, mind you, because suspects lie to them all the time. This naturally results in officers adopting a belief that their colleagues are the only honest party and perhaps even above reproach, which makes them far more susceptible to deception from other officers than it does suspects, toward which they have a cynical disposition. This tendency to accept the account of another officer without scrutiny is on conspicuous display in the testimony of Deputy Daniel Kucharski from neighboring Calumet County. Despite the circumstances under which the key to Teresa's car was found, Deputy Kucharski conveys no suspicion whatsoever, and it seems blatantly inconceivable to him it may have been planted. So I'm not saying they were all involved, but merely making the observation the culture of camaraderie among LEOs made framing Stephen significantly easier, and perhaps made officers like Deputy Kucharski complicit in an inadvertent and ancillary way.

It's simply inexcusable that one of the officers that was not supposed to be there because he was being sued by Avery, who was also the same officer that filed Stephen's blood evidence from his prior wrongful conviction, discovered some of the most damning blood evidence under highly suspicious circumstances. It's equally inexcusable that the prosecutor apparently had no problem with that. Again, the culture of camaraderie, i.e., that we (law enforcement) are all on the same team, seemingly utterly eclipsed objectivity. Police officers, prosecutors, judges, etc., are supposed to be seekers of truth (regardless of where it leads). And it seems instead, much as in politics, many of them have a partisan us versus them mentality leading some to sacrifice truth upon the alter of faction. 

Of particular concern to me, and what this contribution is primarily about, is the culture of deception that seemingly pervades police interrogation practices. And for more information on that you can watch Northwestern Pritzker School of Law's video on Brendan Dassey.

I feel I need to point out I don't necessarily agree with these people's politics. I'd not be surprised at all if we agreed on nothing else whatsoever. But as the old saying goes even broken clocks are right on occasion. And as an intellectually honest person I feel compelled to acknowledge when that's the case. As a Conservative I even defended Obama in some (exceedingly rare) instances; because the guy was right; because honesty demanded admitting such. And the heading on this page, "principle over party," isn't a joke. It's obvious these people aren't just making this all up. The internet is replete with videos of police interrogations that blatantly employ the methods they're describing (often with profound efficacy).

That being said one of the things that always really bothered me about MAM, just as much as Brendan Dassey's confession itself, was the apparent complete inability (or refusal) on the part of the detectives to recognize any of what seemed abundant red flags. As I watched it I personally felt like nothing this kid was saying was reliable. To perfectly blunt the kid seemed retarded. And the indifference to that exhibited by the detectives interrogating him bothered me.

Assuming Laura Nirider's account is accurate, an investigator for Stephen Avery's defense uncovered that Brendan had an extensive history of social, psychological, and intellectual impairment. Which immediately begs the question, how did the detectives not uncover that also? I can only arrive at two conclusions when seeking to answer that question. Either they didn't because they're incompetent. Or they did, and didn't care. And I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, because the notion that these two seemingly intelligent grown men didn't realize something's wrong with Brendan, seems to me quite preposterous. I mean, you can tell this kid's not right just by talking to him. Brendan's answers are so blantantly coaxed out of him, and constitute the verbal equivalent of throwing darts while blindfolded, it's comical at times. At one point after an investigator has repeatedly failed to get the desired answer, he just outright feeds Brendan the desired answer, inducing the audience in the video above to laugh out loud. Because it's farcical. It's farcical, that detectives leading someone blatantly guessing because he doesn't know the correct answer until he gives them the correct answer, is considered acceptable. It's something more befitting a sketch comedy skit of a police interrogation than an actual police interrogation.

You hear the officers telling Brendan things like, "I'll go to bat for you," if he responds in a certain way during his interrogation. As if they, his accusers who would testify against him if he confessed, were going to defend him if he adopted the narrative they wanted. I think there's something very wrong, morally, with leading a mentally challenged kid (or anyone really) to believe things will be better for them if they confess to a murder. Confessing to a murder is pretty much never, ever, ever going to make your circumstances better. But Brendan, being blatantly mentally challenged, doesn't seem cognizant of that at all. When I watched it the first time, and Brendan asked if he was going to make it back to school in time for 6th period because he had a project, after having just admitted to a murder, I was kind of in awe of his naivete. I remember thinking to myself, if I'm the detective, everything this kid has told us is worthless. He has no idea what's going on. But obviously, having a profound personal interest in the outcome, law enforcement saw it very differently. Brendan's credulity was their salvation.

Another example of a conviction predicated upon a dubious confession, and that eyewitness testimony can be absolutely worthless, is the Ryan Ferguson case. Ryan Ferguson went to prison for years, as a result of a confession on the part of a friend who implicated him, and who was likewise fed information by investigators.

The justification for such interrogation practices is no less disturbing than the practices themselves. I think it should go without saying, that there's a fundamental problem with the police lying to people to get what they want, and I'm quite uncomfortable with police deception having become as accepted as it apparently has. I find the rationale for that acceptance unsettling for reasons both theological and secular. I feel like it's an obvious and apodictic truth, or at least should be, that the difference between good and bad people is the unwillingness of the former to engage in deceit to get what they want, and the lack of compunction to that end on the part of the latter. Basically, if "bad" people are bad because they're willing to lie to get outcomes they prefer, then what is the difference between bad people and police officers who do the same?

Now I'm going to proleptically address what I know will be the response to that question. "Because they're the police." Basically, because they have the authority and power of government behind them, have uniforms and badges, etc., it's okay when they do it. They're lying for the "right" reasons. And the problem with that notion is it's the same justification used by every oppressive and totalitarian government ever. It's not wrong when we do it because we're the government, or proxies of such, has been the unofficial mantra of every tyrannical and autocratic regime in human history. Either lying is wrong, or it's not, folks. And if it's not, and police (i.e., the good guys) doing it means that it's not, then how can it be a crime to lie to the police? Others will claim the police are better because they only lie, which is a minor or lesser sin than stealing, or rape, or murder, etc. But that is merely another common specious argument used by immoral people to validate their immorality. A relativist is always going to devise a standard that sanctions his own vices, and establishes his virtue upon not doing "worse" things that other people do. The liar is a good person in his own eyes because he's not a thief. The thief is a good person in his own eyes because he's not a rapist. The rapist deems his behavior acceptable because he's not a murderer. Et cetera. This sort of reasoning is only ever employed to validate unethical behavior. Never to mitigate or eliminate it.

It frankly baffles me how any judge, or anyone for that matter, could not see the inherent moral and historical problems inherent to this point of view. How much can you blur the line between criminals and agents of justice, exactly, before that line becomes hard to discern if not effaced altogether? Is getting legitimate confessions, which I readily concede happens all the time through these techniques, worth Brendan Dassey and who knows how many others like him being incarcerated for crimes they probably didn't commit? Crimes there's no actual evidence they committed? If the end justifies the means, and the efficacy in procuring a confession is all that matters (whether its genuine or not), why not just waterboard suspects? Because there seems to be a dangerous notion that prevails among law enforcement that procuring a confession legitimizes the methods used to get it. There also seems to be a prevailing notion that, since most of the confessions procured are genuine, that it makes the ones that aren't worth it. Again, waterboarding would no doubt be as effective in procuring confessions from the guilty as the innocent. And since the police, more often than not suspect the legitimately guilty party, it could just as legitimately be argued the innocents waterboarded would likewise just be acceptable collateral damage.

I think it should also go without saying the notion someone must be charged, even when it conflicts with or is not substantiated by the evidence, is inherently problematic. The desire to attribute blame without fail, often for personal or political reasons, when compelling evidence is lacking obviously significantly increases the likelihood of an innocent person being charged and convicted of a crime they didn't commit. It's simply an unfortunate reality of life, that in a country of this size and population, there are going to be incidents occasionally in which evidence is insufficient to charge anyone. And in those incidents it needs to be that way, as opposed to seeking convictions based upon dubious confessions, or highly circumstantial evidence. 

Ultimately, regardless of your party affiliation, Steven Drizin and Laura Nirider are raising questions that need to be asked. Relying on government and its proxies to be ethical, and operate within confines that respect individual liberty entirely on their own, is simply not good enough. The Bill of Rights is an irrefutable and codified rebuttal to that notion. Some will no doubt claim I sound like a leftist espousing the "it should be banned if it saves only one life" rhetoric of anti-gunners. But that's patently ridiculous. The Founders considered the right to bear arms to be integral to a free society, as evinced by it being explicitly codified in the U.S. Constitution. It's indisputable as such. By contrast the right for constabularies to lie to people to procure confessions, is not, and frankly doesn't exist. It's a completely apples and oranges comparison. 

The belief that it's worth sending Brendan Dassey to prison for life, because these techniques keep many more legitimately guilty people off the streets, is far more dangerous than the alternative. Why? Because government has murdered exponentially more people than Brendan Dassey ever has or could. And I've been making that observation for years and years. Even if Brendan Dassey is guilty as sin, if he can't be convicted on the physical evidence, he should walk. Because a government that can throw people in prison based upon confessions procured through coercion and deceit is infinitely more dangerous to society.

But it seems Americans have forgotten the lessons of the European monarchy our Founders escaped. Indeed it seems they've forgotten sanity. 

The racist bigotry of the left is unassailable

I don't know what's more tragic. That Jemel Roberson lost his life or that leftists as usual wasted no time whatsoever politicizing his death to advance the Marxist anti-2A agenda. It's not my intention to diminish the tragedy of Jemel losing his life with this contribution. Though I don't think I could if I tried. That's already been done by radical leftist anti-gun, and anti-white racists, exploiting Jemel's death to advance the cause of fascist tyranny.

It seems every time something like this happens, when reading about it on social media, there's always some "person of color" or leftist plagued by white guilt who implies, or outright asserts, that this "never would have happened" if the victim "was white." Or some other, comparably baseless and insufferably stupid, assertion. Take Christie Hargrave and Lauren Allen-Jones for example.

Apparently reporting the facts of the incident somehow "perpetuates racism amongst American readers." We see in Christie's response the all too common sort of abject duplicity and manipulation leftists incessantly employ. Christie is accusing Fox of racism in a flagrant effort to "shame" them into suppressing details of the incident that contravene the (blacks are always the victim) narrative to which she subscribes. She doesn't want Fox reporting all the details, just those details that fit the leftist narrative, i.e., that Jemel Roberson, being black, could not bear any responsibility in his death whatsoever and that the police are racist. Essentially, the sum of Christie's argument is how dare Fox disseminate information in disparity with the Socialist party's platform, and not slant its coverage to affirm that platform. Christie's remarks also allude to the common leftist contradiction, which I've pointed out for years, that the police are racist and yet the police are the only people who should have guns according to leftists.  

I'm also not sure what responsibility the NRA, a civilian gun owner rights advocacy group, bears in police shootings exactly. But apparently it bears some kind of responsibility for such according to Lauren. I mean, obviously if the 2A was repealed the police would still have guns. According to leftists the police should be the only people that have guns. So police shootings would still occur in the absence of the 2A or NRA. Does Lauren expect the NRA to defend Jemel and attack the police? To do that would require they assume the innocence or guilt of the parties involved prior to knowing all the details or facts. Worse, it might require assuming such despite the details and facts. And while that's something with which the left, and Lauren clearly have no problem, it's not something an intellectually honest person would do.

Here's the deal. Apparently Jemel wasn't in uniform and ignored verbal commands from an officer. But none of that matters, you see. Because he was shot for being black according to leftists, and not for being a guy holding a gun that didn't follow instructions, when told by a police officer to drop his weapon and get on the ground. He was apparently wearing a hat that said "security" on it. And we all know that it's impossible for someone who is not a security guard, to procure and wear a hat that says security on it, proving unequivocally that this was racially motivated. And never mind that according to the Washington Post's tally of fatal police shootings, twice as many whites have been killed by police than blacks or Hispanics in 2018, as was the case in 2017, and 2016, and 2015 before it.

I imagine this will simply be disregarded, however, as white racist propaganda. In my experience that's what Marxists, whether white or "of color," do any time the data contravenes their position (which it does very, very often).

The amnesiac American populace has already forgotten that a similar incident happened not long ago. Jason E. Washington wasn't black and was killed by police under very similar circumstances. I'm not sure what ethnicity Jason was, but when I first saw the video I thought he was white. Jason, a veteran of the United States Navy and holder of a valid concealed carry permit, was trying to break up a brawl outside of a bar. His weapon, which wasn't even concealed, was allegedly dropped when Jason fell over during the scuffle. Upon getting up he reached for the weapon, the officers commanded him to drop it, and he apparently failed to comply and was shot and killed. 

Jason wasn't in a Navy uniform. He failed to obey commands from police. He reached for a weapon. And he paid the price. Absolutely tragic, but also rather understandable, given the circumstances. (You never reach for a weapon around the police.) Unless you're a leftist, a black leftist in particular, and then the police should have had the power of precognition and extra sensory perception. They should have known everything about Jason, a complete stranger with a gun, despite having never met him before.

I'm frankly really tired of the abject dishonesty of leftists, who incessantly parrot this falsehood that people of color are targeted by, and disproportionately the victim of fatal police shootings. And it is dishonesty, because even when presented with data to the contrary, as leftists commonly do they ignore that data and continue disseminating falsehoods. I'm also rather fed up with their flagrant hypocrisy, and incessant politicization of peoples' deaths, as a means of advancing their political agenda.

Dylann Roof is another prime example of how leftists cull, and selectively present information, in a manner that serves purely to affirm their own bias and facilitate the advancement of their agenda. Leftists cited Dylann as proof of America's white "racism." But they omitted key information, like Dylann's own statements during his confession to police, because they contravened that narrative. What information? That Dylann was, by his own account, the exception and not the standard; he was doing something no one else would do. But of course that didn't stop leftists from using Dylann as a tool, to construe all white people and/or Conservatives as racists or white supremacists, while simultaneously claiming to oppose racial profiling. I saw insipid leftist screeds that ranged from claiming "Dylann Roof is the face of the radicalized alt-right,” to blaming Donald Trump for motivating Dylann's homicidal rampage, and radicalizing working class whites suffering from "vulnerable and precarious self-esteem."  

None of them acknowledge that Dylann stated none of his friends or family shared his views on race, and that he generally didn't discuss it with other people because he knew they wouldn't approve. "I've never even talked about race around other people [...] because they probably wouldn't agree with me." When asked if he ever talked about race with his family he said no. "They wouldn't like it." Acquaintances of Dylann seem to corroborate his account to a large degree, a black friend saying he "never witnessed Roof expressing any racial prejudice." When asked if he's a member of a racist white organization, Dylann stated he isn't because he couldn't find one to join, and that for all practical intents and purposes they don't exist. Dylann described the KKK as being impotent and observed that there haven't been any legitimate skinhead organizations in decades. "There are no skinheads. I wish there were, but there aren't." He stated that white people, unlike black people, do not view things through the "lens" of race. And that the reason he perpetrated the murders was to degrade relations between whites and blacks, in an effort to foment a racial cognizance on the part of the former, that according to Dylann doesn't currently exist to any meaningful extent. Blacks view everything through the "lens" of race from birth, said Dylann, and his crime was intended to get whites to do likewise. 

Obviously, acknowledging these details would directly contradict leftist assertions that "white supremacy" is pervasive and a credible threat in America, and therefore in accordance with the wishes of leftists like Christie should not be reported. I mean, we wouldn't want to "perpetuate racism" by reporting all the details, now would we? Christie's sentiments actually serve to substantiate Dylann's claim that the media has a pro-black bias. Anyone with a functioning brain would immediately recognize that Christie is chiding Fox for coverage that lacks a pro-black bias. She outright says Fox's article, by having a headline that suggests Jemel might not be blameless, is "literally the only news article" she's seen that does not exhibit that bias.

But apparently if you acknowledge the validity of anything Dylann said that makes you a racist. One leftist screed cites someone claiming Dylann wasn't a "madman," which he plainly wasn't, as proof that person is racist. So if you observe that Dylann comes across as completely lucid, cognizant, truthful, and perfectly aware of the weight of his actions, you're racist. So were I to say that Dylann was right when he said there are no white racist organizations of note to join any longer, and that I wouldn't even know where to begin trying to find one if I wanted to become a member, that would make me racist. I mean, it's not like genocidal white racist organizations are found sitting unabashedly on street corners in towns and major cities throughout America or anything. 

Oh wait. I take that back. Actually they are. Hiding in plain sight under such seemingly innocuous euphemisms as "Planned Parenthood." 

But naturally leftists have no problem with racist enterprises when they run them. And "abortion is genocide" probably wouldn't be as efficacious at getting people in the doors; it just doesn't have the same ring to it. Aside from ogranizations like Planned Parenthod, I've personally never been to, or even seen a white racist organization. But I digress. At one point during his confession Dylann explicitly says "I'm not delusional." But apparently leftists wanted Dylann to be crazy so he could mount an insanity defense, allowing them to cite that as yet one more example of proof the justice system is racist, by claiming a black man would have been summarily executed by the police for committing a similar crime.

For example, the mass shooting perpetrated by black man Gavin Eugene Long, was also racially motivated. But leftists are too busy claiming Gavin's death in the process of perpetrating that crime, is proof the police and justice system are racist, to care. Once again they forget/omit key details, like the fact Gavin sought out the police, and died as a result of engaging them in armed combat. Conversely the time frame in which Dylann committed his murders was far shorter and he left long before the police arrived. Gavin went to the Police. Dylann went where there were no police, and when the police eventually found him, surrendered without incident. 

Leftists are constantly making these asinine apples and oranges comparisons. They constantly cite some black guy getting shot resisting arrest, and James Holmes who surrendered to police peacefully not getting shot, as proof of racism.

By contrast Markeith Loyd, also a black man, was not shot when taken into custody despite having murdered a police officer and being incidental in the death of another. Why? Because he surrendered when police apprehended him. And why am I pointing this out? To illustrate that you don't necessarily get the same outcome, even among two people of the same race, much less two people of different races hundreds or thousands of miles apart.

This all merely serves to illustrate how fruitless trying to reach any kind of understanding with a leftist is. They're simply not pragmatic, or even rational people, and are often conspicuously uninterested in the truth. They routinely base their positions on incomplete information, if not fantasies of their own making at complete odds with the facts altogether. They are the ones motivated by prejudice and ignorance. As evinced by their complete failure to understand there is no uniform national standard for murder penalties. The laws vary from state to state, county to county, and even town to town. The expectation of the "same," or an identical outcome in two separate murder trials for example, is simply farcical. It's highly improbable that two juries, 2,000 miles apart, will reach the exact same conclusion in two separate murderer trials, involving two different culprits, involving a myriad of disparate variables. Likewise, the outcome of two separate arrests is not necessarily going to be the same, when the parties involved are different and meet under drastically different circumstances. And the expectation of such conveys an infantile understanding of the world on the part of the person expecting it.

American leftists did exactly what Dylann wanted by using his crimes to foment racial strife. That's exactly what he wanted.  Ironically however, it was blacks and not whites that were induced by his actions to become (yet more) focused on race, which was the opposite of what he wanted. Dylann was, by his own statements, seeking to evoke white racism where none existed. And he believed that by murdering blacks, it would incite their animus against whites, forcing the latter to adopt a racial mentality in response. But none of that was reported and no leftist could be bothered to care about those details. They didn't fit, and affirm, the leftist narrative that all whites are racist and view everything through the prism of race. 

In reality the opposite is true. It is blacks that view everything, from their earliest years, through the prism of race. Dylann was right about that. And the proof of that is seen at the beginning of this article. It's seen in how leftists, particularly black leftists, immediately made Jemel Roberson's death a "racial" issue before he'd even assumed room temperature. It's seen in how they determined which parties were innocent and guilty, before they had any information at all, much less all the facts. And it's seen in how they disregard any information in disparity with their racially focused narrative. The only detail that matters to leftists, is that the person shot was black, and the person who did the shooting was white; because leftists view everything through the "lens" of race.

Sadly, the real lessons to be learned from Dylann's crimes seem simply beyond the average American's ability to even discern much less grasp. Dylann during his confession remarks that he was in "absolute awe," there were no police there when he exited the church, after he "shot that many bullets." (Dylann, like all modern leftists, simply doesn't understand the physical realities that govern police response times.) "What are these cops doing?" Dylann quips, "They're not even really doing their job." Serving to illustrate yet again, that those who rely on the state to save them, die waiting to be saved. Observing their were no police waiting for him outside the church, Dylann calmly walked to his car and left.

Those of us with brains realize Dylann didn't make anything better for white people or gun owners. He actually made them worse by giving leftist retards like Christie and Lauren more ammunition with which to assault our liberties. And for that, no less than murders he committed, I rebuke him.

What the left wants is slavery

The recent ruling from a federal judge compelling Trump to return Marxist hack Jim Acosta's press pass, is yet another example of the assiduous and interminable jurisdprudential farces plaguing America, and yet further illustration that the system of government established by the Founders is currently nigh nonexistent.

I mean, what the hell is this judge talking about? Due process? How was Jim Acosta denied due process? Due process is defined as:

"the regular administration of the law, according to which no citizen may be denied his or her legal rights and all laws must conform to fundamental, accepted legal principles, as the right of the accused to confront his or her accusers."

As stated in a previous blog entry presidential press conferences are a courtesy. The president has no obligation whatsoever to host the press or apprise them of anything. So, being that there is no "right" to be briefed by the president in the first place, much less to debate or browbeat him during one of his own press conferences, how is this even a legal matter at all much less one of due process? This is yet another testament to how profoundly wayward, and dangerous to American liberty, the courts have become. Any coherent, non-activist judge, would have laughed this ridiculous lawsuit out of his courtroom.

Democrats, the disposition of which is superbly conveyed by the insipid cows of The View, are of course tickled pink that Acosta (and through extension the rest of the Walter Duranty laden media) has been indemnified from any repercussions for their political activism. Now leftist journalists too, like so many other subversive proletarian groups, have by a federal judge effectively been granted carte blanche to flout decorum and will likely conduct themselves accordingly. The shills of the GOP are of course unhappy with it, but as usual, for purely partisan and none of the right reasons. I've yet to see any major "Republican" pundit acknowledge the real problem with this ruling, which only serves to further vindicate an observation I've been making for years. Things like "freedom of speech" are for the left entirely one directional. In other words, leftists have the freedom to say whatever they want, and Conservatives do not. Likewise leftists have the freedom to associate with whomever they please, and Conservatives have the freedom with which to be associated. And this is merely another in a litany of examples of that disturbing fact.

If you're a leftist you may associate with whomever you choose. If you're a Conservative you may not. You are compelled by law to associate with people with whom you do not wish to associate. You know, like slaves. In antebellum America the slave owner had freedom of association, and the slave had the freedom with which to be associated, whether he wanted to or not. In present day America "homosexuals" likewise have "freedom of association," while the Christian conversely has only the freedom with which to be associated. (This is plainly illustrated by the fact that "homosexuals" may boycott Christians businesses, but Christian businesses may not boycott "homosexuals.") Association is voluntary for one party (the leftist), and involuntary for the other party (the Conservative). So "homosexuals" had the right to associate with the Kleins, and the Kleins had the right to serve "homosexuals," whether they wanted to or not. If that's not a quintessential characteristic of slavery, I don't know what is.

As I said at the time (of the protest in the image above), she's right. It's not about the cake. It's about freedom of association, and more importantly for us, the lack thereof. And I'm frankly appalled by the abject inability of those on the political right to discern that, and it's actual ramifications, despite its essentially being openly proclaimed by leftists like those in the image above. Despite it being openly proclaimed by leftists when they say things like this.

"It appears to be the first time the federal government has asked the justices to carve out an exception from an anti-discrimination law." - Mark Sherman, Associated Press.

That exception already exists. It's called the First Amendment, which being devised to prevent the federal government from imposing compulsory church attendance or establishing criteria for religious beliefs, establishes the freedom of dissociation. As does that whole "separation" from England incident that took place. Secondly, justices (to whom are conferred "jus discere") don't "carve out" anything, legislators (to whom are conferred "jus dare") do. So Mark's statement tells us a lot about him. Namely that he is, like most American journalists, an ignoramus.

Allow me to explain something to you folks, because those who claim to be on the political right in America, seem to have a serious problem grasping the nuance and gravity of what's occurring. You're not free. You might think you are, but you're not. The First Amendment, for all practical intents and purposes, essentially no longer exists. Do you understand that? It's been effaced by federal "anti-discrimination" law. Under our current form of government, Donald Trump does not have the right to dissociate from Jim Acosta, Christians do not have the right to dissociate from "homosexuals," whites do not have the right to dissociate from blacks, Americans do not have the right to dissociate from illegal immigrants, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 

And being that Trump's absurd rhetoric in response to this ruling indicates he's apparently already completely capitulated on this matter from a legal perspective, I feel compelled to therefore ask (for illustrative purposes) the obvious question. What are Trump and the GOP doing to restore fundamental liberties, like the right to dissociate with anyone we want for any reason we want, to people on the political right? Obviously, being that Trump once again lost a battle and now has his tail between his legs, not a damn thing of significance. Clearly Trump can't even protect his own liberties (despite being the most powerful man on Earth). So how can he protect ours?

Aside from a few rapidly fading vestigial remnants of adjudicatory coherence, i.e., a fluke ruling here and there that contravenes the Marxist hegemony, these "anti-discrimination" laws are consistently interpreted in one direction and to the benefit of leftists. The entire philosophical basis of liberty has shifted in America, from one in which rights are derived from God, to one in which rights are derived from the federal government. I've been pointing out for years now, how the "homosexual rights" movement has consistently been the spearhead for replacing God-given and unalienable natural rights, with alienable government granted "civil rights." And no one, not even on the right, seems capable of even comprehending that much less taking it seriously. And it needs to be understood that this is only going to get worse, that these rulings will favor the left more over time and not less, as American jurisprudence continues to become less and less rooted in originalist principles, and ever more rooted in psychotic Marxist moral relativism.

For all their ostensible hatred of religion, the left is establishing a government that is the consummation of everything the Founders sought to prevent, and rivals the most notable excesses of the theocratic tyranny they so love to denounce. It's becoming virtually impossible for one to hold public office in America, without acceding to and openly professing their loyalty to the federally maintained Marxist hegemony, in a fashion not dissimilar to the reign of King Henry VIII. When Henry separated from the church of Rome, the Act of Supremacy was passed, which required his subjects to swear the Oath of Supremacy. The Oath required any person taking public or church office in England to swear allegiance to the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Failure to do so was to be treated as treasonable. (Devout Catholic Thomas More was executed for refusing to do this.) The requirement of swearing the Oath would later be extended to include Members of Parliament and people studying at universities.

In disturbingly similar fashion it's becoming increasingly difficult to make it through college, to hold public office, or even be a pastor in the United States without swearing an oath of federal supremacy, and through extension the Marxist platform upon which such is increasingly based. Leftists will argue they're completely separate and different things, because one was theistic and the other is not, as if there were some meaningful difference between the theocracy they denounce and the "secular" autocracy they're facilitating. Most of them, in spectacles of abject ignorance and delusion, will often even routinely deny their agenda has any basis in Marxism at all.

That's Buzzfeed editor Kelly Oakes discarding with all pretense. None of this specious they only want "Socialism" and not Communism tripe they so often dispense. Kelly has since deleted this Tweet because, despite being full blown Communists, American leftists are aware that label still has a negative perception in the U.S. and therefore don't want to be associated with it. So they generally hide their true political beliefs and affiliations. But make no mistake, the leftists of America and the west in general, want the full shebang.  

Remember when I said above that Marxists are using the "homosexual rights" movement to supplant unalienable natural rights with usually federally conferred and alienable civil rights? You can see that vindicated on Wikipedia's page on the German Green Party.

"Because of the extensive support the Green Party has given the LGBT community since its conception, many gays and lesbians vote for the Green Party even if their political ideology does not quite align otherwise."

This also affirms a longstanding observation and assertion on my part. These people, which I call "vice voters," are overwhelmingly single issue voters. They will support whatever person, or party, promises access to their vice. Even if that person or party is ostentatiously tyrannical. So if a political candidate or party in the U.S., were to start supporting "pedophile rights" for example, you'd see virtually all pedophiles vote for that candidate/party even if they agreed with them on nothing else whatsoever. Even if that candidate or party was merely using the advancement of their "group rights," to abolish liberties derived from any other source but the state, and to crush political dissidents. Basically you'd see the exact same process unfold that was used to advance "gay rights," as that person/party used those benighted pawns to augment the power of the state, which its supporters were oblivious was the real objective all along. To this end, and this end alone, the left promises and rewards these deviants with federally conferred "civil rights." It makes of them most zealous supporters, who obliviously facilitate the establishment of an authoritarian government, as they generally have little or no interest in anything but access to their vices. This is why the Founders warned us, repeatedly and explicitly, about the dangers moral decay poses to limited governance and liberty.

The authoritarians of course grant them these liberties to the extent it serves their purposes. And once it stops serving their purposes, the state may revoke them entirely from a populace of useful reprobates that, having made the state the arbiter of rights, now has no recourse.

By the way. Guess who's an ex-Green Party member.

Sexual deviant, and now senator, Kyrsten Sinema. Kyrsten naturally ran as a member of the largest unofficial, and much too unacknowledged, Communist party in America; the Democratic Party. As a legislator, we can naturally expect Kyrsten to pursue yet more legislation that seeks to supplant natural rights with civil rights, and robs non-Marxists of their right to dissociate from Marxists. Obviously, it would be far harder to infiltrate and subvert American institutions, if they were allowed to separate themselves from Marxists and deny them admission to their institutions.  

For far too long the myopic rights has downplayed and scoffed at the notion Communism is a threat to America. For far too long they've sat obtusely claiming it was "dead" while it flourished all around them under conspicuously transparent euphemism. And now it's ascended to the highest levels of government, is directing virtually every facet of American life, and dimwitted Republicans still refuse to acknowledge it and insist on referring to Marxists as "liberals."

Again, what the left wants is slavery. And if the ineptitude of the feckless GOP is any indication, they'll get it. They already have to a profound degree.

Women are predators too

I don't typically engage in prolepsis here but I suppose I will this once. It should go without saying that this article is not, in the slightest, implying or arguing that men are not and can never be manipulative. It's not in the slightest suggesting men are never at fault or to blame. I've known more than one philanderer in my life, and I never sought to excuse that behavior, based upon something so tenuous (and ridiculous) as sharing the same gender. But that's not what this article is about. As always I expect the reader to have the good sense to realize if the following doesn't apply to them, then it doesn't apply to them, and to not interpret judgment of others as judgments of themselves. Moving on.

To hear "feminists" tell it men are roaming the streets in paroxysm, foaming at the mouth, and sexually molesting fair maidens at their leisure without compunction. And as if that weren't bad enough there's now a large contingent of men, who've plainly never been in an actual relationship with a "real" woman, aiding and abetting this lunacy through a conspicuous belief that all women are forever virginal and incapable of doing wrong. Because any man who's ever been in an actual relationship with a woman would tell you that women are some of the most manipulative creatures on Earth. What they lack in physical strength, they make up for in psychological sadism. 

As I've long said, since women typically can't abuse men physically, they rely on abusing them psychologically and emotionally. What they can't inflict upon flesh, they inflict upon feelings (systematically emasculating their mates), often with great efficacy. This is why abusive and manipulative women dislike it when a man is indifferent or emotionally aloof. It deprives them of their only leverage in the relationship and consistent means of abusing the male; it prevents them from using the male's emotional attachment as a weapon against him. Hell, women themselves will often inadvertently admit their malicious nature. I couldn't tell you how many times I've had women freely admit, in casual conversation, that they dislike the company of other women because they're so conniving and perfidious. They're so incessantly scheming and backstabbing, that many of them don't even want to associate with each other.

Any man who's ever been in relationships of any significance with a woman will notice a common character feature. They profess "equality" when being treated equally is in their interests, and then conversely profess to be the weaker sex when that's in their interests. Basically, they're just as capable as you and should be treated no differently than you, until they screw up or do something wrong, and then they become "just a girl" again and a victim in need of leniency and protection. It's an attribute I've witnessed to varying degrees in even the best of women over the course of my life. And a superb example of this (the manipulation part not the best of women part) is white trash Jenelle Evans, who was apparently catapulted to reality TV celebrity status, for nothing more than spreading her legs as a teenager out of wedlock (as if that's an accomplishment or takes any kind of effort or skill whatsoever).

See Video 1 here.

First of all, as someone who was a commercial driver for years, let me begin by saying Jenelle is the worst kind of scum found on the roads of America. Jenelle had no idea why this guy was in a hurry. Maybe he had to be somewhere and was running late. Maybe he had diarrhea and was rushing home to relieve himself. Maybe he or someone he knew had experienced a medical emergency. As such, the intelligent and reasonable thing to do, was to just allow the guy to pass as soon as possible. But Jenelle is an idiot who takes tailgating, the universal sign someone wants to pass you, as a personal insult and therefore decided to make it a battle of wills and intentionally impede his progress out of spite.

Now, that being said, if you're not familiar with this incident allow me to explicate. Jenelle follows this guy to his house, because he allegedly tailgated her and then brake checked her (after she intentionally obstructed him for as long as she could), and then proceeds to hit and/or run over his mailbox. When the guy tries to block her vehicle with his own, to prevent her from leaving the scene after she damaged his property, she pulls a gun on him. Jenelle then flees the scene of a vehicular accident causing property damage (potentially a crime). Her husband (who is not the father of her child by the way) rightly chastises her for following someone home over a traffic quarrel. Janelle hangs up on him for "mansplaining." You know, cause "ain't no man" gonna tell her how to conduct herself or give her good advice. You never follow someone home, and you never point a firearm at someone, unless you're prepared to kill or be killed. NC is a stand your ground state. The moment Jenelle pointed her firearm at that guy, he had just cause to shoot Jenelle dead, potentially killing her child also inadvertently by proximity. But Jenelle is clearly not someone who gives much thought, any thought even, to the consequences of her actions; because being an attractive female she's likely never had to.

Jenelle is aggressive and confrontational throughout the entire incident involving the other driver. She followed him home. She threatened him with a weapon. And yet when the police officer (who sounds a lot like Dr. Phil) shows up, and Jenelle faces the prospect of suffering actual consequences for her actions, the waterworks begin and she's suddenly "just a girl" again in need of protection from the big bad scary man in a big bad scary truck.

See Video 2 here.

Her recounting of events conveniently omits the whole running over his mailbox part, and the whole pulling a gun on him part. Apparently she later claimed she never pulled a gun on him at all, despite being clearly caught on camera doing so. (She even said to the guy at one point that there were three cameras in her vehicle that "caught everything.") To hear Jenelle tell it, he was basically trying to abduct her when she followed him to his house, and everything she did was acceptable in her own mind because she was just a "scared" girl.

Watch the two videos again, and this time I want you to focus on Jenelle's demeanor during the incident, as opposed to her demeanor once the officer reaches her window. Jenelle was calmly talking on the phone, and never shows any signs of fear until she's getting pulled over, and has the realization she might actually not just get away with it all. As soon as the officer begins questioning her she starts sobbing. Seconds later she instantly stops crying as quickly as she began, and then moments after that instantly starts crying yet again. She turns her tears on and off with all the mechanical efficiency of a water faucet. It's perhaps one of the most spectacular, and well documented, displays of abject feminine guile and duplicity I've ever seen. Jenelle's recounting of events is so profoundly subjective, one-sided, and inaccurate it's astounding. It is, by virtue of its self-serving omissions and outright fabrications (e.g., the son nearly hitting his head on the dashboard), not even remotely close to being a truthful answer to the officer's question; "What's going on?" 

Jenelle gave no indication she was afraid of the "big big huge truck" (keep in mind she's talking about an F-150), when she defiantly declared "I will go slow the whole way," in retaliation to his perceived slight against her. There was not a single tear shed when Jenelle was following this guy home. There was not a single tear shed when she was yelling at him through the window and called him a "dumb ass." There was not a single tear shed when she ran over his mailbox. There was not a single tear shed when she unholstered the firearm and apparently pointed it at him. There was not a single tear shed when she fled the scene. But watching Jenelle cry once the officer arrives at her window, you'd almost forget completely that everything that transpired after the tailgating, is Jenelle's fault. You'd almost forget completely that she followed a man home, ran over his mailbox, and essentially threatened to kill him in his own driveway. 

No, when the officer shows up she's the victim. Jenelle goes into full manipulation mode in a flagrant attempt to illicit his male penchant to assume the role of protector of women and children. She again claims that her son almost hit his head on the dashboard, which is impossible because he's wearing a seat belt (and which the video clearly refutes), for that little bit of extra manipulative efficacy. Jenelle clearly had no problem with her son being placed in harm's way, when she was the one doing it, by potentially instigating a completely avoidable shootout with him in the vehicle. But once the officer reaches her window suddenly Jenelle, who was a strong independent badass only moments ago (as conveyed by her "strong mom" tank top), is now a helpless and defenseless woman. Her son suddenly becomes a theatrical prop, a tool, she exploits to elicit pity. She was a completely different person to the officer, than she was to the guy on which she pulled a gun.

Gee, I wonder why her first marriage didn't pan out. I'm sure it was completely the guy's fault, and had nothing to do with the fact she's clearly a profoundly manipulative snake. And like most women of this sort, doesn't even seem to realize it. If the "feminists" have their way this is what will govern our society. Let that sink in for a moment.

It's because of incidents like this, much to the outrage of "feminists" and their beta male thralls, that I unapologetically state I never assume the woman is innocent. It's because of incidents like this that I always want to hear both sides of the story. Though I've never had a girl pull a gun on me, I've absolutely seen, and been subjected to precisely this type of behavior by women. So I'm not in the slightest bit surprised by it or skeptical of its authenticity. Nor am I oblivious to the fact the only thing that kept that guy from being successfully portrayed as the villain by Jenelle, was her misfortune of bearing a son far more honest than his mother (he told the cops what she left out), and the video evidence caught by that camera.

Apparently when Jenelle is not busy being a teenage slut, as if that weren't bad enough, she's busy being the world's worst ambassador for civilian gun owners. What a great role model for young women. Janelle seems the all too common young American female specimen, going through life exploiting and manipulating men without compunction or contrition, and perpetually getting away it. Because all she need do is play the victim card, and everyone pities the poor, scared, pretty girl, and attacks the evil man that "abused" her. And Jenelle's behavior is frankly on the more benign end of the spectrum of female manipulation.

So it's quite perplexing on a personal level how this mythos, that women are always the victim and never lie or misconstrue a situation to their benefit, persists when there are so many ostentatious examples to the contrary. It seems like everyone's forgotten the Duke Lacrosse incident. It seems like no one notices things like this happening on a rather regular basis.

Nikki Yovino is just another of many examples that illustrates that women not only lie, but will lie for reasons entirely personal and even frivolous. In this instance Nikki conducted herself like a whore, but didn't want to be perceived as one, and so sought to ruin the lives of two men instead. She did what women so often do, when faced with the consequences of their own actions, and postured herself as the victim. Because women are fully aware of society's inclination to see them as such by default, and many of them (like Nikki) exploit that circumstance to the fullest. As seen in the case of Gregory Counts and VanDyke Perry also.

I remember another incident in which a woman accused a black man of rape purely because she didn't want her landlord to know she was sleeping with a black man. That guy was also imprisoned for decades, to my recollection, before DNA evidence finally exonerated him.

There's more incidents of this nature than I could ever document here, and apparently "feminists" are perfectly okay with that.

Ruined male reputations and lives, men losing their jobs and going to prison for years for things they didn't do, are just collateral damage and a small price to pay for women getting what they want. That's what "feminists" consider "justice." How anyone can't see this for the naked, abject tyrannical movement it is, is beyond me. Emily's statement is the absolute embodiment of the "feminist" movement, being as utterly egocentric as it is nauseatingly stupid. Emily is all for paying a price when she is not the one actually paying it. It's not her reputation or life being ruined. And if it were we all know this halfwit would have a very different point of view. Imagine if I said, "If some innocent women get accused and/or arrested in the process of taking down a prostitution ring, that's a price I'm absolutely willing to pay to undo sex trafficking." What do you think Emily's position on that sentiment would be? Would she still flippantly refer to it as "taking a hit" as though a reputation is a frivolous thing of no significance? Would she still act as if no real harm was being done? I think we all know the answer to that.

Just as disturbing as the frequency with which men are falsely accused, is how infrequently the woman making the false accusations apparently suffers any consequences for such. Nikki Yovino being sentenced to jail seems to be an oddity, and I would surmise it's probably for perjury, rather than the false accusation itself. Though I'm not familiar with all the details of her sentencing and couldn't say.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. False accusations of rape should incur stiff legal penalties; i.e., prison time. Not only because it's a deliberate attempt to cause tangible harm to another person, as such accusations could result in their termination, the loss of their livelihoods, and a perennial social stigma that affects them for perhaps the rest of their lives, but because of the cynicism in which such embellishment and deceit results surrounding legitimate claims of rape. Words can do real damage to people, and pretend victims like Nikki Yovino serve only to stymie and enervate our system of justice, and diminish its ability to aid genuine victims.

But it's not just lying. It's not just false rape accusations. There's a disturbing number of men being murdered by women. Take Melissa Ann Shepard for example, who married men, poisoned them into stupors in order to cajole them into ceding all their assets to her, and then murdered them. She basically murdered men for a living, subsisting off the savings of her deceased husbands until funds began to dwindle, at which point she began the process all over again. And to hear Melissa tell it, she was the victim. When she ran over second husband Gordon Stewart with an automobile, twice, it was because he was abusive and somehow raped her despite having high levels of tranquilizers in his system. 

And then there's Dalia Dippolito.

Dalia's exploitation of her gender to illicit sympathy undeniably far surpassed that of Jenelle's above. Dalia, who was caught on tape blithely planning her husband's murder, actually tried to coax him into aiding/funding her defense, in her trial for plotting to murder him. It's amazing to watch, and to see how even then, how even after he knew she tried to kill him, and saw the video of her planning it, was still inclined to help her because of his feelings for her.

There's also Jodi Arias who shot her boyfriend, stabbed him, and cut his throat nearly decapitating him.

Jodi denied any involvement in her boyfriend's death initially, but when she realized the evidence was overwhelming, changed her story. To what? You guessed it. Her boyfriend was physically abusive. She was the victim. Like Melissa she shot him in the head, stabbed him up to 29 times, and nearly cut his head off in self-defense.

You'll never hear "feminists" mention any of these women or incidents. Because it obviously contradicts the "women are always the victim" narrative they frame to advance their agenda.

It needs to be understood, that both Jenelle in the video above and Dailia in video of her interactions with police, are exhibiting the same behavior and employing the same manipulation. The only difference is how far each woman was willing to go, and how much each thought they could get away with. Most women are content to merely moderately vex the men in their lives. They're not really bad people, and they love their mates, they're just emotional creatures who often don't even realize what they're doing. And then there are women like Melissa and Dalia, who love no one, and employ their feminine wiles at maximum setting with complete cognizance.

The notion that men can't be victimized because of their superior physical strength is patently false. Men who actually care about their mates are extremely vulnerable to manipulative and malevolent women, and these men's fatal mistake was apparently genuinely caring about Melissa and Dalia. As described at the outset of this contribution, as abusive women are so inclined to do, both women used the affection of their mates as a weapon against them.

As stated in the past, it's a testament to the power the media and prominent political and entertainment figures have over the minds of American lemmings, that nonsense like #believewomen has any traction and is taken seriously in any capacity whatsoever.

The "believe women" mantra is, as with all other aspects of the "feminist" (i.e., Socialist) platform, completely incompatible with a society predicated upon any genuine sense of equity. I don't know what's more "privileged" than a right to be believed without question, which is what these women are demanding. It's a de facto exemption from scrutiny or consequences. According to "feminists" there is only ever one side of a story, their side, which is tantamount to claiming women are infallible. And to assert otherwise makes you a "misogynist," wife beating hatemonger.

Where this is all heading, and the ultimate goal that "feminists" seek, is quite blatantly conveyed in the comments of Barbra Schlifer Clinic's Amanda Dale.

Basically Amanda is saying, and quite candidly, that due process should be suspended for men accused of abusing women and that they should be treated like non-citizen, foreign born terrorists. When asked how that could be accomplished under a justice system predicated upon the presumption of innocence, she flat out says that system just isn't cutting it and should therefore be revised or scrapped. And she makes this argument under the same, trite, and farcically specious rationale used by leftists to advance numerous other liberty eroding legal precedents like gun control; i.e., it's worth it if it saves just one life. It's worth stripping men of fundamental freedoms, and assuming their guilt, if it saves just one life.

We see in Amanda's sentiment that sort of abject contradiction all too characteristic of leftists. Women are supposedly "equal" to men, yet need special protections by law, because they're more vulnerable than men. Both of these things can't be true. They're either equal or they're not. If they're equal to men they have no need of special protections by law. And if they need special protections by law then they're not equal to men. Once again illustrating that Amanda isn't seeking "equality," she's seeking privilege, through the establishment of laws that exclusively benefit women and elevate women above men. All leftist groups do this, from blacks, to "homosexuals," etc., and again it's the antithesis of what they ostensibly claim to seek. It benefitted Amanda and served her agenda for women to be the "weaker sex" during this interview, so the aggression and "equality" rhetoric that women so often display when demanding abortion rights or "equal pay" for example, is conspicuously absent during her exchange with the interviewer. Though most people probably won't recognize it, Amanda is employing the exact same manipulation tactic as Jenelle above, just far more subtly.  

Something has to be done about these damnable fascist cows. They plainly want a system in which they wield absolutely despotic power. They plainly want a society in which they can have men crushed, and even jailed, with but a word. They plainly want a society in which they may at whim intimidate and coerce men who, knowing the social and legal consequences of defying a "feminist," will choose capitulation to ruination. And this isn't hyperbole or conjecture. It's apparently already happening in Israel where the "feminist" culture of false rape accusations is much worse.

In Israel the legal criteria for rape has been repeatedly revised, and made significantly less stringent, to benefit "feminists" and facilitate claims of false rape. Rape no longer requires actually physically forcing a woman to have sex with you, nor does she even have to express any aversion to having sex. She doesn't have to be forced. She doesn't even have to say no. She just has to feel bad about a sexual encounter, which is obviously a criteria so absurdly nebulous and subjective, it opens the door to all manner of chicanery. Oh, and by the way. The woman in the video above suffered no repercussions for falsely accusing that man of rape, and physically assaulting him for something so frivolous as not being allowed to smoke in his car. So she's free to continue making false accusations, being cognizant of the fact she's completely indemnified by law.

The sentiments of women like Emily and Amanda above openly illustrate they're seeking the same thing here. The "rights" that "feminists" are demanding are the right to slander and libel men (and through such to ruin their reputations and lives) without consequence, the right to deny men due process under law, etc. Basically, all the rights that autocrats, tyrants, despots, and dictators reserve for themselves. And through this we see that "feminists" are, like all leftists, the epitome of everything they claim to oppose and hate.

They are the hatemongers. "Feminism" and misandry are synonyms. 

Seeing all this makes it abundantly clear that if women ever became a majority in the federal government, for example, that the most basic and fundamental of American liberties would vanish in an instant for large portions of the populace. These people have no interest in truth or equity. American women have, to a large degree, been completely co-opted by the Marxist left, and are now like American blacks dedicated to undermining and destroying everything traditionally American. "Feminists" are flagrantly ignorant of history, and even separated from reality, as evinced by the fact they assiduously construe those who gave them their rights, white men, as the biggest threat to such. In identical fashion to delusional black Marxists like Don Lemon.

As stated in the past, these groups behave the same way, practice the same double standards, and employ the same deranged sophistry, because they're both subsets of the same Marxist agenda. They both claim they should be judged on an individual basis, and ostensibly oppose "profiling," and yet consistently generalize men and white people, and judge them based upon exceptions as opposed to the standard. And the problem is both of these groups, unlike the illusory "white supremacist" movement to which they incessantly allude when fearmongering, wield substantial socio-political influence and power in the West. Blacks and women are protected, privileged classes, afforded preferential treatment under the law in numerous instances. An outrageous circumstance, with women in particular, as they bear virtually none of the responsibilities for maintaining the liberties they enjoy.

I've long said one of the most conspicuous indicators of the influence of "feminism" on modern American women, is how ostentatiously they want all the benefits of traditional gender roles, but none of the obligations. And the above video superbly illustrates this. "Feminists," like all leftists, are quite selective in the "equality" they seek. They demand "equality" with men yet exemption from the responsibilities and risks of preserving the rights of men. They seek equal benefits, but unequal responsibility. Because they're not seeking equality at all. They're seeking privilege. And for far too long they've gotten it.

As I've said for years I'm all for women's equality. Draft them. Put them on the front lines. Make them pay in blood as men have since time immemorial. Let them die gruesome deaths, that no one remembers, that others may live in security and peace. But they don't want that. They want to partake equally of the benefits, but the burdens and obligations of such, should fall exclusively on men.

These people are moronic commie scum. Nothing more. They are the same, ignorant scum, that put in power the people that mowed down our grandfathers on the beaches of France. "Feminists," just like every other proletarian group, consistently seek to achieve their goals through empowering the state, particularly at the federal level, beyond its Constitutional limitations. Their objectives consistently result in bigger and more authoritarian government. And that's no coincidence.

And that's why "feminism" is not a thing to be dismissed or taken lightly. These people seek to pull up American liberty at the roots, and have already made significant progress to that end, and are profoundly dangerous as such. And they're dangerous on a macro level. These people have done more damage, and are far more dangerous, than any wife beating male, or a drove of them, could ever be. And if they're not challenged, and not stopped, they will usher in an age of tyranny straight out of a George Orwell novel.