FaceUpToFred

N.O.W. Fires Back
As with the last entry, I will be in Italics and commentary I respond to will be in regular type.
Gender bias in the White House is supported by hate groups like N.O.W. It is easy to see why we have the person in the White House who is there. I would like to call that person “the man” in the White House but because of his wussy stance on the fabricated Marxist vehicle called “women’s issues,” I can not give Obama a clear gender. We certainly know that the “vice” President, Joe (V.A.W.A.) Biden is “all girl.”
As reported by Glenn Sacks; The National Organization for Women has learned about our efforts and is concerned about them. They have now sent out an Action Alert to counter our campaign. According to NOW’s Tracy Simmons:
“I am writing you, the leaders of various groups that represent battered women, (these are groups who receive Federal funds but do not serve all Americans) for your help in one of the most important matters we will address this year. The American Psychiatric Association is considering adding Parental Alienation to the Diagnosticians book, which would legitimize this legal tactic (legal tactic? Parental Alienation really happens. It is child abuse) into a real disorder.” It already is a disorder as sure as the world is round.
Parental Alienation Syndrome has now morphed into Parental Alienation Disorder thanks to the fathers’ rights organizations (FRO’s are a reaction to decades of abuse by……. Well you know.) who are wildly (wildly?) pushing this through, and why wouldn’t they? (Yes, why wouldn’t they? Someone has to protect their children from……. Well you know.) It benefits the abuser (Yes PA does benefit the abuser at the expense of the child.) and discriminates against the victims of abuse, which are overwhelmingly women. The victims of PA, PAS or PAD are the children ya’ selfish ignorant witch. (Excuse me for the anger. It’s just that “the victims are women” from Tracy, was just too much)
This gender specific, (How is it gender specific? We are not saying all abusers are women. Are you saying that?) abuse excuse, (We don’t excuse abuse. It seems you do) junk science (I’ll bet that Tracey Simmons is an expert on” junk science,” her hate group, the N.O.W. has spent decades creating it.) can not be allowed to enter into the scientific community as there is nothing scientific about a syndrome/disorder whose only symptoms are a uterus, divorce papers, and bruises. (Sooo… you assert or even admit that all PAS, PA and PAD is caused, created and exploited by women. This is not true. There are a few men guilty of this and we Court Reform Advocates deplore their actions too. However, you are on the right track.) I ask that you all to take action against legitimizing this outrageous theory (Tracy, look up the word theory. PAS, PA and PAD are reality, not theory) by e-mailing the APA and asking your groups to do the same.
I guess that we can only conclude that Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation Disorder are such valuable tools to women of divorce that this group has decided “to hell with children” we want to win in court at any cost and sometimes, false Domestic Violence Claims just aren’t enough.

I have to say that Tracy Simmons lack of understanding that children are the primary victims, of parents who employ this despicable tactic, makes her authority to write about it completely unqualified. What she is qualified to do is spread lies and propaganda which is why I call the N.O.W. a hate group. Look at the ignorant bigot that group has chosen for a spokesperson and leader.

Let me also applaud Glenn Sacks and Ned Holstein for their work in bringing this horrible form of child abuse to the attention of the APA. I only hope that APA members college educations aren’t wasted and they are smart enough to see the obvious. I hope that they act on behalf of both the abused children and the abused parent of anyone who would perpetrate Parental Alienation.

Dear Psychiatrists, please turn your back on the lobbying and Federal money and do the right thing. Acknowledge Parental Alienation in all of its forms and work toward combating it. Do what you know is right. You will make a better future for everyone.

I’ll be in italics. The rest is Usurper Obama, straight from the White House press release. Again with the gender bias.
“Our Nation’s commitment to women’s rights must not end at
our own borders, and my Administration is making global
women’s empowerment a core pillar of our foreign policy.”
Why?

“My Administration created the first Office for Global
Women’s Issues and appointed an Ambassador at Large to
head it.”
Wouldn’t that be gender bias? By the way, it’s not your administration, It’s “this administration” of which you are the TEMPOARY steward.
“We are working with the United Nations and other
international institutions to support women’s equality and
to curtail violence against women and girls, especially in
situations of war and conflict.”
What about violence against men during war. I don’t know if you’ve got any experience with actual war but the soldiers getting killed are always pretty much a bunch of guys. (Since you are not a soldier, see any historical combat footage)
“We are partnering internationally to improve
women’s welfare through targeted investments in
agriculture, nutrition, and health, as well as programs that empower women to contribute to economic and social progress in their
communities.”
How much are our “partners” investing?
“And we are following through on the
commitments I made in Cairo to promote access to
education, improve literacy, and expand
employment opportunities for women and girls.”
Why the hell are you making commitments in, where, Cairo? Look, get back here and work on reducing the size of government. We have an economic problem here that threatens national security. And don’t start sentences with “and.” See.  Next you’ll be ending sentences with “at.”

“This month, let us carry forth the legacy of our mothers
and grandmothers.”
My mother and grandmother were wives, mothers and home makers.
“As we honor the women who have shaped
our Nation, we must remember that we are tasked with
writing the next chapter of women’s history.”
We don’t write the next chapter. We live, and historians report what actually happened. Who the hell is your speech writer?
“Only if we teach our daughters that no obstacle is too great for
them, that no ceiling
(Ceiling? Ceiling? Really? Feminazi rhetoric? Tag line for lies about fictional wage disparity? Shame on you Barack.)
can block their ascent, will we inspire them to reach for their highest aspirations and achieve true equality.”
Sorry, I couldn’t hold my outburst until the end of the sentence on that last one. Speaking of the end of that sentence “true equality?” This “women” baloney is pure unbalanced affirmative action. True equality would mean the same rules and resources for all. Nothing special for either or any.

“NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United
States of America,
(President? still unproven, just an undocumented assertion. I know this sounds tedious but I am going somewhere with this comment.)
by virtue of the authority vested in me
by the Constitution
(which you flagrantly disregard each and every day)
and the laws of the United States, (again, flagrantly disregarded)
do hereby proclaim March 2010 as Women’s History Month.”
Is everything else men’s history? If it is, you have to admit, men have basically built everything. Including everything that women have. Let’s look at the balance between the accomplishments of these two groups .It might appear to an objective observer that historically women have not given men enough credit for the miracles of accomplishment that men have achieved. This sentence is, of course, absurd. Men and Women have always appreciated each other and their very different roles in the ascent of mankind. It is Marxist Ideologists like Obama, bent on the destruction of America through the institution of the impossible political system of socialism that deny that men and women love each other. Yeah, love. Promoting things like “ Women’s History Month” merely creates segregation of the sexes and the destruction of harmonious American life. Both women and men have a very strong sense of their place in society as well as their roles in regard to each other. By the way Obama, healthy men and women like these roles. These roles are a thing of nature, not a thing of government legislation. To not recognize this is to demonstrate a failing of your own humanity. This lack of humanity disqualifies you from being the leader of anyone. In fact, you need serious psychological help. I am qualified to assert this statement because my undocumented PHD in Psychology is as valid as your undocumented citizenship. Accept my credentials or get out of my President’s office.
“I call upon all our citizens to observe this month with
appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities that
honor the history, accomplishments, and contributions of American women.”
“Appropriate programs?” Americans, please just disregard Obama’s pleas to disturb natural unity and his insults to normal, happy, healthy, productive women.

“IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

second day of March, in the year of our Lord
(Our Lord? What happened to “church and state?”)
two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of
America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.”
For our Lord’s sake, just write the date. Geeez……….

If you want to start a list of people we don’t need to support with our tax dollars, the list starts here. Get a list of any people who involve themselves with this and put an end to their political career. They do not understand their job and we can no longer afford to subsidize these incompetent charlatans. So far my comment on this has been kind. Now, my true comment was, “these people who insult our intelligence are nothing but a bunch of arrogant thieves.” There, I said it.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/01/hot-dog-hysteria/

March 1, 2010
EDITORIAL: Hot-dog hysteria
Big Brother takes a bite out of common sense
Believe it or not, the government is about to regulate the shape of hot dogs. Bureaucrats at the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture and the Consumer Product Safety Commission are studying how to change the shape of hot dogs to prevent youngsters from choking. As a result, recent headlines have warned about “killer hot dogs” and “Doctors urging for a safer, choke-free hot dog.”
It’s true that compared to some other foods, hot dogs seem to present a slightly higher risk. Of the 66 to 77 choking deaths for children younger than 10 in 2006, hot dogs reportedly accounted for about 11 to 13 deaths. But this claim of relative risk isn’t conclusive because there has been no attempt to account for the fact that children might be eating more hot dogs than other types of food.
Changing the shape of the beloved “tube steak” could reduce but not eliminate that number. Unfortunately, some kids will likely still choke on redesigned hot dogs, no matter what, just like some children choke on hamburgers, apples or other foods.
The death rate per hot dog is incredibly small. American kids younger than 10 eat approximately 1.8 billion hot dogs per year, which works out to an average of about 45 hot dogs per child per annum. That pegs the death rate per hot dog from choking at 0.0000007 percent. If crossing a street were so safe, parents would breathe a sigh of relief.
Any child’s death is tragic, but the government cannot regulate everything and create a risk-free kindergarten utopia. Perhaps bureaucrats will go after bathtubs next. More than 90 children younger than 5 died from drowning in bathtubs in 2006. Forty-three children younger than 10 died riding bicycles. Even in extremely regulated areas, there are many more deaths. In that age group, more than 1,100 died as a result of motor-vehicle accidents that year.
Life involves some risks. If government agencies don’t have anything better to do than regulate hot dogs, their budgets should be cut to help them focus on essential duties.

Feminism refers to the movement for establishing equal rights and legal protection and gender equality for women, and campaigning for women’s rights and interests (Wikipedia).

The engendered title alone says it all. If it were about equality it would be called perhaps Humanism, or if that is not quite right, it would have some other non engendered title.

Unfortunately the definition of “feminism” in this article is a lie. It is the politically softened, non invasive definition used to bring a legitimacy to what is basically a hate movement. Men and Women have used a number of tactics to gain political and ultimately economic advantage of men. The extreme feminist is not even happy with this. His or her hatred of men transcends mere dominance and enters the world of pure bigotry. This is frequently glaringly obvious to men in family court who experience this bigotry for the first time and are completely blind sided. NO, feminism is not about equality. It is about power. And many times even about hate.

Another case of “Nobody should have a gun (except me).”
Anti-Gun Senator Shoots Intruder
Can you say liberal hypocrite?
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/national/article/74-year-old_n.c._state_senator_shoots_wounds_intruder_at_his_home/287987/P10/

Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Democratic Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City, N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician’s home county said.
The injured intruder, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were reported to not be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, District Attorney for Columbus, Bladen and Brunswick counties.
The State Bureau of Investigation and the Columbus County Sheriff’s Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested, declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.
“I am not in a position to talk to you,” Soles said by telephone. “I’m right in the middle of an investigation.”
The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn’t hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.
In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the “Do As I Say And Not As I Do” Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. - - - What a classic Liberal hypocrite - - - It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.
It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine.
But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.

Since I have been visiting Mr. Fine in prison as his legal connection to the out side world, I have waited at the “lawyer window” for many hours. I am recognized by many private and public “defenders” who know Richard’s story. Today while waiting to see Mr. Fine in prison, I was spoken to by two separate lawyers who asked how Mr. Fine was doing. Both expressed admiration for his courage. One told me that he would love to do what Richard is doing but as a public defender, I should understand, that he is not a very good lawyer. He confirmed to me that fighting for Constitutional rights or just defying the judiciary would be career suicide. He was a public defender and that was as high as he could go in his legal career with the “gifts” that life had given him.
He went on to say that intelligent lawyers make a very good living practicing law in the private sector. Those who can’t “cut” that become college professors. Those who can’t cut that become public defenders and those that can’t cut that but show a complete subservience to “the system” become judges. “They are the bottom of the barrel Fred.” He had been offered judge positions a number of times but was ethically compelled to say no.
The other lawyer who spoke to me, told me that she was so dissatisfied with her job that she was looking to an alternative to being a lawyer. I suggested that she consider becoming a mediator. It is what my sister did as she is too idealistic to practice unethical law. The woman thanked me for the idea and asked if I could have my sister call her.
Then finally, they brought Mr. Fine to the window and we were able to exchange papers.
Imagine having those conversations in that setting.
Imagine my feeling of confirmation from those lawyers as to what Richard Fine is doing.
There are many “worlds” of law out there.
Just like any business, there are those who are successful on merit. There are those who struggle to make a living and there are those who lie, cheat and steal.

Bogus Disbarments Entangle Bar Execs & Board Members In Civil Liability « The Elite Lawyers and Judges Whistleblower Network of America

The scrip above can be copied and pasted to your browser as a link to the original article on its original website. It is copied below. Fred  

Here is a whole area of judicial corruption that we have not focused on. “Good lawyers,” (yes there is such a thing) are being dispensed with by Bar Associations everywhere with a blanket charge of “Moral Turpitude” effectively taking them “out of the hair” of the corrupt courts.
This is very similar to the false Domestic Violence charges used by spouses who dispense with their own spouse by saying “I don’t feel safe” and having corrupt courts “take them out.”
It seems that even lawyers can’t get Due Process in the greatest system in the world.

Click on the link above or see article below

Bogus Disbarments Entangle Bar Execs & Board Members In Civil Liability
2010 January 27
by theeliteones

Bogus Disbarment Was Inspiration For Whistleblowers Blog
The long-term effects of a politically motivated disbarment can be devastating. According to Network CEO Phil Stimac, rogue State Bar officials are using them more frequently to obtain an unfair advantage in their own personal litigation.
“I can relate to Richard Fine,” he said. “When I tried to expose corruption which had its roots in the established custom and business practices of the State Bar, I was served with disbarment papers.
“Like Mr. Fine, I had no prior discipline record, nor criminal conviction, but was charged with unsubstantiated acts of moral turpitude. Those are the Bar’s magic buzz words of choice they use to destroy lives and careers . It was a fix – an inside job – and members of the royal family like State Bar President Howard Miller can put bogus cases on people at will.
“What they seem to have a penchant for is putting you on their short list, then beating you up for several years with falsified charges and evidence. Then, when your finances are exhausted and health impaired, they use this weakened state they have created against you. I have personally faxed, written and e-mailed Mr. Miller on a weekly basis since he came aboard as President. The corrupt and incompetent people who run the State Bar of California are like the Ever-Ready Bunny – they just keep going and going.
How is it Mr. Miller has assured the Governor, Legislature and the members he serves he has fixed the Bar’s problems, yet he has not made a single inquiry nor investigation of any fact on my more than 70 posts to this blog. His failure to respond is a textbook example of the arrogance which has driven the State Bar since the organization was created in 1927.
“Because Bar officials and board member’s acts and omissions fall under color of state law, liability can be imposed on them under federal civil rights statutes.”
Note: Phil Stimac is not a licensed practicing attorney. Nothing posted on this site is intended, nor should be construed as legal advice. He does not reply to requests for legal advice and deletes such contact information. Information posted is based solely on his opinion, personal experiences and desire to be a catalyst for state bar association reform through online networking with other victims of state bar association corruption.

Why on Earth do we continue to have this national policy of Gender Bias? This constant hatred of a strong America is so self destructive that I have to wonder who is in charge. It is certainly not a bunch of big, tough, guys. China has tough guys. Russia has tough guys. We have a bunch of nambie pambies. The down-fall of America will be the result of America’s failure to “man up.” Right now our country has a stated national policy to “man down.” I sure hope these feminists have a national defense policy ready for when America’s men are completely emasculated. This Sunday America will watch the “Super Bowl.” There will be no women on the field. Please, someone explain why to all your sweethearts in the white house. Then watch a TV show called “the lingerie football league” and explain that to the AAUW. Then I ask, ultimately, who will defend our country? Fred Sottile, In Pro Per

From the Miami Herald
Posted on Mon, Feb. 01, 2010
Obama’s budget proposal includes increase for women’s programs
BY JAMES ROSEN
McClatchy News Service
With women’s advocacy groups voicing growing unease with administration policy, President Barack Obama will propose a $3.8 trillion budget on Monday that would exempt programs for women and girls from spending restrictions he’s proposed for other programs.
Obama aides denied that political calculation was behind the emphasis on programs for women and girls, detailed in a budget document obtained by McClatchy entitled “ Opportunity and Progress for Women and Girls.”
“We’re looking at a lot of significant funding increases for women’s programs in a year when the president has ordered a three-year, non-security, discretionary spending freeze,” said Kate Bedingfield, a White House spokesman.
MORE FUNDING
The document describes 15 federal programs that benefit women that would get increased funding under his spending plan. Nine of the programs are narrowly aimed at women and girls, but six are much broader initiatives that would benefit men and boys as well, including the 1.4 percent pay increase requested for the U.S. military.
Women are a key voting block for Obama. Exit polling from the 2008 election showed 56 percent of female voters cast ballots for Obama.
Only 49 percent of male voters backed Obama. Women remain supportive: A Gallup poll conducted in early January found that 54 percent of women surveyed approved of Obama’s performance; only 47 percent of men said the same.
In recent weeks, however, women rights advocates have been critical of the administration, particularly after Obama’s allies in Congress agreed to limits on insurance coverage for abortion in healthcare legislation passed by the House.
CHALLENGED
Women’s-rights advocates also challenged Obama’s decision to impose a spending freeze on discretionary domestic programs while continuing to increase military, intelligence and other homeland security funding.
“A domestic spending freeze would lead us in the wrong direction,” Terry O’Neill, head of the National Organization for Women, said last week after Obama’s State of the Union address to Congress.
“It would, for example, decimate funding for many battered women’s shelters at a time when the recession is causing a spike in domestic violence rates,” O’Neill said. “At the least, our swollen military budget should receive as much cost-conscious scrutiny as services for vulnerable women.”
The budget to be unveiled Monday would exempt those programs from the freeze.
Among the programs targeted at women are $8.1 billion in food aid for low-income pregnant women, infants and children up to 5 years old and $3.9 billion for child care and Head Start meals.
It also will increase by $10 million money set aside for family planning efforts, raising the total to $327 million, including $205 million for the prevention of teen pregnancy, the rate of which has increased after a decade of decline.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
The budget also will propose spending $535 million in aid for victims of domestic violence — $117 million more than current funding, a 22 percent increase.
Obama last March issued an executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. In June, he named Lynn Rosenthal as special advisor on violence against women.

The Real Loser In The Massachusetts Election
January 29, 2010 by Phyllis Schlafly
Smarting from their surprise loss in the race to fill the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, the Democrats are throwing their candidate, Martha Coakley, under the bus. They blame her for running a poor campaign that made losers out of Barack Obama, the Democrats, their bad health care bill, and even Ted Kennedy in his grave.
Many reasons, of course, contributed to Scott Brown’s remarkable victory. However, the chief reason Coakley’s campaign didn’t connect with the voters is that she is a feminist, causing even a liberal female TV commentator to admit she is “unappealing.”

The feminists for years have had a stranglehold over the Democratic Party, enforcing their rule that every Democratic presidential candidate must pledge his fidelity to abortion with taxpayer funding. But abortion is only the first commandment of feminist ideology, and Martha Coakley revealed much, much more, so let’s use her defeat as a teaching moment.

“Martha’s a really great candidate for everything that NOW stands for,” gushed Christina Knowles, director of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Coakley was, indeed, a really great advocate for NOW’s feminist ideology, but that did not attract the voters.

It was not so great when Coakley was disdainful about Scott Brown campaigning in the cold outside Fenway Park, the fabled home of the beloved Boston Red Sox. It was not so great when Coakley dismissed one of the biggest Red Sox stars as a “Yankee fan.”

Those comments fit the profile of feminists who have contempt for men’s sports and therefore have eliminated hundreds of men’s teams from college athletic programs under a misinterpretation of Title IX. Howard University even canceled both wrestling and baseball on the same day, giving double pleasure to the hateful feminists.

Boston University is the largest school in Boston, but it no longer has an NCAA baseball team. Nationwide, feminist opposition to anything masculine has forced the elimination of more than 450 wrestling teams.

Coakley insulted people with religious values by declaring that those who oppose abortion probably shouldn’t work in emergency rooms because an occasional patient might demand an immediate abortion. Feminists refuse to allow respect for a right of conscience because that might get in the way of their ideology that abortion is women’s premier right.

Feminists pretend they want all laws and behavior to be gender-neutral, with identical treatment of male and female (and other genders, whatever they are). But when it comes to domestic violence and child abuse, feminist ideology decrees that men are naturally batterers and women never lie so they don’t have to present evidence in order to convict a man.

As prosecutor, Coakley followed this pattern when she insisted on treating a falsely accused man worse than a falsely accused woman. As copiously detailed by Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal, Coakley persecuted the Amirault family for child abuse even after it became widely recognized that they had been imprisoned on false charges.

Although virtually everyone aware of the Amirault case recognized it to be as preposterous as the false allegation of rape against the Duke lacrosse players, Coakley insisted on continued incarceration of the Amirault brother in contrast with the release of his sister. Coakley insisted that when women are involved in child abuse cases, the real culprit is typically “a primary male offender.”

Eventually the falsely accused man, Gerald Amirault, was released by the extraordinary intervention of the Massachusetts parole board, considered the toughest in the nation. That followed an exhaustive investigation, but Coakley continued to pretend that he was somehow guilty.

Democratic Party leadership has shown that it cannot or will not stand up to the incoherent, man-hating attitude of feminists like Coakley. For example, after they had a tantrum and demanded that the majority of jobs created by Obama’s Stimulus be given to women (instead of to shovel-ready jobs), even though most of those who lost jobs in this recession are men, President Obama dutifully acquiesced.

It’s no wonder that non-college-educated men voted overwhelmingly for Brown against Coakley by a massive 27-point margin. The Democrats are lucky enough to elect some feminists, but feminists are just too unappealing when running against a masculine man such as Scott Brown.

Brown’s driving a 2005 GMC pickup truck (which Obama sneered at) symbolized the elitism of Coakley, who drives a foreign car. While Coakley was sipping wine with drug and insurance company PAC representatives, Brown was shaking hands with the voters.

Commentary about Brown’s appeal to women is diversionary; it was male voters who overwhelmingly pulled the lever for him. Men are fed up with the feminist mindset and delivered a clear message in the Massachusetts election: give us a candidate who stands up to the feminists, and we will cross over from Democrat and Independent to elect a Republican.

I go out into the world and I see and hear. Yesterday I went to the meeting of the County Council on Domestic Violence. Among other things that happened at that meeting, a younger, overweight, Hispanic woman stated to the council that (and I paraphrase) If you want to perpetuate this organization, we really have to reach out to young university trained feminists and get them involved with our activities.

I am generally quite quiet and respectful at these meetings as I am not a voting member. This time, I could not help but respond. I interrupted the group of 28 women and 5 men and retorted, “Feminists? Pardon me, we are here to put and end to gender bias not perpetuate it.”

I got a nod of approval from the crowd and NO dissent. The chair-person who is a highly intelligent and hard working woman from the Gay and Lesbian organization was still smiling. I was reminded by the woman who was the “sergeant at arms” that I was speaking out of turn, which was true, and I did apologize for disrespecting their parliamentary procedure.

The young woman was shocked at my opposition. She was flustered and began to stammer. The group quickly and quietly moved on with the next topic but the point is that here is an example of the arrogance of these politically motivated “feminists.” They are so ensconced in their misguided ideology that they are not prepared for opposition.

They expect to roll on unopposed.

This young woman came to that meeting believing that she was rapped in the bosom of her man hating sisters and that probably the men who were there, were the gender confused “wussy boys” she had seen in her “woman’s studies” classes at her college, the world famous, “Indoctrinate U.”

Folks, these politically motivated radical feminist profiteers are still out there practicing their bigotry in high gear.

I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears. Right out in public.