I am not sure whether Talk Show Hosts Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage coined the above word to describe the militant women’s movement ‘spokespersons’.   It was clearly a very apt word because it has caught on and become part of our political language. Not only is it truly descriptive, it infuriates the Feminazis themselves, a sure sign that it is spot-on. So neat a word is it that we use it without thinking too much about why it is so telling.

The other night on Fox News I watched a Feminazi in action. The Show was a Saturday night ‘Geraldo at Large’ program. I rarely watch Geraldo Rivera because he is the least impressive of the Fox hosts/reporters. He is not a conservative! That is certain. I think Fox acquired him to strengthen its Latino appeal, for he is a lightweight on a Channel that has many heavyweights that include the impressive Bill O’Reilly, Greta Van Susteren and the baby-faced Sean Hannity. Geraldo looks like a man who spends a lot of time preening himself in front of the mirror. I envy the man his hair but he is a poor interviewer and alone amongst the Fox team he lets the guests get away without answering the question. He likes to be liked by the celebrities and politicians.

On this particular Saturday night he was covering the current election contest between Obama and the Clintons and the three guest commentators included Geraldine Ferraro. Ferraro, a former member of the House of Representatives, was the Democrat Party’s Vice-Presidential candidate in the 1984 general election. She and Walter Mondale were defeated by Ronald Reagan and George Bush. She later ran for the Senate but lost twice. Based in New York, where she once practiced law and was involved in UN affairs (what else! All pols who want to govern us are lawyers!), Ferraro is definitely a Democrat Party insider. I have no doubt that she is a super-delegate. She also happens to be one of the authors of the arcane super-delegate system that was introduced by the Party back in the 1980’s. This system is now becoming a public relations liability for the Democrat Party because it looks as though it might enable the Party insiders to ignore the grass-roots voters. For the first time since the super-delegates were empowered, the current contest may be so close at the end that the super delegates get to make the final choice. It also looks, at this moment, as though the trailing candidate at the end might be the anointed Mrs. Clinton. It is impossible to ponder this super-delegate situation without having Clinton in mind, because it transpires that Ferraro helped devise the system so that Party insiders could overcome the popular vote in the event that an unsuitable candidate had reached the Convention with the most grass-roots delegates.

Ferraro was asked by Geraldo to explain why the system was introduced and she referred to the candidature of George McGovern. Although she didn’t explicitly say so, her answer suggested that McGovern’s nominee victory and subsequent devastating loss in the General Election, had convinced Party insiders that the Party elite (I think she described them as those with experience and wisdom and the good of the Party at heart) needed to have a device for setting aside the popular will. She was unapologetic about the device. She also made it clear that she is a Clinton supporter! This was no surprise, for her whole professional life has been spent on ‘women’s issues’.

There is no doubt that the Democrat contest is shaping up to be tight at the end with Obama going into the Convention with a majority of delegates from the primaries, but not enough to overcome the super-delegates’ vote. The super-delegates have no obligation to represent the popular vote, indeed their intended role, according to Ferraro, is to set aside the popular voice and allow the Party great and good to make the choice. I stress again that Ferraro was in no way embarrassed or defensive about this. Indeed she could not be silenced as she revealed an ability to take over the discussion, change the topic to one that suited her and talk without taking breath. Some saxophone players, notably the great Roland Kirk, perfected the art of circular breathing and it enabled them to play continuously without pausing for breath. One drawback to this technique was that it left no time for reflection. Ferraro, has clearly mastered the art of circular breathing! She does not need to reflect either.

Geraldo was no match for Ferraro. Perhaps he is on the same wave-length and was more than happy to hand his Show over to her. More likely, as a man he was incapable of challenging such a woman. But Geraldo had a sidekick, a Latino-looking woman, who was described as a Fox analyst. I have never seen her before, but I was impressed. In sharp contrast to Ferraro, she was both vivacious and cheerful and she had some searching questions to ask. Was it not a kind of cheating on the part of the Clintons and their supporters to now press for the rules of the game to be changed over the votes of Michigan and Florida? Surely all candidates knew the score when they agreed not to campaign in those States after the DNC ruling? Hadn’t Obama and Edwards abided by the agreement, whilst the Clintons had ignored it?

One might have supposed that anyone with a sense of integrity and fair play, and in front of a TV camera, would be hard pressed to defend the indefensible, but not Ferraro! She has the Feminazi technique of not only ignoring questions that are not to her liking but of appearing to be incensed that they have even been put. She was also not above rewriting history as she insisted that the Clintons had abided by the agreement and that it was simply the popular will that had handed Mrs. Clinton victories in both States. Moreover, these voters must not be denied their voice and the DNC would be perfectly justified in changing the rules now. Geraldo chastised his analyst for badgering Mrs. Ferraro for a straight answer.

Everything about Mrs. Ferraro tells me that she is a Feminazi. The close-cropped straight gray hair, the completely humorless manner, the air of cold suppressed anger and the lack of any femininity are the hallmarks of the militant feminist. I am sure there are similar women in every college teaching Women’s History and other ‘Women’s’ subjects. Despite the best efforts of the Fox analyst, Ferraro gave not an inch and managed to make unstoppable speeches without answering any specific question. It is clear that such women in the Democratic Party are all for Mrs. Clinton and they will stop at nothing to hand her victory. The rules are whatever they require for that victory and they will rant non-stop when challenged. These are the women who have been able to stay stubbornly silent over the many well-substantiated Bill Clinton abuses of vulnerable women whilst being outraged over the unsubstantiated Clarence Thomas accusation. These are the women who are outraged that anyone might question the murder of an 8-month old child (‘fetus’) because of a woman’s right to choose. When it comes to the crunch, these women have no sympathy for a Black Man and will do whatever it takes to deny him a victory over one of their own.

In the sleepless early hours I have gone over the Ferraro experience again, for I find such people deeply disturbing. The cold fanaticism justifies the term Feminazi. But two other words also come to mind and you will now read them for the first time. ‘Feminatic’ is surely appropriate for their fanaticism. I think too that the ability to boldly ignore facts and to lack shame over such intellectual dishonesty in public debate justifies the new word ‘Feminopath’, for there is something psychopathic in the arrogant ability to elevate personal rage above truth and reality. I do not believe that most women who describe themselves as feminists are Feminazis, Feminatics or Feminopaths. There is much historical justification for the rise of the ‘Women’s Movement’, for women have been denied justice in the past. Mostly this has been down to biological necessity in times when human survival was at stake. Modern society and its technology and increased human opportunity has led to women’s demands for fair play in the workplace and in political life. Most of those demands have been met. There is room for ongoing debate and political negotiation on such matters. But debate and negotiation require a willingness to honor truth and to uphold fair play. Just as it is impossible to negotiate with Islamic Imperialists and with Communists (the ends justify the means), so it is impossible to negotiate and debate with feminatic, feminopath, feminazis.

The results from Wisconsin and Hawaii tomorrow will provide further pointers as to the outcome, but Obama looks poised for more success. The conflict between the two candidates is sharpening fast and the gloves seem to be off. Conservatives can, for a while, enjoy the spectacle and observe how the Clinton gang operates. The latest dirt about Obama is surfacing with accusations from a man who claims to have taken cocaine and had homosexual sex with him. Obama does not look to me like a man who has been having sex with degenerates but he should expect such accusations to surface. These smear campaigns have been par for the course for conservatives for a long time and it is fascinating to see them now being employed in a Democrat internal Party contest. Obama is also being accused by the Clinton campaign of plagiarisation in his use of the concept of ‘hope’ in his speeches. If Obama survives the Clinton war room tactics, he faces a DNC change of rules in order that Mrs. Clinton benefits from the Michigan and Florida votes and ultimately Ferraro’s super delegates. He will need much stamina and luck and I stick to my forecast that the Clintons will win by fair means and foul. The latest Media line is that Mrs. Clinton is suffering from the greatest and most deep-rooted of all prejudices. It seems that anti-woman prejudice trumps racial prejudice every time, according to experts who are now busy exploring why she is not winning. How can this be in the liberal Democrat Party that is dominated by women like Geraldine Ferraro? If anyone dares to ask that question of her it will not be answered, I can guarantee.

Last week in Palm Beach, Florida, Movie producer Sidney Kimmel put his ocean-front mansion up for sale for the paltry sum of $81.5 million. Billionaire Mr. Kimmel, who produced ”The Kite Runner” and “Lars and the Real Girl” also owns a $40m Malibu home and apartments in LA and New York.

As we always note on this website, the ruling Media Class is getting richer all the time. It was gratifying to see that the classy Heather Mills, as part of her settlement, has to keep her mouth shut in future. Her prize was to grab a small slice of billionaire Paul McCartney’s hard-earned stash. But of course, with his child to care for, she will need every penny of the $200 million settlement. History suggests that she will find it hard to keep to that agreement. She has much in common with Mrs. Ferraro and Mrs. Clinton, in that rules, voluntarily entered into, need not be respected if they become burdensome. On this website we have little sympathy for McCartney the lightly talented warbler and guitar strummer. If any visitor to this site thinks I am being unfair to Beetle Paul, I suggest a listen to any of the following real guitar players – Wes Montgomery, Les Paul, Charlie Christian, Barney Kessel, Chuck Wayne, George Benson, Stanley Jordan, Tal Farlow, Jimmy Raney, Herb Ellis, Jim Hall and Kenny Burrell. I’ll stop here as the rollcall of great players is almost endless. None wound up as billionaires, I can assure you, but then, they were talented!

Our previous spoof about the next Democrat Party Conference was not a radical-and-right original but we cannot give credit to the author, as we do not know who it was. Mr. Radical did make a few brilliant additions. Can you spot them?

What's Your Opinion?