The fact that Secretary Clinton thinks she deserves our vote simply because she is a female is sophomoric and belies her claim that she seeks to represent “all the people.” When a politician expects someone to vote for them just because of her gender or race, it demeans everyone in that particular category. Hillary and her “feminazis” — as the great Rush Limbaugh rightly calls them — do intelligent, thoughtful women a grave disservice when they demand our vote based on gender.

Do Secretary Clinton and her girls think that the hypocrisy of such a call to action escapes us? All the while advocating for such nonsense as gender neutral bathrooms and genderless showers and sports teams, they seek to capture an entire segment of the voting population based on gender alone. How absurd.

As if that weren’t putrid enough, the hypocrisy stench thickens: Hillary Clinton, the supposed champion of women, is perfectly willing to throw females under the bus when it is politically expedient to do so.

Consider: In the last debate, Secretary Clinton boldly praised China for ending its policy of “forced abortion,” a policy that has abused the bodies of and wreaked emotional and lasting havoc on millions of Chinese mothers. The media seems to have totally ignored the fact that China, although it recently loosened its “one child policy,” still forces and terrorizes women into aborting their children, particularly their little girls. Make no mistake: China still practices gendercide, with baby girls as their victims. As our former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is well aware of the terror, yet she chose to lie to the American people, abandoning the vulnerable females of China in the process. If Secretary Clinton truly championed “women’s rights,” she would have used both her previous position as Secretary and that high-profile debate stage to condemn China’s ongoing practice of forced abortions of a nation’s daughters.

And there’s more, as I outlined in a column earlier this week:

Consider: Secretary Clinton accepted at least $ 25 million from oppressive nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, where the laws and culture allow husbands to beat their wives. Women caught in adultery can be severely punished (the law still even allows for stoning); girls and women are treated like property; females are often denied an education and they can’t even enjoy some of the basic conveniences we take for granted, like driving a car. The list of atrocities goes on and on. Yet, Hillary is all smiles and greedy hands when it comes to accepting big bucks from foreign thugs. The fact that Mrs. Clinton eagerly pockets such blood money reveals just how hypocritical and crooked she really is. Cozying up to oppressors of women by a female who held the post of Secretary of State of the United States of America must feel like a stab in the heart to the women suffering under the regimes of Hillary’s brutal buddies. How much more anti-woman can the-woman-who-would-be-president be?

Consider: As a young lawyer eager to climb the professional ladder, Mrs. Clinton was willing to climb that ladder on the back of a 12-year-old girl who was violently raped and beaten. Mrs. Clinton agreed to side with the rapist over the child, and was not only successful in gaining an acquittal for the monster but is on video laughing about her client beating a lie detector test. Some might chalk this up to the fact that as a public defender Mrs. Clinton had to take the cases as they were assigned — but this isn’t so. If Mrs. Clinton really cared about the female child, she would have refused the case even if it meant seeking employment elsewhere. Saying “I was just following orders” hearkens back to the empty excuse used in the aftermath of a very tragic and repugnant time in world history. In Hillary’s world, I guess the message is that it’s okay to break the supposed “glass ceiling” with the body of a young girl if you have to.

Consider: In the final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton actually said she still supports late-term abortions, including the barbaric method known as “partial-birth abortion.” This, despite the fact that such a procedure harms the mothers, kills their full-term sons and daughters, and is never, ever medically necessary as Mrs. Clinton loudly claimed.

Let’s be clear about what partial-birth abortion is: A full-term baby is partially delivered up-side-down, feet first. The squirming baby’s head is left just inside the mother, with only the base of the neck showing. The abortionist then takes a pair of scissors, inserts it into the soft tissue at the back of the neck, and slices through the spinal column, severing it from the brain. All the while the “doctor” struggles to hold the now violently moving baby, trying not to drop the child lest the delivery be complete and a bloody, wounded baby fall to the floor. Finally, if the baby isn’t dead yet, a suction tube is inserted into the incision and pushed into the skull cavity — literally sucking out the baby’s brains.

Such a barbaric procedure is not only never necessary but incredibly dangerous and cruel to a mother who might be experiencing grave health issues due to pregnancy complications. In the rare instances where a woman’s life is in danger in the final months of her pregnancy, doctors can perform a C-Section, which is far less risky to the mom and preserves the lives of both the mother and the baby.

Given the medical realities, it must be said that the only reason to perform a partial-birth abortion is to kill the baby. Period. But Hillary didn’t reveal that, did she? Instead, on the debate stage in front of the entire world, she lied, once again. And, once again, it appears as if she got away with it.

So why does Secretary Clinton praise China, ignoring the desperate cries of the moms as their bodies are mauled and the lives of their baby girls snuffed out? Why does Hillary Clinton advocate for partial-birth and other late-term abortions that harm women and kill their nearly born babies? Why does she gleefully rejoice in her success at getting the violent rapist of a little girl “off” scot-free? Why does she accept money from nations that terrorize women and children, treating them as something less than human?

She does it because Secretary Clinton, at her core, believes that it is the almighty state that should determine who gets to live and who can be killed. Her policies have nothing to do with “women’s rights” and everything to do with a radical socialist agenda and government in which she wants to be top she-dog.

Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a power-hungry politician determined to replace individual liberty and the right to life — which are meant for both males and females to enjoy — with a system where the government is in absolute control. She is far more dangerous than Barack Obama because she discovered that she could operate with impunity as a private citizen and as secretary of state — so who will stop her as president? In her warped, presumptive and insulting view, certainly not the women of America who really want nothing more from life than a female president!