Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582#more-582

A New Alliance - By Dr. Ron Paul


The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process. It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo. There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored. The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention.

Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that a claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.

In both political education and organization, coalitions are worthwhile and necessary to have an impact. “Talking to the choir” alone achieves little. I have always approached political and economic education with a “missionary” zeal by inviting any group in on issues we agree upon.

This opens the door to legitimate discourse with the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty. This strategy led to the press conference with the four candidates agreeing to the four principles we believe are crucial in challenging the political system that has evolved over many years in this country.

This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.

This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address?

Many practical benefits can come from this unique alliance. Our cause is liberty —freedom is popular and is the banner that brings people together. Since authoritarianism divides, we always have the edge in an intellectual fight. Once it’s realized that the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity are best achieved with our views, I’m convinced we win by working with others. Those who don’t want to collaborate are insecure with their own beliefs.

In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign. There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties. The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.

Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding. Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause. In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood. That’s progress.

Principled people are not shy in participating with others and will defend their beliefs on their merits. Liberals and progressives are willing to align themselves with us on the key issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve. That’s exciting and very encouraging, and it means we are making progress. The big challenge, however, is taking on the establishment, and the process that is so well entrenched. But we can’t beat the entrenched elite without the alliance of all those who have been disenfranchised.

Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.

Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year. They take time. But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up. The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue. Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.

Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

I thought that Ron Paul was a Republican? Why doesn't he run as a Constitution Party member next time?

Heck Armon I thought he explained that pretty well.

Even I could understand it.

Just read it real slow and allow time for it to soak in.

Especially the part about belonging to more than one party.

On several things I agree with his views more than the Dems or Republicans.

Especially foreign policy.

And I think I agree with him about the Federal Reserve, but as I have said I am no "expert" on economic policy.

Likewise with returning to the gold standard.

And mixing religion and politics.

Like he said when people think (or are told by their preacher) that certain political positions are "God's Will" they are not likely to reason about it.

(when I argue with you guys about Jesus being a Democrat I am being facetious and trying to make my point about the other side trying to Hijack Jesus)

The biggest difference I have with Ron Paul is in how the wealth should be divvied up.

I know nearly nothing about this Baldwin guy but I notice Ron Paul also had good stuff to say about Ralph Nader.

And I am pretty sure Nader is on the ballot in wv.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

Fair Trade that Protects the Environment, Labor Rights and Consumer Needs

NAFTA and the WTO make commercial trade supreme over environmental, labor, and consumer standards and need to be replaced with open agreements that pull up rather than pull down these standards. These forms of secret autocratic governance and their detailed rules are corporate-managed trade that puts short-term corporate profits as the priority. While global trade is a fact of life, trade policies must be open, democratic, and not strip-mine environmental, social and labor standards. These latter standards should have their own international pull up treaties.

Impeachment:

Prominent Constitutional law experts believe President Bush has engaged in at least five categories of repeated, defiant “high crimes and misdemeanors”, which separately or together would allow Congress to subject the President to impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. The sworn oath of members of Congress is to uphold the Constitution. Failure of the members of Congress to pursue impeachment of President Bush is an affront to the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the people of the United States.

In addition to a criminal war of aggression in Iraq, in violation of our constitution, statutes and treaties, there are the arrests of thousands of Americans and their imprisonment without charges, the spying on Americans without juridical warrant, systematic torture, and the unprecedented wholesale, defiant signing statements declaring that the President, in his unbridled discretion, is the law. No man is the law. Never in our country’s history have we seen the rule by fiat as we have seen under the outlaw rule of Bush.

In 2005, a plurality of the American people polled declared that they would favor impeachment of President Bush if it was shown that he did not tell the truth about the reasons for going to War in Iraq. Congress should use its authority to officially determine what President Bush knew before going to war in Iraq.

Congressional files and retrieval systems are bulging with over-whelming evidence behind all these five categories. Constitutional duty combined with the available evidence requires the action of Congress. Inaction by Congress -- its Senators and Representatives -- amounts to the suppression of that evidence from constitutional implementation and the erosion of the constitution.

When the Democrats were heading for a net election gain in 2006 in the House of Representatives, many observers of presidential accountability entertained the hope that the House Judiciary Committee would hold hearings on an impeachment resolution. The people were disappointed. The next backup was the belief that there would an impeachment inquiry. The people were disappointed. The next lowered expectation backup was just a hearing on impeachment urged by several present and former Congressional collaborators. So far, we have seen nothing done by Congress. No wonder Congress enjoys the lowest approval rating in 33 years.

The fourth fallback by Congress was simply a hearing on the criminal and constitutional violations of Bush-Cheney by the House Judiciary Committee.

Former Senators George McGovern and James Abourezk, and Representatives Andy Jacobs and Paul Findley, along with Rocky Anderson, former mayor of Salt Lake City – all urged the House Judiciary to consider impeachment.

So far, the American people have seen no progress made by its Representatives.

Since January 2007 – the politically expedient option of doing nothing has triumphed.

Volumes can and will be written, about what can go down as the most serious abdication of impeachment responsibilities by a Congress in its history. No other president has committed more systemic, repeated impeachable offenses, with such serious consequences to this country, its people, to Iraq, its people and the security of this nation before, than George W. Bush.

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and their colleagues had just these kinds of monarchical abuses and violations in their framework of anticipation.

Declarations by Bush on the somber occasion of the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq this past March 20, 2008 demonstrated his criminal, unconstitutional arrogance and his confidence that this Democratic Congress will continue to be cowed, continue its historic cowardliness, and continue to leave the American people without representation.

The Democratic Party has abandoned its critical role as an opposition Party in this and other serious matters.

More than two out of three polled Americans want out of Iraq, believing it was a costly mistake.

In a January 6, 2008 op-ed in The Washington Post, former Senator George McGovern joined these Americans and wrote an eloquently reasoned plea for the impeachment of George W. Bush.

Repeatedly during the past seven years, Mr. Bush has lectured the American people about “responsibility” and that actions with consequences must personal incur responsibility.

So, why does Congress not hold Mr. Bush accountable?

It is never too late to enforce the Constitution. It is never too late to uphold the rule of law. It is never too late to awaken the Congress to its sworn duties under the Constitution. But it will soon be too late to avoid the searing verdict of history when on January 21, 2009, George W. Bush escapes the justice that was never pursued by those in Congress so solely authorized to hold the President accountable.

Is this the massive Bush precedent we should send to our elected leaders who may be similarly tempted to establish themselves above and beyond the rule of law? Is this the message we should send to future elected leaders in Congress? Do nothing?

Bush's Third Term Article

We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of "George Bush's third term." Maybe he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's running for it.

Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn't merely "running to the center." He's fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he's embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?


Getty ImagesTake the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies" that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.

Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the legislation isn't an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the Constitution. Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he'll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he's happy to throw the New York Times under the bus.

Next up for Mr. Obama's political blessing will be Mr. Bush's Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org's attacks in 2007 that he was "General Betray Us." Perhaps he had a late epiphany.

Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright "was not the person that I met 20 years ago." The Senator will learn – as John McCain has been saying – that withdrawal would squander the gains from the surge, set back Iraqi political progress, and weaken America's strategic position against Iran. Our guess is that he'll spin this switcheroo as some kind of conditional commitment, saying he'll stay in Iraq as long as Iraqis are making progress on political reconciliation, and so on. As things improve in Iraq, this would be Mr. Bush's policy too.

Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leaps toward Mr. Bush on domestic issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta, the Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for "everybody." His economic aide, Austan Goolsbee, has been liberated from the five-month purdah he endured for telling Canadians that Mr. Obama's protectionism was merely campaign rhetoric. Now that Mr. Obama is in a general election, he can't scare the business community too much.

Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority's ruling to ban the death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats – at least until November.

This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities. Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is not the assault on church-state separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed. And yesterday, Mr. Obama's campaign unveiled an ad asserting his support for welfare reform that "slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Never mind that Mr. Obama has declared multiple times that he opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform.

* * *
All of which prompts a couple of thoughts. The first is that Mr. Obama doesn't seem to think American political sentiment has moved as far left as most of the media claim. Another is that the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to embrace much of Mr. Bush's foreign and antiterror policy whether he admits it or not. Think Eisenhower endorsing Truman's Cold War architecture.

Most important is the matter of Mr. Obama's political character – and how honest he is being about what he truly believes. His voting record in the Senate and in Illinois, as well as his primary positions, would make him the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972. But he clearly doesn't want voters to believe that in November. He's still the Obama Americans don't know.

(the above are just three examples of Nader's thoughts and positions.

For more just click on the link at the top.)

Not saying I will vote for him, but if more people did maybe Democrats would start acting more like democrats.

Armon Ayers wrote:I thought that Ron Paul was a Republican? Why doesn't he run as a Constitution Party member next time?

He is a Republican, but I'm sure the good doctor wouldn't mind my speaking on his behalf this one time by saying he is an American first. He is an American who refuses to relinquish his vote for and endorse the candidate who will do the best job for America and her people when he affiliated with the GOP. I know I haven't.

I said a couple of weeks ago I was leaning towards voting for Baldwin. This settles it, Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin and Baldwin will get my vote.

The LP is in serious trouble thanks to Bob Barr. That Barr is treacherous imho. I'd just as soon vote for McCain as vote for Barr. It isn't enogh for the neocons to take over the GOP, now they're infiltrating the LP as well.

McKinney is very entertaining and I agree with her on some key issues, but I think she's a bit of a whack job. Nader is a nice enough guy, but for obvious reasons I won't be voting for him.

Terry, McCain can't be trusted on some very important issues to conservatives like me. I don't trust him on immigration, he can't be trusted on abortion. He shifted to the right during the primaries in order to win the nomination. He's now telling the base what they want to hear in order to get them to turn out at the polls and vote for him.

At least Obama is up front with his socialist agenda. I'd have a lot more respect for McCain if he would just tell the American people the truth, but he wants to win and realizes conservatives won't turn out and vote for a candidate who wants to provide amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and provide further incentives for more people to violate US law and jeopardize our security.

Bob Barr Spokesman Slams Ron Paul

Submitted by Eric Nordstrom on 11/Sep/2008
86.159.73.245

Message:

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Bob Barr Spokesman Slams Ron Paul Damages LP Image and pushes the Freedom Movement further toward Chuck Baldwin and Constitution Party.

"I have been hearing a lot from many LP Members about concerns over Bob Barr not attending Ron Paul's press conference.

However, before you form an opinion, perhaps you may want to consider the facts and not rely on blogs for your news.

First, the Barr campaign met with Ron Paul's staffers yesterday afternoon to deliver the offer of the LP's VP slot to Ron Paul and to discuss the details of the event that Bob Barr was invited to attend. More details were to be submitted to the Barr campaign but did not arrive until nearly 3 a.m. the morning of the event. At 9 a.m. Barr's campaign manager, Russell Verney, informed the Paul campaign that Bob would not be attending however he would still give his backing of the four principles highlighted by Dr. Paul.

Second, read the press release by the Barr Campaign you will see why Bob's own press conference (attended by many members of the press) was so significant: http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/bob-barr-shows-leadership-to-unify-liberty-movement

Third, as CNN and others reported, Ron Paul's press conference was more about him not endorsing McCain and less about Dr. Paul's non-sanctioning of other candidates running for president.

The Barr campaign chose not to attend in order to make a very valid point, which was expressed, in their following press conference. Bold leadership is needed right now! Scattering support for the liberty agenda to the four winds as Dr. Paul is proposing will not serve liberty.

Ron Paul deserves respect and credit for what he has done over the last year in rejuvenating so many people across this nation; however, either he or possibly his staff has made the bland decision to remain ambiguous with their intent and direction for liberty.

Personally, I will say that I do not appreciate the treatment that LP personnel received today by Ron Paul's staff and the games they have attempted to play over the past year. This morning, our volunteer coordinator was rudely ejected from the press conference before it even started. This was followed by Ron Paul staffers and supporters close to the staff disrupting Barr's press conference.

This pattern is something that we never wanted to disclose but holds true to previous treatment where staff members for Paul's campaign tried on more than one occasion to have Bob Barr uninvited from events, including Bob's gracious introduction of Ron Paul at last year's CPAC conference.

I do doubt that Dr. Paul was aware of these antics.

I hope this answers some of your concerns and questions. Our staff, volunteers and the Barr/Root campaign are totally psyched up and ready to work very hard for all Libertarians through November and beyond – including ballot access, in as many states as possible, which will benefit all Libertarian Candidates!...

In Liberty!
Robert Kraus
Acting Executive Director"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephanie wrote:I said a couple of weeks ago I was leaning towards voting for Baldwin. This settles it, Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin and Baldwin will get my vote.

Really? So no of his controversial views bother you Stephanie?

Controversial views
Although he refers to himself as "The Abraham Lincoln of this generation", he has also spoken of Lincoln (along with Woodrow Wilson) as one of the two "worst presidents" in history.[15] Baldwin is also a supporter of private schools and an opponent of the Department of Education.[16]

He has appeared on The Political Cesspool,[17], a radio talk show whose host was described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as white nationalist.[18] He also wrote that he believes "the South was right in the War Between the States", and that he does not believe the leaders of the old Confederacy were racists.[19] In addition, he wrote an article attacking Martin Luther King Jr., claiming that King was an "apostate" minister who renounced his Christian faith. He also stated that King spent the night of his murder with two paramours and physically fought with a third.[20]

Baldwin has written that "the Mexican government is deliberately and systematically working to destabilize and undermine the very fabric and framework of American society."[21] He has attacked the "Happy Holidays" greeting, stated that "America was deliberately and distinctively founded as a haven for Christians", and attacked "avant-garde egalitarians" who disagree with this. He also attacked France as an "atheistic, secularist country".[22]

In another opinion piece, he wrote that "homosexualists" have taken over the Republican Party and the the Republican elephant isn't red, "it's pink".[23] Baldwin has also attacked the feminist movement, which he believes has moved women from a position of being "nurturers and helpmeets" to "a place of independedence from, and even lordship over," their husbands. He believes that men have a "natural headship" over the family.[24]

In another article, called "Feminizing America", Chuck Baldwin wrote that most children grow up "undisciplined and spoiled" because their mothers, rather than their fathers, "dictate their upbringing". "America's boys only know how to play girls' games. They have never had their noses bloodied or their butts bruised."[25]

He also wrote that "a large number of young girls today are themselves sexual predators" and asked "For example, is it proper for a 15-year-old girl (who is built like a 20-year-old) to show her endowment at will without expecting a natural reaction from the object of her entrapment? Are boys the only ones who must exercise self-restraint? Do the standards of decent behavior apply only to the male gender? Does a loose, immoral teenage girl bear any responsibility for her conduct and dress? Do the parents of this teenage Delilah bear any responsibility for her sluttish behavior and attire?"[26]

source

I'm also curious to Jimmy's thoughts on this as he's been a RP supporter as well.

First of all, Aaron, the spin Bob Barr & his campaign staff attempt to put on what transpired at that press conference a couple of weeks ago is completely meaningless to me. As Jimmy can attest to, Bob Barr staffers have been infiltrating Ron Paul groups, even hijacking them whenever the opportunity presents itself. I know this is true, because I played a very key role in driving Shane Corey and Shana what's-her-face out of the West Virginia groups after they hijacked two WV Ron Paul meetup groups and attempted to transform them into Bob Barr groups. Jimmy could tell you all about it if he cares to, as he is a member of at least one of those groups and witnessed the goings on.

Secondly, a couple of the issues you're criticizing Baldwin on, are issues where I see common ground between us. For example, I believe the Mexican government is actively trying to undermine our culture and our economy. I know that government deliberately violates our sovreignty and does nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigrants across our common border. Mexico want the poor to come here and send US dollars back home to the loved ones they leave behind.

I also agree with much of what he says about young girls today. I have raised my daughter to conduct herself like a young lady, not a street walker. She doesn't dress like a prostitute because she has been nurtured by her mother and her stepfather, and to a lesser degree her biological father, to have respect for herself. It is quite apparent to anyone with functioning eyeballs the same cannot be said about a number of her peers.

Oh, and for the record, I don't give a rat's behind what the Southern Poverty Law center has to say about anyone or anything. I have been doing quite a bit of reading up on Chuck Baldwin over the course of the past couple of weeks and I don't believe he is interested at all in foisting his religion on the people of America. He values our Constitution, which is more than I can say for Obama or McCain.

He's getting not only my vote, by now what little assistance I can offer out here in the backwoods of Leon. I've contacted Jeff Becker, the WVCP Chair to offer my assistance. Becker backed Paul through the primaries so I already have a pretty good working relationship with him as well as several other WVCP party members.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I said a couple of weeks ago I was leaning towards voting for Baldwin. This settles it, Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin and Baldwin will get my vote.

Really? So no of his controversial views bother you Stephanie?

Controversial views
Although he refers to himself as "The Abraham Lincoln of this generation", he has also spoken of Lincoln (along with Woodrow Wilson) as one of the two "worst presidents" in history.[15] Baldwin is also a supporter of private schools and an opponent of the Department of Education.[16]

He has appeared on The Political Cesspool,[17], a radio talk show whose host was described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as white nationalist.[18] He also wrote that he believes "the South was right in the War Between the States", and that he does not believe the leaders of the old Confederacy were racists.[19] In addition, he wrote an article attacking Martin Luther King Jr., claiming that King was an "apostate" minister who renounced his Christian faith. He also stated that King spent the night of his murder with two paramours and physically fought with a third.[20]

Baldwin has written that "the Mexican government is deliberately and systematically working to destabilize and undermine the very fabric and framework of American society."[21] He has attacked the "Happy Holidays" greeting, stated that "America was deliberately and distinctively founded as a haven for Christians", and attacked "avant-garde egalitarians" who disagree with this. He also attacked France as an "atheistic, secularist country".[22]

In another opinion piece, he wrote that "homosexualists" have taken over the Republican Party and the the Republican elephant isn't red, "it's pink".[23] Baldwin has also attacked the feminist movement, which he believes has moved women from a position of being "nurturers and helpmeets" to "a place of independedence from, and even lordship over," their husbands. He believes that men have a "natural headship" over the family.[24]

In another article, called "Feminizing America", Chuck Baldwin wrote that most children grow up "undisciplined and spoiled" because their mothers, rather than their fathers, "dictate their upbringing". "America's boys only know how to play girls' games. They have never had their noses bloodied or their butts bruised."[25]

He also wrote that "a large number of young girls today are themselves sexual predators" and asked "For example, is it proper for a 15-year-old girl (who is built like a 20-year-old) to show her endowment at will without expecting a natural reaction from the object of her entrapment? Are boys the only ones who must exercise self-restraint? Do the standards of decent behavior apply only to the male gender? Does a loose, immoral teenage girl bear any responsibility for her conduct and dress? Do the parents of this teenage Delilah bear any responsibility for her sluttish behavior and attire?"[26]

source

Aaron, I really don't think Steph is a 100% "bleeding heart lefty liberal", ......... so "NO", ....... I don't think she would care if those were controversial views or not.

GEEEZE, if that is what that fellow thinks and has the nerve to state publically, ......... by damn I might even vote for him.


.