Listen up here... especially you liberal purists who can't tell an endangered owl from the endangered form of government that is saving your ass.
            We've got a tremendous election coming up in November and our way of life is in grave danger.
            Our way of life has gone through eight years of mauling by the media - a media that is increasingly bought and paid for by extremist right wing ideologists and Nazi sympathizers. Moneyed businessmen who want more are joined by power hungry religious extremists who beg money from pulpits set up inside your TV sets to make themselves richer united to spend dozens of millions of dollars to ruin Bill Clinton.
            Why ruin Clinton, the beloved of the black race, the champion of women's rights, and flawed human being - no more flawed than many. (After all, Ronnie Reagan was accused of rape, not just sexual harassment and the case was pretty strong. His money and position in Hollywood got him out of that one.)
            Why target Clinton (and before him Carter, and Johnson and Kennedy in a revisionist history while ignoring the HIGH TREASON of Nixon)?
            Because a ruined Bill Clinton would teach every future democratic hopefuls that no matter how popular a president might be, they will be destroyed by the monied hypocrites with the "RRRR" tattooed on their foreheads.
            Not only will the dirty tricks campaigns discourage humanitarian candidates, but they hope it will turn off their view of the Tide-clean soccer moms from becoming involved in the political scene. The ultimate aim being to keep women away from the voting booths.
            Women control who gets elected in this country.
            If the "soccer-moms" stay away from the voting booths, the "RRRRRs" will own the presidency. There will be nothing to prevent them from completely and totally destroying every civil rights gain women, blacks, disabled, etc., have won in the past 150 years.

Remember, if only men's votes counted, George Bush Sr., would have served two terms and Bob Dole would be president today (and Janet Reno wouldn't be attorney general).

One "feminist" took umbrage with my charge on an mail list about the ultimate aim of the "RRRRRs."
            She obviously hasn't been paying one iota of attention to what's been going on in the U.S. Supreme Court in the last half dozen years as the five-vote majority of right-wingers has been systematically dismantling our legislative decency and civil rights gains.
            Recently the court imperiously struck down an important ingredients of the Violence Against Women act that CONGRESS HAD MANDATED. In other words, to hell with the congress. By voiding VAWA, the court comes close to making women fair game along with squirrels and n----rs.

The ultra-conservative right-wing supremes have handed down a number of high handed ruling to unravel the rights of women since they got majority power - just as their counterparts in the Congress have been trying to do - only prevented by the veto power of Clinton.
            All while our muzzled news media sucks its lollipops of high salaries that throw them into republican-size tax brackets...

The U.S. Supreme court is determined to Balkanize our nation by throwing the balance of power to state governments such as Mississippi and Idaho and Georgia and giving almost president-like power to bigots such as Jesse Helms.
            This will result in the destruction of the rights of women, minorities, and children - all of whom have seen their civil and human rights gains guaranteed by the FEDERAL government over the objections of your state governments.
            A recent minority report by Justice Souter explains this danger.

Testosterone patriarchal power in a Shrub Bush victory this November will crush our fragile liberties so fast that we won't even see it coming B and faster yet if the Congress or just the Senate remains in Republican hands.

The most telling thing about Shrub is his statement that he would make Anton Scalia his chief justice. Scalia is more Nazi-like than Pat Buchanan. He doesn't believe women have the right to anything under the "original intent" of the U.S. Constitution. He has voted against women and human rights 100%.

So when your "liberal" or "feminist" leaders stand around with their thumbs in strange places while trying to straddle the political fence that will rape them, examine what such a "non-partisan" policy is doing.
            It is immobilizing our will to get out the vote and organize effective campaigning for our protection.

Instead of taking aim at the radical religious right-wing reactionary republicans, the feminist "leaders" with their bully platforms are CRITICIZING and shooting cannons at Al Gore and Bill Clinton and hardly mentioning the evils of Armey, Helms, Lott, Watts, Shrub Bush, etc., etc.
            What are they thinking? Are they thinking? How can they be so divorced from reality?
            The reality, Mrs. Jones, is either or. It is not maybe or wait until next election.

The unvarnished truth of the matter is that all the chips that protect women's rights go down on the square called November 7, 2000.

No fudging, not compromises.

It's one or the other. There are no other options.

For the past 50 years, the radical religious right-wing republican reactionaries have spent billion$ to overthrown this nation's conscience and will.
            They are close to winning because they have brainwashed so many.
            Don't be one of those walking airheads. There is no tomorrow. There is no recovery.
            A vote for Shrub November 7, 2000 gives complete power to the religious righters who are aiming to destroy women's rights.
            A vote for Al Gore will preserve women's rights.
            What part of this can't you understand?

OK, if you STILL don't get it, Mrs. Jones - then look at it this way:
            The U.S. Supreme Court can with one stroke of its pen eliminate women's right to vote. One vote backed by a Congress that agrees with the reactionary principles and a cutsey president who isn't smart enough to tie his shoe laces. (As one TV personality said, "I wants a president who's smarter than the janitor of my building.")

This election is THAT important.

Dig it?

Either / or - Al Gore or the radical religious right - there are no other options.

So you'd better get out there and campaign. The rights you save will be covering your own ass.

A recent article in the NY Times quoted a researcher as saying that the strongest predictor of long-term marriage was the female's ability to sooth the male!
            You know this spoiled brat attitude starts at cradle-level when boys are given instant gratification while most girls learn to wait. No matter how old your children are, make a concerted attempt just one day to treat them exactly the same. Chances are the boys will be throwing tantrums by the days end or at least being very, very confused. No matter how scrupulous we think we're being evenhanded, the amazing pressures of society contaminate our efforts at almost every level.
            We aren't doing our sons a favor by raising them to be spoiled bratty-men.

Have y'all really missed Catt's Claws?

The little Bush, Shrub, is going around the country trying to sell his tax cut proposal. He claims that it will change the life of a single mother of three who is struggling on only $22,000 a year.
            Although they don't call it the bull crap meter, surf on over to http://www.georgewbush.com and plug $22,000 and three deductions into the Bush Tax Calculator. It appears the compassionate conservative little Bush will save the poor mother $110 a year. Now plug in $60,000 or $300,000 and see the money they'll be getting back. It's like hitting the jackpot at a casino.
            Gore on the other hands is seeking better education, child care, and going after deadbeat dads who don't support their children - all good solid ways to help poor single women cope. Good child care (if you can find it) costs more than $50 a week - 50 times 52 equals $2600 EVERY year as compared to Bush's one-time $110.
            Well, I guess the "RRRRRs" are certain none of us peons can do the math.

Is the number of men in a female's life written in her genes? Professor Patricia Parker of the University of Missouri at St. Louis is studying the question according to an article by an adult male who turns typically juvenile when the word sex is mentioned.
            He even brings the learned professor within sex reach by dropping her Ph.D. and calling her "Patty." Like calling Steve Hawkins "Stevie." (Yeah, I know, I've lost my sense of humor. Yeah? Well, let bull hockey replace your toupee. It's not sense of humor, it's respect.)
            Anyway, Dr. Parker is studying hawks that inhabit the Galapagos Islands about 600 miles west of Ecuador - the same islands that gave "Charlie" Darwin his insight into evolution.
            It seems like the lady hawks on Epanola island are monogamous while the high flying hawks on Pinta island take on a series of lovers, all of whom help raise her young (polyandrous).
            The question Dr. Parker and her assistants (the male writer calls them co-workers as if goffers to Stephen Spielberg are co-workers) - anyway, Dr. Parker is trying to find out if it is the "choice" of a female to limit herself to one mate or enjoy the many. Or Is it dictated by her genes?
            Because of the isolation of the islands, DNA studies - actually the minisatellite fingerprints - show that each island was settled only once when hawks were blown to the islands on tropical winds some 30,000 years ago.
            Preliminary findings indicate that each island's population descended from one female - and hawks that are genetically uniform are also behaviorally uniform.
            In short words, it appears in PRELIMINARY studies that a female (hawk anyway) is genetically programmed to be monogamous or polyandrous.
            (The article was written by George Johnson is a biology professor at Washington University which explains, perhaps, the bitchiness of the article towards a more successful scientist, female variety.)
            So y'all goody two shoes who are aghast at women who do a bit of exploring, it ain't our fault; it's the fault of our great, great, great, great, great, (begat who begat who begat) great grandmothers.
            So there too.
            So, if men can claim it's all biology and therefor excuse being Beavis and Butthead pimpleheads on a bag of sperm ...

One really hopes that we are winning the education campaign against patriarchal religious prejudices that are so advantageous to little men - and then along comes a story like this.
            In a culture that still believes that women are born to be servants of men, fulfilling their every need so that men can sleep under the shade of a tree while the women till the fields, keep the house, do the cooking, and bear the children - bad things are happening in Zula-land in Africa.
            A Zulu woman, Tokie Toki Sokhulu, has been accused of violating women's rights after employing only virgins at her factory as part of a scheme to restore the "purity" of African culture. The women must PROVE they have intact hymens with actual physical exams!
            Sokhulu employs 24 women ages 19 to 28 in a Durban South Africa factory that manufactures soya products and petroleum jelly.
            Sokhulu who says she stayed a virgin until her marriage at 42 founded a special organization five years ago to which only virgins can be belong. (That initiation ceremony must be more interesting than that of the Rainbow girls!)
            "The Isivivane Samasiko Nolwazi foundation has registered more than 7,000 women who each pay 12 rand annual membership and take pride in their status," the Reuters article states.
            What the organization actually does is supply AIDS-free women to men.
            "We are contacted by many men some of whom are looking for wives. But we do not just sell our girls to men. We talk to them and to the girls and we insist that the men take blood tests to check for HIV before marrying," Sokhulus says. However, marriage is not always the result of the male search.
            Note how carefully Sokhulu worded her statement... some... not always... before marriage.
            Monthly virginity examinations are carried out on the women at 20 locations across KwaZulu/Natal and at four new centers in neighbouring Eastern Cape province. But even among Zulus, Mrs. Sokhulu's campaign has been denounced as an affront to South Africa's attempts to confront some of the backward perceptions of African traditions.
            "We are feeling totally sick about this practice because we are against people making money out of virginity," said Futhi Zikalala, provincial manager of the Gender Equality Commission who oppose virginity testing and virgins-only employment.
            Unabashed, Sokhulu is going ahead with plans to set up "factories" that hire only virgins in seven more provinces.
            Again, in the name of "purifying our culture," women are being singled out as the carriers of disease and all things evil.
            Why do I have the feeling that men who want to make sure their sexual dalliances are with HIV/AIDS free women are behind this obvious front for prostitution. To my knowledge, the culture allowed more than one wife.

            Maybe Dr. Parker can study Sokhulu and find out if her genes come from some stray sex-fearing, man-obeying female hawk that really got lost from the crowd.
            It has always been our contention that religions that depend on virginity and celibacy (with the definition of virginity being no sex at all for women and celibacy is no RECENT sex for men) - those religions were founded by men without any or sufficient sex drive.
            I imagine the whole course of history would have changed if Saul had found Viagra instead of the great light on the road to becoming St. Paul-of-the-hatred-of- women because he probably couldn't get it up anymore with the boyz who may have preferred girls.

This Viagra problem may explain, in some ways, what is happening in Rome these days.
            Seems like the Vatican is having hissy over a proposed conference in Rome this July that may draw as many as 200,000 gays and lesbians.
            Bowing down to the Vatican pressure, even the liberal mayor of Rome is having second thoughts because holding it may "hurt the old pope's feelings!"
            The Vatican, as you probably know, has substituted gays and lesbians for the devil. No more ranting and raving about Satan and hell and damnation for living a bad life!
            NO! It's now "even if you live an honest and good life, if you don't have the proper plumbing fit you'll go to HELL!"

(In keeping with the fairness doctrine, we must point out the Baptists and other funny fundy/charismatic churches are having the same ideological shift.)
            Fairies have replaced Mephistopheles; chiffon has replaced scales, and drag shows and softball games have replaced fire and brimstone. (This almost reminds me of a 1999 movie with a bunch of foul-mouthed albeit it VERY funny kids. I ROARED but was glad to have seen it without any of my immediate family around.)
            Back to the point -
            What I can't understand is how the Vatican personnel who wear dresses in preference to pants and have an admitted very high rate of homosexuality are taking this attitude. (Nuns also have a high rate of lesbianism but women don't get a vote in the Vatican hierarchy.)
            Maybe it's being driven by jealousy that the gays outside the church can be HONEST about who and what they are?

Or maybe some of those hawks from Galapagos islands got blown into Rome all those centuries ago - the ones that carry the hypocrisy genes.
            Actually, it was a hawk that had no sex drive genes and she was raped by a celibate hawk who accidentally ingested Viagra...
            I guess the hatred towards women dates back to that original Eve-hawk who enticed that celibate hawk into betraying his genes (or was it a Bruce-hawk?)
            But there is a light at the end of this tunnel of bigotry:
            "The wives of the [Italian] prime minister and the [Roman] mayor broke with their husbands to defend the gay celebration, as did the leader of Rome's Jewish community, recalling that homosexuals, long with Jews, were singled out for Nazi death camps in World War II. Presidential candidate Al Gore has endorsed the conference," according to Reuters. Gore, by the way, and is a FIRM supporter of gay and lesbian rights.
            The conference organizers deny any intention of offending the church and have invited Pope John Paul II to address a panel on "Sexual Diversity, Religious Intolerance, and Strategies for Change."

Look, Mr. Pope. You stay out of my bedroom and I=ll stay out of yours. Or as some feminist said regarding John's opposition to birth control, "You no playa the game, you no maka the rules."

"I stand before you as the thankful daughter of two hardworking and caring parents, as the grateful wife of a loving and supportive husband, as the proud mother of three wonderful daughters - and now, as the first elected woman Governor of the state of New Hampshire."
            This quote is from the Inaugural Address, January 1997 by New Hampshire's first governor who was also a woman, Jeanne Shaheen. She has crafted solutions "to issues that matter to New Hampshire families: strengthening education from kindergarten through college; improving health care; building a high-tech and international economy; bringing competition to the state's electric industry; and maintaining a fiscally responsible state government." She was overwhelmingly reelected in 1998.

            Lt. General Claudia Kennedy, the top ranked woman in the military, has retired - and her greatest accomplishment may have occurred in the last few months of the her illustrious 32-year career.
            "These days, the sound you hear overhead in the Army and at the Pentagon isn't an airplane breaking the sound barrier, it's the sound of a glass ceiling being shattered," Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy said at a Pentagon ceremony in her honor.
            "And the Army and the Pentagon are better because of it," the three-star general, 52, added.
            Kennedy blew the whistle on two-star general, Maj. Gen. Larry Smith who made unwelcome sexual advances and harassment moves on her.
            Kennedy's charges sent shock waves through the services. Tragically, several high ranking women - some of whom have retired - criticized Kennedy saying that revealing sexual harassment would make it tougher on other women. (HUH? Is there any more proof that some women sold their souls to men for promotions?)
            Although still unofficial, an announcement is expected that the Army's inspector general has concluded that Kennedy was, indeed, the victim of an improper sexual advance by Smith four years ago when both wore two stars.
            Kennedy reported the incident and spoke about it to many friends and associates but did not file formal charges, believing the matter would prevent her harasser from further promotion. However, when he was promoted to the position that would put him in charge of judging sexual harassment claims by women, she went public and filed formal charges.
            She has plans to write a book and give speeches. We're sure a lot of sacred military bulls will be tweaked when some of their shenanigans will be revealed. This is one high-powered lady!

Who's living on what planet?
            The Washington pundits, the talking TV heads, are yelling and jumping up and down that the nation is suffering from Clinton fatigue.
            Yet at the same time, EVERY single poll shows that President William Jefferson Clinton is the most popular president with the American people and THE WORLD since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (the president who was hated almost more than they hate Clinton.)
            When are these pundits going to rejoin the human race. Do they do anything - ANYTHING- except listen to themselves?
            I made a trip out west at the first of the year through areas that are supposedly anti-Clinton. I always made the polite statement: "I retired to Bill Clinton's home town. I don't want to hear it. I'm proud of him!"
            With ONE exception, dozens upon dozens of women AND men agreed with me, in fact, usually went on and on about how much they admired him.
            Especially blacks who know perfectly well who is their friend and who isn't.
            Too bad some women don't have the same radar.

Has anyone except me noticed the GREAT SILENCE from the feminist leaders since the announcement that the FDA may require a doctor's registry for those who dispense the abortion drug RU486?
            Why aren't women being mobilized to scream, yell, use political pressure to stop this unprecedented action that will certainly prevent most doctors from using RU486. A place on the registry will make a doctor fair game for the nut cases with guns who oppose abortion.

There is something VERY, VERY wrong with the leadership of the feminist organizations in this country.

One "leader" went on TV to push the sales of the political Barbie doll but can"t seem to do anything about the FDA ruling?

Another "leader" keeps sending out fund-raising letters in which the approval of RU486 is a primary goal but her organization doesn't seem to get much done about it... is she still a nun?

Although the leading feminist organizations seem to ignore the following bit of information, Catt's Claws has published it regular for the past SIX years:

Medical authorities are saying the use of two already approved drugs that induce abortions when used in combination has produced a surge in abortions but no one will realize it for several years because they are being prescribed quietly and in private in doctor's offices. [IZS note: the abortion rate has been falling in the U.S. for the past several years.]
            Dr. Richard U. Hausknecht of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York published a study of the use of the combination of methotrexate and misoprostol to induce abortion in the Aug. 31, 1995 the New England Journal of Medicine. In years past, several doctors, including a woman doctor released the same information and after the first news story, it was quietly ignored/suppressed.
            Catt's Claws vows this time the information will stay available.
            Methotrexate is FDA-approved for use against cancer; Misoprostol is FDA approved to treat ulcers. Because both are FDA-approved, they can be prescribed by physicians today and together, they produce abortions at a better rate than the RU-486 pill.
            Available today at your friendly M.D.
            Also available for many years and never brought to women's attention, the drugs that produced LEGAL abortions in women with ectopic pregnancies which could have been used just as well for "regular" abortions. It's now known as the morning after pill.

The correct FDA approved dosage for the morning after abortifacient is: 2 Wyeth's Ovral or 4 tablets of Wyeth's Nordette, Lo/Ovral or Triphasil or Berlex Laboratories Levlen or Tri-Levlen and then take the same, second dosage exactly 12 hours later. Nausea occurs in some cases. Vomiting, which is RARE, will prevent it from working so take an antiemetic (antinausea) medication such as Dramamine with the pills. This method must be used within 24-72 hours of the intercourse. Later than that a more complex method is necessary.

For further Emergency Contraception (EC or Morning After Pill) phone 1-800-584-9911. They are available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, and will refer you to the nearest place to get EC.
            EC has a website http://opr.princeton.edu/ec/ec.html. EC hotline has information about emergency contraception and have a directory of more that 1800 clinicians willing to prescribe emergency contraceptives.