Saturday, November 12, 2016

My response to an article at the Huffington Post

This is my response to I Am Gay. I Will Not Be Tortured Again. The author brings up that he was persecuted by an anti-gay society. I am seeing a society that treats homosexual males better than heterosexual men. Gay males do not face false accusations of rape unlike their heterosexual brethren whom are basically condemned without a trial. The author of this article did not mention violence against gay males. There have been violent attacks against heterosexual men falsely accused of rape as well as threats of violence. If you don't believe me ask the Duke lacrosse boys. Also homosexuals of both genders are a protected group unlike the white heterosexual man who has been attacked from the Obama Whitehouse to a Democrat leftist Congress to a widely misandric society that view him as fair game. This society is held hostage by political correctness which is very political but not very correct. According to the Politically Correct (PC) beliefs gays of both genders,blacks,women and other groups other than heterosexual white males are beautiful creatures while heterosexual white males are the devils from hell. Gay males certainly didn't speak up for those heterosexual men being persecuted by rabid feminists,usually with no evidence to their guilt. The people at the Huffington Post are upset Trump won. That is understandable because we at the Men's Rights Blog would be upset if Hillary had won. Let's go with that,under a Hillary Clinton regime heterosexual men would be at the bottom of the totem pole and very marginalized. Somehow if Hillary had won and that scenario were to become a reality I would not expect gay males to lift a finger to stop it. They haven't before so don't look for them to do it now. You would have gloated over our loss so suck it.

Friday, November 11, 2016

Female Clinton Supporters Are Left Feeling Gutted

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — It was visceral. Women felt gutted, shocked, appalled, afraid. The prospect of celebrating the election of the nation’s first female president had been crushed by Donald J. Trump.

In this liberal enclave, where Mrs. Clinton won 89.2 percent of the vote, one of her strongest showings anywhere, Molly Hubner, 33, said she was having difficulty explaining the result to her 6-year-old daughter.

Pushing her young son in a stroller as she jogged down a leaf-covered sidewalk, Ms. Hubner said, “We had told her that he wouldn’t be a good president because he’s not very kind and just cares about himself.”

Women across the country who supported Mrs. Clinton are just starting to process their feelings about the long roller coaster ride that in their view ended in disaster.

The shock they feel that a man whom they describe as sexist, misogynistic and boorish was elected has overshadowed some of their grief about Mrs. Clinton’s loss. Like so many of the other rivals in his path, they say, the most famous woman in the world has been reduced to one more piece of collateral damage.

Really,are you aware of what Hillary had in store for men if she had won? Go Trump/Pence.

And these feelings have morphed into a genuine sense of foreboding.

“I woke up in a strange country,” said Jill Laurie Goodman, a lawyer who lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. “I’m about Hillary’s age. I went to law school about the same time she did, coming out of the antiwar and civil rights movement.”

She had believed that society was moving forward, Ms. Goodman said. And yet, “I woke up yesterday feeling as if everything I thought 45 years ago was wrong, that I had just gotten it wrong.”

Yeah,basically. You are way off.

In Berkeley, Calif., Hope Friedman, a 62-year-old retired nurse, said she was also stunned by the result.

“I was a big Hillary supporter, but I am not in love with Hillary the way I was with Obama,” she said of the president. “My motivation for being active in the campaign was much more about being terrified of a guy that says and does the things that Trump has said and does.”
As she described her reaction to Mr. Trump’s victory, she wept.

We're going to give you lots grief,bitch. I suggest you get used to it real quick.

“It kind of felt like being punched in the stomach,” she said. “It feels like when you get a cancer diagnosis and you are sick to your stomach and you can’t believe it and your mind is spinning.”

Sally Waldron, 69, an adult educator here in Cambridge, finds that her sorrow is rooted more in the dread she feels about a man with attitudes like Mr. Trump’s becoming president than it is borne of Mrs. Clinton’s loss.

“Part of me thinks this should be about the first woman losing,” Ms. Waldron said as she watched her grandson play in a sandlot.

Do you know what Hillary had in store for your grandson? A school environment that is hostile to boys. That includes higher learning in colleges and universities. She would back any woman making an accusation against your grandson and deny him due process rights and the right to have a real judge and jury preside over his case not a bunch of college kids that may be friends with the accuser or are influenced by her.

“I would have loved if she was the first woman president, but that’s not where the disappointment is for me,” she said. “The disappointment is in the values that won and what it means for lots of people.”

Being a man won. Not being a mangina won. That is great.

Even in the more conservative South, Clinton supporters expressed the same kind of disappointment and dread.

“I’m horrified because I have two daughters,” Kelly Cobb, 40, said as she bought slices of cake near Emory University in Atlanta.

Ms. Cobb, a stay-at-home mother, said she believed that Mr. Trump had managed to define Mrs. Clinton in the public imagination as a criminal, and that he had benefited from gender stereotypes.

How often have women benefitted from gender stereotypes? A lot. They use false female nature to get out of responsibility (women are kind stereotype. Women are sweet stereotype.)Beneficial sexism helps women get rights without responsibilities. They have no problem with this type of sexism.

“I think there’s huge disdain for her because she’s a woman, but she’s also been in politics for a long time,” said Ms. Cobb, who also said she was uncertain what Mrs. Clinton’s defeat signaled for other women seeking office.

“I don’t know if it’s Hillary Clinton and who she is, but I have to think it does have something to do with the fact that she’s a woman,” she said. “People are just unaccepting of that and judge her to a much higher standard than they would a white male.”

Or we didn't want a misandrist in the White House. Did you think of that?

Women did not turn out for Mrs. Clinton in the numbers that her campaign expected, said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. The electorate was 52 percent female, slightly lower than the normal 53 percent. She was strongly supported by white, college-educated women, black women and Latina women, but white, blue-collar women and white, non-college-educated women sided heavily with Mr. Trump.

Her failed bid raises the question about whether Mrs. Clinton’s experience will discourage other women. Did she break a barrier, or did she inadvertently reveal how high that barrier is?
Women began entering government in bigger numbers in the 1970s, but any rush has stalled. The number of women in Congress is about 19 percent. Research has shown that women are such a minority in government not because they are less likely to win — they are just as likely, over all — but because they are so much less likely to run in the first place.

Political scientists say this so-called ambition gap is because women are less likely to be encouraged or recruited to run, underestimate their own abilities, assume they need to be more qualified than men and view politics as sexist.

Now, Mrs. Clinton’s loss may lend credence to those doubts.

“Because there was general consensus on both sides of the aisle that she was the most qualified presidential candidate we’ve ever seen, and she lost, it reinforces the notion that maybe it’s not even enough to be twice as good to get half as far,” said Jennifer L. Lawless, professor of government at American University who studies gender and political ambition.
Caroline Elkins, 47, a professor of history at Harvard, said she was profoundly disappointed and could not separate the outcome from Mrs. Clinton’s gender.

“To think that gender wasn’t a factor would be ludicrous,” she said. “You’d be hard-pressed to find someone more qualified than Hillary Clinton, in my view, and yet she was scrutinized above and beyond any male candidate we’ve ever seen.”

You mean the same media that paints Trump as a racist,a rapist and an ogre. That mainstream media. The same media that covered for Hillary. In fact Donna Brazille emailed Hillary the questions they were going to ask in advance.

That Mrs. Clinton’s flaws were “thrown into a hyperbolic relief,” she said, suggests that being highly qualified for the job was not enough, that a woman still has to be “twice as good and half as threatening” as a man to succeed.

Then why did Trump have to work overtime to calm women down and not to let their fears get the best of them?

Ms. Friedman, the retired nurse in Berkeley, who made phone calls on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, was convinced that gender was a factor.

“I underestimated the level of misogyny in the country,” she said. “Which is surprising, because usually I see it where it’s not.” But during her calls, she was sometimes met with crude responses.

“I forget how much people hate women,” she said.

Could it be due to the misandry that comes from women at the expense of men. Could it be due to the special treatment women demand or they call you a misogynist.

Mary Jane Judy, 35, a lawyer in Kansas City, Mo., said Mrs. Clinton lost more because of herself than because she is a woman.

“I think the baggage with her as Hillary Clinton over the course of the years was just stuff that people couldn’t get past,” she said. “I’ve heard people say, ‘Anybody but Hillary.’”
In Belfast, Me., Anita Zeno, an innkeeper on the pristine Atlantic Coast, knew Mrs. Clinton had flaws. But when she voted, she felt a rush.

“I was surprised at how good it felt to be voting for a woman,” said Ms. Zeno, 70.
But on Thursday, as Ms. Zeno examined the shallots in a farm store and cafe, her eyes welled with tears at the very mention of Mrs. Clinton’s defeat. She was worried about the country, the fate of the Affordable Care Act and climate change.

There is no climate change. The Affordable Care Act is not so affordable.

And one more thing.

“At my age, it’s now likely I’ll never see a woman elected president,” Ms. Zeno said. “And that really mattered to me.”


My rights matter to me and I don't want some misandrist taking them away.

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Mary N. Kellet wants immunity from her crimes

Contact: Christopher Perry
Telephone: 301-801-0608
ACLU, Defense Attorneys File Brief Challenging Immunity Protections for Investigative Misconduct by Former Prosecutor
WASHINGTON / November 4, 2016 – Three criminal justice organizations have filed an Amicus Curiae Brief with the First Circuit Court of Appeals opposing the claim of a former prosecutor that she should enjoy absolute immunity for her misconduct that included tampering with exculpatory evidence in a sexual assault case. The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Maine Foundation, and the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed the Brief on October 5, 2016.
The case revolves around the actions of former prosecutor Mary Kellett during a 2007 trial of Vladek Filler, wrongfully accused of sexually assaulting his wife in the midst of a child custody dispute. Filler was eventually cleared or exonerated on all charges (1). He later sued Kellett alleging defamation and malicious prosecution.
Kellett advised three law enforcement officers to disregard subpoenas to disclose evidence to the defense attorney. More troubling, complainant Ligia Filler had admitted on tape that her rape allegations were her way of “fighting for the children.” This portion of the tape was edited out before it was handed over to the defense. Kellett “engaged in or supported and approved of, the tampering of evidence by selectively editing a videotaped interview and redacting the exculpatory portions of the recording that were given to the defense,” according to the Brief.
Ex-prosecutor Kellett previously admitted to these actions and was professionally sanctioned (2). The question now before the court is whether these unethical actions should be protected by the doctrine of absolute immunity.
Kellett’s actions are consistent with an investigative approach often referred to as “victim-centered.” This method instructs investigators to “start by believing” the accuser’s statements (3); to hand “control of the process back to the victim” and allow the complainant “to request certain investigative steps not be conducted”(4); and to assume that “all sexual assault cases are valid unless established otherwise by investigative findings.” (5)
A hearing on the case will be held this coming Monday, November 7, 2016 in Boston. The Brief is available online (6). The case has attracted national media attention (7).

Citations at Source site.