I have said many times, that I would gladly give up my right to vote if Congress would just repeal the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The ratification of this singular piece of legislation in 1920, which gave American women the right to vote, will be the death of democracy, if left unchecked.
Have you ever wondered why, in recent years, the margins of success within elections are so close? Have you ever wondered why the good people seem to be losing the political battle to maintain their solid Christian values in the public arena? Have you been befuddled by the liberalization of nearly every aspect of public life? Have you wanted to know who was responsible for our becoming soft on crime and why judges continue to show leniency towards vile, convicted criminals?
Have you asked yourself why we are witnessing the demise of true justice and common sense within our judicial system? Have you ever been curious as to how the crazy concept of “political correctness” came into being and why it’s so prevalent? Have you ever wondered why the good people routinely lose political campaigns to the bad people? Or, who is dragging the body politic towards socialism? Have you ever wanted to round-up the usual suspects – Hispanics, Blacks, Jews or homosexuals, in an effort to place blame for the liberal philosophy that is undermining our Christian country?
Well, you may be surprised to discover that your efforts would be in vain, for in fact, none of these groups are to blame. Their physical numbers are too small to have any lasting effect on our political landscape.
Surprisingly, the answer to all of these questions is – our radicalized women!
Women comprise fifty-one percent of our population and their sympathetic nurturing of total strangers, while standing in the voting booth, gives unprecedented clout to those small blocks of liberal, demanding voters, who seek to destroy Christian America through socialism.
Women’s socialist voting patterns are pure vanity. Baseless votes inspired by lies and twisted “facts.” Egocentric votes supposedly inspired by righteousness and designed to “help” the helpless, when in fact, these feminist losers are voting to feather their own nests as they are slowly discovering that their hapless feminist lifestyle, has left them without any safety nets and more importantly, without any close family to help and support them, now that they are aging.
These pathetic know-it-alls have spent their entire lives dragging Christian America to the precipice of moral bankruptcy and nearly into financial ruin. If we are to understand, and acknowledge, the inaccurate “facts” upon which they justify their voting patterns, it must be understood that their decision are purely based on vanity. Vanity defined by 50 years of brainwashing by radical feminism to believe that women can do nothing wrong, can never make a mistake and that everything they believe as feminists is true, when it is NOT!
So, if we are to address these serious misconceptions and attempt to remediate these women, we must begin with the twisted women with whom this irrational line of thinking began.
The British gave women the voting franchise in 1918. They elected their first female member of parliament in 1919. Just five years later, for the first time in their countries illustrious history, they elected the first Labour Government, primarily composed of socialists.
The government was lead Ramsey MacDonald who was a pacifist and an illegitimate child. All of this was no mere coincidence. Women voters immediately had an effect on the kinds of people being elected to government. The men they elected were softer, compromised and weaker.
Following England’s lead, American women were given the right to vote in August of 1920, but not before, and again, for the first time in American history, women made public spectacles of themselves while voicing
their grievances concerning the existence of slavery and alcohol consumption.
Many of older suffragettes were inspired to action by the successful efforts of abolitionists Lucy Stone (1818-1893) and Julia Ward Howe (1819-1910). Their efforts are credited with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution in 1865 which abolished slavery.
Lucy Stone was the eighth of nine children. Her father was a tyrant with a vicious temper which was aggravated by alcohol. Her mother struggled to sustain the family on the income generated by their farm and routinely begged her husband for money to buy necessities.
As a result, Lucy was determined “to call no man master.” In order to supplement the family income, at the age of sixteen, Stone began to teach in a nearby town. In 1938, at the age of nineteen, she enrolled in Mount Holyoke Female Seminary in South Hadley, Massachusetts. It was here, with the encouragement of her brother, that she became an active abolitionist.
In 1843, Lucy matriculated to Oberlin College in Ohio and graduated four years later. She was the first Massachusetts female to graduate from college.
At the time, the general populace was opposed to women speaking in public. Stone objected to this more, due to her strong need to speak out against slavery. So, when asked to give a lecture before a local anti-slavery society, she readily accepted the invitation.
Miss Stone was later chastised by the Ladies’ Board of the Oberlin College for this undertaking. When she later announced to her family that she had decided to dedicate her life to public speaking, all but her brother objected.
Stone persisted in her desire to speak out about the ills of slavery and was hired as a lecturer by the Boston’s American Anti-Slavery Society. But, she again ran aground, when to the society’s dismay, she began to also speak about women’s rights during her anti-slavery lectures.
In 1850, Stone wrote to the organizers of the Women’s Rights Convention encouraging them to pressure the Ohio state legislature to amend their state constitution to allow women to vote.
At the convention Stone said, “We want to be more than appendages to society… we want that when she dies, it may not be written on her gravestone that she was the ‘relict’ of somebody.” As a result of her outspoken advocacy for both female suffrage and abolition, she was constantly at odds with her benefactors.
Stone’s anti-slavery lectures caused her to be expelled from her Congregationalist congregation in 1851, with some calling her an atheist. In 1852, she traveled to Seneca Falls, New York, and for the first time, she met Amelia Bloomer, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
These women had gathered together in order to write the charter for their proposed “People’s College.” The experience changed Lucy with noticeable results. Upon her return to Ohio, she “bobbed” her hair and began to wear Amelia Bloomer’s creation, a “baggy pair of trousers under a shortened skirt”. Though continually ridiculed, both on the street,
and within her circle of influence, Stone persisted in wearing bloomers for the next three years.
Miss Stone now moved away from the anti-slavery movement and joined the temperance movement primarily because it was pushing for broader changes in society.
Based on her abysmal familial experiences Miss Stone began to advocate for the legalization of divorce on the grounds of drunkenness. She also advocated for women’s property rights, so that husbands could not misappropriate the benefits of their wives contributions to the household finances.
But once again Stone proved to be unable to confine her lectures to the topics on which she was asked to speak. Rather than concentrating on an anti-alcohol lecture, she continually returned to women’s rights and this time, just as with the anti-slavery society, the male members of the temperance movement resisted her efforts to push for women’s rights.
The male temperance activists accused women rights activists of deliberately disrupting their meetings and the men broke away and formed their own group.
During the 1855 “World’s Temperance Convention” in New York City, Stone caused another division within the movement when members became divided over whether to include Stone on the Business Committee.
Once again Lucy’s involvement divided the members of the temperance movement causing yet another split, as fifty delegates from twelve states, withdrew from the convention following Stone, and others, to another location.
Despite all of the discourse that surrounded Lucy she was, at the same time, being relentless, and romantically, pursued by abolitionist Harry Blackwell.
After a two-year courtship Lucy finally agreed to marry Harry Blackwell with his assurances that their marriage would be between equals. They wrote a “Marriage Protest” which they read together during the ceremony in 1855, and omitted the word “obey” from their vows, as well.
After eighteen months of marriage Stone requested that she not be called by her married name, preferring to be addressed by her maiden name. She became the first woman in America to refuse to take her husband’s name in marriage.
The controversy surrounding Stone continued when in 1856 she was accused of supplying a knife to an imprisoned former slave who then killed her child with it. The former slave claimed that she did not want her child to live just to become enslaved.
Amazingly, Stone’s defense was that she gave the woman the knife so that she could kill HERSELF, rather than return to slavery, NOT her child.
In her own defense, Lucy Stone is incredibly quoted as saying “With my own teeth I would tear open my veins and let the earth drink my blood, rather than wear the chains of slavery. How then could I blame her for wishing her child to find freedom with God and the angels, where no chains are?” She was obviously an atheist with twisted ideologies who advocated suicide and child killing to sensationalize her personal goals.
Once married Stone’s stance on divorce mellowed and this caused another conflict with fellow activists. Unlike Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony’s organization National Women’s Suffrage Association (NWSA), Lucy wanted divorce to be addressed as a separate issue from women’s rights so as to avoid the appearance of moral leniency.
In 1869, Stone, her husband Harry and Julia Ward Howe broke from Stanton’s group and founded the American Women Suffrage Association (AWSA). Unlike the NWSA, the AWSA allowed men to become members and they supported the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment giving the vote to black males, without acquiring the right to vote for women too. They preferred to fight that battle separately.
By 1870, Stone’s view of divorce had now reversed itself. She wrote, “We believe in marriage for life, and deprecate all this loose, pestiferous talk in favor of easy divorce.” Stone coined the term “free love” and was opposed to the concept writing, “Be not deceived – free love means free lust.”
Finally, in 1887, Stone and Stanton reconciled and combined their two organizations forming the National American Women Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Susan B. Anthony became the President and Stone and Stanton became honorary presidents. Lucy Stone died in 1893 at the age of 75 and is primarily remembered today for her refusal to take her husband’s name in marriage.
Lucy Stone was a complicated and difficult woman driven by personal demons fraught from fearful childhood experiences, which manifested themselves in misguided principles and warped priorities. And yet, women followed her lead, never questioning her rational or motivations.
Now, Julia Ward Howe was a member of the oldest generation of feminist activists. She too began her public life as an abolitionist. Howe wrote the words to “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” during the middle of the Civil War. After the conclusion of the war she worked actively as a pacifist and as editor for Lucy Stone’s publication, Women’s Journal which advocated for women’s rights, including female suffrage.
The successful abolition of slavery in 1865, with many women at the fore, emboldened a younger generation of first-wave feminists. In the early twentieth century many of these young women entered the political foray.
In the interim, women’s suffrage was still being pursued, but decades would pass, with few successes, because the women activists could not agree on a singular strategy.
As a result, they divided their energies over multiple fronts, which drastically diluted their effectiveness. It wasn’t until 1916 that women were once more stirred into action.
Some feminists redoubled their efforts to acquire women’s suffrage, while others joined the fray to ban the sale, and production, of alcohol in the United States.
Just as with slavery and suffrage, the temperance movement became a rallying call for many well-educated women across the nation. Their high-minded and self-righteous public disdain for the ills of mankind coalesced this time with their efforts to ban alcohol consumption.
The feminist legions included newcomers Carrie Nation (1846-1911), Mary Hanchett Hunt (1830-1906), and Francis Willard (1839-1898). The more experienced, Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) and Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906), would once again join forces and lead the charge.
The Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was established in 1873 for the sole purpose organizing women against alcohol. All of these women have come to be known as members of the “first-wave” feminist movement.
Carrie Nation is the most notorious of these women. In 1899, while living in Medicine Lodge, Kansas with her second husband, she started a chapter of WCTU. She was a radical member of the temperance movement and traveled widely with a hatchet.
Mrs. Nation, whose mother and daughter were mentally ill and whose first husband died of alcoholism, traveled widely using the hatchet, or throwing rocks, to smash saloon fixtures and destroy their stock.
Carrie Nation was six-feet-tall and weighed one-hundred-seventy-five pounds and between 1900 and 1910 she was arrested thirty times for what she referred to as her “hatchetations.” This was another obviously disturbed woman.
Carrie’s husband, David Nation, filed for divorce in 1901 citing desertion. Mrs. Nation was a conflicted woman, who was so out of control and notorious, that she eventually became a successful vaudeville performer.
Another first-wave feminist was Frances Willard. She was a highly educated woman, who eventually became the first Dean of Women at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. in 1874.
Willard was the President of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) for nineteen years starting in 1879 but she did not focus her attention solely on the issue of alcohol.
Although Miss Willard is best remembered as an advocate for women’s suffrage, she also put her vast energies towards the temperance movement and questions of child abuse, free school lunches, eight-hour work day, national transportation, anti-rape laws, sanitation and the establishment of unions as well. In many ways, Willard was a committed socialist, as she wanted the government to take over the ownership of all railroads, all factories and even theaters.
Frances Willard was a lesbian who preferred to be called “Frank” and her brother, Oliver, was an alcoholic and a gambler. Frances loved, and lost, the woman who would become her brother’s wife. So, in 1877 she began a twenty-one year relationship with her secretary, Anna Adams Gordon. Again, this was a compromised, liberated woman who was obsessed with her “work” at the expense of all else.
Now, Mary Hanchett Hunt, whose father was a vocal abolitionist, was a professor of Natural Sciences at Patapsco Female Institute in Baltimore in 1850. She married in 1852 and became active in the WCTU through her church in Hyde Park, Massachusetts. Fervently opposed to alcohol consumption Mrs. Hunt went on to become involved with the National Women’s Christian Temperance Union.
In 1880, Frances Willard appointed her the National Superintendent of the WCTU’s Dept. of Scientific Temperance Instruction and she worked to ensure that all American textbooks promoted abstinence from alcohol.
To this end, Hunt demanded that all the national chapters of the WCTU, which in 1892 had one hundred fifty thousand members and would grow to two-hundred forty-five thousand by 1911, use mass meetings and petition drives to demand that their local school boards included temperance textbooks within their school children’s curriculum.
Mrs. Hunt is quoted as saying, “It is not too much to say that the public school boards of the country… are in a state of siege”, at the hands of WCTU members.
During the 1901-1902 school year, twenty-two million school children were required to take her approved temperance educational instruction, three times a week.
Unhappy with those results Hunt’s next effort was for WCTU members to nominate and promote “dry” candidates to both state and federal legislatures.
In retrospect, she resorted to lies and gross inaccuracies in order to manipulate her audience to her way of thinking. For instance, Mrs. Hunt’s Department of Scientific Temperance stated as “proven fact” that:
“The majority of beer drinkers die of dropsy, deafness and lunacy.”
“When alcohol passes down the throat it burns off the skin leaving it bare
“Drinking could cause a person to spontaneously combust.”
“Alcohol turns the blood to water.”
“An invalid who never drinks will recover, where a drinking man would
Despite Hunt’s ridiculous claims, many believe that her books, and Mrs. Hunt’s national strategy to elect pro-abstinence “dry” candidates, led to the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment which legalized prohibition.
Here again, we have another disturbed woman. Mrs. Hunt was a difficult woman as well, known for her vindictive and coercive behavior. Her integrity was also suspect as she routinely took kickbacks from the sale of the textbooks she approved.
The controversy surrounding her life persisted even after her death, when it was discovered that the charity, The Scientific Temperance Association, to which she ostensibly donated the royalties from her textbooks had very limited members.
They included Mrs. Hunt, her pastor and a few friends. These funds purportedly supported the charities national headquarters, which also happened to be in Mrs. Hunt’s house.
Just as with Lucy Stone, Hunt too was a compromised woman who lied and manipulated people in order to accomplish her goals. Both obviously believed that the end justified the means.
Next, is Elizabeth Cady Stanton. She was another first-wave feminist who is revered by second-wave feminists. She was both an anti-slavery, and anti-alcohol, activist who also concentrated on a broad range of women’s rights, including the right to vote.
According to Miss Cady, while in college in the early 1830s, she found herself nearly driven mad by the sermons of an evangelical preacher, named Charles Grandison Finney.
Cady wrote of this experience, “Fear of judgment seized my soul. Visions of the lost, haunted my dreams. Mental anguish prostrated my health. Dethronement of my reason was apprehended by my friends.”
As a result of this experience, Cady rejected the tenets of organized Christianity for the remainder of her life.
Miss Cady married Henry Stanton in 1840. Over their forty-seven year marriage she and her husband, due to employment and financial considerations, lived apart more than then they did together.
Although the Stantons had six children, Elizabeth asserted that all of her children were conceived under her feminist premise of “voluntary childbearing.”
Elizabeth insisted that women have command over sexual relations rather than submit to their husband’s wishes as was the belief of all Christians during her lifetime.
Cady Stanton favored divorce, interracial marriages and female employment outside the home but she opposed abortion and organized religion. This too was a conflicted woman, with radical feminist ideas, both then and now.
Next is Susan B. Anthony who is one of the most famous first-wave feminists. She and Mrs. Stanton became a team in their efforts to ban alcohol and attain women’s rights. Stanton wrote the speeches and Anthony traveled and read them to receptive female audiences all over the country.
Unlike Stanton, Anthony was single thus allowing her to spend long periods of time away from home. Despite Miss Anthony’s self-consciousness about both her appearance and her speaking abilities, she would become Mrs. Stanton’s mouthpiece for nearly fifty years.
On occasions they would travel together but primarily Anthony would speak in Stanton’s stead. As with Stanton, Anthony was also opposed to Christian organized religion and she would eventually become an agnostic. She was often chastised by other Christian organizations for displaying “irreligious tendencies.” Miss Anthony would eventually become best known for her work as a suffragette. She too would prove to be a conflicted female.
Initially, prohibition would be the rallying call for both generations of women activists. At the time, their zealous campaign against alcohol appeared well-intentioned. But on closer examination, their motives, and that of nearly all of the women in the temperance movement, were suspect.
The truth was, that at the time, most women did NOT drink. As a result, they would not be denied anything with the passage of prohibition. If they succeeded in banning alcohol, only men would become reprobates.
As agnostics, Stanton and Anthony were unable to accept the fact that a faith-based education was the only successful method of instilling morality. Instead, these women became anti-alcohol socialists as they tried to legislate morality, thereby circumventing the churches they reviled. This type of undertaking has proven, time and time again, to be untenable because morality is a very complex concept, and is therefore, the sole purview of the churches.
These early twentieth-century temperance activists organized hundreds of thousands of compatriots across America. The women gave speeches, held rallies, wrote letters, attended conferences, and held prayer sessions in front of saloons in hundreds of towns and were supported in their efforts by the Protestant churches.
And finally, under the increasing pressure from the members of the temperance movement, a majority of “dry” politicians were elected to Congress in 1917. This set the stage for the enactment of prohibition. And ironically, this was accomplished by women who were unable to vote in the elections themselves.
A resolution calling for prohibition was introduced and passed by both houses of Congress that same year. The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified by thirty-six of forty-eight states by January 1919. With the women’s successful campaign to ban alcohol from society, prohibition was officially put into effect in January of 1920.
Unfortunately, just as we have found with most women’s issues, they are driven by emotions, misguided information, distorted “facts” and are inevitably, short-sighted endeavors cursed with unintended consequences.
As a result of the enactment of prohibition, MANY unintended consequences emerged, including the destruction of long-held family businesses. This “Noble Experiment” would prove to be untenable as it adversely affected millions of previously law-abiding people.
Prohibition’s most obvious flaw was that it instantaneously criminalized many of the country’s good men. Innocent men were suddenly classified as villains simply because they drank alcohol, which had been innocently enjoyed by men since the Neolithic period (10,000 B.C.). The new law instantly reduced all consumers of alcohol to criminal status, whether they drank responsibly or not.
In addition, prohibition’s enactment dramatically expanded the criminal element of society. The American Mafia, better known as the mob, ruthlessly broadened its control over the underworld becoming bootleggers to these newly ordained criminals. It would soon become an irrefutable fact that the women’s political fix for this particular ill was doomed to become a spectacular failure.
The inherent flaws of this type of coercive social engineering were undeniable. Not only did the innocent general public suffer, but the entire alcohol industry was unjustly destroyed. The once legal businesses of saloon keeping and alcohol production were suddenly declared illegal, putting multitudes of people out of work and many families on the street. And this, despite the fact that they were not responsible for the drunkards’ abuse of alcohol in the first place.
The Eighteenth Amendment was finally repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment thirteen years later, after it became obvious that the enforcement of prohibition, especially in the urban areas, was impossible.
The temperance movement, and the good intentions of its female leaders, had proven to be unsustainable. It not only forced many formally legitimate businessmen to choose between bankruptcy and the underworld, creating an enormous problem for local communities, but more telling was the fact that it did not stop people from drinking.
In fact, Prohibition actually encouraged drinking, especially and ironically among young women, as the Roaring 20s and the resulting proliferation of illegal speakeasies would prove.
While this generation of women worked to ban the use of alcohol in America, they were in many cases, continuing to work simultaneously on women’s suffrage as well, although with less satisfying results.
Stanton and Anthony’s efforts to acquire the vote for women on a state-by-state basis had been ongoing, and unsuccessful, for decades. Not only were the differences of opinions on strategy causing chronic problems, but their efforts were made more difficult due to their protracted lack of funding.
In addition, Anthony had alienated a section of her supporters in 1868 when it became obvious, through her writings in her women’s rights newspaper The Revolution, that she felt black men were inferior to white women and should not be given the right to vote first.
Despite Anthony’s protestations, on February 3, 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified giving free black men the right to vote.
Between 1865 and 1880 more blacks were elected to public office than at any other time in American history. Women did not acquire the right to vote for another fifty years.
It was now Stanton’s turn to alienate an additional segment of female suffrage activists when in 1896 she wrote a controversial work called, The Women’s Bible, in which she defined God as a woman.
Then another riff developed when a younger generation of women, who preferred to acquire the vote through a constitutional amendment rather than acquiring it state-by-state, chose more militant methods of demonstrating for the vote.
These women included Alice Stokes Paul (1885-1977), Lucy Burns (1879-1966), Inez Milholland (1886-1916), Dorothy Day (1897-1980) and Doris Stevens (1892-1963).
In 1913, Paul and Burns founded the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage for the sole purpose of acquiring the vote for women. Unlike Stanton and Anthony, their efforts were amply funded by the millionaire socialite feminist named Alva Belmont (1853-1933), the former Alva Vanderbilt of Marble House fame in Newport, RI.
Alva Vanderbilt scandalized the country in March of 1895 when she divorced the father of her three children, William Kissam Vanderbilt, the grandson of Commodore Vanderbilt. And, just 10 months later, she married a wealthy Jewish investment banker, five years her junior, named Oliver H. P. Belmont (formerly Schonberg) and moved down the street into his Newport mansion called Belcourt. Alva is famously quoted as having said, “First marry for money, then marry for love.” Oliver Belmont would die just eight years later.
The Congressional Union was renamed the National Women’s Party and Alva Belmont was elected president. Unlike the older generation of women, this generation of younger women was not shy about their fanaticism for political issues.
So, in order to bring attention to their desire for female suffrage thousands of middle-class women, very publicly, took to the streets to protest. They went on hunger strikes, demonstrated in front of the White House on a daily basis and at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City.
Functioning within this chronic state of tunnel vision, and to the annoyance of most men, these women willingly became a public nuisance. Newly elected President Woodrow Wilson, was among the men they annoyed while picketing the White House.
Support for prohibition and suffrage established a political platform from which later generations of activist women would develop a never-ending array of “women’s issues”, which in truth were simply anti-Christian men issues.
From the very beginning start, the agenda had a glaringly socialist bent to it, with a self-centered minority, dictating terms to a broader-minded majority, through their political influence.
Over the years many reporters, researchers, historians and academics have failed to see the forest, for the trees. They have searched for the cause of our countries move towards the left, without considering the fact that it might be caused by the average, everyday woman, who goes to the polls and votes, while under the influence of these “well-intentioned” female anarchists!
Today, women comprise 51% of our population. The voting block of “liberal socialists” is diminutive when compared to the number of female voters. This lack of “liberal”, Black, socialist, Jews, Hispanic, homosexual’s physical numbers cannot explain this incremental shift towards socialism, unless you consider the influence of the large number of female voters.
The Hispanics comprise just 15.4% of the US population. The entire Black population comprises just 12.8% of the population. The Jews comprise a smidgen of the population with just 1%. And the homosexuals are so few in number that they are barely calculable.
The combined total of these four groups is approximately 29.2% of the population and that includes every man, women and child within those groups, even those who are unregistered to vote, or too young to vote.
Many have been led to believe by the liberal news media that these groups have tremendous political clout, when in fact, their numbers do not support those claims.
This false impression stems from their inordinate numbers of TV and magazine appearances enabled by the liberal main stream media, as compared to their actual physical numbers. These groups appear to be everywhere and in huge numbers.
But despite this media driven overexposure, it does not represent the truth in numbers. What gives them political clout is the fact that the “bleeding heart” women, vote along the same lines, especially the highly compromised, and debauched, female baby boomers. This multiplies the “liberal” voting block, one hundred fold.
Having been “intellectually liberated” by feminist philosophy, during the last 40 years, women’s natural tendency to vote with their socialist-leaning hearts, has been exasperated by feminism’s push to annihilate Christian “patriarchy”.
The resultant amalgamation of “female” issues has allowed a relatively small number of “liberals” in influential positions within the media, politics and academia, to politically swing the country dangerously to the left, with female baby boomer voters as their naïve, inconspicuous co-conspirators.
This explains why the traditionalists, the strict constructionists, the libertarians, the Christians, the conservatives and the remaining American patriots barely win, or generally lose, elections, even though they supposedly comprise the vast majority (71.8%) of the American population.
When you take into consideration the fact that 51% of the population is composed of women, and the fact that women are much more likely to be soft on crime, tough on women’s rights and liberal in their view of the world, you have your answer.
The very close election results we have been suffering with for decades, only make sense when women’s left leaning votes are considered part of the equation. Women’s suffrage is slowly pushing Christian America over the edge.
When the large numbers of voting women are added to the relatively small number of socialists and progressives in this country, their combined efforts are huge and influential.
Without women’s natural affinity for politicians who espouse the “feel good” socialist agenda, I submit that none of this shift to the left would have been possible. The traditional liberals just don’t have the numbers to pull it off alone. The shift away from traditional Christian American values began the day women were given the vote in 1920, and it continues to this very day.
During the last 40 years, radical feminism has only made matters worse. Its influence on women’s thinking is unparalleled. Women have, for decades, been convinced by their feminist leaders to trash any and all institutions established by Christian men on the ridiculous notion that men are the “purveyors of paternalism” and the source “domination and oppression” of women, when in fact the reverse is true.
This bizarre, and in many cases, subliminal premise therefore justifies the negation of all institutions established by men – governmental, military, judicial, political, ecclesiastical, familial and corporate – without due process.
These institutions are viewed as sexist just because they were established by men. This irrational hypothesis suits the liberals and socialists plan perfectly. They want the Christian establishment OUT, so that they can move in.
This irrational feminist “knowing” has encouraged women to vote against the tough, established and proven governmental parameters of democracy that has allowed this great country to become a powerhouse, and instead vote for, the “feel good” entitlement programs which will bankrupt the country and place all the power in the hands of the few suffocating socialists. When this happens, the women will be trashed by the very same government, in whom they have misguidedly placed their trust.
This situation has been evolving for decades. Once women embraced radical feminism, and their men were suitably side-lined by their screeching protests which irrationally accused these innocent men of being evil, or worse yet, useless, these “liberated” women soon began to suffer the unintended consequences of their misguided zeal. They are now discovering that their lives are awash with regret, loneliness, poverty, poor health. And worse yet, they are subjected neighborhoods swarming with criminality, just as it was with the institutionalization of Prohibition, because the Christina good guys have been vanquished by radical feminist ideology.
Women are beginning to realize that there is no suitable substitute for the protection and support provided to them by the Christian men they abandoned.
Having burned their bras, and bridges, behind them, they are left with no recourse but to cope with the depleted world they created.
So, in another misguided effort to replace the “no longer necessary” Christian men in their lives, they have turned, with ever-increasing numbers, to the government, for redress, expanding socialism farther as they foolishly march along.
Ninety years later, women are now left unsupported, alone and rudderless, while looking to the government to solve all of their ever-mounting, self-inflicted wounds.
Out of sheer desperation, women are foolishly turning by the millions to “big brother” government to replace the disenfranchised men in their now dysfunctional, dead-end lives.
Despite the ranting of the radical feminists, the desire to be cared for is still very much alive within women. Feminism has perverted this need and it has left its troops hanging by a thread.
Since the traditional support system provided by loving husbands and fathers, is no longer “politically correct”, women’s continued search for a substitute has led them to chronically vote for “cradle to grave” care, in hopes that the government will care for them, when in reality, it “cares” NOTHING for them.
Unaware of their subconscious inclinations to be cared for, or the damning effects of their ballot decisions, women routinely vote for socialist precepts, under its most insidious guise – “feel good” fellowship. This must to change!
Women must be made to understand the foolishness of their soft-heartedness when they enter the polling booth. Men must forestall this tendency with clear precise reasoning, or if that fails, send them out-of-town on Election Day.
Despite feminism’s protests to the contrary, the reality is that women will always need Christian men to love and care for them. They are proving by their millions of poverty-stricken lives, that they can’t “have it all”, without men’s help.
“Liberated” women still vote with their heart – free education, free health care, welfare, food stamps, anti-war, anti-profits, etc., etc., etc. and they have the numbers that has unhinged the political arena and sent this country spiraling towards suffocating socialism.
The way women vote is as dangerous to democracy as Hitler was to Germany. It feels good at the time but for these short-sighted women who fail to “connect the dots”, the “unintended consequences” are devastating.
You cannot continue to give away the store and expect to stay in business. “Tough love”, imparted by men, works much better. Shape up or ship out! It’s cheaper, more effective and instills self-reliance. And, that’s good for every man, women and child in the country.
Unfortunately, women now view government as some sort of benevolent, big brother or old uncle. When in fact, government is an inanimate object, run by people they don’t know and who don’t care. Bureaucrats with motives they’ll never understand and who are about as trustworthy as an old scoundrel!
The fact is that their fathers, husbands, brothers and sons are the only people on whom women can truly depend when life takes a turn for the worse. These are the only people who will help their women when they need it the most, the government won’t and can’t! It can’t relate to individuals on any human level. It’s a thing. It doesn’t have a heart or a soul. It cannot “care” about you at all!
To make matters worse, when women vote for bigger and bigger government programs their men will be even less likely to help when life throws them a curve ball. If their men are taxed out of their businesses or jobs, in order to prop up some money hungry government program that enables some non-productive loser to sit on his ass, they won’t be able to help you either, because they’ll be broke too.
For years, political pundits have tried to place the blame for our countries shift to the left on the voting patterns of the Hispanics, the Blacks the Jews or the homosexuals. Although the liberal news media purports that these individual groups have enormous political influence, the truth is, that they lack the numbers of people necessary to explain this unrelenting shift towards socialism over the last ninety years.
Granted, there have been lulls in this assault, such as during World War II and during President Reagan’s administration, but the move to expand social programs and entitlements has continued, despite these respites.
The undeniable truth is that as soon as women were given the right to vote in 1920 the country began its incremental move to the left, with “cradle to grave” government “coverage.”
And, despite all of the naysayers commentary to the contrary, women will always want to be cared for and they will always need to nurtured.
The unfortunate part of this equation is that since feminism has made it “politically incorrect” for women to follow the traditional path of being cared for by their fathers, husbands and sons, and in turn, securely and safely able to nurture their children properly, these powerful female needs have been transferred to the political arena, with damning results.
These desires for protection are SO strong that “liberated” women, rather than nurturing themselves through their family connections, have instead, mistakenly tried to nurture themselves, their co-workers, their communities, their countrymen and the world through their socialist voting patterns.
These twisted priorities have expressed themselves in extraordinary ways. Women routinely vote for leftist precepts believing they are helping their fellow-man, or themselves, when in fact, they are giving away the store.
And, they continue to do so despite the continuing lack of positive evidence to justify the billions of taxpayers dollars spent chasing their irrational dreams.
The notoriously tight election results only make sense when we realize that the liberals, socialists and progressives have continued to make progress for just one reason – our “liberated” feminist losers, voted with them. These feminist failures give them the numbers, and the votes, they need to push their socialist agenda.
When these feminist women were young they believed in the good intentions espoused by socialists that government programs would adequately care for everyone. Now, these same, much older, feminist failures are voting for government programs to offset their terrible life choices they made themselves.
The conservative political pundits would better serve the country and the world by acknowledging this underlying tendency in women and respond accordingly.
The conservative politicians and religious leaders, talk show hosts and TV commentators are behaving just as Don Quixote did. They are dueling with windmills. They spend their energy trying to fight the symptoms of the illness rather than treating the cause of the infection.
Are they afraid to face facts and deal with the feminist backlash? Possibly. But that doesn’t lessen the gravity of the situation. The danger is clear and present!
It’s time for our Christian men to courageously confront those radical women who are responsible for this dangerous shift to the left.
This insidious sickness cannot be cured unless the root cause is acknowledged and addressed. And, as painful as this may be to admit, the root cause is, our feminist female voters. 70 % of white, single woman voted for Obama, giving him the votes he needed to win the Presidency of the United States in 2008.
These misinformed, and exceedingly misguided, women are our sisters, aunts, nieces, mothers, cousins and grandmothers!! Unless we turn our attention towards educating the women as to the foolhardiness of their voting patterns, we can never stem the tide.
The Christian men in the trenches MUST educate their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters and co-workers about the dangers of their natural tendencies to nurture total strangers by voting for socialist agendas which will eventually cause the collapse of capitalism, and democracy, in the United States of America and the world!
Even if men must YELL to make matters clear to their women, they must! The men must confront the issue “head on” and point out the folly of their women’s voting patterns.
Remind them that money does not grow on trees and that there will always be unsalvageable dirt bags, losers and criminals that only permanent incarceration will control.
Remind them that it’s OK to lock them up and throw away the key because, despite their feelings to the contrary, they are irredeemable!
For ninety years women have been voting for programs, funding, regulations and agencies to help the “unfortunate”. And all it’s done is take away man’s innate desire to protect and provide and has instead protected and provided for this country’s lazy losers at the expense of the productive, good people.
Women’s voting patterns have not improved the lives of the unfortunates, it has instead, actually expanded poverty. Poverty has not been irradiated in America during its 40 year “War on Poverty”. It has had the reverse effect, of viciously expanding poverty, and the corresponding violence, within our inner cities and beyond.
The political entitlements created by women voters has multiplied the problems and created a huge, government-funded, sub culture of dependent, demoralized and dangerous “unfortunates”, whose only accomplishment is to leech our hard-earned dollars away from our good families and businesses.
This HAS to STOP! Federal and state entitlement programs will not, and cannot, save the unfortunates or solve the problems of humanity. Let Christian men deal with the bad guys on a “one-on-one” basis in their own backyards. And, these good men don’t mind getting their hands dirty in the process. They can handle it, thank you very much, and we will all be safer, happier and richer.
Of course, there will be mistakes made but we must ignore the hysterical alarmists who wish to maintain their position on the soapbox! Christian men are not infallible but their intentions are good! We must trust that there will be honest mistakes and nothing more and allow them to continue to protect and provide for us. End of story.
Remember, Christian men ways are guided by God, and as a result, they have a proven track record of providing the positive results a civilization needs to flourish. Feminist women’s ways have not!
It’s time for these vain, selfish women to STOP talking and to start listening.
It’s the Women, Not the Men!
Update: With Donald Trump’s recent election as President of the United States, its obvious that Christian men are FINALLY speaking up! Thank God!