Hillary Clinton 2

At some point in the future, some liberals are going to argue that "rape" is a form of terrorism. These metaphors sounds pernicious and daring, but essentially, they are insipid and stupid.

The liberal women of the 1960's who felt free to explore their sexuality and who then became deeply disappointed in men or sex are now espousing a Puritanical view of sex. As a Christian, I don't necessarily disgree with them, but I do not think my Christian views on sex should be enforced on the secular culture. Besides, the Bible celebrates procreation and the sacredness of marriage. Sex is something to be enjoyed with your wife, not others.

Some parts of current liberalism has become Puritanical in the worst sense of the word. There are good things about Puritans too. They have diligence, great intellectualism, and a singleness of purpose. But Hillary Clinton is literally frigid, cold, intensely guarding of her private life, and intensely unappealing to the emotional, giving and kind woman.

And she is also intensely non-critical of China. It is generally well-known that money from Chinese donors or a donor helped out the Clintons at a various times in their campaigns.

The New York Times has featured many articles criticizing Chinese human rights issues, especially Chinese mistreatment of its elderly population. Hillary has nothing bad to say about China. It is eerie how little she says about China.

It may sound like criticism for Hillary to talk about "tougher" trade relations with China, but this word is literally empty. The US has been using this line since the 1980's. AT first, it was tougher trade relations with Japan which resulted in nothing. Her talk is completely empty since there is no backbone to it. At the same time, more than ever, we need China as our ally since Russia is a real, concrete military threat and terrorism is now an international issue.

To say that China engages in cyberattacks is also empty since everyone engages in cyberattacks.

Hillary Clinton was on the Board of Wal-Mart and she never once mentioned anything about the kind of human rights issues that rose up in Wal-Mart.

It's clear that she does not care about human rights. BUT then, why is she making these absurd comments about the GOP treating feminists like terrorists. Is she saying that the GOP is violating her human rights? How do feminists treat non-feminist women? Who defines what a feminist is? Certainly, Camille Paglia is not a woman-hating feminist, but as for Hillary Clinton, she would rather work with men. Is this not the truth?

The GOP does not hate women. There are highly intelligent women in the GOP.  Jeane Kirkpatrick was not a woman hating woman. She was highly intelligent and intensely patriotic. Anne Coulter has opened the door for conservatives to be out of the closet (gay or lesbian). Neoconservatives do not hate woman. The Bible is full of good women. I do wish that there were more fully professional women in the Bible, but hey, it was written years ago. Feminism is no longer bound by a consensus of a general philosophy. So what kind of feminist (not women) does the GOP hate?

It may sound callous to say this but you may say that the GOP hates a woman who has been aborted psychologically and become a man, not just a man but a Medusa type who castrates men. This is figuratively what Hillary Clinton has done to Bill Clinton and probably why he turned to affairs to affirm his identity. Freud said that the Medusa figure expresses the fear of castration latent in the male. Also, I believe that the fully intellectualized and phallic female does this sort of "castration" almost instinctively as a protection measure of her children and her identity. Of course, this is psycho-babble, but I think that comparing the GOP to a terrorist group is also psychobabble.