Good article. However, you went ahead and implied that, if you were a libertarian Republican in the swing state, you would vote for McCain.

And that is what he and the RNC Nanny Staters want to see. Obediance.

For me, I look at the fair Supreme Court decisions of the past 10 years and all I see are the numbers 5-4 or 4-5. This means that, except for Justice Kennedy, there were always 4 party-line-voting jackasses voting the wrong way on each of the fair decisions.

Example: Socons wanting to ban even the film "American Beauty" as well as all pornography. Liberals wanting to ignore the Constitution on the 2nd Amendment and wanting to uphold the Violence Against Women Act when the Constitution never said that the federal government is responsible for that topic (giving federal funds to feminist groups).

I want more Justice Anthony Kennedys, not more Alitos and Breyers. Until then, I want the court to stay balanced. So, if Obama is allowed to switch out a few liberals, the court will stay balanced. Then we might get a more libertarian major party contender in 2012 who can put another 1 or 2 Anthony Kennedys on the bench.

We need to show the McCain crowd that it is OUR way or the highway. I have had enough of these neocon wimps (to me neocon means feminist supporting and not war supporting) acting like they should control the Republcan Party and not guys like me (who might have run the show if we did not find the business world more lucrative).

At least Obama would clear the Augean Stables of the current manure. Then the next administration will have to clear out Obama's manure if he creates it (since Obama faced down the feminist Clinton, his black administration might not be anywhere near as bad as Clinton's would have been).

I realized my vote for Romney was irrelevant as I was casting it, which is probably why I regretted the decision almost immediately afterward.

The anti-Barr reaction among a vocal-albeit very small-element of the LP is interesting. I recently had a debate with an anarcho-capitalist friend on Facebook about this subject in which he all but declared Barr to be the anti-Christ.

I know I'm probably going to look stupid once you've tracked down that Cal Thomas column, ca. 1998, calling for the DOJ to impound every copy of American Beauty, but who was demanding that that movie be banned? On purely aesthetic grounds I can see why a distributor would want to reject it-it's a hideously bad film-but I don't recall anyone calling for its wholesale proscription.

I also don't quite grasp your rationale on the SCOTUS. Why should the Court be equally balanced between those who interpret and apply the Constitution on a consistent and textually correct manner and those, like Kennedy, who base their decisions upon whether they've had their ginseng on the day they accept a particular writ of cert. Or, in the case of Justice Breyer, whether or not a given decision will conform to the prevailing standards of the European Court of Justice.

Any chance of embedding that bracketed URL, Karol (if you can do that from Europe)? Please pardon the housekeeping note.

More substantively: I'm actually not saying swing states should vote for McCain, just that it's more understandable there. Here, there's no good excuse not to vote Barr...unless even he is insufficiently libertarian, as Gerard's acquaintance must feel, and in some sense, he's right.

But _electoral_ politics, at least, is the art of the possible, and if sending the GOP a strong "message" isn't worth the effort, sending the _LP_ one is like haranguing a former Sec. of Labor about what he ought to be doing if he were still in office.

That is, the important question is whether and when to deploy the LP as a weapon, I think, not so much whether the LP is internally ship-shape.

It is good to see the anarchists shown the door by the LP this go around. They never could never get their priorities straight, could not organize and the LP in 2006 seemed like nothing but gays and feminists (who are also mostly out of the new 2008 LP because gays are a much smaller electorate than heterosexual males who are under attack from both parties).

Over at DailyPaul.com last winter, it was annoying to see them ignore any rational argument for voting for Ron Paul and hype up all the radical left wing reasons instead. With Bob Barr, much of the support comes from pro-war Republican males who really did vote for Bush in 2004.

I live in Europe where I am too busy to dig up old Cal Thomas articles. If he wrote an article panning the bad movie "American Beauty" five years ago, I would have agreed with him that the movie was soft pornography that promoted having an unhealthy obsession with 16 year old high school girls (minors in California but above the age of consent elsewhere). But that was before the Republican Party joined with left wing feminists in an orgy of anti-male legislative attempts that included actually trying to raise the age of consent everywhere.

That was going too far. It was taking a Nanny State step toward something that was otherwise just ungentlemanly behavior.

The 4 party-line SC conservatives voted to ban any pornography where the woman was 18 but might have been wearing a cheerleaders outfit to appear 17 or 16. Of course, these guys would probably ban all pornography (Bork would have) or at least put it behind a credit card screen (COPA could be upheld next June if McCain gets in) which is also anathema to those who oppose the nanny state.

If you asked males to vote if porn is free speech or not, there would be an overwhelming yes vote. The Republican Party, dominated by older females jealous of losing their husbands to younger women, will completely ignore what most men think on the subject...which is part of the reason why so many guys are abandoning the RP and simply will not come back until they see themselves, and not busy-body older women, represented.

Romney, by the way, did state that porn is free speech.

But those are just minor points compared to the greater war against men that both parties are up to.

The 4 socon justices voted to uphold the CDA, (Decency Act) which would have made anonymity on the Internet a privilege and not a right.

That was anathema. Reason to vote against the Republicans right there.

Try a Google search for the IMBRA law that forces American men to be background checked if they want to say hello to a non-American woman online. There is no such thing as a "mail order bride" and no such thing as a "marriage broker" except in the mind of older baby boomer American women who, like Christie Brinkley, are royally ticked off that men their own age (regardless of their political orientation) want to date women in the 18-25 age range.

IMBRA is part of VAWA, which is the vampire-like feminist law that the 4 socon justices + Kennedy partly overturned by declaring a woman could not sue a man for rape in federal court. The newly "improved" VAWA now makes it stupid for any man to get married because there are now so many feminist "gotchas" for having made the commitment to marry a woman.

Regarding IMBRA, a liberal judge named Clarence Cooper upheld the law (after the feminist Clinton read him the riot act for having initially putting a restraining order on it) at the local district level. He said:

"Meeting someone online is like buying a gun, both should require background checks".

Considering that all 4 liberals on the Supreme Court tried and failed to uphold a woman's right to sue a man for rape in federal court (if a state Supreme Court acquitted him), I would assume from the above judge's outrageous decision that the Democrats are out to back up the NOW in making sure that all men will soon be banned from talking to women without being background checked.

However, a Republican judge Thomas Rose said about IMBRA in denying another restraining order attempt:

"There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner".

WTF? This was a new Bush appointee...married with two grown daughters. This guy needs to be removed from the bench immediately.

From my point of view, all politically partisan judges are my enemies because single males are not represented in Congress.

Only Justice Kennedy votes outside of the party platforms of the two major parties.

If Kennedy were a liberal:

1) Rape would be a federal offense (rape defined as something a woman regrets) and any man accused of stalking (defined as calling more than once) would have to be jailed because "Morrison vs Colorado" would have been upheld for the plaintiff saying that the states have a duty to protect women from any man they say might be threatening to them.

If Kennedy were a socon:

1) All porn would feature women 25 and older out of fear that one actress might appear too young. The porn would only be accessible online behind a credit card screen which, of course, less than 0.1% of men would ever cross (who wants to give his credit card number to seedy people).

In other words, without Kennedy, men would be leaving the US in droves claiming, correctly, that feminists and older "Christian" females (and their eunuch husbands) control the Congress and are getting their own way.

Let's look at what is important to a single male, aged 35 in America today:

1) Low taxes so he won't be rejected by potential mates for being broke. :-) The Republicans have seen to this which gives them 100 points to start with.

2) A relatively harmless, alliance with Islamists against Marxist feminism worldwide. Reagan managed to get the Islamists on his side against Godless communism. Why not against Godless Clintonism?

The answer: because the Bushies and Clintons are friends...they are part of the same club. Bush has no problem with the world-view of Hillary.

3) Internet freedom and the right to assembly. None of this garbage about how, because some woman on Myspace was raped, all men have to face criminal background checks just to socialize online. Republicans are worse than Democrats on this issue and the 4 socon justices of the Supreme Court tried (and, because of Kennedy, failed) to uphold the Communications Decency Act which would have taken the right to anonymity online away.

In two out of the three above issues, it looks like the Republicans have failed (although I will give Bush a thumbs up for defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq after Al Qaeda was dumb enough to take the bait and go there).

So...for your average single male, he will have to vote for a third party unless McCain choses a libertarian VP like Sanford or Palin...someone who really believes in individual rights.

I really want to see Sanford picked as McCain's VP.

I think the most obvious thing proven in these comments is that Jack Sanderson has a lil' problem with women.

Robert Bork wouldn't have "banned" pornography.

See, this is the problem with our society's current misinterpretation of the role of the courts. Jurists are not legislators, and they are certainly not the grand imperators they've transformed themselves into over the past half-century or so. They are charged with interpretating the Constitution, and the statutory rules and laws that complement that document.

Allowing states and localities to determine what constitutes obscenity is a far cry from exceeding the role of a judge by reading your own personal moral views into the law via judicial fiat.

And I'm not implying that some of the critiques of Judge Bork's opinions, especially with respect to the Second Amendment's RKBA-aren't legitimate. But to say that a half-wit who doesn't have the requisite qualifications to sit on a federal circuit court, let alone the highest court in the land, is a suitable replacement for one of the greatest legal minds of his generation, and perhaps the most well-qualified nominee since Robert Jackson, is utterly absurd. To claim that he has been a better occupant of that seat than Douglas Ginsburg-another brilliant Costitutionalist-would have been is also ridiculous.

I have read Bork's book "Slouching Toward Gomorrah".

In it, he has an excellent chapter on the dangers of radical feminism (Ed Gein apparently feels that anyone who argues against victim feminism must have "a lil problem with women").

I recommend going out to read that chapter on victim feminism now, so nobody here defends it as if they think most American women are victim feminists themselves (they most assuredly are not).

But then Bork goes into another chapter saying outright that men who view pornography "pollute" their environment with their ruined character(I guess like cigarette smoke), making it clear that he would, if on the bench now, uphold the federal Congressional COPA law which is on restraining order and wants to put porn behind a credit card barrier "so kids don't see it" (adults wouldn't see it either because nobody is going to use their credit card just to check out what a website is like).

Bork's book makes it clear he would have been a disaster on the court with his moralistic BS (having NOTHING to do with the Constitution) and any socon who feels he would have been great...is probably someone who better get on John McCain's staff right now and try their best to get that non-conservative "maverick" elected.

It is such people who cannot afford the luxury of voting third party this year...even though McCain has no chance anyway.

This is because their is no third party pushing the evangelist stuff this year except Chuck Baldwin's CP. Baldwin, by the way, would agree with me on the above mentioned law because it interferes with marriages between Christian Americans and Christian foreigners.

Now lets get to Ed Gein's insightful and well thought out post about me supposedly "having a lil problem with women".

Ed thinks that a man is manly if he looks the other way as feminists pass laws to regulate males.

Although his one sentence didn't explain where he was coming from, Ed clearly supposes that men should shut up about feminism or women won't like them. To the contrary, since even most American women are not feminists, they love men who are willing to stand up to feminists. Only left wing gays or eunuchs singing in the castrati choir would criticize another man for discussing bad feminist legislation in the US Congress.

Go to www.mensnewsdaily.com Ed to see where real men hang out.

Now, is Miss Ed Gein OK with the following:

"There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner"?

Yes or no?

Nobody needs to accuse me of having a problem with women because I find that judge's comment outrageous.

Ed: Do you think that radical feminists just went home and went to sleep in the past ten years? Are you saying they do not run Joe Biden like a puppet the way they ran the wimpy Senator Wellstone before his demise in 2002? Do you think they don't run Sam Brownback like a puppet? Do you know anything at all about the subject?

Also check out www.mediaradar.org and www.glennsacks.com to see examples of how there is a Men's Rights Movement building steam now that some really outrageous laws like IMBRA and VAWA have been passed with "bipartisan support".

No real conservative men would accept radical feminism as a done deal. Accepting equal pay maybe. But read the above websites to see that the feminists are not about getting "equality". They want control. It is a zero sum game for them.

And the Republican Party is now letting them have their way in the social sphere as payment for their agreement on economic and military issues facing Congress.

Do you think that someone who complains about a law necessarily has a direct interest? It is true that married men are the most angry at these new laws because they make married men second class citizens in their own homes, but married men are also most ticked off about the laws making it harder for single guys (theoretically harder, because nobody is complying with these laws). I live in Europe where I don't need to use the Internet to meet people who are right here (but Americans stuck in a rut probably do need to use the Internet).

Does anyone here agree with the liberal judge who said "Meeting someone online is like buying a gun, both should require background checks"? What a nice way to bring down the 2nd, 1st and 4th, 9th and 14th Amendments all in one sentence.

Is Ed Gein basically saying that the subject of marriage and sex is of no interest to a Republican male? We are supposed to be most interested in tax cuts and a war against Muslims who beat their wives, right?

Guys like Ed Gein, who feel they need to make ad hominem attacks on heterosexual males, need to stick to the current anti-male version of the Republican Party while it sinks.

Whatever happened to the Republican Party I once knew that criticized the real left (gay agenda pushers and feminists) instead of the alpha male heteros among them?

Correction: Jack Sanderson has a big problem with women.

Barr may be a good ole boy but he's a nut. Why would anyone suck money from folks and spend it on a 'known' losing cause. Same for the green party folks, stupid. Is is some kind of buzz to have 'loser' stuck to you or do they steal a few million for personal use from the collections? Something drives these losers. They probably buy male enhancement products off the internet to, and that includes McKenney from the greenies.

Scrapiron: Barr supporters plan to take over the Republican Party for the 2012 cycle. Rather than wasting their time, by racking up decent numbers, they are showing McCain and his supporters to be wasting their time. A vote for McCain is a wasted vote. Even at the convention there will be dissent, unless McCain choses a libertarian VP which is quite possible.

There is a great possibility that Barr's poll numbers will force McCain to chose Sanford or Palin as his VP.

If that happens, because McCain is old, it will mean that the libertarians will have truly taken over.

Now, is this some sort of liberal website that thinks that fighting feminism means having a problem with women? Anyone else check out www.mensnewsdaily.com?

Has it come so far that guys who proclaim to be "conservative" take feminism off table?

Let's hear a conservative argument in favor of feminism. I want to see that.

This would include the guy who loves Bork but would just as soon ignore chapter 17 in Bork's book "Slouching Toward Gomorrah?"

If you are going to like Bork, then be consistent and show that you have actually read his book.

Another really big reason why the Republican Party is splitting in half now (check the book "The Elephant in the Room") is because of the anti-intellectualism.

Fox News knows little about what it means to be conservative...yet too many anti-intellectuals hear something there and think this is what it means to be conservative and this is the way its always been.

Todd, my old on-line pal. I've taken a similar course in this election season: Giuliani supporter, to Romney, to Wayne Root, to Bob Barr. As a Pro-Defense Libertarian, I skipped the Ron Paul part, due to his rabid Blame America First foreign policy.

But alas, we've both arrived at the same juncture, after a long journey.

I live in Texas, and McCain will easily win my State. For and libertarian Republican or "punk conservative" in TX or another deeply blue or deeply red state, it's almost a wasted vote, NOT to vote for Bob Barr.

One final note, I agree wholeheartedly with the poster above, who says that if McCain picks Sarah Palin or Mark Sanford (or Chris Cox), as his VP, it's a sure sign that the libertarian wing of the GOP has now ascended, and that McCain is reacting to the challenge from his libertarian flank from Barr.

The GOP has embraced Feminists and abandoned Values Voters. While they seek the Women's Vote, Men are bailing on Marriage. And they are increasingly marrying Foreign Women. Everywhere in the West where Feminism has been embraced the populations are in decline. Decades of male hatred is not being resisted by the GOP.

White males are the second largest voting block in the US. And the GOP takes us for granted. We are sick of being treated as sub human by our Government. While our Rights are trampled upon. Our Government declares us defacto Criminals and Abusers. To make the FemBots happy.

Feminists are not going to vote Republican. And pandering to Women is a betrayal of the Men in the Republic.

Sanderson--I'm no liberal, but if you think feminism is more of a threat than Islamofascism, I'm afraid someone in your family needed better hands when you were an infant. While you would argue that the radical feminists want to cut your balls of metaphorically, the Islamofascists want to do it literally as a precursor to throwing your head in the same basket. The problem is not that there's a GWOT, it's that the current President and Republican Party seem to be engaging in it as a "hobby" rather than a "war." That has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with a nation that has the last generation that actually knew how to fight dying by the thousands.

While I don't disagree that the Bush-Clinton families are a little too close (I came to this conclusion when Papa Bush went on a tour with a known adulterer and accused woman abuser who just happened to defeat him in '92), I think the current President is okay with the "feminist agenda." If he was, would good ol' Harriet been his first choice for a SCOTUS slot? Unless you've got smoking gun evidence, I'm thinking that's a bit of a reach.

Here's a conservative argument in favor of feminism--in order to have a truly "small" government or one that actually has a chance of getting its reforms passed, you need a government that treats all of its citizens equally. This is why the ERA would have been a good thing, as it would have prevented the abuses you currently see in many states. Conservatives should flock to feminism as it means that you won't have a woman suing her company after merrily taking less pay for multiple years because, well, her lawyers _assure_ her that she'll get the massive punitive damages. Likewise, if you had an ERA the VAWA would have been "unconstitutional" and thus DOA (although one never knows with SCOTUS). Finally, given the rise of men's rights groups (thankfully), it'd be hard to justify family law systems that award women custody in an overwhelming majority of the cases because states would be tired of getting class actions suits dropped on them.

You're lumping _all_ feminism together with the ball-busting, man hating antics of the far left. Because, hey, that's like lumping all Republicans in with Pat Buchanan in levels of fairness. Hmm, don't understand why _anyone_ would think you have a problem with women based on that--and a couple fig leaf "radicals" you throw in your post don't obscure the fact. Yes, there is a problem with _radical_ feminism. However, normal feminism (i.e., the belief that women are equal, functional members of society) is about as conservative as you can get. The reason you have the uholy union between Congressional GOPers and their Dem counterparts is not because of some "agenda," but because both sides have an infantilized view of women. Of course you need a law to protect the poor, weak gal from her overbearing husband if you think she should be at home raising a brood and keeping up house.

Perhaps if men like you would learn to speak of the difference between "feminism" and "radical feminism" rather than coming off as misogynistic reactionaries then conservatives would be comfortable counterattacking "radical feminism." Unfortunately, from the tone of your remarks you come off as someone who longs for the good ol' days when the da*n woman stayed in the kitchen unless she was bringing you a beer. That, in this day and age of the internet and women being able to vote, tends to lose people elections. I'm not saying that some of your points aren't valid--indeed, as folks who know me in person can tell you I'm rather rabid on men's rights--but it's presentation that is everything.

Thus, I'm not saying I disagree with your stance on the laws being F-ed up. Indeed, I regularly attempt to support politicians that fight these laws (which is why I will not be voting for Mr. Brownback come 2010) even if I think their intent is necessary. (Yes, there is violence against women--but why are we handling this at the _federal_ as opposed to state level.) However, if you think Barr is the answer to these problems or that the Libertarian Party's choice will force McCain to pick a true conservative as a VP...well, I think you haven't been paying attention to either man's past records. Barr's about as libertarian as I am communist (that is to say, not at all) and I would think the Libertarian Party would have been able to successfully defend its turf against an interloper like that. Since it wasn't, I think that (unlike in 2004), I won't be giving it my vote this year. McCain almost delights in telling the base where to go as they have no one else for whome they can vote (which, hey, is probably something he learned on his many trips across the aisle). Ergo, he's going to choose who he wants as VP and the peons will vote accordingly. (His problem is that the peons will vote for him, but they aren't going to "get out the vote" like they did in 2004.)

The reason he's able to do this is the Republican Party's myriad problems. First, yes, there is the anti-intellectualism and, through that, inability to actually encapsulate ideas in simple terms. Second, there's the fact that the "base" (i.e., Christian Right) began to believe it's own press clippings and started making the party do dumb stuff (see Schiavo, Terry). Finally, there's the problem of leadership and the fact that many of the "old guard" were so focused on staying in power they forgot that "governing" thing they were supposed to be doing.

Todd,

Um, explain to me how you get to "ideally there would be no President" from the Constitution? Or, for that matter, even from Federalist papers or the majority of the Founding Fathers' correspondence?
Just sayin', but under our current system I'm pretty sure "no President" would be a little, um, difficult. Especially as you have no function for defense of the nation or resolution of issues between the states. Considering that, to use one example, Georgia and its neighboring states are having a major dispute about water right now, I'd be interested to see how your ideal society would solve that one.

I'm not sure what you mean by "get to" -- whether you mean logically, morally, strategically, or legally.

In any case, I will just say that while you have a government, it's wonderful to limit it with a clear, strong constitution. Better still would be to have no government so that there was none to limit.

There is no reason to believe, though, that if the U.S., as a practical first step (though admittedly not a likely one at this point in history), passed an amendment abolishing the Constitution and reverting to the Articles of Confederation, Arkansas would promptly go to war with Kansas, etc. Russia and Georgia have deeper problems than lack of a shared federal government.

As for the game-theory-like arguments for replacing government with private (non-taxing) courts, private (non-taxing, non-regulating) police, and a decentralized law code that merely empowered the courts and police to punish attacks on person and property, I'll refer you to the books of anarchist law professor Randy Barnett and anarchist economist David Friedman (son of Milton) to avoid this Comment becoming thousands of words long.

James,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I did, however, stipulate that "victim feminists" were the problem and rarely above just said "feminists". If so, I erred...but I find it scary that Republican males have even accepted the plain word "feminism" as something that denotes good, especially in a time when young American women themselves think of "feminism" as something bad (no longer pertaining to equal rights but to having an anti-male agenda).

Fox News has dropped the word feminist entirely and allowed the radical feminists (victim feminists) to claim they not only represent all feminists but all women.

Marc Rudov is not allowed to criticize "feminists" on OReilly. He is only allowed to condemn "women" in general, which is bizarre, showing the warped thinking of the Fox News producers (who need to be replaced when Rupert Murdoch finally gets a clue).

No intelligent woman calls herself a feminist these days and means, thereby, that she just wants equality. Women are smart enough to know the word "feminist" carries too much baggage. So it is the wrong time for Republican politicians or readers of conservative blogs to get the wrong idea about anyone who condemns feminism without a qualifier.

Equality between the sexes is a given. I should know because I follow the Men's Rights Movement and, except for arguably Marc Rudov who actually argues for a 100% feminist world where women who don't pay on the first date are "whores", I can count zero misogynists in journalistic, academic or other positions of influence in the US today.

The Republican Party needs to be saying that, while they support equality, the word "Feminism" as it is being used today denotes those who want to regulate males in a zero sum power game.

You, James, were just discussing semantics.

Which is fine. Thanks for clarifying.

Sadly, however, the MRM has learned that it does not MATTER if we put qualifiers like "radical" or "victim" before the word "Feminist".

Eunuchs like Ed Gein would still just see the word "feminist" being used and conclude, without any further use of intellectual brainpower, that the person condemning them is a misogynist who does not believe in equality and has a problem with women.

I could advise guys like Ed to read "Who Stole Feminism" by Christina Hoff Somers (a Republican feminist whom the Republican Party is NOT listening to) and he would shoot back "I am not going to read a book and certainly won't read a book that has a problem with women".

The unfair concept that there are still men who want to lock a woman in the kitchen is why we have the VAWA and IMBRA laws. If you believe these men still exist, it is too easy to believe (falsely) that these are the guys who spend the big bucks to date and marry foreign women.

And there is another reason for those laws: While Sam Brownback does not really believe that there are such men in great numbers, Brownback does believe that men who date foreign women are "out there fulfilling their sexual fantasies with innocent young women overseas". He slandered us like that on Vatican Radio's English Service.

As if it is any business of the Republicans what consenting adults do outside the borders of the USA.

Furthermore, as you can see from the way 54 year old Christie Brinkley just went white hot with rage because her husband slept with an 18 year old (she called her a "young girl" to slander her husband in court)...there is going to be more attempted legislation coming from aging baby boomer women that will try to STOP men their own age from dating much younger adult women.

I have argued that Bob Barr can win both the male vote and the young adult women (twens and early 30s) vote by going after the old bitter Clinton Feminists for having too much of a chip on their shoulder.

I agree that Bob Barr might not be our man on this because I have not seen him apologize enough for messing with Monica. IMHO, what Monica knew was her business and no young woman should be qiven the third degree by the sex police (Bill Clinton would have won the sympathy of enough Republican males to swing the 2000 election for Gore if he had not lied but simply demanded that the outrageous intrusion in Monica's life stop - what turned us all off was the way he cut his girlfriend dead with the words "I did not have sex with that woman" - the words "that woman" were the words of a vile coward betraying a friend).

So the anti-sex and anti-age-difference faction of the Republican Party mixes in an unholy fashion with the "men want to control women and keep them in the kitchen" leadership of the Democratic Party to give American men some really vile laws regulating their ability to say hello to women and date and marry whom they want.

And the above is only the beginning. If IMBRA is upheld, all domestic social interactive websites will come under federal jurisdiction with mandated background checks (the above law will be upheld based on an interpretation that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce such as websites that charge fees to introduce people to each other).

I was just thinking this morning when I woke up that, here in Europe, politics is so stress-free because the libertarian parties, like the FDP in Germany, always get about 10% of the vote and end up getting what they want (or blocking what they don't want) because controlling the 10% of the center means that freedom will mostly always win.

American politics is built to cause cancer from stress...because people who represent 15% of the electorate can only ever win by blackmailing the major parties which is what is going on now between Barr and McCain.

Jack,

In a previous life and job, I knew of a man who took away his wife's ID card, took the keys, and then locked her and his kids into the apartment (many U.S. Army apartments in Germany don't have interior dead bolt turns) for as long as our unit went to the field. While this was an extreme, understand that there were more people towards this end of the spectrum than you obviously deign to entertain.

In addition, I seem to have a predilection for knowing lawyers and members of law enforcement. While they have convinced me that I never, ever want to be a member of either profession (much to my mother's deep disappointment--but one lawyer in the family is good enough), my association with them has also taught me that we are hardly to "equality" and, yes, there are plenty of men who do like to exert power over their domestic partners. Your mileage may differ, but sneering at those of us who have eyes and tend to apply critical thought only makes people want to ignore your underlying arguments.

Yes, I think that the fact we have a VAWA is a travesty. However, I think that you can hardly say women do not suffer the bulk of domestic violence. I know of two men who have ever been abused by their wives or partners. On the other hand, I have many, many female friends who cannot say the same. Now, in every case they extricated themselves from the situation, but a lot of that has to do with luck as well as ability to see an exit.

I only bring this up because, contrary to arguing semantics, I am challenging your world view which appears to be thus:

-The Republican Party needs to be the party of (white) males primarily.

-Men should be able to partake in bringing in foreigners via mail order web services without any government regulation. Whether or not some of these services may have connections with human traficking is not a topic worthy of exploration. (Darn law enforcement contacts again, I tell you.)

-The hijacking of the word "feminist" should no longer be challenged as, hey, any woman worth her salt wouldn't refer to herself in such terms.

-Equality between the sexes has been achieved and, furthermore, is now reaching the tipping point where women have the advantage. Ergo, white males (or, for that matter, any male) should vote Barr in order to send a message to the castrati of the GOP.

To each of these points I retort:

-My mother, who happens to be neither white nor male, has been drinking the GOP Kool-Aid for, oh, at least 12 years. Indeed, she has done a great deal of outreach, ran a successful campaign herself, and persuaded at least 4-5 members of our family to join the GOP cause. So, what you're basically saying is that the GOP should burn this bridge and focus narrowly on a segment of the electorate that, in the coming years, will become smaller and smaller? Oh, and by the way, could you explain to me (that is you, not some book, not some website) how this is any way shape or form conducive to a healthy society?

-Strange, I hardly know any of my single friends who have had trouble dating and meeting people thanks to onerous laws. Heck, my friend who just got divorced hardly got taken to the cleaners or thrown in the feminazi gaol because of what he did. Perhaps they're doing something wrong? Or, maybe you're slightly exaggerating the problem? While I regularly tell people that the reason men don't want to marry is because it's a sucker's bet, I also think that many men who find themselves afoul of said laws often have themselves to blame. It's not the law's fault if you're thinking with the wrong body party--that was made for reproduction, not critical assessment. Then again, I regularly get told some of the precautions I advise are "paranoid." *shrug* Maybe I just expect people to have their head on a swivel more or, quite frankly, don't play the game.

-However, if you believe that a man should be able to partake in mail order brides, then do you personally believe the government has a responsibility in making sure that foreigners entering this country are doing so for lawful means? Moreover, does government have a responsibility to make sure that these women entering the country are doing so of their own free will? I mean, for some odd reason I seem to recall my spouse and I having to fill out a great deal of information when she came into the country--so why should mail order brides not be subject to the same (if not more stringent) regulations?

On an aside, Christie Brinkley went "white hot" with rage because, you know, getting cuckolded is never a "happy" event. The age was just the icing on the cake. Comparing mail order brides to the young lady in this case does not do your argument any favors. Especially since Brinkley's husband was in a position of power over the woman.

Which leads to Monica, of course. Sorry, it wasn't about just the oral sex. One, she was the President's employee. You get a hummer from your secretary under current law, your secretary could turn around and bankrupt the company really quick--some phrase involving "harassment." The President should not be exempt from this law. Second, the dumbsh*t lied about it under oath. You know, that funny "perjury" term that's on any sworn statement you sign or implicit in raising your right hand and promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. You do that in Federal court, you're probably not getting away with a fine. (I know of three people doing this. All three got jail time _and_ a fine.) Once again, the President is a citizen like any other. Finally, all this being said, there should be something about integrity, honor, dignity, etc. from a Chief Executive. Only the narcissitic (oh, I'm sorry, "alpha male") think that they should be able to whore around as much as they want regardless of marital ties and position. I've known plenty of men who had both integrity and the ability to take charge and get things done. Once upon a time, that used to be what people cherished in men. It was hardly "feminists" who took this away from our society--and that's the real emasculation.

-Which leads to my next point. If you allow someone to pervert language, you allow someone to control discourse in the public square. It's like the terms black, negro, and african-american--the fact that on any given day many people don't know which term to use has a chilling effect on discussions about race. Look at the idiot down in Dallas who got offended at "black hole"--the conversation immediately came off the topic (which was bad processing and the disappearance of documents) to an idiotic exchange of "insults" (I'm dignifying this). Likewise, if radical feminists have Fox running scared...well, the leading cable news show is going to have difficulty challenging their agenda, aren't they. (Hiring more women and putting them out their in prime time might help curb this, but I just work here.) Sorry, but I refuse to allow you to say no decent woman calls herself a "feminist" because I know several who do. They, however, tend to want true equality.

-Which, sorry, we have not achieved and are now pushing over into anti-male bashing. Maybe in the blue states, but here in the country's center I would hardly say things are "equal" for women. This is not to say they are for men either--I can save my definition of true sexual equality for another day--but suffice to say there's more than enough craziness that has happened just to people I _know_ for me to say, "Um, yeah, that's hardly equal." Your mileage may vary, but a society where women comprise 50% of the voting populace yet are hardly represented as such in Congress, nevermind only being 1/9 justices on the Supreme Court, hardly indicates a society that's becoming a "woman's world."

IMBRA, by the way, is a red herring. I think the ACLU as well as a couple of conservative legal groups have already said they were going to challenge it in court. Judging from previous case law, the commerce clause is going to be trumped by ye olde "freedom of assembly." Moreover, if the sites move their servers offshore, that puts them outside of jurisdiction--and somehow I think the Executive Branch is going to expend resources attempting to arrest all of us who go on Facebook, MySpace, etc. without compliance. Although, I will admit, the thought of them trying brings a smile to my face as I imagine the subsequent election year a**whuppin' that takes place for that party.

If you're going to argue that European parliamentary politics have an advantage over the U.S. system because, hey, 10% of people can gum up the works then I'm afraid I can't take you all that seriously. Because that "center of freedom" includes whatever compromises must be made with the far right and far left fringe groups. Similarly, given the attempt of the bureaucrats to shove the EU Constitution down the continent's collective throat, I think that the parliamentary governments have hardly met their primary purpose of representing their populace. Obviously your view varies, but having seen European society up close and personal for a couple of years, I think that's hardly the _ideal_ we should be striving for.

You say that you want equality, yet the thrust of your argument (hardly semantics, once again) indicates that you want the GOP to become the party that caters to young white males (or your construct therein). Well, sorry, but I think I'd like a party that caters to a concept of what true equality and conservatism are as there's already one party of special interest idiocy. Perhaps the problem isn't that the GOP walked away from white males, but that it walked away from a concept of personal responsibility and values that most people could find resonance with. If the Libertarian Party could offer _that_, maybe Barr would have a chance.

Todd,

I meant "get to" legally. However, you have addressed that with the discussion of reverting to the Articles. *shudder*

Power abhors a vacuum. If you took away the Constitution right now, there would be a vacuum. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Constitution does a great job of limiting government--if it was actually followed. However, when you have an ever evolving Commerce Clause (or is that "Claws" for how it clutches everything in sight?) and three branches which have an unholy alliance where they wink at each other's excesses then things start to break down. The real disintegration begins when you have a Congress whose approval rating is at 8-9% representing a populace that hates everyone else's Congressional critters but their own.

I am familiar with anarchist's works and, trust me, I'm not opposed to some sense of anarchy (the political view, not the societal description) being incorporated. I am, however, a historian by education and hobby, and if there's one thing that I take away from the past it is that your degree of necessary control increases with your population.

So, your system would work on the micro (say, state) scale--but on the national scale I think it fails horribly. Especially when you have to ask yourself, "Hmm, what's to keep (insert despotic nation state here) from gobbling up, say, California?" Or for that matter, having Georgia (when I said "state" in the last post, I meant American, as opposed to "nation state") fighting with Tennessee and Florida over water? With the current Federal system in place there's a referee to keep this civil. In an anarchist system, about the time Atlanta's having to go on water rations someone's coming to blows.

I think the best example of why a loose confederation doesn't work is both the U.S. under the Articles as well as the Confederate States of America. In addition to being flat out on the wrong end of the industrial and population power curve, the South was undone by a lot of the stupid infighting that resulted from a weak central government. Now, you can argue that outside of the threat of a contiguous foreign power trying to strangle your nation in the crib this a bad example, but I would submit that the wolves _ALWAYS_ show up eventually.

As you can probably tell, I'm somewhat pessimistic on where our society is headed. I think that, contrary to the vigor with which I counterargue, Randall and Jack have a point in that our rights are being trampled. Unfortunately, I don't think it's just having to do with gender (although that does seem to be an interesting byproduct) but with a general tearing of our fabric as is. However, I don't think an anarchist bent is the solution to that problem. The populace actually getting off their upset a**es and changing out 468 (House plus all Senators running) members of Congress ever election until things get right, on the other hand would be the optimal choice. Unfortunately, optimal is not going to happen anytime soon, especially with "uncontested districts" being in play.

So, until then, I'm just going to try and get comfortable in this handbasket and enjoy the ride. I hope someone brought the makings for Smores...it's getting kinda hot.

IMBRA is an attempt to create a Barrier to Entry from Foreign Non Feminist Women in having a conversation or dialog with an American Man. It is interesting that the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution is ignored. And that the US Government has declared US Men to be Criminals and Abusers of women Per Se.

This is blatant Feminist pandering by the Republican Party. And perhaps it will backfire. I am urging Young Men to live outside the US for a couple of years in a Non Feminist culture. And see how Women relate to you? And then see if you are willing to put up with the Misandry and Hatred of Males that is now part of Living in the US for Men.

Since 1999 there has been a Five hundred percent increase in Marriages to Foreign Women. American Men are voting with their feet. And Feminists are horrified at the prospect of their Movement imploding as US Men reject US Women who embrace Feminism.

Hi James,

There is no need to imply that you are more sensitive to women's rights than I am nor do you really need to imply that you know more about domestic violence or care more about it.

It is because the victim feminists have gotten conservative men into the game of competing with each other to see who is more "sensitive" to feminism that we have already lost.

First, there is no such thing as a "Mail Order Bride" and ZERO American dating websites have ever been involved in anything remotely like an involuntary trafficking scheme.

And it is well known (reported even in the feminist Washington Post) that trafficking numbers are inflated by a factor of 100 while the feminists and their lackeys define trafficking as including all prostitution. I can write a book on the international fraud perpetrated by feminists regarding "trafficking".

This does not mean you care more about stopping real trafficking. It just means you are not yet aware of all the fraud and false definitions.

Mail Order Brides don't exist and referring to foreign women as such is like using the N word for blacks.

It is highly offensive and a conservative male has no business helping the radical feminists marginalize highly educated upper middle class foreign women by suggesting that they are less clued in on how to deal with men then their American counterparts (as if there are no men in their area of the world).

The ACLU supports IMBRA and will never help men on this, ever. I can show you emails from feminist directors of the ACLU who say it supports the foreign women's "right to know about a man" which is BS because that implies that women have a right to electronically know about every man who walks up to them on the street. IMBRA takes away the right of foreign women to decide their own level of security and broadcast their personal contact information in the manner that they see fit and which could enable an American to contact her on the spur of the moment if he were in her home city for just a day or two (IMBRA's "foreigners have to sign in writing clause" forces the women to wait until they check email which might only be at work on Monday or once a week or worse).

There are ZERO conservative groups who will touch IMBRA with a ten foot pole. I have been trying for a long time and now I just want the jackasses political chances destroyed. These bastards left me and no male (black, Asian or white) should accept the idea that they should lose their rights because their demographics are supposedly dwindling (the Men's Rights Movement has and wants tons of black men to join).

By the way, nobody is totally complying with IMBRA and all men lie on the voluntary part of their background check (I am not going to list every state I ever lived in and the ages of my children if I have them). Besides those men stupid enough to volunteer that they once had a DUI (liberal judge said that women have a right to know if the man that says hello to them ever had a DUI), IMBRA only hurts those who want to make last minute (honorable, not sexual) connections in a foreign city in the middle of winter or on a rainy day when there aren't plenty of other women out in public to say hello to.

Regarding the treasonous lack of support conservative groups have shown for preserving the Right to Assemble (1st Amendment)...better known as the right to just say hello to a woman without US government interference:

Too many conservative think tanks are run by supposedly conservative women who tell the men below them that they must ignore the topic of Internet regulation and IMBRA. The reasoning, articulated by Sam Brownback on the gay-run Vatican Radio English Service, is that although the left wing feminists are silly for arguing that the men need to be background checked because they might beat the women up later when they are married, the men must be hampered in their travels because they are probably "fulfilling their sexual fantasies" with what they consider to be "easy women" willing to have sex with a man in order to lure him into buying them a ring.

There are men at the Heritage Foundation who sympathize with us, but they got their nuts cut off by a female lawyer named Erica who is their boss.

There is a billionaire Richard Scaife who owns the Pittsburgh Tribune and the Heritage Foundation (these think tanks are owned by billionaires). He told his employee, the socalled libertarian columnist named Dmitri Vassilaros, to spike the story Dmitri wrote condemning IMBRA.

Dmitri told me this but he will deny it if others ask. But no other journalist will ask: journalists have a professional courtesy creed whereby they don't embarrass each other when each other's editors spike their stories for political reasons.

So I can assume that the conservative billionaire who basically supports the main think tank of the Republican Party is hell bent to make sure IMBRA is used as a gateway for all males to be background checked before using social interaction websites.

So this is far from being a red herring.

There seems to be ZERO help in sight in the fight for the Right to Assemble.

All I want is for some American to take a complaint that I can write into a federal courthouse and present it. I cannot leave Germany to do this myself for the time being.

But American men are lazy and most simply do not understand that they have the right to challenge things without a lawyer (judges take a dim view of those who do, but only because most of the people who go pro se are kooks - a competent plaintiff with a well-written complaint can do real damage to a law).

Regarding the German parliamentary system:

Minor parties MUST have 5% in the polls in order to get any representation in parliament. This is to stop what you referred to: fringe parties running the country by blackmail as part of a coalition they can bring down any time with a vote of non-confidence.

In 1992, Bush and Perot would have won the White House if we had a parliamentary system. But Gore and Nader would have won in 2000 because Nader would have gotten 5% of the vote due to tactical voting. You would be correct to note that Ralph Nader would have had too much power on 9-11 if we had a parliamentary system (I saw "we" but I do not live in the USA).

But Gore would have switched coalition partners and governed in a grand coalition with the Republicans after 9-11 if Nader tried to stop the Afghan War or something. Gore would have locked Nader out.

In Germany, this has recently happened. The SPD was forced to form a grand coalition recently with the CDU (conservatives) because they would otherwise have to govern with the communists who got 5%.

While I recognize that white men and black men need to finally come together (black men no longer have any business being separate from us politically)...I refuse to accept minority status to women politically.

By the way, there are only about 4 or 5 online dating sites that could fall under IMBRA, because the authors did a great job of defining them as only those sites that say that foreign women are better than American women. The law is pure politics and a pure attempt to stop political free speech (I personally do not like it when somebody puts down American women...but they have the free speech right to do so, including the commercial free speech right).

One huge site went free because the owner is rich enough to forgo the $4000 per month income the site brought. However the other three big sites have owners who do NOT plan on going offshore but just found it easier to delete the profiles of all women who do not have email (about 20,000 women were cut off this way). IMBRA does not slow down email communication because clicking on a button constitutes "signing in writing that a woman read a man's background". If a woman expects only to be contacted by email, contact with her will not be hampered.

I do not use these sites because I am practically married by now, but, on principle, what burns me up is the US government has forced these women into only being allowed to contact Americans via email. Snail mail or telephone contact is no longer allowed, where the women cannot even sign waivers, because it is considered too dangerous for a man to know a woman's address or phone number(despite it being necessary for contact ten years ago).

Referring to the Commerce Clause, this is like the fact that restaurants and bars must now use hot dishwashers to wash their glasses or the Health Department will shut them down (not at the federal level however). The fact that dishes were washed by hand before dishwashers were invented does not stop the city or state government from demanding that all commerce continue henceforth only using the new technology for health safety.

Webmail, ala Match.com, helps American women who want anonymity stay anonymous while they chat with men. But women in other countries often do not like this feature and should not be forced to use it. IMBRA makes anonymous webmail mandatory.

The Internet will strangle us. As our cell phones become capable of interacting with surrounding cell phones, the background checks of all males may be required to be broadcast to the cell phones of all females in the vicinity.

If IMBRA is upheld, that is where we are headed. We are already tagging sex offenders with ankle bracelets. It will be no more than two years that other citizens will know via new cell phone technology where those ankle bracelets are...then they will graduate the data disclosure from sex offender status to DUI history and whether a man ever had a messy divorce with the obligatory fake-reason restraining order, etc, etc.

Sooner or later men will wake up. But not even Bob Barr is discussing this now.

"Wake up, men!" says Jack Sanderson. Most of these comments sound like they should be being transmitted over ham radio -- even more so if you get the pleasure of a private e-mail from Sanderson. He has sex with women half his age, you know.

So Bob Barr's winning issue will be allowing more Siberian brides to be imported into this country?

????

^_^

No Gerard and please don't insult women by calling them "brides"....especially if you are like most American men who are married to a house they are no longer attracted to.

The issue for Barr to exploit is radical feminist laws. If he brought up the topic, it would severely split the Republican Party as guys like Ed would stick with the pro-feminist side and guys like James would probably reluctantly side with Barr. James sort of kind of gets it.

Read www.glennsacks.com.

There are tons of issues. Internet regulation is just one of them.

Obama is seemingly inadvertantly following an anti-feminist strategy. At least the feminists are pretending to hate him. Black men are going to like him more for that. Maybe black men will end up being the only uncastrated males left. Their split with the Clintonistas is something to keep an eye on.

Black men now hate the Clintonistas. That is a good sign.

If I could believe that Obama knows what to weed out and wants to hamper victim feminism in the Democratic Party, I would be for him.

But Obama is in too deep with the Democratic Party and Joe Biden, who is the gopher boy of the K Street Girls, will likely be his Secretary of State which means big trouble for guys (Biden, like Brownback, would heavily pressure other countries to tell their women that American men are bad).

If Ed Gein is over 40, he apparently would not (and could not) date a 20 year old which means, again, he has been subject to feminist propaganda telling him what to think and how to behave...there are tons of 20 year old American women who date successful guys in their 40s and it is not up to the Republican Party or the conservative movement to suggest that this is bad.

Beta males who act asexual in regard to attractive 18-25 year old women are often out of shape anyway and will go see the movie "All the Boys Love Mandy Lane" and just drool about the main actress. Or else they turn out to be like Foley and Larry Craig...Republican Congressmen who never understood heterosexuality in the first place but tricked men into voting for them.

Consider this: Before women got the vote, many US presidents were married to women 20-30 years younger than they were. Since 1920, only JFK and Reagan were married to women 10 years younger and all other presidents had no age difference.

Fred Thompson was ravaged by "conservative women" because his wife is 20 years younger. What the heck were we conservative males thinking to accept such antithetical elements in our political party?

Men in other countries know about this and consider American men wimps for allowing political considerations to dictate their personal lives.

James: In your essay about how the Republican Party has no need of representing men as their main constituency (despite radical feminists dominating the DP and Sam Brownback) you implied that a conservative Republican would be more on Christie Brinkley's side regarding the age difference of her husband's lover (nobody condones adultery itself) and you made the outrageous suggestion that conservative males should associate themselves with the radical feminist theory that "a position of power" makes sex wrong.

But most American males would say that bosses should be allowed to sleep with their secretaries with no fear of repercussions of any kind.

I thought the Republicans were standing up to this BS...but only learned in the past few years that they folded like an accordion (the Monica scandal sent a lot of men permanently to the Democrats because it was never Ken Starr's business to mess with Monica).

And they folded because the left wingers learned that the "Christians" would agree and ally with them on all matters pertaining to sex.

Young Republicans are not going to put up with the anti-sex attitudes of older Republicans and it is only a matter of time before some billionaire's heir pumps cash into a campaign to expose and remove anti-male ideas in both political party platforms.

Since the days of the "moral majority" and the alliance of left and right in spreading fake Aids propaganda in 1988...there has been something wrong with the Republican Party that only the War on Terror was able to temporarily hide.

Republicans in the 1980s were dead set against workplace liability for office affairs. To this day, almost all male executives in the US speak to each other in horror about how the left pushed disproportionate laws into place about "harrassment" and the like.

Auto company executives I know speak of stepping out of elevators if someone of the opposite sex steps on and keeping their office doors open at all times.

It is a really bad mess. But the same executives speak of the WOT and low taxes and say they have to vote Republican even though their party folded on the issue.

jack, james, randall: you guys know what's really destroying america, right?

bears.

Yes, Jenny, at Yellowstone Park the grizzlies are dangerous. They are even walking onto ranches 30 miles away from the park borders.

I recommend the great book "Death in Yellowstone" that you can buy via Amazon.

But, if you don't suprise them and don't foolishly walk up to the cubs to play with them, you will be OK.

I think both major political parties have that issue covered in the meanwhile.

There was a time when “feminism”, or the Equal Rights for Women crowd, was fair and balanced and simply wanted women to be treated the same as men. They wanted equal opportunity, equal treatment in the workplace, equal pay for comparable skills, education and experience, and laws that protected men and women equally. I don’t have a problem with any of this.

However, when people who call themselves feminists go on a crusade against men who are merely seeking happiness through online dating, they have gone too far.

I am disillusioned with the Republican Party because I always thought they stood for freedom, individual liberty and personal responsibility. All of the conservative hosts I’ve listed to over the years tout this. They believe that you, not Big Brother, should decide where you live, who your friends are, what you do in your free time, what you read, whom you marry and how you raise your kids. We have a basic set of foundational laws that protect people’s basic right to life, personal property, health and safety, and outside of that you, not Government, are responsible for your moral behavior and ethics. This has always been my conception of Conservatives and Republicans.

However, in 2005 a band of radical feminists collaborated with Republicans and Democrats alike to sneak into law one of the most authoritarian restrictions on human social behavior that we have ever seen. This law, called the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 (IMBRA) requires you to be background checked and have a criminal and family history report sent to each advertiser in an international personals column, for his/her consent, before you are allowed to introduce yourself. These agencies are renamed “marriage brokers” by the official language of the law! While the language of the law is gender neutral, it was specifically designed to protect foreign women from “preying” American men.

On the surface it appears to provide protection from married men or men who are criminals, sex offenders or repeat abusers, who lie to lure unsuspecting women. If this were true, then why aren’t there disclosure and criminal background checks required for all personals listings, not just ones that feature foreigners?

If you dig deeper, however, you’ll find a far more sinister agenda behind this law. It was passed by a bunch of rabid, radical liberals who want to control dating and social behavior. They believe that merely meeting a foreigner through an international personals column is itself a form of exploitation, trafficking, prostitution and crime against women. They paint a picture of old men stalking young girls in desperate poverty who are “recruited” and “sold” to them as “mail order brides”. All of these assertions are based on metaphors and symbolism. In fact, people who meet foreigners through personals advertising are no different than those who meet through any of the myriad of online personals listings or newspaper personals columns. Countries where single people typically advertise for eligible foreigners, like the Philippines, the Ukraine and Russia, are at nowhere near the poverty level as, say, countries like Somalia, Ethiopia or any of the war torn Middle Eastern countries where you don’t see “desperate” young girls “advertising” for “older” American men.

And let’s be clear. Even if there are age differences in some of the relationships, so what? There is no law against marrying an adult who is older or younger than you.

The bottom line is: Anyone who really believes in individual liberty and personal responsibility would not want to police the personals ads. Government has no business controlling how you meet people, where they come from, and what their intentions are with respect to future marriage or family plans. A true conservative or libertarian would want Government out of our bedrooms and out of our personal address books.

IMBRA is probably the most un-American and Un-Constitutional law that ever had to be sneaked in at the last minute attached to the VAWA renewal because it couldn't pass on it's own in previous years.

The Iranian radical religious terrorist group, the Bahai Faith, were the ones behind it at their American cell headquarters at the Tahirih Justice Center in Fairfax, VA. Funny how these Middle Eastern terrorists manage to make laws in America and also get our hard earned tax dollars from gullible politicians to fund their subversive activities. Some politicians will do anything for a kickback.

And Ed Gein? Are you THE Ed Gein, the famous murderer and cannibal from Wisconsin that was the inspiration for the movie PSYCHO? The one who shot a woman, hung her by her feet in his barn and dressed her like a deer complete with head cut off and innards taken out?

I can't imagine why anyone would call themself Ed Gein and then bitch when others complain rightfully about feminists. Maybe "your problem" with women was removing their entrails. Next time use a knife instead of your teeth.

A class act for sure.

clomipramine withdrawal

buy viagra soft online

generic nolvadex

dexone suture

prednisone side effects

Hi! VMndewCC

arava medication

meloxicam

free viagra sample

Hi! rRDzUAx http://luzggn.com/ lLOKuwdE [url=http://xqfezx.com/]lLOKuwdE[/url]

cialis softtab

sildenafil citrate india

board of pharmacy