Support For Ron Paul on "Controversial" Sites: A Conspiracy?

I've had this growing feeling of discontent the past several months as I've watched the more controversial sites such as prison planet, rense and david icke publish article after article in support of Ron Paul. Why only Ron Paul? What about Dennis Kucinich, who has done far more in trying to end the war, pull us out of NAFTA and the WTO, abolish the patriot act, create national health care reform, and initiate impeachment proceedings than Paul can even touch. Kucinich has also spoken about aliens and Chemtrails (the subject which is greatly covered on these sites on a regular basis). Think Paul has even mentioned the "C" or "A" word?

These same sites have also published articles by folks who claim The Women's Movement/Feminism was created to destroy the family and that by our inherent nature, we women are created to tend to our children and spouses and home more than anything else and that, in and of itself, is what makes us happy--knowing our loved ones our happy. I can support the idea that it was funded in part by some elitists who wanted to see the destruction of the family, but the very idea that all those involved in its creation had that same agenda is ridiculous.

Feminism. The radical idea that women are people, too.

Yep. That's a bad thing for society for sure.

It's highly insulting for these men to be blaming the rise of female power for the problems our families are facing. It's ridiculous to also assume such problems didn't exist back in the days of the more traditional roles. They were there. They just weren't discussed. They were too busy being stuffed behind the smiles of Ward and June and that "everything is just fine" mentality. Back in the glory days of the 1950's, we had molestation, we had verbal abuse, emotional neglect. Through human evolution, we have become more comfortable in discussing these problems and bringing them to light.

I remember reading an article by Harry Makow (the guy who created Scrooples). He's all over the place with his ridiculous views on homosexuality and feminism. And it's too bad because his other ideas about the NWO are very interesting reads, very well thought out. This one article I read spoke about the awfuls and evils of feminism and how his wife, even though she works outside the home, is happiest when she's taking care of the house and his needs.

Ok, so maybe she thinks she is. But I'd say this is more due to CONDITIONING than any real truth that is hers and hers alone. Happiness is a strange thing indeed. However, women have needs as well and females are, overall, taught that our needs must come second to those of our family. Feminism set out, in part, to break that tradition and encourage women to really tune in and ask "what makes me happy?"

You gotta question the woman who, when asked "What do you need to be happy?" says "First and foremost, for my family to be happy." Why do you think when these women find their children have left the home and/or their spouses leave them for another woman, they don't know what to do with themselves? My mom went through this. She is finally, after reaching her senior years, learning to put herself first in her life. It's been a struggle, but I have always encouraged her to find what makes her happy and then do it.

I've written these sites on numerous occasions, expressing my concerns over this crazed attention for Ron Paul (while neglecting Kucinich) and his supposed support of freedom and liberty, claiming he wants the Federal Government to stay out of the abortion issue but then wants to have national legislation that states life begins at conception. I've expressed my concerns over this backlash against the women's movement and homosexuality and this frightening support for seeing women return to the home and hearth, tending to the needs of their families.

Not once have I received a response.

These male authors and male site owners are largely in their late 50's and 60's. Do they wish to see a return to the 1950's or something where women had no place out in the working world (except as a customer)? Do they really believe that women are so simplistic and one-dimensional that our primary goal for happiness should be to have children, a husband and take care of the lot?

Seems that way to me. And it bothers me greatly. Hence I've begun to doubt some of the information I read on these sites. We all have our own motivation and agenda when we blog. I just wish these guys would state theirs. I sense some darker agenda at work where they wish to put in place the principles of freedom but at the same time, see the more traditional roles put into place again: mom, dad, suzie and johnny. Evolution doesn't work like that. Our definition of family is changing and expanding. How can that be a bad thing?