Thanks Barack… Regime Granted Amnesty To Accused Child-Sex Criminal

Amnesty Granted To Child Molesting Camp Counselor Known As ‘Papa Bear’ – Daily Caller


The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) knew last year that an illegal alien California camp counselor known as “Papa Bear” was being investigated on child molestation and child pornography charges but did nothing about it, Iowa U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley claims in a letter sent to DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson on Wednesday.

Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla was arrested May 7 and charged with four felonies including child molestation and the distribution of child pornography. According to local news reports, authorities believe that Covarrubias-Padilla also produced child pornography.

Covarrubias-Padilla recently worked as a night counselor at Walden West, an environmental science camp near San Jose. Besides the recovery of 600 child porn images from his computer, Covarrubias-Padilla has been accused of sexually abusing a 10-year-old boy. The Santa Clara County Office of Education told Grassley’s office that it had received over 100 phone calls and 50 emails from parents concerned that their child may have been victimized. Covarrubias-Padilla worked at two other camps over the past two years.

In his letter to Johnson, Grassley stated that whistleblowers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — a DHS sub-agency — claim that the federal authorities knew as early as Nov. 17 that Covarrubias-Padilla was being investigated for child sex abuse charges.

Yet, nothing was done about his DACA status until his recent arrest, Grassley claims.

The whistleblowers claim that on Oct. 8, 2012, Covarrubias-Padilla applied for amnesty protection under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. His amnesty and work eligibility were scheduled to last through this month, at which point he would have been allowed to re-apply for the program.

“These allegations are deeply troubling because, if true, they suggest that DHS was aware for months or years that Mr. Covarrubias-Padilla posed a public safety threat to the children he was monitoring, yet took no action to revoke his DACA authorization,” Grassley, a Republican, wrote to Johnson.

“These allegations are particularly alarming because they suggest that Mr. Covarrubias-Padilla would not have been placed in a position to abuse and exploit children had DHS properly vetted DACA recipients,” Grassley added.

Grassley has recently shed light on other cases involving felonious DACA recipients. One particular egregious case of DHS failure was Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez. Rangel-Hernandez was slated for deportation following a 2012 marijuana charge. He applied for amnesty under DACA in Feb. 2013, and his application was approved in Aug. 2013. But the application was approved even though U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) was aware that Rangel-Hernandez was gang-affiliated. Gang members are not eligible for DACA status.

After Grassley raised questions about Rangel-Hernandez’s case, USCIS admitted in a response letter that it erred in approving his DACA application and ensured that steps were taken to prevent gang members from being given amnesty in the future.

In his latest letter to Johnson, Grassley asked 11 questions about Covarrubias-Padilla’s DACA application, immigration status, and known criminal history.

He asked for a response by May 29.

Grassley also sought information on how ICE and USCIS coordinated and shared information about Covarrubias-Padilla.

“Did USCIS know or have reason to know that ICE was investigating Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla in connection to crimes involving either possession or distribution of child pornography or child exploitation, including molestation?” Grassley asked.

“If Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla was under investigation by ICE, please provide the procedures in place for when, and in what manner, ICE would have notified USCIS.”



Hillary Speaks To Women About Women At Women’s Summit – Ed Responds

The following quotes were taken from the above-embedded speech by Hillary Rotten Clinton at the 6th annual Women in the World summit. After each one, I have posted a response in the hopes that every leftist in America will take a few moments out of his or her (or its) utterly pointless day to write me some hate-mail.

Let’s begin.

“It doesn’t matter whether you’re a student or an artist, a journalist, an ambassador, maybe even a future president. We all have our stories.”

Fortunately for America, you’re none of those things.

“Some of you, I know, were with me in Beijing back in 1995 at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. Representatives from 189 countries came together to declare with one voice that human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”

I wonder how many Islamic countries were involved in that event. No matter, I’m sure that by now every Muslim-run nation on Earth has fully embraced women’s rights. After all, wasn’t it you who once said that Islam respects the fundamental dignity of all human beings?

“All the evidence tells us that despite the enormous obstacles that remain, there has never been a better time in history to be born female.”

Especially if you’re born in the United States, and your last name is Clinton.

“Yes, we’ve cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive healthcare, and safe childbirth.”

Yes, and while the maternal mortality rate has surely been cut substantially over the decades, leftists like you have worked overtime to help dramatically increase the mortality rate of unborn infants. How proud you must be.

“All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced.”

You mean like the various Obamacare laws that you claim the president has every right to amend whenever he sees fit? And don’t even get me started on the immigration laws he habitually ignores or rewrites whenever the mood strikes him. By the way, I’m not holding my breath waiting for you to express outrage over any of Barack’s numerous, impeachable offenses. If you had any genuine respect for the law, you wouldn’t have intentionally destroyed untold thousands of emails belonging to the American people from your illegally-employed, private computer server in Chappaqua.

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will, and deep-seeded cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Are you referring to the deep-seeded cultural codes and religious beliefs of genuine Christians and Jews who don’t just pay lip-service to them in order to win elections, but actually live them every day? Just curious.

“As I have said, and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century. And not just for women, but for everyone.”

Well then, it’s a good thing there’s a section of Obamacare that forces single men to pay for maternity coverage that they can’t possibly use, don’t you think?

“If we closed the gap that remains in the workforce between men and women, our economy in the United States would grow by nearly 10 percent by 2030.”

It’s too bad that leftist policies – like the ones you’ve spent your entire adult life promoting – encourage women to have children out of wedlock, and then reward them with taxpayer dollars for sitting on their asses and watching ‘The View’. That’s got to be disappointing.

“The lack of quality, affordable childcare, unequal pay, work schedules that are not only far from predictable but often simply unfair, fall disproportionately heavily on women.”

It seems to me that there are only two realistic ways to make childcare more affordable. A.) Force childcare facilities – which are mostly run by women – to charge less for their services, or B.) force women to stay home and take care of their own kids while their husbands work. Beyond that, the notion that there is any real inequality in pay between men and women who work equal numbers of hours at equally difficult jobs is just another leftist myth invented by politicians like you. By the way, what is it about unpredictable work schedules that makes them less fair to women than men?

“It is outrageous that America is the only country in the developed world that doesn’t guarantee paid leave to mothers of newborns.”

So, not only should companies be expected to hire an equal number of women and men – even though only women take maternity leave – but now they should be forced to pay women who’ve chosen to have kids wages for not working? How is that fair to all the other employees who still have to put in a 40-hour workweek before receiving a paycheck?

“It’s hard to believe that in 2015 so many women still pay a price for being mothers.”

What, you mean that after all this time people are still expected to incur the costs associated with the decision they make? I am fucking shocked beyond words.

“It is also hard to believe that so many women are still paid less than men for the same work, with even wider gaps for women of color.”

That truly is hard to believe, mostly because it isn’t so. Think about it, if such an absurdity were true, what employer in his right mind would ever hire a white man again?

“Now, when I talk to men about this – which I frequently do – I remind them, if it was your wife or your sister or your daughter or your mother getting taken advantage of at work, you would suffer, your kids would suffer, your family would suffer, and you’d want to do something about it.”

I sure would, and it’s a damned good thing that’s never happened to any woman I know.

“America moves forward when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own healthcare choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby.”

What rights or choices were taken away from women by that company, exactly? Are you suggesting that Hobby Lobby’s female employees are no longer allowed to use contraceptives? As far as I’m aware, the only thing its owners have ever asked for is that they not be forced by the government to add contraception coverage to their employees’ health insurance policies, because their religious faith does not allow them to disseminate birth control – especially the abortion-inducing drugs included in the infamous Obamacare mandate. Since when does anyone have a right to force the people they work for to provide them with contraceptives that they can easily and cheaply buy on the open market themselves? For that matter, when did products designed to prevent people from conceiving children get redefined as elements of health care?

“when we deny women access to retirement that is secure; when we continue – as we do – to discriminate against women in the Social Security system, we are leaving too many women on their own.”

How are “we” denying women access to a secure retirement? Is there some law I haven’t heard about that prevents American citizens of the female persuasion from saving money in a private account for that purpose? As for Social Security, payments from that system are based on lifetime earnings figures, so the more you make and pay into it over the years, the larger your S.S. checks will be when you retire. A person’s gender has nothing to do with that equation, and the truth of the matter is that women generally live longer than men by several years, so they actually receive a larger percentage of S.S. funds overall.

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced as our colleagues and friends, not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are.”

What exactly is a transgender woman? Do you mean a man who wears dresses and pretends to be a woman? And when was the last time you heard of someone being fired simply because they weren’t heterosexual? Just what decade are you living in, anyway?

“We move forward when women who came to this country in search of a better life can earn a path to citizenship.”

That’s been going on since this nation was founded. So, unless President Obama drafted an executive order recently that prevents women from legally immigrating to the U.S. and doing what is required under the U.S. Code to become a naturalized citizen, what’s the problem?

“There are those who offer themselves as leaders who even play politics with the nomination of our nation’s chief law enforcement officer…”

Yes there are. That’s because the Attorney General of the U.S. is a political appointee, and the most recent nominee for that office will be replacing the most politically biased AG in the history of the republic. Of course, I wouldn’t expect someone like you to understand partisan bickering over presidential appointments. Why, you’re as pure as the wind-driven snow when it comes to such things, right? I mean, you’ve never spoken out politically about a Republican president’s choice for – say – the federal judiciary, have you?

“Here in the United States, just last week we saw fast-food workers marching in the streets, asking for nothing more than a living wage and a chance at the American dream.”

What they were actually doing was calling for the unionization of the entire fast-food industry, and insisting that their employers pay them $15 an hour to do entry-level jobs that most well-trained chimpanzees would do for a bunch of grapes and a ripe banana. Then they went on to threaten larger protests in the future if their unreasonable demands weren’t met. But then, who cares about little things like facts when you’re committed to demonizing American businesses for purely political gain, right?


Edward L. Daley


I think Cher has eaten too many paint chips or something

Good Freaking Grief she is devolved past being a simple Moonbat

Maybe I should create an “Incoherent Babbling Award” and call it the Cher!

State Department Director Of Counter-Terrorism Arrested For Soliciting Sex From A Minor

State Dept Director Of Counter-Terrorism Charged With Soliciting Sex From Minor – Weasel Zippers



A U.S. State Department official was jailed Tuesday on a charge of soliciting a minor.

Daniel Rosen was arrested at his home in Washington, D.C., about noon Tuesday and was in custody at the D.C. jail Tuesday night, said Fairfax County, Virginia, Police Department spokeswoman Lucy Caldwell.

Rosen, 44, was arrested “following a series of online exchanges” with a detective assigned to the Fairfax County Police Department’s Child Exploitation Unit, Caldwell said. He was charged with one count of “use of a communications device to solicit a juvenile.”

Caldwell did not release any other details of the investigation. She said Rosen would be extradited to Fairfax County jail, but she did not know precisely when.

Caldwell said the occupation listed for Rosen is “director of counterterrorism” for the U.S. State Department.

In a statement issued Tuesday night, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the department was aware that one of its employees had been arrested and charged but “for issues related to Department personnel and for privacy reasons” could not identify the person or the charges.

“His security clearance will be suspended and he will be put on administrative leave while this proceeds to its end through any judicial process,” Psaki said.

Rosen’s Linked In profile, if accurate, reveals he’s the guy responsible for the State Department’s “Countering Violent Extremism” programs. Perhaps with a little extremism of his own?

Responsible for all CT Bureau strategic planning, policy planning, program and budget planning and oversight, and legislative relations and interaction.

Oversees $300 million per year in CT programs related to Countering Violent Extremism, Antiterrorism Assistance, Counterterrorism Financing, Counterterrorism Engagement and Regional Initiatives.

Manages the Office of Plans and Policy including oversight of 20+ personnel.

Represents the Office of the Coordinator and the US Department of State in interagency and international meetings, conferences, Congressional briefings, and other fora.



Feminists, who no man wants to sleep with trying to ruin sex for all of us

Sex between men and women? Normal! Feminism? Abnormal!

As we summit the tipping point between identity politics and culture war, keeping track of the psychosexualethnographic factions claiming to be microagressed is so preoccupying that even George R.R. Martin is probably saying, “Whoa. Whoa. This is getting pretty convoluted.” Most sane people can blissfully ignore the academic debates surrounding this look-at-me-I’m-the-most-special-snowflake factionalism, but there are a few notable exceptions. The current crop of feminists have become particularly shrill, perhaps in proportion to how unrepresentative they are. But they shouldn’t be ignored for one reason in particular: They are trying to ruin sex as we know it.

Where feminism once promised sexual liberation, as a social movement it’s become so birdbrained it no longer even knows what sex is or how two people have it. (It’s a foregone conclusion that the why of sex is lost on them as well.) By now, most men are accustomed to feminists railing against their tools of oppression, but these days if you don’t show due deference to a woman’s penis—well, that’s when all hell breaks loose.

Great News! Harvard to offer degrees in Anal Sex!

Good Grief! Have we really sunk to this?


Harvard University’s annual Sex Week observance, which launched Sunday, includes a workshop called “What What in the Butt: Anal Sex 101″ that aims to teach the Ivy League students how to have anal sex.

So-called sex experts from a local adult store will lead the Tuesday talk, which seeks to “dispel myths about anal sex and give you insight into why people do it and how to do it well,” the Fall 2014 Harvard Sex Week agenda states.

“They will cover a wide variety of topics, including: anal anatomy and the potential for pleasure for all genders; how to talk about it with a partner; basic preparation and hygiene; lubes, anal toys, and safer sex; anal penetration for beginners, and much more,” the agenda adds. “Learn the facts about this exciting yet often misunderstood form of pleasure, find out the common mistakes people make, and get all your questions answered.”

The Left’s campaign against sex rolls on

Liberals always accuse Conservatives of being “anti-sex” or prudes, yet, I can guarantee it was NOT Conservatives who came up with this mass of stupidity

Students Must Agree “Why” They Had Sex or It’s Sexual Assault

At Ohio State University, to avoid being guilty of “sexual assault” or “sexual violence,” you and your partner now apparently have to agree on the reason WHY you are making out or having sex.  It’s not enough to agree to DO it, you have to agree on WHY: there has to be agreement “regarding the who, what, where, when, why, and how this sexual activity will take place.”

There used to be a joke that women need a reason to have sex, while men only need a place.  Does this policy reflect that juvenile mindset?  Such a requirement baffles some women in the real world: a female member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights told me, “I am still trying to wrap my mind around the idea of any two intimates in the world agreeing as to ‘why.’”

Ohio State’s sexual-assault policy, which effectively turns some welcome touching into “sexual assault,” may be the product of its recent Resolution Agreement with the Office for Civil Rights (where I used to work) to resolve a Title IX complaint over its procedures for handling cases of sexual harassment and assault.  That agreement, on page 6, requires the University to “provide consistent definitions of and guidance about the University terms ‘sexual harassment,’ ‘consent,’ ‘sexual violence,’ ‘sexual assault,’ and ‘sexual misconduct.’” It is possible that Ohio State will broaden its already overbroad “sexual assault” definition even further: Some officials at Ohio State, like its Student Wellness Center, advocate defining all sex or “kissing” without “verbal,” “enthusiastic” consent as “sexual assault.”

Ohio State applies an impractical “agreement” requirement for not just sex, but for a much broader category of  “touching” that is sexual (or perhaps romantic?) in nature.

Well, I must ask what could possibly go wrong? These fools, and social engineers, but I repeat myself, are creating a monster that basically destroys any spontaneity and passion. And, again, remember these are the same Leftists who have told us for years that we need to be more “liberated” where sex is concerned. Of course, the truth is, the Left cares only about controlling everything we say, feel, think, and do, and no, our sex lives are not immune to the Nanny Statists There is much more here

Shameless Hussies: Will someone PLEASE look at our boobs already!

Oh no, another outbreak of LOOKATMEITIS! William Teach, has the high beams, I mean high points

And if you refuse to stand up for the right of women to go topless in public, you’re probably part of the patriarchy and a misogynist and hate womyn

(The Blaze) It seems some women are planning to let it all hang out in a couple of Texas towns on Sunday.

Their argument: Breasts are less dangerous than guns.

“The 2nd amendment is very popular in TX ‘the right to bear arms’ to protect one’s family is one argument but baring breasts is illegal also ‘to protect the children,’” the group, GoTopless, wrote in a Facebook post. “Texas women, affirm your right to bare your breasts!!! If breasts are more dangerous to children than weapons, then something is truly wrong with our society!”

One steadfast rule about people who wish to parade around naked, or nekkid, if you please is that most of the time, the folks doing the nudity should never be naked. So, in the interest of giving some advice, if they are going to do this, at least hire some women who look good topless. Oh, what’s that? This is NOT about being gawked at? Yeah, right.


Due Process? Men don’t deserve no stinkin’ due process!

Have we reached the point where young men attending college are guilty, no matter the evidence? College insurrection takes a look

Despite the fact that a grand jury refused to issue an indictment against him, and that campus police found numerous pieces of evidence exonerating him, University of Cincinnati student Ethan Peloe continues to be prosecuted by school administrators for rape. First we did away with ‘innocent until proven guilty’, and now we’ve somehow managed to do away with ‘guilty until proven innocent’ as well. It seems all we’re left with is ‘guilty, whether you can prove yourself innocent or not.’

Jennifer Kabbany at The College Fix reports:

Cleared by Campus Police, Grand Jury – Student Still Railroaded Over Rape Claim

Campus police and a grand jury cleared a University of Cincinnati student accused of rape – but administrators continue to wrongfully prosecute the student under their campus code of conduct, a lawsuit alleges.

The suit was filed after two female students last March accused junior Ethan Peloe of attempting to rape them. The women allege that they were drunk and high the night of the incident, and that Peloe accompanied them back to their dorm room.

“One of the students alleges that she went to sleep, but was awakened by Peloe attempting to have sexual intercourse with her,” the suit states. “She alleges that she told him no and ran from the room. The other student alleges that Peloe then got into bed with her. She alleges that she had passed out and was awakened by Peloe having sexual intercourse with her.”

Peloe vehemently denies the allegations. According to the lawsuit:

The case was presented to the Hamilton County Grand Jury. The Grand Jury refused to issue an indictment. The incident has been investigated by the UC Police. Peloe cooperated with the investigation. Peloe gave a voluntary statement. Peloe told the UC Police that he was willing to submit to a polygraph examination. Peloe voluntarily submitted DNA evidence. The UC Police obtained significant physical evidence which exonerated Peloe.

The evidence included:

a. A surveillance videotape obtained by the police showed that the two female UC students were not intoxicated and that they had led Peloe to their room.

b. Text messages obtained by a forensic review of the students’ cell phones called significant portions of the students’ stories into question. For example, although the students claimed to be passed out, they still sent a number of text messages. In addition, later messages joked about the case.

c. Another female student was present in the room when the alleged assault occurred. This student did not witness anything illegal.

The lawsuit also notes that rape kits submitted to the crime lab for analysis “are consistent with the version of events provided by Peloe.”

This a Feminists wet dream. All needs happen is a woman make an accusation, and BAM! GUILTY!

Sometimes eloquence only takes one word

True eloquence requires that the orator actually say something, which is why President Obama, Cornel West, Je$$e Jackson, and most Leftists will never be eloquent, One of my favorite bloggers, Stacy McCain, is an eloquent man. He also has that rare ability to make people want to read what he writes. Take this nugget from his blog today: 

On the one hand, you’ve got to figure the kind of guy who would marry a former Playmate is slightly kinkjy. On the other hand, cheating on a former Playmate with a tranny? Dude.

Who can read THAT and not want to click the link? Come on admit it you sick freaks! You WANT TO Click THAT!

You do not have to be Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs to write for Slate

Slate is the MSNBS of online magazines, and, here is the latest outrageous outrage they have discovered. Beware Infant Gender Assignment!

Obstetricians, doctors, and midwives commit this procedure on infants every single day, in every single country. In reality, this treatment is performed almost universally without even asking for the parents’ consent, making this practice all the more insidious. It’s called infant gender assignment: When the doctor holds your child up to the harsh light of the delivery room, looks between its legs, and declares his opinion: It’s a boy or a girl, based on nothing more than a cursory assessment of your offspring’s genitals.

Declares his opinion? And you say this “opinion” is based on something as flimsy as genitals? SHOCKING! I mean, yes, in fact gender IS defined by genitals, just as writing for Slate is defined on absurdity. I am trying to conger up how the “evil” gender assignment goes. The doctor, holds up a child, peers at the genitals, and calmly calls the nurse over.

“Excuse me nurse, but this baby appears to have a penis, do you concur?”

“Why yes doctor, that looks like a penis to me”

“So, this baby then, must be a boy”

“Why yes doctor, yes”

See, this is OUTRAGEOUS! And thankfully, we have an outraged American to expose this shockingly shocking outrageously outrageous outrage! I know I am outraged! and we all should be. I mean think about where this might lead! The Slate piece continues

We tell our children, “You can be anything you want to be.” We say, “A girl can be a doctor, a boy can be a nurse,” but why in the first place must this person be a boy and that person be a girl? Your infant is an infant. Your baby knows nothing of dresses and ties, of makeup and aftershave, of the contemporary social implications of pink and blue. As a newborn, your child’s potential is limitless. The world is full of possibilities that every person deserves to be able to explore freely, receiving equal respect and human dignity while maximizing happiness through individual expression.

Wait, what? How dare this Slate writer call that infant an infant? Who the Hell are they to place that kind of label on that baby? I mean, yes, the fact IS that it is an infant, but facts do not matter. I mean, if a penis or vagina do not have anything to do with gender, then how does a baby actually being a baby mean anything either? But, this is important stuff, it MUST BE because only really important topics are covered in Slate right? Either that or this writer is as crazy as they come

With infant gender assignment, in a single moment your baby’s life is instantly and brutally reduced from such infinite potentials down to one concrete set of expectations and stereotypes, and any behavioral deviation from that will be severely punished—both intentionally through bigotry, and unintentionally through ignorance. That doctor (and the power structure behind him) plays a pivotal role in imposing those limits on helpless infants, without their consent, and without your informed consent as a parent. This issue deserves serious consideration by every parent, because no matter what gender identity your child ultimately adopts, infant gender assignment has effects that will last through their whole life.

See! Your child’s life will be RUINED, R-U-I-N-E-D RUINED if a doctor is allowed to say it is a boy, or it is a girl! Oh there are several layers of KRAZY here folks I mean this MUST be a hoax right? No one could possibly believe the absurdities uttered here right? I mean even Slate must no allow this level of KRAZY right? Wrong!

Why must we force this on kids at birth? What is achieved, besides reinforcing tradition? What could be the harm in letting a child wait to declare for themself who they are, once they’re old enough (which is generally believed to happen around age 2 or 3)?

What insanity is this? When was the last time you, as a parent, grandparent, or uncle as I a witnessed a 2 or 3-year-old “declare themselves”? I doubt anyone has, but what would it sound like? Let us think here.

Think of a family gathering. As the adults are drinking their coffees, here comes young Patrick, age 3. “Excuse me everyone” Patrick says, clinking a fork on a water glass. “I am glad I have you all hear, I have something I need to say. I am, in fact, a girl, or rather a woman, trapped in a little boy’s body. Yes, yes, I do have a penis, but do not label me because of that you genderist bastards! I am woman, hear me roar! So, I have a list of demands here, call them my Gender Justice List if you will.” I have more here, but you will have to wait for the book to be published. it is called “My fight for Gender Justice: How My Inner Vagina and I beat Genderism!”

Of course, that is a bit of absurdity to illustrate how wrong, foolish, inane, insane, BATSHIT CRAZY this writer really is. Yes, Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs!


Are Feminists crazy? Wait, what am I saying, of course they are crazy

RS McCain continues his National Offend a Feminist Week by laying bare the deep insanity that IS today’s Feminism

“It became obvious that men didn’t want to interact with me or with women in general on an equal level, and that what ‘attracted’ them in women was subordination to them — as soon as we wanted to be their ‘equals’ they were repelled by it, lost interest or tried to thwart the feminist drive in me some way or another.”

Radical Wind, April 28

I hate to break it to this demented woman, but men WANT, I mean REALLY want women that are their equals. The fact is women who always want to do whatever a guy wants to do is, well boring. So, I doubt this Feminist had man problems because she was too “equal”. A more likely version is that she was a gigantic pain in the ass with her fierce Feminist act.. I mean let’s be honest here, no guy, at least no sane guy, wants to date anyone that talks like this

Just a few days ago I read Skulldrix’s post on a separatist state of mind, which I have found very refreshing and enlightening, and which brought me back to many of my own first experiences of separatism. I remember some conversations going on at FCM’s on separatism, maybe a year and a half ago, where several of us bloggers and commenters discussed whether we should call ourselves separatists or pro-separatists. FCM at the time argued that separatism wasn’t a realistic or feasible goal for most women under patriarchy because the reality is that we can’t completely escape men, so it would be more realistic to envision ourselves as pro-separatist instead of separatists.

I can’t quite remember what I wrote at the time or whether I expressed myself clearly but I thought that the distinction between pro-sep and sep was unnecessary once we conceive of it as a way of being, an ongoing journey and struggle, according to the means we have and what is safe for our survival. Though I agree about the fact that most if not all of us can’t escape men on a daily basis. Most women will have to work alongside men to some degree because that’s the only or least worst job opportunity we can find. Very often we will have to depend on men to learn a skill, or to heal from severe illnesses, because men monopolise and control all disciplines and sectors of their society.

See what I mean? Who the fuck talks like that? A crazy person that’s who! The problem Feminists have with men is NOT men, it is the Feminists constant rage-a-thon, and constant quest to be a victim of the “Patriarchy”.  So maybe your man problems are not the “Patriarchy” at all. Maybe the whole “I am a victim” act is really not very fun. You want to know what your problem is? Find the nearest mirror!

Stacy has more on Radical Wind and her RAGE!

Radical feminists are both (a) insane and (b) basically correct in their understanding of the psychology of sex. Which is to say, a careful study of what is today called “gender theory” does show that inequality between men and women — collectively, under the systematic male dominance that feminists call patriarchy — is inextricably linked to heterosexuality. Even if every conceivable reform were enacted that could rid women of discrimination in education or employment, male dominance would continue to be expressed through sexual intercourse, through manipulation or abuse within relationships, through pregnancy and through women’s greater burden in parenthood. Women who desire long-term male romantic companionship of any kind must do what is necessary first to attract, and then to maintain, his sexual interest.

Radical Wind — the wacko feminist whose rant “PIV is always rape, OK?” inspired widespread mockery – is actually very close to an important truth when she describes how men were “repelled” by her “feminist drive.” We may suppose she was hanging out with a loutish crew of young left-wing idiots when she experienced this; therefore it must have been a shocking revelation when these allegedly egalitarian men expected her to enact the “subordination” of femininity.

News flash: Men are men.

Bingo! Men are men, and women are women, and Feminists are CRAZY! 

Gee, who could have figured that powerful Gay men could be as abusive of young men as powerful Straight men are towards young women? Only a Hater!

I know, it is not PC these days to suggest that a Gay man, or A Lesbian can be a Pedophile or that a Gay man might use his wealth to seduce, take advantage of, and use young men who are seeking stardom. But, PC or not, it is not at all surprising is it? Face it powerful people of all sexual proclivities have been doing such things for eons. And, in my view, the young person, as long as they above the age of consent, is really no less guilty and no less morally stained than the horny old bastard who uses their position to get their rocks off. Stacy McCain reports on some Hollywood big shots that are accused of being just such dirty old bastards

Gay movie director Bryan Singer wants the world to know that he did nothave butt-rape with that underage boy, Mr. Egan:

“The allegations against me are outrageous, vicious and completely false. I do not want these fictitious claims to divert ANY attention from X-Men: Days of Future Past. This fantastic film is a labor of love and one of the greatest experiences of my career. So, out of respect to all of the extraordinary contributions from the incredibly talented actors and crew involved, I’ve decided not to participate in the upcoming media events for the film. However, I promise when this situation is over, the facts will show this to be the sick twisted shake down it is. I want to thank fans, friends and family for all their amazing and overwhelming support.”

So that settles that, doesn’t it? Except that now Gawker claims to have inside sources on the gay Hollywood boy-toy scene:

X-Men director Bryan Singer is not the only powerful gay man in Hollywood who likes to surround himself with handsome twinks. But according to a handful of sources who spoke with Gawker over the course of the last week, he was known as the most generous and active benefactor of a scene that allowed the young and impressionable to rub up against Hollywood elite — including prominent writers, directors and actors — leaving behind bitter memories and a sheaf of newly filed lawsuits.
That litigation comes from a man named Michael Egan, who says that he was sexually assaulted by four men—Bryan Singer, Garth Ancier, Gary Goddard and David Neumann—when he was 17. All four have strenuously denied the accusations, but Egan’s lawsuits have exposed a culture that was previously visible only to insiders in and around L.A., especially within the gay enclave of West Hollywood.

(Ooh! There’s a “gay enclave”? Tell us more!)

You should go read the rest for more sordid details. My point here is that some people in power use that power to help young talents, to be mentors and some, well they take advantage. Just as some young talents would say “Hell no!” Some will gladly say yes, and will, in fact instigate the “favors” game. And, though it is not PC to point out that yes, Gay men can be as abusive as any straight man can be, it should be pointed out, and really, there should be no greater or lesser moral outrage in either case should there? Yet, too often Gay men, or Lesbians, rather than taking heat for their behavior seek to play the Homophobia Card. Do not be stunned if that card gets played in this story eventually. And do not be stunned if those looking into the allegations are accused of being “haters”

Lesbians get away with everything these days

Sometimes I read a headline and think to myself, if a man did that they would bury him under the jail

The legal age of consent in England is 16, and if you tell a jury you didn’t know your partner’s age, you may go scot-free:

A female radio DJ who had sex with a 15-year-old girl after plying her with vodka has walked free from court because she did not know the teenager’s real age.
Emma Stanfield, 40, said she thought the girl was 16 and only found out her true age the morning after the night they spent together at her Oxford apartment.
The prosecution claimed that Ms Stanfield knew the girl was underage and then ‘recklessly’ pursued her, leaving her 29 missed calls and more than 100 Facebook messages in the days that followed.

So, let me be clear. I can see the I thought she was older defense, to a point. Believe it or not there are teens who will lie, I know we all want to think of a 15-year-old as a child, but some are not so innocent and bear some responsibility for their actions. But, once the Lesbian in question found out this girl was, as we say in America, jail bait, why did she pursue her? 100 Facebook messages? 29 calls? Sorry but I do not buy that. She took advantage, getting the girl drunk, which is another big red flag. 

So, how did a jury reach a not guilty verdict? Maybe the fact that this was a Lesbian taking advantage of a young girl had something to do with it. Anyone seriously think a man who did the very same thing would get off with no jail time? Face it, we  live in a world with many double standards. A 30-year-old male teacher has consensual sex with a 16 year-old female student, and he is a dirty old man and she a completely innocent victim. But reverse the genders and the reaction of many is different isn’t it? In that case the woman is seen by some as introducing a young man to adulthood, and the kid? Well he is going to receive pats on the back, and some “atta boys” isn’t he? See, double standards.

It has always amazed me how society, as a whole uses different standards for the two genders ( yes, there are TWO genders, not three or four, or whatever). A man goes out and gets laid by numerous ladies, he is seen as a stud, and he is likely to be pursued by more women. If a woman has numerous partners, she is called a slut. Is that fair? Well, no, but we do have different moral expectations for the genders. That is just a fact of life. And, it seems, if the story above is any indication, we have different expectations for different sexual orientations as well. The 40-year-old Lesbian who got a 15-year-old drunk and had sex with her is no better than a 40-year-old man who did the same thing. Neither is the 40-year-old any better if the genders are reversed in either scenario. A pervert is a pervert folks, we need to recognize that. We need to heed our moral compasses which tell us, if we listen, that all 40-year-olds should leave all 15 year-olds alone!

The idiocy of Friends with Benefits

The Other McCain has a post up about divorced mothers who embrace “Friends With benefits”

Now, at his new site BarbWire, Matt introduces us to a new weirdness, a divorced mother’s advocacy of “friends with benefits” for divorceés:

Do you believe that “friends with benefits” is purely no-strings sex? Do you consider it a phase that some women go through when they’re young, purposely avoiding a committed relationship?
Some of us believe that friends with benefits can be mutually enjoyable and perfectly suited to our needs — not just when we’re very young, and not as a matter of explicitly avoiding commitment.
In fact, it seems to me that friends with benefits gets a bad rap, as if women aren’t supposed to feel desire (in general) or lust (in particular) — especially once they become mothers, or if they’re “of a certain age.”

You can read more — and Matt’s reaction — at BarbWire, but it’s not hard to think of reasons why drifting along in the meaningless ambiguity of “friends with benefits” is an even worse idea for divorced mothers than it is for the unmarried young. The effect on children whose parents engage in such behavior is to teach them by example that “no-strings sex” is acceptable. 

Ah yes, the children. McCain is correct, this is a terrible manner in which to shape young children, and even teens. The message it sends is awful, and many times destructive. Not to mention another fact. Mothers who engage in such behavior give access to their homes, and thus their kids. How many stories can you recall of a single mother’s new boyfriend hurting her child? Too many. Is getting laid really worth that price?

Then there is the practical issue with FWB, no matter who engages in it. It goes against human nature. Men and women are not designed emotionally or mentally to be sluts, and yes, I am calling the men in these “relationships” sluts too. Sex is far more than physical. It is, by its nature deeply emotional, and FWB arrangements will eventually lead to a lot of pain for one, or both of the participants.

So, in the end FWB is not “liberating”, or hip, or cool, or satisfying. In the end it is just damaging for all involved.

Just when you thought California could not get any more asinine

H’T American Power who has the headline that Feminists have been desirous of reading for decades

California Seeks to Redefine Consensual Campus Sex as Rape

From Hans Bader, at Legal Insurrection.

In endorsing a bill in the California legislature that would require “affirmative consent” before sex can occur on campus, the editorial boards of the Sacramento and Fresno Bee and the Daily Californian advocated that sex be treated as “sexual assault” unless the participants discuss it “out loud” before sex, and “demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity.”

Never mind that consent to most sex is non-verbal, and that rape has historically been understood to be an act against someone’s will, rather than simply a non-violent act that they did not consent to in advance. Perhaps in response to the bill, the University of California, on February 25, adopted a policy requiring affirmative consent not just to sex, but to every form of “physical sexual activity” engaged in.

The affirmative-consent bill, Senate Bill 967, does not expressly require verbal permission to demonstrate consent, although it warns that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding.”

But supporters of the bill are very clear about their desire to require verbal discussion or haggling prior to sex.

The Fresno Bee praised the bill because “it adopts in campus disciplinary cases the ‘affirmative consent standard,’ which means that ‘yes’ only means ‘yes’ if it is said out loud.” The Daily Californian declared that “the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967 a step in the right direction.” 

Since most couples have engaged in sex without “verbal” consent, supporters of the bill are effectively redefining most people, and most happily-married couples, as rapists. By demanding verbal discussion before sex, they are also meddling in people’s sex lives in a prurient fashion.  (Whether consent is explicit is often inversely related to whether sex is really welcome, with grudgingly consensual acts often being preceded by more explicit discussion and haggling than acts that are truly welcomed and enjoyed, as I explain here).

Whatever happened to the Left’s desire for government to stay out of the bedroom? I guess that is not as important as further empowering government, and giving radical Feminists another tool to push their twisted ideals of sex down our throats. I mean the requirements of this law would, if followed, remove all romance, and all spontaneity from  love-making. And how would the punitive phase work? Would both parties be charged? Would only the male be charged? And what of same-sex liaisons? How would it be determined which participant to charge?

To me this sounds like a law that would be impossible to enforce, and a law that would lead to college kids being punished for being, well, college kids. It also smacks of a law written to further push the insane belief among radical Feminists that No means no, and yes migh mean no, That would all depend on how crazy the Feminist is. These nutcases also believe that all P.I.V sex is rape. Yep, they are that flipping crazy! And so is this law


U.S. Taxpayers Paid $2.4M To Develop Origami Condoms

Taxpayers Paid $2.4 Million To Develop ‘Origami’ Condoms – Washington Free Beacon

Taxpayers have paid more than $2.4 million to develop “origami condoms,” including male and female versions, and the “first of its kind anal condom.”


Out to “reinvent the condom,” Los Angeles businessman Danny Resnic has completed the first rounds of testing for three variations based on Japanese folding paper, courtesy of the National Institutes of Health.

The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development initially spent $212,162 for a feasibility study on Resnic’s “new condom” in 2006. The idea was a non-rolled, silicone-based condom that “increases pleasure” and is more effective at preventing sexually transmitted diseases.

The issue is important to Resnic who said a broken condom in the 1990s changed his life.

“We all know that latex condoms don’t feel great. They break, they slip, and they interfere with intimacy,” Resnic said, sporting green neon shoes and sitting next to an outdoor fireplace for a promotional video on his website.

“From my perspective, the latex condom, designed in 1918, just got it wrong,” he said. “In 1993 I had a life-changing incident, a broken condom and an HIV diagnosis. This drastically changed my view about condoms.”

“Like many people, I don’t love condoms for the obvious reasons,” Resnic continued. “Do you know anyone who does? What if there was something new and radical that you loved using instead of latex condoms?”

Resnic says he has done just that, creating a design that gives the feeling of “sex without a condom: the real deal.”

Perfecting his condoms would not be possible without the U.S. taxpayers. “Generous research and development funding” provided by the NIH supported Resnic’s company’s research and development and four Phase I clinical trials. Since 2006, he has received $2,466,482 to test the three variations.

The NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases then began funding Resnic’s clinical trials in 2009, providing two grants worth $1,130,670 to design and test the Origami RAI condom for “receptive anal intercourse.”

The “feasibility and acceptability study” tested the anal condom, which is “worn internally by a receptive male or female partner,” on 24 couples.

The condom is intended to “provide better sensation and less breakage” and to “increase the acceptability of condoms among those who practice anal intercourse and are at risk of HIV / STIs.”

“Unlike the off-label use of the rolled latex male condom, the [origami anal condom] OAC creates direct tactile contact for the penis inside the internally lubricated condom,” the company said. “The Top partner does not need to wear a condom, creating an experience closer to ‘sex without a condom.’”

“You can walk around and do most any activity with the condom pre-inserted,” Resnic said.

The anal condom is expected to hit the market in late 2015. It is undergoing further clinical trials.

Additionally, Resnic received $591,950 to test his “Origami female condom” on 40 heterosexual couples.

The female condom’s design provides “maximum protection against breakage, slippage, and viral permeability.” It features a “unique patented reservoir designed to minimize semen backflow,” the grant said. A video demonstration is provided on Resnic’s website.

Finally, the initial study for the “Origami male condom” cost $531,700, beginning in 2011. The male and female versions, which can “accommodate a range of penis sizes,” are also expected to reach the market in 2015.

“I am grateful for the support from the epidemiology research community and the NIH, without whom these innovations would not be possible,” Resnic said on his website.

Resnic’s version of the male condom has received praise for its original design, being the first non-rolled, “accordion-folded” condom.

“We re-invented the condom,” a promotional video on the Origami condom website said. The video will be used on social media to market the products, since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) restricts their advertising on television and radio.

Set to electronic dance music and neon colors, the 30-second promo begins with a song:

We’ve realized that people are still having sex
They’ve been told not to
Perhaps they are perplexed

When you see them holding hands
They’re making future plans to engage in the activity
Do you understand me?

People are still having sex
Lust keeps on lurking
Nothing makes them stop

“We did not anticipate the marketing challenge with FCC restrictions on media placement for the condom ads on TV and radio,” Resnic said. “The FCC will not allow a condom to be shown on TV, and radio messages have language restrictions. This makes it really difficult to market a product that cannot be seen or discussed.”

Resnic, who studied design at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, Calif., said the “strategic” promo works around the FCC rules. “Origami condoms won’t go viral, but our promo should,” he said.

The Origami condom has been praised by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is also providing millions in research for new condom designs. The billionaire and Microsoft founder is a strong proponent for increasing contraceptive use in developing countries in response to “population growth.”

Resnic also sees his products as being used around the world.

“In the long term we believe we can make a sustainable and measurable difference to reduce incidence of HIV and unplanned pregnancies on a global scale,” he said.

Requests for comment from NIH were not returned.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


I cannot believe Donald Douglas at American Power!

Douglas posted a link to this video, purportedly of a woman with future back problems rubbing her, shall we say mountainous melons with an ice cube. I clicked his link, and I am shocked. In fact I had to watch said video 17 times, OK 18 times, to believe my eyes! I mean HONESTLY! Who wants to watch this kind of “entertainment”? I mean what would an overly Social Conservative, the kind that closes their eyes in the shower so they will not see any nudity say? I am so outrageously outraged, I might have to watch again, and again, and,