Take Juan Williams' and Don Lemon's Advice

This article highlights the Underclass component of the FLSUGbDpp initialism as explained in the Political Matchups page.

Fox News Channel’s political analyst Juan Williams offered the following advice to the black community: stay in school, take a job and hold it, and don’t have children until you are married. The rest of his advice can be found at Realclearpolitics.com. “Calling Out the Race Hustlers.” August 11, 2013.

CNN anchor Don Lemon offered similar advice to the black community: dress appropriately, finish school, and stop having children out of wedlock. The rest of his advice can be found at Realclearpolitics.com. “Attack the Problem, Not the Messenger.” August 12, 2013.

Their advice is absolutely necessary for the Underclass of all races and everybody else.

All of us – from the political left to the right – need to help the Underclass become part of regular society. We need to help them, not through welfare, but through leadership of the type shown by Williams and Lemon. 

Helping the Underclass is a long-term problem. What I really want to do here is focus on how Feminists play the game to keep the Underclass where they are. I want to show the context and dynamic subtext of the FLSUGbDpp that will do everything they can to prevent Williams and Lemon’s advice from helping the Underclass.

The mantra of Feminism is: “We’re oppressed. We’re victims. Life owes us a living. This is all everybody else’s fault but ours.” Feminists try to teach the Underclass to hold the same attitude.

Williams and Lemon are hardly asking for the moon. But by saying, “You pull up your pants. You graduate from high school. You get a job,” they violate the mantra. It puts the locus of control – the accountability and responsibility – on the Feminist Underclass instead of on everybody else.

Their advice has the taste of personal responsibility, which is adjacent to virtue, which in turn comes frighteningly close to Judeo-Christian values, all of which are in direct opposition to the religion of Feminism and the cultural, political, and economic goals of the FLSUGbDpp.

Government bureaucrats provide the infrastructure for welfare dependency. The Feminist Media pumps out daily propaganda to support it. Liberals give it a thin veneer of legal moralism: if you support welfare, then you are non-racist and have compassion. If you are against it, then you are racist and lack compassion. Democratic Party politicians keep the welfare spending flowing. The Underclass is dependent on all of the above. What role do you think the Government school system plays in this?

Underclass culture is Feminism fully applied to society. If you want to see what all of society would look like under totalitarian Feminism, just observe the Underclass: Unwed mothers and unwed fathers, illegitimacy, poor education, crime, drugs, divorce, gambling, poverty, dependency, prostitution, abortion, and unemployment.

Have you ever noticed how the Underclass and Hollywood share the same values?

The Feminist Entertainment Media (Hollywood) aren’t big on marriage (Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn), have lots of illegitimate kids, talk a good game about Government schools (Matt Damon), commit crime (Winona Ryder’s shoplifting), and smoke a lot of marijuana (take your pick).

But aren’t celebrities totally cool and successful? Yes, because they have enough money to paper over all of their faulty lifestyle decisions.  

If Feminism is so maladaptive, then why are so many average white feminists (non-Underclass and non-Hollywood) comfortable with families, jobs, and nice homes? Because most white feminists know the whole mantra is a joke. It is just a game they play to deceive and manipulate people in their personal lives.

Many white feminists follow Williams and Lemon’s advice.

Teaching the Underclass to have an internal locus of control – personal accountability and responsibility – is a good thing. It means that it is within their control to graduate from high school. 

However, as long as the Feminist News/Entertainment Media and the rest of the FLSUGbDpp refuse to help, all of the advice and effort, to aid the Underclass, will fail.

Balancing the Budget: Democratic Politicians vs. Republican Politicians

This article highlights Political Matchup 104: Democrats vs. Republicans, regarding the issue of a balanced budget amendment.

I hope to reach out to registered Democrats and Independents (reaching out doesn’t mean selling out) who are concerned about the deficit and $17 trillion national debt and want something to be done about it.

I think we, all, agree that debt is generally a bad thing and a lot of debt is a very bad thing.

Near the end of Ronald Reagan’s second term the national debt was $2.6 trillion.

Near the end of George H. W. Bush’s term the national debt was $4.0 trillion.

Near the end of Bill Clinton’s second term the national debt was $5.6 trillion.

Near the end of George W. Bush’s second term the national debt was $10.0 trillion.

(These debt amounts are for fiscal years ending September 30, 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2008.

Source: treasurydirect.gov.)

Right now, in President Obama’s second term, the national debt is $17.0 trillion.

(Source: usdebtclock.org.)

Do you see how the debt is increasing exponentially?

The pattern is clear: Republicans overwhelmingly vote in favor of a balanced budget amendment, Democrats vote against it.

(The following might not be all of the votes taken since 1982 for a balanced budget amendment.

Source: govtrack.us.)

Balanced Budget Amendment Senate S.J.Res. 58 (97^th) vote of August 4, 1982:

                         Yea          Nay

Republicans      47            7

Democrats        22            24

Balanced Budget Amendment Senate S.J.Res. 225 (99^th) vote of March 25, 1986:

                         Aye          Nay

Republicans      43            10

Democrats        23            24

Balanced Budget Amendment House H.J.Res. 268 (101^st) vote of July 17, 1990:

                         Aye          No          Not voting

Republicans      169          5            2

Democrats        110          145        1

Balanced Budget Amendment House (102^nd) vote of June 6, 1992:

                         Yes          No

Republicans      164          2

Democrats        116          150

Independents   0              1

Balanced Budget Amendment Senate S.J.Res. 41 (103^rd) vote of March 1, 1994:

                         Yea          Nay

Republicans      43            3

Democrats        20            34

Balanced Budget Amendment House H.J.Res. 103 (103^rd) vote of March 17, 1994:

                         Yea          Nay          Not voting

Republicans      172          1              3

Democrats        99            150          6

Independents   0              1

Other                0              1

Note the difference in the vote totals after the Republicans won the majority of seats in November of 1994, for the first time since 1954 in the House, and for the first time since 1980-1986 in the Senate, and before that since 1954.

Balanced Budget Amendment House H.J.Res. 1 (104^th) vote of January 26, 1995:

                         Aye          No          Not voting

Republicans      228          2

Democrats        72            128        3

Independents   0              1

Other                0              1

Balanced Budget Amendment Senate vote on above House bill of March 2, of 1995:

                         Yea          Nay

Republicans      52            2

Democrats        13            33

Balanced Budget Amendment Senate vote on above House bill of June 6, 1996:

                         Yea          Nay          Not voting

Republicans      52            1

Democrats        12            34            1

Balanced Budget Amendment Senate S.J.Res. 1 (105^th) vote of March 4, 1997:

                         Yea          Nay

Republicans      55            0

Democrats        11            34

Note the absence of any votes for a balanced budget amendment from 2000 to 2006 when Republicans held the presidency and the majority in the House and Senate. It still might not have passed in Congress because an amendment to the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote and the clear pattern is Democrats aren’t willing to help. 

Balanced Budget Amendment House H.J.Res. 2 (112^th) vote of November 18, 2011:

                         Yea          Nay          Not voting

Republicans      236          4              2

Democrats        25            161          6

Balanced Budget Amendment Senate S.J.Res. 10 (112^th) vote of December 14, 2011:

                         Yea          Nay

Republicans      47            0

Democrats        0              51

Independents   0              2

It takes a two-thirds majority vote for a constitutional amendment to pass in Congress and then there is the whole state ratification process, which makes a balanced budget amendment difficult to achieve.

Why is an amendment to the Constitution necessary? Why can’t both parties just agree on a balanced budget each year? The Democrats thought of that too and passed legislation to prevent it. It’s called baseline budgeting.

It only takes a simple majority to pass a Baseline Reform Act, so it should be no surprise the Democrats are even more dead-set against baseline reform than a balanced budget amendment.

Baseline Reform Act House H.R. 3578 (112^th) vote of February 3, 2012:

                         Yea          Nay          Not voting

Republicans      231          0              10

Democrats        4              177          10

My guess is the Democrat-controlled Senate will refuse to even bring it up for a vote.

Baseline budgeting has fiscally responsible politicians boxed-out from balancing the budget. A balanced budget amendment will box-in the Democrats which is why they refuse to vote for it.

Baseline budgeting is part of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. According to entry “Baseline (budgeting)” in Wikipedia, “Presently, the [automatic annual] Baseline Budgeting increase is about 7%.” Each year’s spending is 7% more than the year before.

The Feminist Media plays the blame game and points out that spending increased under Republican control too. Of course it did, that is the whole purpose for the Democrats’ baseline budgeting. An automatic increase of 7% is where the debate starts. If no deal is reached in Congress each year to reduce the increase, then the increase in spending is 7% more than last year.

The blame game is political temporizing that the Feminist Media plays so well, but the vote totals show the FLSUGbDpp (See the Political Matchups page) have no intention of balancing the budget. 

I think we, all, can agree to a compromise. For those who like lots and lots of government spending, the budget could be balanced right now at around $3 trillion. A balanced budget amendment will keep both political parties in line and the government could still spend trillions and trillions of dollars.

New media needs to make this information more available, the votes on the balanced budget amendment and the baseline budgeting method of 1974. Please improve it, make it more compelling, and widely disseminate it through your favorite media platform.

TV -- The Sewage Pipe

Michael Savage is correct. Television is a Hollywood sewage pipe that pumps Feminist News/Entertainment Media sludge directly into your family room.

I want to explain the history of my TV viewing habits and then draw out some lessons.

The first part is easy. My parents, stereotypical Dutch skinflints, never subscribed to cable the entire time I lived under their roof. We watched as much network TV as any average American family.

When I went to college, some people in the residential house we rented already had cable; so, I paid my share and had cable for two semesters. I lived in a couple other places in college and didn’t have cable at either of those places.

After graduating from college, being a stereotypical Dutch skinflint, I never subscribed to cable, ever.

But something crazy happened! I was renting an apartment and had network TV, but when I came home from work one night and turned on the TV, I noticed my usual channels were messed up. For a few minutes I couldn’t figure out what was wrong, then I started going through the channels one-by-one and I couldn’t believe it. I had 80 cable channels on my TV for free! It was great!

It was neat because I didn’t splice a cable line or put any effort or money into getting it. It was like, yesterday I had network TV and today I have 80 channels. I had the same setup the whole time. I had the TV plugged in and a cord antenna from the TV to the wall. I think what happened was, it was a large apartment complex and people moved in and out all the time, so maybe the cable company turned on the “juice” for somebody else and it went to me too.

It was a good conversation starter and I was the envy of everybody I told. People acted like it was the coolest thing in the world and they encouraged me to enjoy it.

I had 80 channels for a few years but then one day it went down to something even worse than basic cable. It was only 27 channels and the only ones even worth mentioning were: RFD-TV, E!, Bravo, and CMT. The rest of the channels were shopping networks, reruns of old afternoon soaps, and CNN.

Then, just a couple of days before Christmas in 2011, all of the channels went away, including network. It was such a lousy cable package at that point that I didn’t mind losing it so much, but I still wanted network. I waited for a few days to see if it would spontaneously come back again, but it was gone for good.

I figured the loss of the network channels had something to do with the switch to digital TV. So I got out the digital converter box and plugged in all of the cords. It seemed to work.

I found out quickly how difficult it was to keep the signal. I tried several different arrangements with the cord antenna. I spread it out on the floor. I put nails in a window frame and outlined the window with it, but the result was always the same. Soon, the signal would begin to fade -- the signal never faded back in -- until it was all static and the channels would need to be searched and scanned again. So I had only a couple of channels with any reliability and they were lousy off-brand channels. 

In March of 2012 something in the converter box burnt out and ever since then I haven’t watched any TV at all.

I might get TV again someday, but I won’t ever pay for cable. I’m cheap but it’s also a matter of principle. It’s the endless reruns. It’s all of the extra channels you don’t ever watch. It’s the way they try to link you along with all of the spin-offs of Keeping Up with the Kardashians, for example. It’s how networks you hope are scientific, such as Discovery Channel and Animal Planet, air shows about aliens, mermaids, and Bigfoot.

The feelings I have for TV are similar to those in the song “57 Channels (And Nothin’ On)” by Bruce Springsteen.

***

I want to encourage all of you to cut back on how much TV you watch. That doesn’t mean you have to go cold-turkey like I did.

You could cancel your premium channels and save money. You could switch to a cheaper cable or satellite package and save money. You could have one day per week or one day per month when you don’t watch TV. Or, one whole week per month when you don’t watch TV. You could have no cable or satellite at all and just have network TV and save money.

This is not a call for a boycott of any companies that advertise on TV, although, there is a good time and place for that. It is simply less TV for our own mental health, to maybe save a buck or two, and to reduce the influence of the Feminist Media.  

I talked to one recently retired couple who have lived without TV for 40 years. She said if anyone has questions about it she tells them, “While you were watching TV, my husband was earning a Ph.D.” In fact, he double-majored in math and psychology and minored in education, earned a Master’s degree of Theology, and a Ph.D. in Education – not too shabby.

Of course, the absence of TV doesn’t explain all of his education and their success in life, but I think we should encourage and admire those living without TV and try to spread the idea.

***

Kurt Schlichter wrote an article “Ignore Lena Dunham’s ‘Girls’ at your own peril conservatives” on Breitbart.com, January 29, 2013.

He writes, “If conservatives are going to be in the popular culture – and act to change it – they can’t simply ignore shows like Girls that capture the zeitgeist, even if the zeitgeist makes their skin crawl. Season two is well under way, and conservatives need to participate in the discussion.”

I agree with his broader point about participating in the culture, but I disagree with his specifics. Of course we should – and will – participate in the culture. If you can so much as get out of bed in the morning, you are participating in the culture.

But the worst thing we, all, could do is watch a show like Girls on HBO. Hollywood doesn’t care if we love it or hate it as long as we watch it. Fifty million viewers means high ratings, high ratings means advertising, advertising means money, and money means Hollywood will continue to pump out more of the same type of sewage.

***

I made this nice aphorism:

Turn off the TV,

Tune in to talk radio, and

Drop your subscriptions to the Feminist News/Entertainment Media.

Cursory History and Illusory "Oppression"

(The facts and dates presented here are generally correct but don’t bet the ranch on them.) 

The Black Death era in Europe occurred from 1340 to 1400. Suffering from the bubonic plague must have been awful. Think about how difficult life was back then, yet feminists complain about “oppression” in the United States today.

Even by the late 1800s, the majority of workers in the U.S. were farmers.

In the early 1900s, electricity and indoor plumbing were becoming commonplace. “By 1930, roughly ninety percent of people living in cities and big towns had electricity in their homes.” However, “Only about ten percent of Americans living on farms or in other rural areas had electricity.” (Source: Accentenergy.com. Energy 101 -- Electricity and Gas Articles -- History of Electricity.)

All four of my grandparents were born between 1911 and 1918. None of them had more than an eighth grade education. When they began farming (in essence, as soon as they were old enough to help out on their parents’ farms), they used horses, harvested field corn by hand, and sewed their own clothes. That is just the way things were and they counted their blessings. Men weren’t “oppressed” and neither were women. Women weren’t “oppressed” and neither were men.

There was the Great Depression from 1929 to 1939.

There were the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s.

The U.S. was involved in World War II from 1941 to 1945.

Prior to the date A.D. 1945, American men cannot be described as a bunch of Ferrari-driving playboys.

Feminists act as if women have been “oppressed” for millions of years in the United States. It just isn’t so. Life was different back then for both men and women.

I like to go by cultural milestones. Playboy magazine was first printed in 1953. Then there was the classic ’57 Chevy. Already by 1961 President Kennedy used the phrase “affirmative action” and the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963.

So for one glorious decade an American man could flaunt his heterosexuality, drive his Chevy to the levee, and not be discriminated against at work. At most, men of that decade were Chevy-driving Playboy subscribers. Our country has been discriminating in favor of women ever since. White women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action.

In 1930, the median annual household income was $1,200. In 1960, the median annual household income was $5,620. In 2013, the median annual household income is $51,000 and some women are driving BMWs, Audis, and Mercedes.

American women (and men) today are well-fed and rich.

How to Avoid Marrying a Feminist

I love what Erik “Mystery” von Markovik is doing to help men get dates. On a deeper level, he shows how women respond in predictable ways to certain social cues making them more likely to agree to a date.

Mystery’s methods are psychologically sound. For example, instead of using a “line” on women, he teaches men to open up a conversation with pre-planned questions and topics. Women love to talk.

If you’re good at this type of thing, it’s called having “game”.

Congratulations, you got the girl, but here is what men need to know. Your “game” is ending where her “game” is just beginning. If you aren’t careful, she will use her “game” to nag your ass throughout the relationship until the day you die.

You put effort into flirting with her and briefly manipulating her into dating you, but if you’re married to her for 50 years, that’s 18,250 days she gets to manipulate you.

Which is why I am offering advice on how to avoid marrying a bad woman (a feminist).

Simply apply the Original Craig Vos Challenge #1. Ask her if she thinks all women are “oppressed” in this country. If she says yes, then she is a feminist, then you need to run. (See Guideline 2a: Omni-“Oppression”.)

Over the course of a marriage, women will change their hairstyles a lot, but feminists and their personality flaws almost never change. It takes everything just short of a miracle to get a feminist to change into an honest, virtuous woman. So you must avoid getting involved with a feminist from the outset.

Is it fair to weed-out feminists this way? Yes, because women do the same type of thing to men all the time.

What if you are a male feminist? Then go ahead and marry a feminist and good luck to you.  

What if you are only interested in physical beauty and are too feckless to ask the one challenge question?

If you’re going for great looks, then you should really go for great looks. Chances are her attitude won’t be any better or worse than any other woman picked at random (those are terrible odds). What if she turns out to be a feminist? As years go by her aged appearance might be bearable, but her bad attitude won’t be. A lot of men make the mistake of not weeding-out feminists and they pay dearly for it.

You should commit to the inner beauty of an honest, virtuous woman. That doesn’t mean she has to be the ugliest girl at the dance, but she must pass Challenge #1. Her answer should be something along the lines of, “No. We, women, aren’t ‘oppressed’. We should count our blessings because we have so much. Any feminist who bitches about being ‘oppressed’ would have to be the dumbest feminist on earth.”

Such a woman is a glorious display of honesty, virtue, love, respect, and patriotism. In other words, exactly the opposite of what feminism teaches women.

Why so Little Opposition to Feminism?

Kathleen Parker, in her excellent book Save the Males, writes, “The men’s movement has been in gestation for about twenty years and has yet to quicken, much less emerge to alter the gender ecosystem.”

So why has the alternative to feminism, liberalism, and socialism been floundering for so long? Why has it taken so long for us, center right Americans, to speak out against the excesses of feminism? Here are some answers and explanations. 

Feminists dominate the news and entertainment media, which is why I call it the Feminist Media. Before the resurgence of talk radio (thanks to Rush Limbaugh) and the advent of the Internet, we had little access to the mass media of newspapers and TV.

Men help women but the Feminist Media refuses to help men. It would be easy for journalists and reporters to find stories about how men have been mistreated. They just don’t want to. Why not? Because that ruins the game. The game is, all women are “victims” and need bigger government. If men are ever shown to be (temporary) victims, it takes some of the focus off of women. The Feminist Media isn’t unaware of our message. The Feminist Media opposes our message.   

We have so many more important issues to think about, such as the federal budget and the total national debt, among other big issues that affect every American. We care about everybody but feminists care only about themselves. When you consider how little access we had to mass media, it made sense to give some issues higher priority. We must not take the Internet for granted. It is our big chance to spread our message.

Here is a conversation between P.J. O’Rourke and Andy Ferguson from O’Rourke’s excellent book, Parliament of Whores.

“How come,” I asked Andy, “whenever something upsets the Left, you see immediate marches and parades and rallies with signs already printed and rhyming slogans already composed, whereas whenever something upsets the Right, you see two members of the Young Americans for Freedom waving a six-inch American flag?”

“We have jobs,” said Andy.

Feminists are complainers by nature, but men and honest, virtuous women are not. The proof? For just one example, men don’t sit around and complain about “oppression”. You can prove it for yourself by taking the original Craig Vos challenge #1. Note, we don’t want to increase male complaining; we want to decrease female complaining.

We thought feminists would eventually wise-up and stop complaining so much if we were nice and voluntarily conceded ground. I have to admit that I thought this way, but they never wised-up and now I feel like such a fool for having thought they ever would. Feminists take everything you are willing to give and then they immediately demand more. Then, they take everything they can get and immediately demand more. And, so on. 

We are too nice. Sometimes, but not always, there are complementing attributes and flaws between men and women. Generally speaking:

Men are easier to deal with but more difficult to talk to, while

Women are more difficult to deal with but easier to talk to.

We have been too nice for too long about excessive feminism. We need to show the same amount of respect to feminists that they show to us. We will continue to be loyal, respectful, husbands, fathers, and men, to honest, virtuous, wives, mothers, and women.

For lack of a better term, chivalry. There once was an unwritten code of etiquette for ladies and gentlemen. Feminists broke their part of the code and not only stopped respecting men, they started undermining every American institution. Why? This whole website is devoted to answering that question so I will give just one brief answer. All of the Founding Fathers of our nation were male. So from the feminists’ perspective, the USA will always have the taint of non-feminism; therefore, every institution within it must be completely torn down and replaced with socialist feminism.  

Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism (Part 1)

The three main branches of feminism are: socialist feminism, liberal feminism, and radical feminism.

Socialist feminists want to control the economy (and everything else). It is totalitarian feminism.

Liberal (Democratic Party) feminists want to control the government.

Feminists of all types want to control the culture.

Alison Jaggar is a socialist feminist. Here are just a few examples from her book, Feminist Politics and Human Nature:

“The goal of socialist feminism is to abolish the social relations that constitute humans not only as workers and capitalists but also as women and men. Whereas one version of radical feminism takes the human ideal to be a woman, the ideal of socialist feminism is that women (and men) will disappear as socially constituted categories.” Page 132.

“Socialist feminism makes an explicit commitment to the abolition of both class and gender.” Page 317.

“Just as socialist feminists are committed to abolishing workerhood and womanhood as social categories, so their political values and their conception of human nature may require them also to abolish childhood.” Page 343.

“The socialist feminist strategy is to support some ‘mixed’ socialist organizations, but also to form independent women’s groups and ultimately an independent women’s movement committed with equal dedication to the destruction of capitalism and the destruction of male dominance.” Page 330.

Do you want to know what Jaggar is doing these days? She’s teaching your kids. Jaggar is a professor of Women and Gender Studies at the University of Colorado. (See Political Matchups 105.)

Here are just a few examples showing how feminism and socialism are synonymous from the Socialist Party USA’s website.

Their Platform page. Women:

“The Socialist Party is a socialist feminist organization that recognizes that a struggle against habitual male dominance and patriarchy must go hand in hand with any struggle against capitalism.”

Their Commissions page. Womens Commission:

“Without feminism there can be no socialism; and without socialism, feminism cannot achieve the goals it espouses.”

Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Cornel West are Honorary Chairs of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Here are just a few examples from DSA’s website.

From the DSA’s document Where We Stand: Building the Next Left.

Section 1:

“Our conception of socialism is also deeply feminist and anti-racist.” And, “Gender equality requires great changes in social attitudes, in economic and social structures, and in relationships between men and women and adults and children.”

The feminists’ immediate political goal is easy to understand. Their goal is to elect liberal Democratic Party politicians.

Section 4:

“Socialists have historically supported public ownership and control of the major economic institutions of society – the large corporations – in order to eliminate the injustice and inequality of a class-based society, and have depended on the organization of a working class party to gain state power to achieve such ends. In the United States, socialists joined with others on the Left to build a broad-based, anti-corporate coalition, with the unions at the center, to address the needs of the majority by opposing the excesses of private enterprise. Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this coalition, because the Democratic Party held the allegiance of our natural allies. Through control of the government by the Democratic Party coalition, led by anti-corporate forces, a progressive program regulating the corporations, redistributing income, fostering economic growth and expanding social programs could be realized.”

In their own words, the above is exactly what I describe on the Political Matchups page. Just change “working class” in the first sentence to Underclass.

Section 6:

“The [DSA’s] founding document called for carrying out a strategy and program that were already the mainstays of mass liberalism, but moving this broad liberal coalition considerably to the left.”

Norman Thomas ran as a Socialist for President of the U.S. six times. His grandson, Evan Thomas, was the editor of Newsweek for many years. If ever there was an example of a liberal media publication, it’s Newsweek.

Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC is a socialist.

Here are the “key issues” on the National Organization for Women’s website:

Abortion Rights/Reproductive Issues

Violence Against Women

Constitutional Equality

Promoting Diversity/Ending Racism

Lesbian Rights

Economic Justice

Affirmative Action

Disability Rights

Family/Family Law

Fighting the Right

Global Feminism

Health

Immigration

Judicial Nominations

Legislation

Marriage Equality

Media Activism

Mothers/Caregivers Economic Rights

Working for Peace

Social Security

Supreme Court

Title IX/Education

Welfare

Women-Friendly Workplace

Women in the Military

Young Feminist Programs

This (Part 1) is a brief overview of feminism is liberalism is socialism. The connection among the three is a huge area of concern that demands more attention from a lot more of us in the new media.

I urgently request all of you with ability, motivation, and new media capability, to use the Guidelines, and begin analyzing the agendas of the Democratic Socialists of America and the Socialist Party USA, and NOW’s “key issues”.