By Melissa Daniels
Law360, Los Angeles (November 3, 2017, 9:05 PM EDT) -- California prosecutors have new ethical guidelines to abide by after the California Supreme Court signed off on state bar rules requiring them to inform defense counsel of discovery and exculpatory evidence in more cases as an attempt to address prosecutorial misconduct.
The California Supreme Court signed an order Thursday that approves an amendment to the State Bar of California’s Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 5-110.
The new language says prosecutors must "make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the offense or mitigate the sentence," except when the court grants them a protective order when the prosecutor thinks the disclosure of the evidence could result in substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest. The rules are effective immediately.
“Prosecutors must be held to a high standard to ensure public trust in the justice system and to protect defendants and their rights,” Leah Wilson, executive director of the State Bar of California, said in a statement.
The amendment to Rule 5-110 was made as part of a broader overhaul to the California State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct, the first of its kind since the 1980s. The California Supreme Court had allowed the state bar to send in updates to the prosecutorial ethics rules on an expedited basis compared to the rest of its rule updates.
Prior updates were approved to Rule 5-110 in May, but the court sent back the provision about the ethical disclosure obligations for further revision. The state bar’s board of trustees returned a revised version in August.
Michael Ogul, a board member and past president of the California Public Defenders Association, wrote a letter to members Thursday to announce the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the amendment. The group had supported the change and actively pushed for it by writing letters and testifying before the Rules Revision Commission and state bar’s board of trustees, publishing columns in legal newspapers and having members submit public comments.
“Prosecutors will no longer be able to shirk their disclosure obligations by rationalizing that the exculpatory information doesn’t matter,” Ogul said in the letter. “Instead, they will now be subject to discipline any time they fail to disclose exculpatory information.”
Ogul, who is a deputy public defender in Santa Clara County, told Law360 that the net effect of the new rule will be that California prosecutors must abide by the laws of disclosure or else face professional discipline. Prior to this change, some prosecutors could have withheld evidence that they didn’t think would make a material difference to the case, he said.
“I’m not saying they don’t all the time, I’m not saying they don’t a majority of the time, but I am saying that scores, if not hundreds of prosecutors, at least on occasion, fail to turn over exculpatory information that they are required to turn over under California law,” Ogul said. “And this rule is designed to put that to a stop.”
The new prosecutorial ethics rules are in sync with the American Bar Association Model Rule 3.8. Ogul said this rule is already in play in 49 others states and California was the last to adopt a version of it.
A representative for the California District Attorneys Association didn’t immediately return a request for comment Friday.
Source
Saturday, November 25, 2017
I found this interesting
I was reading about the death of Thomas Doheny and I found this comment from a poster with the screen name "nomoremaxistsinDC"who claims to seen the inside of the family court racket and he posted the following:
Did you know that the more monies awarded, collected and enforced by the courts, is rewarded by the federal government with child support enforcement funding of 66 cents-$3.00 for every dollar awarded, collected and enforced? See Title 42 USC Sections 651-669 (Federal Child Support Enforcement Act), specifically 42 USC Section 666 showing how its done. Read specifically 42 USC Section 658a which is called the Federal Reimbursement Incentive to the States. It shows that the states receive billions from the Feds for support collections and enforcement. The more money they can extort from parents, the more money the state makes. If a state like Illinois collects $1 BILLION in child support (including enforcement and collection costs) they stand to receive $3 BILLION from the Feds (US TAXPAYERS!!!!!!). The federal statutes say that the states can use the money any way they see fit. It doesn't go to the children, but to help try and balance the state employee pensions. And, who are the first people paid out of state employee pensions???? Judges, child support workers, law enforcement, politicians!!!!!!
The US Supreme Court in Tumey v. Ohio, Ward v. Monroeville, Caperton vs. Massey, etc. have said that judges sitting on cases where they have a financial interest in the outcome of those cases, must disqualify/recuse themselves for unconstitutional conflicts of interest, otherwise it is fraud and extortion and their orders are nullified.
Did you know that the more monies awarded, collected and enforced by the courts, is rewarded by the federal government with child support enforcement funding of 66 cents-$3.00 for every dollar awarded, collected and enforced? See Title 42 USC Sections 651-669 (Federal Child Support Enforcement Act), specifically 42 USC Section 666 showing how its done. Read specifically 42 USC Section 658a which is called the Federal Reimbursement Incentive to the States. It shows that the states receive billions from the Feds for support collections and enforcement. The more money they can extort from parents, the more money the state makes. If a state like Illinois collects $1 BILLION in child support (including enforcement and collection costs) they stand to receive $3 BILLION from the Feds (US TAXPAYERS!!!!!!). The federal statutes say that the states can use the money any way they see fit. It doesn't go to the children, but to help try and balance the state employee pensions. And, who are the first people paid out of state employee pensions???? Judges, child support workers, law enforcement, politicians!!!!!!
The US Supreme Court in Tumey v. Ohio, Ward v. Monroeville, Caperton vs. Massey, etc. have said that judges sitting on cases where they have a financial interest in the outcome of those cases, must disqualify/recuse themselves for unconstitutional conflicts of interest, otherwise it is fraud and extortion and their orders are nullified.
Thursday, November 23, 2017
Comments policy
Do me a favor. Do everyone a favor and stop spamming my blog. If you want to comment on a particular post that is fine but don't spam my blog. Whoever is doing it just know this: your bullshit is not going to be published so you are wasting your time. If you have a serious comment to make fine. If you disagree with me fine but don't spam my blog.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
'No stained garment, no smoking gun, nothing,': Cosby juror explains why he wasn't convinced by the plaintiff
One of the jurors in Bill Cosby's trial said that he did not find the accusation of rape convincing because the accuser had worn a bare midriff and had no "stained garment" to show.
Last December, famed comedian Bill Cosby was charged with three counts of aggravated indecent assault in relation to allegations that he drugged and molested Canadian basketball player Andrea Constand in 2004.
On June 17, the judge in Cosby's case declared a mistrial after the 12-person jury spent six days and more than 50 hours trying to decide whether Cosby was guilty or innocent of sexual assault. Once the case went public, more than 60 women have come forward with similar accusations of sexual assault against the comedian.
"She was well-coached," the juror, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Inquirer and The Daily News. "Let’s face it: She went up to his house with a bare midriff and incense and bath salts. What the heck?"
The juror then added that Cosby had already "paid dearly" with his ruined reputation and should not be made to go through another trial. That said, he still refused to say whether he wanted to find Cosby guilty or innocent.
The juror also said that, at one point, 10 out of the 12 jurors believed Cosby was guilty before three jurors changed their minds and the judge had to announce a mistrial. Throughout the deliberations, jurors had difficulty with legal terms such as "reckless" and "severely impaired," with the juror adding that the language describing the counts of assault was "too legal."
Even though Cosby's defense lawyer spent just six minutes to say that the relationship was consensual, the juror still said that he found Cosby more convincing than the prosecution, which spent five days laying out extensive evidence from the police, legal experts and Constand herself.
He said that Constand should have only seen Cosby at his home if "she was dressed properly and left the incense in the store" and was influenced to go to push forward on the trial years later by her mother.
"No stained garment, no smoking gun, nothing," he said, adding that you could draw little from evidence from decades ago.
He further added that the accusations of 60 women who have since come forward with similar accusations had played no role in his deliberations — he thought many of them made up their claims to get attention.
“This is ridiculous, unbelievable,” he said. “I think more than half jumped on the bandwagon."
While the courthouse said that he was proud of having done his civic duty, he does not plan on paying attention if there is a second trial.
"They should’ve left it closed," he said.
Source
Last December, famed comedian Bill Cosby was charged with three counts of aggravated indecent assault in relation to allegations that he drugged and molested Canadian basketball player Andrea Constand in 2004.
On June 17, the judge in Cosby's case declared a mistrial after the 12-person jury spent six days and more than 50 hours trying to decide whether Cosby was guilty or innocent of sexual assault. Once the case went public, more than 60 women have come forward with similar accusations of sexual assault against the comedian.
"She was well-coached," the juror, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Inquirer and The Daily News. "Let’s face it: She went up to his house with a bare midriff and incense and bath salts. What the heck?"
The juror then added that Cosby had already "paid dearly" with his ruined reputation and should not be made to go through another trial. That said, he still refused to say whether he wanted to find Cosby guilty or innocent.
The juror also said that, at one point, 10 out of the 12 jurors believed Cosby was guilty before three jurors changed their minds and the judge had to announce a mistrial. Throughout the deliberations, jurors had difficulty with legal terms such as "reckless" and "severely impaired," with the juror adding that the language describing the counts of assault was "too legal."
Even though Cosby's defense lawyer spent just six minutes to say that the relationship was consensual, the juror still said that he found Cosby more convincing than the prosecution, which spent five days laying out extensive evidence from the police, legal experts and Constand herself.
He said that Constand should have only seen Cosby at his home if "she was dressed properly and left the incense in the store" and was influenced to go to push forward on the trial years later by her mother.
"No stained garment, no smoking gun, nothing," he said, adding that you could draw little from evidence from decades ago.
He further added that the accusations of 60 women who have since come forward with similar accusations had played no role in his deliberations — he thought many of them made up their claims to get attention.
“This is ridiculous, unbelievable,” he said. “I think more than half jumped on the bandwagon."
While the courthouse said that he was proud of having done his civic duty, he does not plan on paying attention if there is a second trial.
"They should’ve left it closed," he said.
Source
Friday, September 29, 2017
Campuses Cautious As They Adjust To New Sexual Assault Guidelines
New federal guidelines for handling allegations of sexual assault are prompting a range of reactions from school administrators. While many are expressing concerns and vowing to maintain current policy, others are breathing a sigh of relief or scratching their heads in confusion.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos officially rescinded Obama-era rules last week, replacing them with interim guidelines, until new permanent rules can be implemented. The Department of Education's new "Q&A on Campus Sexual Misconduct" may change everything from how much evidence should be required to prove allegations to how accused students can cross-examine witnesses.
Universities are "scrambling right now" to figure out what it all means, says Kristi Branham, associate professor and director of gender and women's studies at Western Kentucky University, who serves on a committee that works on education, training and awareness around sexual assault. "This is a tricky area."
"We're reading the new guidance carefully," says Kathleen Salvaty, systemwide Title IX coordinator for the University of California. "I definitely have some questions."
For example, Salvaty says that according to the new guidance, applying "special procedures" in sexual misconduct cases "suggests a discriminatory purpose, and should be avoided."
"I'm not sure what that means," Salvaty says. Schools have lots of special procedures for sexual misconduct cases, she says, precisely because they are different from cases of plagiarism, for example. And many of those are required by federal regulations. Schools are also unclear whether new language in the new guidance means that Title IX rules would no longer apply off campus — at a fraternity, for example.
"That is causing some concern and confusion," Salvaty says. "We're just not sure what to do."
Others have raised concerns that the new interim guidance contradicts a 2001 directive that was not among those rescinded by DeVos. John Clune, an attorney with Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC, says "the whole purpose of the 2001 guidance is that grievance procedures be prompt and equitable." But, he says, the new guidance removes time limits on investigations, allows schools to offer an appeal option exclusively to accused students, and permits schools to raise the evidentiary bar from "preponderance of the evidence" to a "clear and convincing" standard, making allegations harder to prove.
"That discriminates against complainants," Clune says. "It certainly undermines the concept ... that the proceedings be prompt and equitable."
Many schools say they are also confused by mixed signals on whether schools can try informal resolution methods, like mediation; the new guidance allows it, but the 2001 guidance bars it.
Skidmore College sociology professor David Karp says he hopes it signals a new opportunity for an alternative process he has been promoting known as restorative justice, a nonadversarial model that focuses on a victim's healing, and how offenders can contribute to that. Schools have refrained from trying the idea for fear it would be seen as a form of mediation.
"I do think this is a green light that hasn't existed before," Karp says. He cautions that more guidance and training is needed, because "if badly implemented, [RJ] can backfire and cause further harm." But "I think schools will feel like they have more latitude to explore this as an additional option," he says.
Oklahoma Wesleyan University is one school feeling freed up by DeVos' decision to rescind the Obama-era guidance, which OKWU President Everett Piper calls "nothing short of a disaster."
Last year, the university sued the Department of Education, arguing that those guidelines resulted in a "growing number of innocent students being trampled [by the] 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach."
Piper says he is relieved now that OKWU will no longer feel pressure to "compromise ... students' rights" and can now "operate ... without threat of government intrusion and overreach." But OKWU has not yet announced any specific change in policies or practices.
Indeed, most schools appear to be holding off on any immediate action. Officials from schools including Harvard, Cornell, the University of Missouri and the University of Michigan say they are still reviewing the new guidance to see what, if any, changes need to be made. And many more have announced they are simply staying the course.
"All of us are continuing as usual," says Sarah Berg, deputy Title IX coordinator of prevention, training and outreach at the University of Colorado, Denver and the Anschutz Medical Campus.
A letter to the Yale University community says the school has "no plans to deviate" from current Obama-era policies. California State University, Northridge says "Regardless of this new DOE action ... we will not waver in our commitment to Title IX and its protections." Similarly, Washington University in St. Louis says "regardless of decisions at the federal level, we have no intention of turning back on our commitment or resolve."
While that kind of resolve is reassuring to some, it's frustrating to others.
"It is disappointing, but not surprising," says Joe Cohn, legislative and policy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a group that has criticized previous policies as unfair to the accused. Many schools see the new guidance as "designed to go back to the Stone Age," he says. "But really this is about an adjustment to make sure that both sides' needs are met, because that wasn't happening before."
Attorney Andrew Miltenberg of Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP, who represents dozens of accused students, says the "pushback" from universities is unfortunate. "It's a stubborn 'we're still going to do it our way,' " he says.
While the interim guidance is technically just a recommendation, not a binding rule, Miltenberg says schools that stick to old policies do so at their own peril. He says DeVos' recent comments, and her decision to rescind the old guidance, will be a big boost to accused students' lawsuits.
"It's a significant acknowledgement that there is a problem in [that] process," says Miltenberg. "It's a great thing to say to a judge that 'before last week, you didn't have to believe that there might be inherent bias throughout the process, but now those arguments carry much more weight. The secretary of the Department of Education publicly announced those very things.' "
Miltenberg rejects the notion that the new guidance causes chaos or confusion, or even what he calls the "false hysteria" that the new guidance represents a setback for rape victims.
"This constant refrain is an attempt to create a ... big lie," he says. "It's like if you say it loud enough and often enough, people will believe it."
Ultimately, Miltenberg says, real change will require not only new policies but also a shift in who is administering them on campuses.
"The reality is that most of the people that I've come in contact with as part of any school's Title IX apparatus have some sort of victimcentric view, or previous work history, or something in their lives that I think makes them unable to be as impartial and objective as someone should be," Miltenberg says.
Title IX administrators deny any bias in their work, but they don't dispute how fervently they want to maintain current policies. "Everyone I know who does this work ... wants to hold on to this process, because we've really put our careers into this," says Berg. "We're really proud of where we've gotten. So to have someone essentially gut that policy would be really painful."
Source
This is great news. Let's thank Betsy DeVos for rescinding Dear Colleague. The more of us she hears from the better. Contact her: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos officially rescinded Obama-era rules last week, replacing them with interim guidelines, until new permanent rules can be implemented. The Department of Education's new "Q&A on Campus Sexual Misconduct" may change everything from how much evidence should be required to prove allegations to how accused students can cross-examine witnesses.
Universities are "scrambling right now" to figure out what it all means, says Kristi Branham, associate professor and director of gender and women's studies at Western Kentucky University, who serves on a committee that works on education, training and awareness around sexual assault. "This is a tricky area."
"We're reading the new guidance carefully," says Kathleen Salvaty, systemwide Title IX coordinator for the University of California. "I definitely have some questions."
For example, Salvaty says that according to the new guidance, applying "special procedures" in sexual misconduct cases "suggests a discriminatory purpose, and should be avoided."
"I'm not sure what that means," Salvaty says. Schools have lots of special procedures for sexual misconduct cases, she says, precisely because they are different from cases of plagiarism, for example. And many of those are required by federal regulations. Schools are also unclear whether new language in the new guidance means that Title IX rules would no longer apply off campus — at a fraternity, for example.
"That is causing some concern and confusion," Salvaty says. "We're just not sure what to do."
Others have raised concerns that the new interim guidance contradicts a 2001 directive that was not among those rescinded by DeVos. John Clune, an attorney with Hutchinson Black and Cook LLC, says "the whole purpose of the 2001 guidance is that grievance procedures be prompt and equitable." But, he says, the new guidance removes time limits on investigations, allows schools to offer an appeal option exclusively to accused students, and permits schools to raise the evidentiary bar from "preponderance of the evidence" to a "clear and convincing" standard, making allegations harder to prove.
"That discriminates against complainants," Clune says. "It certainly undermines the concept ... that the proceedings be prompt and equitable."
Many schools say they are also confused by mixed signals on whether schools can try informal resolution methods, like mediation; the new guidance allows it, but the 2001 guidance bars it.
Skidmore College sociology professor David Karp says he hopes it signals a new opportunity for an alternative process he has been promoting known as restorative justice, a nonadversarial model that focuses on a victim's healing, and how offenders can contribute to that. Schools have refrained from trying the idea for fear it would be seen as a form of mediation.
"I do think this is a green light that hasn't existed before," Karp says. He cautions that more guidance and training is needed, because "if badly implemented, [RJ] can backfire and cause further harm." But "I think schools will feel like they have more latitude to explore this as an additional option," he says.
Oklahoma Wesleyan University is one school feeling freed up by DeVos' decision to rescind the Obama-era guidance, which OKWU President Everett Piper calls "nothing short of a disaster."
Last year, the university sued the Department of Education, arguing that those guidelines resulted in a "growing number of innocent students being trampled [by the] 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach."
Piper says he is relieved now that OKWU will no longer feel pressure to "compromise ... students' rights" and can now "operate ... without threat of government intrusion and overreach." But OKWU has not yet announced any specific change in policies or practices.
Indeed, most schools appear to be holding off on any immediate action. Officials from schools including Harvard, Cornell, the University of Missouri and the University of Michigan say they are still reviewing the new guidance to see what, if any, changes need to be made. And many more have announced they are simply staying the course.
"All of us are continuing as usual," says Sarah Berg, deputy Title IX coordinator of prevention, training and outreach at the University of Colorado, Denver and the Anschutz Medical Campus.
A letter to the Yale University community says the school has "no plans to deviate" from current Obama-era policies. California State University, Northridge says "Regardless of this new DOE action ... we will not waver in our commitment to Title IX and its protections." Similarly, Washington University in St. Louis says "regardless of decisions at the federal level, we have no intention of turning back on our commitment or resolve."
While that kind of resolve is reassuring to some, it's frustrating to others.
"It is disappointing, but not surprising," says Joe Cohn, legislative and policy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a group that has criticized previous policies as unfair to the accused. Many schools see the new guidance as "designed to go back to the Stone Age," he says. "But really this is about an adjustment to make sure that both sides' needs are met, because that wasn't happening before."
Attorney Andrew Miltenberg of Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP, who represents dozens of accused students, says the "pushback" from universities is unfortunate. "It's a stubborn 'we're still going to do it our way,' " he says.
While the interim guidance is technically just a recommendation, not a binding rule, Miltenberg says schools that stick to old policies do so at their own peril. He says DeVos' recent comments, and her decision to rescind the old guidance, will be a big boost to accused students' lawsuits.
"It's a significant acknowledgement that there is a problem in [that] process," says Miltenberg. "It's a great thing to say to a judge that 'before last week, you didn't have to believe that there might be inherent bias throughout the process, but now those arguments carry much more weight. The secretary of the Department of Education publicly announced those very things.' "
Miltenberg rejects the notion that the new guidance causes chaos or confusion, or even what he calls the "false hysteria" that the new guidance represents a setback for rape victims.
"This constant refrain is an attempt to create a ... big lie," he says. "It's like if you say it loud enough and often enough, people will believe it."
Ultimately, Miltenberg says, real change will require not only new policies but also a shift in who is administering them on campuses.
"The reality is that most of the people that I've come in contact with as part of any school's Title IX apparatus have some sort of victimcentric view, or previous work history, or something in their lives that I think makes them unable to be as impartial and objective as someone should be," Miltenberg says.
Title IX administrators deny any bias in their work, but they don't dispute how fervently they want to maintain current policies. "Everyone I know who does this work ... wants to hold on to this process, because we've really put our careers into this," says Berg. "We're really proud of where we've gotten. So to have someone essentially gut that policy would be really painful."
Source
This is great news. Let's thank Betsy DeVos for rescinding Dear Colleague. The more of us she hears from the better. Contact her: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov
Friday, September 8, 2017
Betsy Devos rescinds the Dear Colleague suggestion
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos today criticized the previous administration's approach to campus sexual assault, accusing it of imposing a "broken system" that mistreats both accused students and rape survivors.
The Obama-era Office for Civil Rights compelled universities to design sexual assault adjudication policies that have deprived students of due process rights and weakened protections for freedom of expression. In a speech this afternoon, DeVos said her department would revise its existing guidance for complying with Title IX, the federal statute at the center of the effort.
DeVos cited several examples of colleges putting students through Kafkaesque quasi-judicial procedures. I promise you they are real. We've written about them at Reason.
Here's a list of some of DeVos's examples, with links to our articles about them.
1. Stony Brook University
"The current failed system left one student to fend for herself at a university disciplinary hearing," said Devos. "She told her university that another student sexually assaulted her in her dorm room. In turn, her university told her she would have to prosecute the case herself. Without any legal training whatsoever, she had to prepare an opening statement, fix exhibits and find witnesses."
I covered that case here: "College Rape Trials Are Unfair to Men and Women. Here's Why."
2. The University of Southern California
"You may have recently read about a disturbing case in California," said DeVos. "It's the story of an athlete, his girlfriend, and the failed system. The couple was described as 'playfully roughhousing,' but a witness thought otherwise and the incident was reported to the university's Title IX coordinator. The young woman repeatedly assured campus officials she had not been abused nor had any misconduct occurred. But because of the failed system, university administrators told her they knew better. They dismissed the young man, her boyfriend, from the football team and expelled him from school. 'When I told the truth,' the young woman said, 'I was stereotyped and was told I must be a 'battered' woman, and that made me feel demeaned and absurdly profiled.'"
Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote about that one here: "Star-Crossed Student Athletes Torn Apart By Title IX Witchhunt at USC."
3. George Mason University
"Another student at a different school saw her rapist go free," said Devos. "He was found responsible by the school, but in doing so, the failed system denied him due process. He sued the school, and after several appeals in civil court, he walked free."
There are a few different cases that arguably meet this description; I wrote about one of them here: "Students Had BDSM Sex. Male Says He Obeyed Safe Word. GMU Agreed, Expelled Him Anyway."
4. The University of Tennessee
"A student on another campus is under a Title IX investigation for a wrong answer on a quiz," said DeVos. "The question asked the name of the class Lab instructor. The student didn't know the instructor's name, so he made one up—Sarah Jackson—which unbeknownst to him turned out to be the name of a model. He was given a zero and told that his answer was 'inappropriate' because it allegedly objectified the female instructor. He was informed that his answer 'meets the Title IX definition of sexual harassment.' His university opened an investigation without any complainants."
That can't be true. It's just too crazy, right? Wrong. It happened, and I wrote about it here: "Tennessee Student Accused of Sexual Harassment Because He Wrote Instructor's Name Wrong." And I posted a follow-up here: "UT Student Now Being Investigated for Sexual Harassment After Writing His Instructor's Name Wrong."
5. various colleges
"Too many cases involve students and faculty who have faced investigation and punishment simply for speaking their minds or teaching their classes," said DeVos.
Consider the case of Northwestern University's Laura Kipnis, whose skepticism about rules forbidding sexual relationships between students and professors led to her being investigated under Title IX: "This Prof Dared to Challenge Her Students' Views on Sex. Here's How They Retaliated."
Or the case of Louisiana State University's Teresa Buchanan: "LSU Professor Fired for Telling Jokes Is Latest Victim of College Anti-Sex Hysteria."
Or a case at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, where residence advisors claimed that making jokes about Harambe, the dead gorilla and internet meme, could constitute a violation of Title IX: "UMass-Amherst: Harambe Jokes Are Racist Microaggressions, Violate Title IX."
Then there are some Title IX cases DeVos neither mentioned nor implied, but could have easily served as examples of the sort of mania that has taken hold on campuses:
6. Amherst College
A male student was expelled for sexual assault, even though he had credible evidence that his accuser had assaulted him: "Amherst Student Was Expelled for Rape. But He Was Raped, Evidence Shows."
7. Brandeis University
A gay male student accused his ex-boyfriend of sexual assault. Even though the alleged infractions—a stolen glance in the shower, a wake-up kiss—were incredibly silly, the investigator found the accused responsible for sexual misconduct: "Judge Sides with Gay Brandeis Student Guilty of 'Serious Sexual Transgression' for Kissing Sleeping Boyfriend."
8. Colorado State University-Pueblo
An athlete of color, Grant Neal, was accused of sexually assaulting a female trainer—but not by her. When questioned, the trainer said, "I'm fine and I wasn't raped." University officials pointed out that according to Title IX, they got to be the judge of that, not her. Neal was deemed guilty and expelled: "Female Student Said, 'I'm Fine and I Wasn't Raped.' University Investigated, Expelled Boyfriend Anyway."
9. University of Texas-Arlington
A gay male student claimed a classmate, Thomas Klocke, told him to "consider killing himself." The classmate denied ever saying such a thing; according to his version of events, the accuser came on to him and didn't appreciate being rejected. The gay student filed a Title IX sexual harassment complaint against Klocke, who was found responsible. He then committed suicide: "Lawsuit: Male Student Accused of Sexual Harassment for Rejecting Gay Advances Commits Suicide After Title IX Verdict."
Critics of DeVos will say that her plan to reform Title IX is some kind of giveaway to rapists. But it's not. Today, DeVos recognized a basic and obvious truth that every objective chronicler of the college rape crisis already knows: The Obama-era modifications to Title IX utterly failed to bring justice to campuses.
Source
This is great. Let's contact her at Betsy.Devos@ed.gov and thank her for rescinding the Dear Colleague suggestion. The more of us she hears from the better so let her know today.
The Obama-era Office for Civil Rights compelled universities to design sexual assault adjudication policies that have deprived students of due process rights and weakened protections for freedom of expression. In a speech this afternoon, DeVos said her department would revise its existing guidance for complying with Title IX, the federal statute at the center of the effort.
DeVos cited several examples of colleges putting students through Kafkaesque quasi-judicial procedures. I promise you they are real. We've written about them at Reason.
Here's a list of some of DeVos's examples, with links to our articles about them.
1. Stony Brook University
"The current failed system left one student to fend for herself at a university disciplinary hearing," said Devos. "She told her university that another student sexually assaulted her in her dorm room. In turn, her university told her she would have to prosecute the case herself. Without any legal training whatsoever, she had to prepare an opening statement, fix exhibits and find witnesses."
I covered that case here: "College Rape Trials Are Unfair to Men and Women. Here's Why."
2. The University of Southern California
"You may have recently read about a disturbing case in California," said DeVos. "It's the story of an athlete, his girlfriend, and the failed system. The couple was described as 'playfully roughhousing,' but a witness thought otherwise and the incident was reported to the university's Title IX coordinator. The young woman repeatedly assured campus officials she had not been abused nor had any misconduct occurred. But because of the failed system, university administrators told her they knew better. They dismissed the young man, her boyfriend, from the football team and expelled him from school. 'When I told the truth,' the young woman said, 'I was stereotyped and was told I must be a 'battered' woman, and that made me feel demeaned and absurdly profiled.'"
Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote about that one here: "Star-Crossed Student Athletes Torn Apart By Title IX Witchhunt at USC."
3. George Mason University
"Another student at a different school saw her rapist go free," said Devos. "He was found responsible by the school, but in doing so, the failed system denied him due process. He sued the school, and after several appeals in civil court, he walked free."
There are a few different cases that arguably meet this description; I wrote about one of them here: "Students Had BDSM Sex. Male Says He Obeyed Safe Word. GMU Agreed, Expelled Him Anyway."
4. The University of Tennessee
"A student on another campus is under a Title IX investigation for a wrong answer on a quiz," said DeVos. "The question asked the name of the class Lab instructor. The student didn't know the instructor's name, so he made one up—Sarah Jackson—which unbeknownst to him turned out to be the name of a model. He was given a zero and told that his answer was 'inappropriate' because it allegedly objectified the female instructor. He was informed that his answer 'meets the Title IX definition of sexual harassment.' His university opened an investigation without any complainants."
That can't be true. It's just too crazy, right? Wrong. It happened, and I wrote about it here: "Tennessee Student Accused of Sexual Harassment Because He Wrote Instructor's Name Wrong." And I posted a follow-up here: "UT Student Now Being Investigated for Sexual Harassment After Writing His Instructor's Name Wrong."
5. various colleges
"Too many cases involve students and faculty who have faced investigation and punishment simply for speaking their minds or teaching their classes," said DeVos.
Consider the case of Northwestern University's Laura Kipnis, whose skepticism about rules forbidding sexual relationships between students and professors led to her being investigated under Title IX: "This Prof Dared to Challenge Her Students' Views on Sex. Here's How They Retaliated."
Or the case of Louisiana State University's Teresa Buchanan: "LSU Professor Fired for Telling Jokes Is Latest Victim of College Anti-Sex Hysteria."
Or a case at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, where residence advisors claimed that making jokes about Harambe, the dead gorilla and internet meme, could constitute a violation of Title IX: "UMass-Amherst: Harambe Jokes Are Racist Microaggressions, Violate Title IX."
Then there are some Title IX cases DeVos neither mentioned nor implied, but could have easily served as examples of the sort of mania that has taken hold on campuses:
6. Amherst College
A male student was expelled for sexual assault, even though he had credible evidence that his accuser had assaulted him: "Amherst Student Was Expelled for Rape. But He Was Raped, Evidence Shows."
7. Brandeis University
A gay male student accused his ex-boyfriend of sexual assault. Even though the alleged infractions—a stolen glance in the shower, a wake-up kiss—were incredibly silly, the investigator found the accused responsible for sexual misconduct: "Judge Sides with Gay Brandeis Student Guilty of 'Serious Sexual Transgression' for Kissing Sleeping Boyfriend."
8. Colorado State University-Pueblo
An athlete of color, Grant Neal, was accused of sexually assaulting a female trainer—but not by her. When questioned, the trainer said, "I'm fine and I wasn't raped." University officials pointed out that according to Title IX, they got to be the judge of that, not her. Neal was deemed guilty and expelled: "Female Student Said, 'I'm Fine and I Wasn't Raped.' University Investigated, Expelled Boyfriend Anyway."
9. University of Texas-Arlington
A gay male student claimed a classmate, Thomas Klocke, told him to "consider killing himself." The classmate denied ever saying such a thing; according to his version of events, the accuser came on to him and didn't appreciate being rejected. The gay student filed a Title IX sexual harassment complaint against Klocke, who was found responsible. He then committed suicide: "Lawsuit: Male Student Accused of Sexual Harassment for Rejecting Gay Advances Commits Suicide After Title IX Verdict."
Critics of DeVos will say that her plan to reform Title IX is some kind of giveaway to rapists. But it's not. Today, DeVos recognized a basic and obvious truth that every objective chronicler of the college rape crisis already knows: The Obama-era modifications to Title IX utterly failed to bring justice to campuses.
Source
This is great. Let's contact her at Betsy.Devos@ed.gov and thank her for rescinding the Dear Colleague suggestion. The more of us she hears from the better so let her know today.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Monday, July 24, 2017
Shout out
This is to welcome the Eleven On One blog to the men's rights manosphere. Eleven On One has an activist edge especially with the Ten Questions Proposed to US Senators. I emailed my Congressman and Senators and I invite you to do the same. The more of us that email this list the better.
Friday, July 14, 2017
Kirsten Gillibrand’s crusade for campus injustice
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is furious that the Trump Department of Education is pulling back from Obama-era demands that colleges junk due process in the name of fighting sexual assault.
She and 30 other congressional Democrats last week wrote Education Secretary Betsy DeVos that they’re “extraordinarily disappointed and alarmed” over actions to diminish “enforcement of federal civil rights law.” Specifically, they complain that DeVos has hired staff hostile to the department’s 2011 guidance on how schools should approach campus sexual assault.
False rape charges again expose injustice of campus kangaroo courts
They’re absolutely right about the hostility: DeVos and her team are ending the jihad by the department’s Office for Civil Rights, which was launched at the behest of extremists like Gillibrand and her colleagues.
Behind the campaign was the claim, based on a single study that’s since been fully discredited, that one US coed in five is a victim of sexual assault. In fact, later — and much more extensive — FBI research shows that women on campus are safer than their off-campus peers.
Which of course doesn’t mean that rape (and lesser offenses) don’t happen on campus, but merely that there’s no unique “rape culture” to be fought.
But the advocates still got their jihad, as Team Obama ordered colleges and universities to institute kangaroo courts to handle sex-assault claims — star chambers where the accused typically has no right to counsel, to examine (and so be able to challenge) evidence and testimony against him or sometimes even to know the specific charges against him.
The Democrats’ letter warns that when a school “mishandles an incident of sexual assault, that this is rarely an isolated incident on that campus” — which is certainly true, if your definition of “mishandling” is giving the accused any rights at all.
The lack of due process has schools across the nation facing lawsuits for expelling students on laughable grounds — including at least one case where even the supposed victim insisted everything was consensual.
Of course, Gillibrand is too committed to admit to any excesses: She’s even still a big fan of Columbia graduate Emma Sulkowicz, aka “Mattress Girl” — whose nationally publicized charges against a fellow student have been utterly debunked by extensive evidence, including her texts with him before and long after the fact.
Sexual assault, on campus or anywhere, is a serious issue. Too bad Gillibrand and her allies are set on exploiting it for their own political gain at the expense of basic justice.
Source
This was written by the Editorial Board of the New York Post not by a fellow MRA on his website which means we are gaining traction as feminism and their followers are losing power,the noose is loosing which means there is hope.
She and 30 other congressional Democrats last week wrote Education Secretary Betsy DeVos that they’re “extraordinarily disappointed and alarmed” over actions to diminish “enforcement of federal civil rights law.” Specifically, they complain that DeVos has hired staff hostile to the department’s 2011 guidance on how schools should approach campus sexual assault.
False rape charges again expose injustice of campus kangaroo courts
They’re absolutely right about the hostility: DeVos and her team are ending the jihad by the department’s Office for Civil Rights, which was launched at the behest of extremists like Gillibrand and her colleagues.
Behind the campaign was the claim, based on a single study that’s since been fully discredited, that one US coed in five is a victim of sexual assault. In fact, later — and much more extensive — FBI research shows that women on campus are safer than their off-campus peers.
Which of course doesn’t mean that rape (and lesser offenses) don’t happen on campus, but merely that there’s no unique “rape culture” to be fought.
But the advocates still got their jihad, as Team Obama ordered colleges and universities to institute kangaroo courts to handle sex-assault claims — star chambers where the accused typically has no right to counsel, to examine (and so be able to challenge) evidence and testimony against him or sometimes even to know the specific charges against him.
The Democrats’ letter warns that when a school “mishandles an incident of sexual assault, that this is rarely an isolated incident on that campus” — which is certainly true, if your definition of “mishandling” is giving the accused any rights at all.
The lack of due process has schools across the nation facing lawsuits for expelling students on laughable grounds — including at least one case where even the supposed victim insisted everything was consensual.
Of course, Gillibrand is too committed to admit to any excesses: She’s even still a big fan of Columbia graduate Emma Sulkowicz, aka “Mattress Girl” — whose nationally publicized charges against a fellow student have been utterly debunked by extensive evidence, including her texts with him before and long after the fact.
Sexual assault, on campus or anywhere, is a serious issue. Too bad Gillibrand and her allies are set on exploiting it for their own political gain at the expense of basic justice.
Source
This was written by the Editorial Board of the New York Post not by a fellow MRA on his website which means we are gaining traction as feminism and their followers are losing power,the noose is loosing which means there is hope.
Betsy DeVos' meetings with 'men's rights' groups over campus sex assault policies spark controversy
Following a series of meetings Thursday in Washington examining Title IX sexual assault procedures on college campuses, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is reexamining guidance to schools.
In addition to survivors' groups and educational institutions, DeVos met with "men's rights" organizations, including the National Coalition for Men (NCFM), as well as groups that speak out on behalf of the accused, including Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE) and Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE).
Though the secretary refused to say whether the administration wants to amend directives to colleges and universities, survivors' advocates worry that DeVos' engagement with these controversial groups -- which opponents have dubbed insensitive to victims -- signals a possible willingness to shift the process to the advantage of alleged perpetrators by rolling back Obama-era guidance directing schools to use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof, rather than the higher "clear and convincing" standard, during Title IX sexual assault violence investigations.
"She's meeting with groups and individuals today who believe that sexual assault is some sort of feminist plot to hurt men," said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, who joined other like-minded individuals gathered outside the Department clamoring to keep the focus on survivors.
Natalie Green, online communications coordinator with women's right group UltraViolet, tells ABC News, "In all honesty, we think she should be listening to the survivors first and foremost, not rape apologists."
And Annie Clark, executive director and co-founder of End Rape on Campus, said, "The evidentiary standard in the criminal justice system is higher, and should be, than on campus because the penalties are different."
Asked about the aforementioned concerns, DeVos told reporters at the Department of Education, "today was a time to listen."
"No student should be the victim of sexual assault," DeVos said. "No student should feel unsafe ... and no students should feel like the scales are tipped against him or her."
According to NCFM, FACE and SAVE, who all fight what they claim are false accusations, accused rapists should be afforded stronger due process by schools investigating allegations of sexual violence. Though difficult to measure, researchers from Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts reported that their findings -- published in the Journal of Violence Against Women -- in conjunction with other studies, "indicate that the prevalence of false allegations is between 2 percent and 10 percent."
The false accusation rate for rape is 60%. The reasons given for this false accusation rate: spite,revenge,even boredom. These are the cases where the accuser deliberately lied. This is from a U.S. Air Force study by Dr. Charles McDowwell. From the book The Myth Of Male Power by Warren Farrell.
"It was clear that their stories are not often told, and there are lives that have been ruined and lives that have been lost in the process," DeVos said of these groups representing people they believe were wrongfully accused.
Jonathon Andrews -- a 23-year-old SAVE and FACE volunteer who says he was falsely accused of rape by "homophobic fraternity brothers" after he himself was sexually assaulted -- says the groups just want to ensure all involved get a fair shake.
"Victims for a long time weren't taken seriously, and President Obama tried to correct that -- but some of us think that he over-corrected, to the point where those who haven't committed any crimes, like myself, are at a risk of losing their futures, losing their lives, and being destroyed, essentially," Andrews told ABC News, bristling at "insulting" critiques of his organization as rape-apologist.
"A system without due process protections ultimately serves no one in the end," DeVos said Thursday during a press conference at the Department of Education. "There are substantive legal questions to be addressed, including the evidentiary standard, due process, and lack of public input."
Her meetings come as the Education Department's civil rights chief, Candice Jackson, was forced to apologize for a controversial comment made to the New York Times in article published Wednesday.
The majority of sexual assault allegations -- "90 percent," according to Jackson -- "fall into the category of 'we were both drunk, we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right," she told the Times.
She's right. A lot of times that is what these things are. I'm glad someone is seeing the truth and talking about it.
"As a survivor of rape myself, I would never seek to diminish anyone's experience," Jackson clarified in a statement provided to ABC News. "My words in the New York Times poorly characterized the conversations I've had with countless groups of advocates. What I said was flippant, and I am sorry. All sexual harassment and sexual assault must be taken seriously."
DeVos on Thursday declined to answer questions about whether she agreed with Jackson's 90 percent comment.
Source
In addition to survivors' groups and educational institutions, DeVos met with "men's rights" organizations, including the National Coalition for Men (NCFM), as well as groups that speak out on behalf of the accused, including Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE) and Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE).
Though the secretary refused to say whether the administration wants to amend directives to colleges and universities, survivors' advocates worry that DeVos' engagement with these controversial groups -- which opponents have dubbed insensitive to victims -- signals a possible willingness to shift the process to the advantage of alleged perpetrators by rolling back Obama-era guidance directing schools to use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof, rather than the higher "clear and convincing" standard, during Title IX sexual assault violence investigations.
"She's meeting with groups and individuals today who believe that sexual assault is some sort of feminist plot to hurt men," said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, who joined other like-minded individuals gathered outside the Department clamoring to keep the focus on survivors.
Natalie Green, online communications coordinator with women's right group UltraViolet, tells ABC News, "In all honesty, we think she should be listening to the survivors first and foremost, not rape apologists."
And Annie Clark, executive director and co-founder of End Rape on Campus, said, "The evidentiary standard in the criminal justice system is higher, and should be, than on campus because the penalties are different."
Asked about the aforementioned concerns, DeVos told reporters at the Department of Education, "today was a time to listen."
"No student should be the victim of sexual assault," DeVos said. "No student should feel unsafe ... and no students should feel like the scales are tipped against him or her."
According to NCFM, FACE and SAVE, who all fight what they claim are false accusations, accused rapists should be afforded stronger due process by schools investigating allegations of sexual violence. Though difficult to measure, researchers from Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts reported that their findings -- published in the Journal of Violence Against Women -- in conjunction with other studies, "indicate that the prevalence of false allegations is between 2 percent and 10 percent."
The false accusation rate for rape is 60%. The reasons given for this false accusation rate: spite,revenge,even boredom. These are the cases where the accuser deliberately lied. This is from a U.S. Air Force study by Dr. Charles McDowwell. From the book The Myth Of Male Power by Warren Farrell.
"It was clear that their stories are not often told, and there are lives that have been ruined and lives that have been lost in the process," DeVos said of these groups representing people they believe were wrongfully accused.
Jonathon Andrews -- a 23-year-old SAVE and FACE volunteer who says he was falsely accused of rape by "homophobic fraternity brothers" after he himself was sexually assaulted -- says the groups just want to ensure all involved get a fair shake.
"Victims for a long time weren't taken seriously, and President Obama tried to correct that -- but some of us think that he over-corrected, to the point where those who haven't committed any crimes, like myself, are at a risk of losing their futures, losing their lives, and being destroyed, essentially," Andrews told ABC News, bristling at "insulting" critiques of his organization as rape-apologist.
"A system without due process protections ultimately serves no one in the end," DeVos said Thursday during a press conference at the Department of Education. "There are substantive legal questions to be addressed, including the evidentiary standard, due process, and lack of public input."
Her meetings come as the Education Department's civil rights chief, Candice Jackson, was forced to apologize for a controversial comment made to the New York Times in article published Wednesday.
The majority of sexual assault allegations -- "90 percent," according to Jackson -- "fall into the category of 'we were both drunk, we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right," she told the Times.
She's right. A lot of times that is what these things are. I'm glad someone is seeing the truth and talking about it.
"As a survivor of rape myself, I would never seek to diminish anyone's experience," Jackson clarified in a statement provided to ABC News. "My words in the New York Times poorly characterized the conversations I've had with countless groups of advocates. What I said was flippant, and I am sorry. All sexual harassment and sexual assault must be taken seriously."
DeVos on Thursday declined to answer questions about whether she agreed with Jackson's 90 percent comment.
Source
Thursday, July 13, 2017
DOE helps out men
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is using her office to legitimize a misogynist organization that has dedicated itself to defending rapists, attacking female victims of sexual assault, and promoting the conspiracy theory that domestic violence is exaggerated.
Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s secretary of education, is scheduled to meet with a group that has made a name for itself by casting doubt on rape cases, questioning the existence of domestic violence, and promoting conspiracy theories about women.
DeVos is meeting with several groups that have been critical of the Title IX guidance on campus rape. Those policies were put in place by the Obama administration to protect woman on college campuses from sexual assault.
Among those meeting with DeVos is the National Coalition for Men. The group is part of the so-called “men’s rights” movement, which exists to promote misogynist ideas and to continually push back on the fight for women’s equality.
The website for the group’s North Carolina chapter offers legal guidance to accused rapists and publishes photographs of women the group claims have falsely accused men of rape. The technique serves as an intimidation tactic toward victims: If you speak up, you will be exposed and attacked.
Daily Tarheel columnist Alice Wilder noted that the group has “a clear animosity toward feminists and anyone who advocates for an end to gender-based violence.”
The National Coalition for Men has been behind tons of nuisance lawsuits alleging sex discrimination toward men, including one that said events attempting to bring more women into the technology industry were “anti-male.”
Attorney Al Rava, who filed the lawsuit and serves as the group’s press secretary, told a reporter working on the story he would not talk to her, saying, “I do not trust you will quote me correctly or in the proper context given your leftwing, pro-female, anti-male bias.”
Harry Crouch, president of National Coalition for Men, defended NFL player Ray Rice after surveillance video captured him dragging his then-fiancée after allegedly knocking her out in an elevator. Crouch said, “If she hadn’t aggravated him, she wouldn’t have been hit.”
In the same conversation, he complained about the NFL’s annual breast cancer awareness campaign.
“Football is always happy to put on pink suits to celebrate women,” he said. “Why can’t they have a week, or just one day, where they celebrate men?”
National Coalition for Men even sued Trump National Golf Course in 2011 for promoting breast cancer awareness, arguing that to do so was discriminatory towards men.
The group also whined that the movie “Sully” discriminated against men, because it did not depict women and children exiting the crashed airplane first, as part of a feminist plot.
Crouch told the L.A. Times that men are “disadvantaged in almost every way.”
DeVos is also meeting with SAVE — Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — which has also sided with domestic abusers. SAVE pushed for lawyers to have the power to ask domestic violence victims “detailed, often intrusive questions about the accuser’s prior sexual history.”
DeVos’ nomination was among the most contentious of Trump’s cabinet selections, largely thanks to her demonstrated ignorance of important education issues. Since squeezing by into office, those concerns have been validated by her open hostility toward LGBTQ students, her support for budget cuts helping disabled students, and now, this sad decision to grant misogynists the official blessing of the federal government.
Source
This is great. A government official meets with MRA's to fix the problem with the messed up Dear Colleague suggestion from the Obama administration and to reestablish men's rights on college and university campuses nationwide. Let's take a moment and thank the Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos for meeting with our fellow Men's Rights Activists in the National Coalition For Men and SAVE Services. You can contact her here: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov
The more of us she hears from the better so let her know that she has done a service that we thank her for.
Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s secretary of education, is scheduled to meet with a group that has made a name for itself by casting doubt on rape cases, questioning the existence of domestic violence, and promoting conspiracy theories about women.
DeVos is meeting with several groups that have been critical of the Title IX guidance on campus rape. Those policies were put in place by the Obama administration to protect woman on college campuses from sexual assault.
Among those meeting with DeVos is the National Coalition for Men. The group is part of the so-called “men’s rights” movement, which exists to promote misogynist ideas and to continually push back on the fight for women’s equality.
The website for the group’s North Carolina chapter offers legal guidance to accused rapists and publishes photographs of women the group claims have falsely accused men of rape. The technique serves as an intimidation tactic toward victims: If you speak up, you will be exposed and attacked.
Daily Tarheel columnist Alice Wilder noted that the group has “a clear animosity toward feminists and anyone who advocates for an end to gender-based violence.”
The National Coalition for Men has been behind tons of nuisance lawsuits alleging sex discrimination toward men, including one that said events attempting to bring more women into the technology industry were “anti-male.”
Attorney Al Rava, who filed the lawsuit and serves as the group’s press secretary, told a reporter working on the story he would not talk to her, saying, “I do not trust you will quote me correctly or in the proper context given your leftwing, pro-female, anti-male bias.”
Harry Crouch, president of National Coalition for Men, defended NFL player Ray Rice after surveillance video captured him dragging his then-fiancée after allegedly knocking her out in an elevator. Crouch said, “If she hadn’t aggravated him, she wouldn’t have been hit.”
In the same conversation, he complained about the NFL’s annual breast cancer awareness campaign.
“Football is always happy to put on pink suits to celebrate women,” he said. “Why can’t they have a week, or just one day, where they celebrate men?”
National Coalition for Men even sued Trump National Golf Course in 2011 for promoting breast cancer awareness, arguing that to do so was discriminatory towards men.
The group also whined that the movie “Sully” discriminated against men, because it did not depict women and children exiting the crashed airplane first, as part of a feminist plot.
Crouch told the L.A. Times that men are “disadvantaged in almost every way.”
DeVos is also meeting with SAVE — Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — which has also sided with domestic abusers. SAVE pushed for lawyers to have the power to ask domestic violence victims “detailed, often intrusive questions about the accuser’s prior sexual history.”
DeVos’ nomination was among the most contentious of Trump’s cabinet selections, largely thanks to her demonstrated ignorance of important education issues. Since squeezing by into office, those concerns have been validated by her open hostility toward LGBTQ students, her support for budget cuts helping disabled students, and now, this sad decision to grant misogynists the official blessing of the federal government.
Source
This is great. A government official meets with MRA's to fix the problem with the messed up Dear Colleague suggestion from the Obama administration and to reestablish men's rights on college and university campuses nationwide. Let's take a moment and thank the Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos for meeting with our fellow Men's Rights Activists in the National Coalition For Men and SAVE Services. You can contact her here: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov
The more of us she hears from the better so let her know that she has done a service that we thank her for.
Friday, June 30, 2017
DOE reverses dear colleague
Under the Obama administration, the Department of Education (DOE) pushed the "rape culture" narrative — that one quarter of women would be raped or sexually assaulted on college campuses, and that colleges could not trust the police to handle these crimes. This created a perverse system of campus tribunals which denied due process rights to (mostly) men accused of sexual assault.
On Friday, The New York Times reported on an internal memo published by Propublica showing the Trump administration's first steps in overhauling this "sex bureaucracy." The Times interpreted the move as "scaling back investigations into civil rights violations at the nation's public schools and universities."
The memo, written by Candice Jackson, the acting head of the DOE's Office of Civil Rights (OCR), reversed one part of the Obama administration's campus sexual assault policies, but it is an important first step in reforming the system. Under Obama, OCR investigated colleges when women accusers claimed the colleges were too lax on the men they accused of sexual assault.
"Whenever they had an allegation by some student that her Title IX rights had been violated by a college, they would not only look into the particulars of her complaint and fault the college for not giving her what she wanted, but they would launch a systematic investigation going back for years," Stuart Taylor, co-author of the book The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America's Universities, told PJ Media.
"They would even pressure the colleges to retry accused males who had been found innocent before, exposing these guys to double jeopardy," Taylor added.
In other words, when a woman complained to OCR that her college was not penalizing the man she accused of rape or sexual assault, OCR wouldn't just investigate her case (assuming that the accused man was guilty). The office would also delve into the college's past, attempting to find previous cases where the school was too easy on accused students.
This practice demonstrated the "rape culture" narrative's insistence on over-exaggerating the likelihood of sexual assault on campus, and pushing the idea that every woman who accuses a man of sexual assault should receive the benefit of the doubt. In fact, almost nine out of ten colleges reported zero sexual assaults in 2015.
This policy was "based on a false assumption that [sexual assault] is widespread in the colleges," Taylor explained. "I frankly doubt that there's more than a handful of colleges across the United States that have systematically discriminated against accusers." His book is full of examples of colleges discriminating against the accused.
The Federal Government's Sexual Reign of Terror on College Campuses
Launching such wide-ranging investigations into a college's past wastes time and precious resources, the author argued. "It diverts resources into university-wide fishing expeditions that are probably a waste of everybody's time at best from cases where there really are big problems."
Taylor argued that these groundless in-depth investigations made it harder for the OCR and for colleges to deal with cases rightly, making it less likely that genuine victims of sexual assault are vindicated. He praised Jackson's memo as trimming this practice so the OCR can focus on more important cases.
"It will work a lot more efficiently for any genuine victims of sexual assault once you do away with using any complaint as a pretext to try to establish broad federal oversight over any university they can get their hands on," Taylor explained.
But the Times also reported a second aspect of the memo — these long-term investigations had reportedly uncovered evidence of racial discrimination in terms of discipline. A DOE investigation found the schools with higher percentages of black students established stricter discipline, and that black students received discipline more than white students.
Taylor attacked this as a red herring on the issue of sexual assault tribunals. In fact, "there is evidence that black men are being disproportionately accused" of sexual assault, he argued. This means less pressure from the OCR on colleges to push rape culture tribunals would actually help black people.
Furthermore, there are reasons that black students tend to receive more punishment in schools than white students, and it's often for the benefit of the other black students.
"My impression is that the Obama administration was under the OCR imposing racial quotas on school discipline on the basis that if black students are more likely to get suspended than white students that must mean they are discriminating against the black students," Taylor explained.
The author attacked this as "a terrible abuse of federal power," because "there is not much evidence of real discrimination." Instead, "there is evidence of disproportionate disruption."
Indeed, Heather Mac Donald, author of The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, has presented evidence that violent criminals are disproportionately black, so it stands to reason that a disproportionate amount of school disruption may be caused by black students.
But ironically, it may be the good black students who benefit most from the disciplining of disruptive students. "A lot of the kids are in mostly black or all black schools," Taylor argued. "When you put pressure on the school district to keep the disruptive students in class, it's probably destroying opportunities for other blacks to learn."
Where Black Lives Don't Matter — Campus "Rape Culture" Tribunals
So this new memo, far from undermining the DOE and OCR's dedication to civil rights, arguably bolsters that dedication and helps black students — both those disproportionately accused of sexual assault, and those hampered by disruptions in the classroom.
But the day after the memo was published, a former Obama administration official launched a two-year investigation into the DOE and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The investigation attacked DeVos' "repeated refusal in Congressional testimony and other public statements to commit that the department would enforce federal civil rights laws."
Catherine Lhamon,head of the OCR under Obama and now chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, launched the investigation Friday. "I think this is more evidence that Catharine Lhamon is a blinkered ideologue who is all about Left-wing propaganda," Taylor quipped.
"It doesn't surprise me that she's abusing her powers again," the author said. "Based on the public record, I'm not surprised to see her doing something manifestly unreasonable."
Even The New York Times reported DeVos' clear denunciations of discrimination in any form, but warned that "she also believes in a limited federal role in education." As Taylor explained, restraining OCR after the Obama administration's overreach would be a very good thing.
"Not only should the new administration throw out everything the Obama administration had done on the campus rape front, it should also try to undo some of the harm the administration had left in place," the author argued.
Following terrifying stories of accused men being denied the ability to defend themselves, Taylor suggested that the DOE launch "a regulatory proceeding to accumulate evidence that a lot of colleges are now systematically discriminating against males in violation of Title IX in prosecution of campus sexual assault."
Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of sex. It was passed in 1972 to protect women, but after the clear bias against men accused of sexual assault, it should arguably be employed to protect these men.
Judge Rejects "Traumatizing" Deposition that Might Exonerate Amherst Student Expelled for Sexual Assault
"The Obama administration was grotesquely biased against the accused," Taylor noted, who are disproportionately male. While the OCR did not run the campus rape tribunals — which are handled internally by colleges and universities, at the request of the Obama DOE's 2011 "dear colleague" letter — this memo might relieve some of the pressure colleges feel to unfairly prosecute accused men.
"One reason the colleges have been so frenzied about destroying due process for all accused males is that they're afraid the federal government is going to hit them if they're fair," Taylor explained. This memo is the first step in relieving that pressure.
"This is a very good move, and I think it's a sign that more moves are to come," the author concluded.
Given the immediate attack from Lhamon, however, DeVos and Jackson have their work cut out for them. The Trump administration should expect to run into even more stonewalling from Democrats and Obama holdover liberals as it fights to right the wrongs committed under Obama. No one said this was going to be easy.
Source
On Friday, The New York Times reported on an internal memo published by Propublica showing the Trump administration's first steps in overhauling this "sex bureaucracy." The Times interpreted the move as "scaling back investigations into civil rights violations at the nation's public schools and universities."
The memo, written by Candice Jackson, the acting head of the DOE's Office of Civil Rights (OCR), reversed one part of the Obama administration's campus sexual assault policies, but it is an important first step in reforming the system. Under Obama, OCR investigated colleges when women accusers claimed the colleges were too lax on the men they accused of sexual assault.
"Whenever they had an allegation by some student that her Title IX rights had been violated by a college, they would not only look into the particulars of her complaint and fault the college for not giving her what she wanted, but they would launch a systematic investigation going back for years," Stuart Taylor, co-author of the book The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America's Universities, told PJ Media.
"They would even pressure the colleges to retry accused males who had been found innocent before, exposing these guys to double jeopardy," Taylor added.
In other words, when a woman complained to OCR that her college was not penalizing the man she accused of rape or sexual assault, OCR wouldn't just investigate her case (assuming that the accused man was guilty). The office would also delve into the college's past, attempting to find previous cases where the school was too easy on accused students.
This practice demonstrated the "rape culture" narrative's insistence on over-exaggerating the likelihood of sexual assault on campus, and pushing the idea that every woman who accuses a man of sexual assault should receive the benefit of the doubt. In fact, almost nine out of ten colleges reported zero sexual assaults in 2015.
This policy was "based on a false assumption that [sexual assault] is widespread in the colleges," Taylor explained. "I frankly doubt that there's more than a handful of colleges across the United States that have systematically discriminated against accusers." His book is full of examples of colleges discriminating against the accused.
The Federal Government's Sexual Reign of Terror on College Campuses
Launching such wide-ranging investigations into a college's past wastes time and precious resources, the author argued. "It diverts resources into university-wide fishing expeditions that are probably a waste of everybody's time at best from cases where there really are big problems."
Taylor argued that these groundless in-depth investigations made it harder for the OCR and for colleges to deal with cases rightly, making it less likely that genuine victims of sexual assault are vindicated. He praised Jackson's memo as trimming this practice so the OCR can focus on more important cases.
"It will work a lot more efficiently for any genuine victims of sexual assault once you do away with using any complaint as a pretext to try to establish broad federal oversight over any university they can get their hands on," Taylor explained.
But the Times also reported a second aspect of the memo — these long-term investigations had reportedly uncovered evidence of racial discrimination in terms of discipline. A DOE investigation found the schools with higher percentages of black students established stricter discipline, and that black students received discipline more than white students.
Taylor attacked this as a red herring on the issue of sexual assault tribunals. In fact, "there is evidence that black men are being disproportionately accused" of sexual assault, he argued. This means less pressure from the OCR on colleges to push rape culture tribunals would actually help black people.
Furthermore, there are reasons that black students tend to receive more punishment in schools than white students, and it's often for the benefit of the other black students.
"My impression is that the Obama administration was under the OCR imposing racial quotas on school discipline on the basis that if black students are more likely to get suspended than white students that must mean they are discriminating against the black students," Taylor explained.
The author attacked this as "a terrible abuse of federal power," because "there is not much evidence of real discrimination." Instead, "there is evidence of disproportionate disruption."
Indeed, Heather Mac Donald, author of The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, has presented evidence that violent criminals are disproportionately black, so it stands to reason that a disproportionate amount of school disruption may be caused by black students.
But ironically, it may be the good black students who benefit most from the disciplining of disruptive students. "A lot of the kids are in mostly black or all black schools," Taylor argued. "When you put pressure on the school district to keep the disruptive students in class, it's probably destroying opportunities for other blacks to learn."
Where Black Lives Don't Matter — Campus "Rape Culture" Tribunals
So this new memo, far from undermining the DOE and OCR's dedication to civil rights, arguably bolsters that dedication and helps black students — both those disproportionately accused of sexual assault, and those hampered by disruptions in the classroom.
But the day after the memo was published, a former Obama administration official launched a two-year investigation into the DOE and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The investigation attacked DeVos' "repeated refusal in Congressional testimony and other public statements to commit that the department would enforce federal civil rights laws."
Catherine Lhamon,head of the OCR under Obama and now chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, launched the investigation Friday. "I think this is more evidence that Catharine Lhamon is a blinkered ideologue who is all about Left-wing propaganda," Taylor quipped.
"It doesn't surprise me that she's abusing her powers again," the author said. "Based on the public record, I'm not surprised to see her doing something manifestly unreasonable."
Even The New York Times reported DeVos' clear denunciations of discrimination in any form, but warned that "she also believes in a limited federal role in education." As Taylor explained, restraining OCR after the Obama administration's overreach would be a very good thing.
"Not only should the new administration throw out everything the Obama administration had done on the campus rape front, it should also try to undo some of the harm the administration had left in place," the author argued.
Following terrifying stories of accused men being denied the ability to defend themselves, Taylor suggested that the DOE launch "a regulatory proceeding to accumulate evidence that a lot of colleges are now systematically discriminating against males in violation of Title IX in prosecution of campus sexual assault."
Title IX bars discrimination on the basis of sex. It was passed in 1972 to protect women, but after the clear bias against men accused of sexual assault, it should arguably be employed to protect these men.
Judge Rejects "Traumatizing" Deposition that Might Exonerate Amherst Student Expelled for Sexual Assault
"The Obama administration was grotesquely biased against the accused," Taylor noted, who are disproportionately male. While the OCR did not run the campus rape tribunals — which are handled internally by colleges and universities, at the request of the Obama DOE's 2011 "dear colleague" letter — this memo might relieve some of the pressure colleges feel to unfairly prosecute accused men.
"One reason the colleges have been so frenzied about destroying due process for all accused males is that they're afraid the federal government is going to hit them if they're fair," Taylor explained. This memo is the first step in relieving that pressure.
"This is a very good move, and I think it's a sign that more moves are to come," the author concluded.
Given the immediate attack from Lhamon, however, DeVos and Jackson have their work cut out for them. The Trump administration should expect to run into even more stonewalling from Democrats and Obama holdover liberals as it fights to right the wrongs committed under Obama. No one said this was going to be easy.
Source
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Feminist's son is accused of rape
I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.
But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.
What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.
It began with a text of desperation. “CALL ME. URGENT. NOW.”
That was how my son informed me that not only had charges been brought against him but that he was ordered to appear to answer these allegations in a matter of days. There was no preliminary inquiry on the part of anyone at the school into these accusations about behavior alleged to have taken place a few years earlier, no consideration of the possibility that jealousy or revenge might be motivating a spurned young ex-lover to lash out. Worst of all, my son would not be afforded a presumption of innocence.
In fact, Title IX, that so-called guarantor of equality between the sexes on college campuses, and as applied by a recent directive from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice. On today’s college campuses, neither “beyond a reasonable doubt,” nor even the lesser “by clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof is required to establish guilt of sexual misconduct.
These safeguards of due process have, by order of the federal government, been replaced by what is known as “a preponderance of the evidence.” What this means, in plain English, is that all my son’s accuser needed to establish before a campus tribunal is that the allegations were “more likely than not” to have occurred by a margin of proof that can be as slim as 50.1% to 49.9%.
How does this campus tribunal proceed to evaluate the accusations? Upon what evidence is it able to make a judgment?
The frightening answer is that like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla, the tribunal does pretty much whatever it wants, showing scant regard for fundamental fairness, due process of law, and the well-established rules and procedures that have evolved under the Constitution for citizens’ protection. Who knew that American college students are required to surrender the Bill of Rights at the campus gates?
My son was given written notice of the charges against him, in the form of a letter from the campus Title IX officer. But instead of affording him the right to be fully informed, the separately listed allegations were a barrage of vague statements, rendering any defense virtually impossible. The letter lacked even the most basic information about the acts alleged to have happened years before. Nor were the allegations supported by any evidence other than the word of the ex-girlfriend.
The hearing itself was a two-hour ordeal of unabated grilling by the school’s committee, during which, my son later reported, he was expressly denied his request to be represented by counsel or even to have an attorney outside the door of the room. The questioning, he said, ran far afield even from the vaguely stated allegations contained in the so-called notice. Questions from the distant past, even about unrelated matters, were flung at him with no opportunity for him to give thoughtful answers.
The many pages of written documentation that my son had put together—which were directly on point about his relationship with his accuser during the time period of his alleged wrongful conduct—were dismissed as somehow not relevant. What was relevant, however, according to the committee, was the unsworn testimony of “witnesses” deemed to have observable knowledge about the long-ago relationship between my son and his accuser.
That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser’s email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to “discuss this matter” with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.
Thankfully, I happen to be an attorney and had the resources to provide the necessary professional assistance to my son. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed but not before he and our family had to suffer through this ordeal. I am of course relieved and most grateful for this outcome. Yet I am also keenly aware not only of how easily this all could have gone the other way—with life-altering consequences—but how all too often it does.
Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of this latest surge in political correctness. Few have a lawyer for a mother, and many may not know about the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which assisted me in my research.
There are very real and horrifying instances of sexual misconduct and abuse on college campuses and elsewhere. That these offenses should be investigated and prosecuted where appropriate is not open to question. What does remain a question is how we can make the process fair for everyone.
I fear that in the current climate the goal of “women’s rights,” with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.
Source
Karma. That is the best way to put it. Karma.
But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.
What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.
It began with a text of desperation. “CALL ME. URGENT. NOW.”
That was how my son informed me that not only had charges been brought against him but that he was ordered to appear to answer these allegations in a matter of days. There was no preliminary inquiry on the part of anyone at the school into these accusations about behavior alleged to have taken place a few years earlier, no consideration of the possibility that jealousy or revenge might be motivating a spurned young ex-lover to lash out. Worst of all, my son would not be afforded a presumption of innocence.
In fact, Title IX, that so-called guarantor of equality between the sexes on college campuses, and as applied by a recent directive from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice. On today’s college campuses, neither “beyond a reasonable doubt,” nor even the lesser “by clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof is required to establish guilt of sexual misconduct.
These safeguards of due process have, by order of the federal government, been replaced by what is known as “a preponderance of the evidence.” What this means, in plain English, is that all my son’s accuser needed to establish before a campus tribunal is that the allegations were “more likely than not” to have occurred by a margin of proof that can be as slim as 50.1% to 49.9%.
How does this campus tribunal proceed to evaluate the accusations? Upon what evidence is it able to make a judgment?
The frightening answer is that like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla, the tribunal does pretty much whatever it wants, showing scant regard for fundamental fairness, due process of law, and the well-established rules and procedures that have evolved under the Constitution for citizens’ protection. Who knew that American college students are required to surrender the Bill of Rights at the campus gates?
My son was given written notice of the charges against him, in the form of a letter from the campus Title IX officer. But instead of affording him the right to be fully informed, the separately listed allegations were a barrage of vague statements, rendering any defense virtually impossible. The letter lacked even the most basic information about the acts alleged to have happened years before. Nor were the allegations supported by any evidence other than the word of the ex-girlfriend.
The hearing itself was a two-hour ordeal of unabated grilling by the school’s committee, during which, my son later reported, he was expressly denied his request to be represented by counsel or even to have an attorney outside the door of the room. The questioning, he said, ran far afield even from the vaguely stated allegations contained in the so-called notice. Questions from the distant past, even about unrelated matters, were flung at him with no opportunity for him to give thoughtful answers.
The many pages of written documentation that my son had put together—which were directly on point about his relationship with his accuser during the time period of his alleged wrongful conduct—were dismissed as somehow not relevant. What was relevant, however, according to the committee, was the unsworn testimony of “witnesses” deemed to have observable knowledge about the long-ago relationship between my son and his accuser.
That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser’s email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to “discuss this matter” with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.
Thankfully, I happen to be an attorney and had the resources to provide the necessary professional assistance to my son. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed but not before he and our family had to suffer through this ordeal. I am of course relieved and most grateful for this outcome. Yet I am also keenly aware not only of how easily this all could have gone the other way—with life-altering consequences—but how all too often it does.
Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of this latest surge in political correctness. Few have a lawyer for a mother, and many may not know about the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which assisted me in my research.
There are very real and horrifying instances of sexual misconduct and abuse on college campuses and elsewhere. That these offenses should be investigated and prosecuted where appropriate is not open to question. What does remain a question is how we can make the process fair for everyone.
I fear that in the current climate the goal of “women’s rights,” with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.
Source
Karma. That is the best way to put it. Karma.
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Man harassing women on train ‘viciously’ killed two who confronted him
Two men were stabbed to death in Portland on Friday when they tried to stop their attacker from harassing two women because they appeared to be Muslim, police said.
The incident unfolded on a commuter train hours before the start of Ramadan, Islam’s holy month, when most of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims observe a religious fast.
The attack began shortly before 4:30 p.m. when a man started yelling ethnic and religious slurs toward two women who appeared to be Muslim on a MAX train at the Hollywood Transit Station, the Portland Police Department said in a statement.
Three men who intervened were stabbed, two fatally. The attacker was arrested shortly after he got off the train, police said, adding that the women left the scene before police could interview them.
“In the midst of his ranting and raving, some people approached him and appeared to try to intervene with his behavior and some of the people that he was yelling at,” Portland police spokesman Pete Simpson said during a news conference aired by local news outlets.
“They were attacked viciously by the suspect,” he added.
In a statement responding to Friday’s attack, the Council on American-Islamic Relations said that anti-Muslim incidents increased by more than 50 percent in the United States from 2015 to 2016 due in part to President Donald Trump’s focus on militant Islamist groups and anti-immigrant rhetoric.
“President Trump must speak out personally against the rising tide of Islamophobia and other forms of bigotry and racism in our nation that he has provoked through his numerous statements, policies and appointments that have negatively impacted minority communities,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
The administration says that while it strongly opposes Islamist militants, it has no quarrel with Islam.
Following the attack, police said one of the men died at the scene while another died at a hospital. The third man was treated for non-life threatening injuries.
“These were folks just riding the train and unfortunately got caught up in this,” he said.
Witnesses told police that the two young women were possibly Muslim. One wore a hijab.
Portland police did not identify the suspect or the victims.
Source
I too get tired of white knights so I don't blame him.
The incident unfolded on a commuter train hours before the start of Ramadan, Islam’s holy month, when most of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims observe a religious fast.
The attack began shortly before 4:30 p.m. when a man started yelling ethnic and religious slurs toward two women who appeared to be Muslim on a MAX train at the Hollywood Transit Station, the Portland Police Department said in a statement.
Three men who intervened were stabbed, two fatally. The attacker was arrested shortly after he got off the train, police said, adding that the women left the scene before police could interview them.
“In the midst of his ranting and raving, some people approached him and appeared to try to intervene with his behavior and some of the people that he was yelling at,” Portland police spokesman Pete Simpson said during a news conference aired by local news outlets.
“They were attacked viciously by the suspect,” he added.
In a statement responding to Friday’s attack, the Council on American-Islamic Relations said that anti-Muslim incidents increased by more than 50 percent in the United States from 2015 to 2016 due in part to President Donald Trump’s focus on militant Islamist groups and anti-immigrant rhetoric.
“President Trump must speak out personally against the rising tide of Islamophobia and other forms of bigotry and racism in our nation that he has provoked through his numerous statements, policies and appointments that have negatively impacted minority communities,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.
The administration says that while it strongly opposes Islamist militants, it has no quarrel with Islam.
Following the attack, police said one of the men died at the scene while another died at a hospital. The third man was treated for non-life threatening injuries.
“These were folks just riding the train and unfortunately got caught up in this,” he said.
Witnesses told police that the two young women were possibly Muslim. One wore a hijab.
Portland police did not identify the suspect or the victims.
Source
I too get tired of white knights so I don't blame him.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Muslim husband owns feminist wife
Liberals are quick to attack conservatives for violence and misogyny—but continue to give Islam a free pass.
Radical left-wing activist, Lacy MacAuley, who leads violent protest group “Antifa” in Washington, DC, came to regret that stance—after she accompanied her Muslim boyfriend to his homeland of Turkey, where “misogyny and patriarchy run deep.”
The Gateway Pundit dug up a ten-month-old archived blog post from MacAuley’s website. Called, “My experience of intimate partner violence, trapped in Turkey,” MacAuley explains her experience:
I fell in love with an energetic, charismatic activist I met in November when I was present to write about resistance to the G20 Summit, a global event in Antalya, Turkey. After I came home to the US, we talked every day. He was lovely and charming, I thought at the time. He offered a ready smile, engaging kindness, and intelligent conversation. He said all the right things to convince me that he cared about women’s rights and activism. In February, I decided to return to Turkey with the promise of love driving me forward. I couldn’t have known things would turn sour.
She then describes their first fight:
“I had wanted to interview a local woman for an article on Syrian refugees. He did not approve. He knew the woman and did not like her, so he strictly forbade me from speaking with her… I just stood in the middle of the room not knowing what to do. Of course, as a Western woman, no one had ever forbidden me from speaking with anyone else. It was a strange feeling: Don’t I have a mouth to speak? Why can I not use it as I wish?
This is elementary feminism. No man has the power to silence a woman, just because he is a man.”
Things only got worse from there:
“Things deteriorated rapidly,” she wrote. “His insecurity and childishness got worse. In the following weeks, I was violently pushed, blocked from leaving freely, and repeatedly told not to speak. If I spoke anyway, anger erupted… Unwanted sex? Rape? All the time. He did not stop to determine whether I consented to sex. Several times, he turned off my wifi and lied about it, a modern-day form of gaslighting. He verbally criticized me for using social media, my main link to the rest of my life back in the US, and tried to discourage me from using it.”
Through it all, MacAuley couldn’t quite understand how a Muslim man so dedicated to liberal causes could be anything less than a feminist:
“I couldn’t have guessed that this man, who said he cared about women’s rights, who spoke of how many activist friends that he had, who had participated in many protests in the past, would turn on me, and that he would become so angry and irrational.”
Though MacAuley doesn’t seem to realize it, she answers her own question later in the blog post:
“One-third of men surveyed in Turkey in 2013 stated that it is “occasionally necessary” to commit acts of violence against women, and 28 percent stated that violence could be used to ‘discipline women.’ I did not want to believe that I was in this statistic.”
Upon leaving Turkey, MacAuley has continued her work to rally against “totalitarianism” and “sexism” in the United States.
But like many liberals, she seems to still be unaware that the fact that women, minorities, and just about everyone else, are more free and more respected in the United States than most of the world.
Source
Some call this unfortunate. I call it karma.
Radical left-wing activist, Lacy MacAuley, who leads violent protest group “Antifa” in Washington, DC, came to regret that stance—after she accompanied her Muslim boyfriend to his homeland of Turkey, where “misogyny and patriarchy run deep.”
The Gateway Pundit dug up a ten-month-old archived blog post from MacAuley’s website. Called, “My experience of intimate partner violence, trapped in Turkey,” MacAuley explains her experience:
I fell in love with an energetic, charismatic activist I met in November when I was present to write about resistance to the G20 Summit, a global event in Antalya, Turkey. After I came home to the US, we talked every day. He was lovely and charming, I thought at the time. He offered a ready smile, engaging kindness, and intelligent conversation. He said all the right things to convince me that he cared about women’s rights and activism. In February, I decided to return to Turkey with the promise of love driving me forward. I couldn’t have known things would turn sour.
She then describes their first fight:
“I had wanted to interview a local woman for an article on Syrian refugees. He did not approve. He knew the woman and did not like her, so he strictly forbade me from speaking with her… I just stood in the middle of the room not knowing what to do. Of course, as a Western woman, no one had ever forbidden me from speaking with anyone else. It was a strange feeling: Don’t I have a mouth to speak? Why can I not use it as I wish?
This is elementary feminism. No man has the power to silence a woman, just because he is a man.”
Things only got worse from there:
“Things deteriorated rapidly,” she wrote. “His insecurity and childishness got worse. In the following weeks, I was violently pushed, blocked from leaving freely, and repeatedly told not to speak. If I spoke anyway, anger erupted… Unwanted sex? Rape? All the time. He did not stop to determine whether I consented to sex. Several times, he turned off my wifi and lied about it, a modern-day form of gaslighting. He verbally criticized me for using social media, my main link to the rest of my life back in the US, and tried to discourage me from using it.”
Through it all, MacAuley couldn’t quite understand how a Muslim man so dedicated to liberal causes could be anything less than a feminist:
“I couldn’t have guessed that this man, who said he cared about women’s rights, who spoke of how many activist friends that he had, who had participated in many protests in the past, would turn on me, and that he would become so angry and irrational.”
Though MacAuley doesn’t seem to realize it, she answers her own question later in the blog post:
“One-third of men surveyed in Turkey in 2013 stated that it is “occasionally necessary” to commit acts of violence against women, and 28 percent stated that violence could be used to ‘discipline women.’ I did not want to believe that I was in this statistic.”
Upon leaving Turkey, MacAuley has continued her work to rally against “totalitarianism” and “sexism” in the United States.
But like many liberals, she seems to still be unaware that the fact that women, minorities, and just about everyone else, are more free and more respected in the United States than most of the world.
Source
Some call this unfortunate. I call it karma.
Monday, May 8, 2017
Female narcissist says she is more valuable than men are
An interesting article from the New York Post was brought to my attention the other day. The article, written by Anna Davies, declared that single and childless women should be entitled to lengthy, excused absences from work, a concept akin to maternity leave without the children. Davies calls this leave a “meternity.”
The reasoning behind the “meternity” is that women get burned out easier than men and need some time away from the office. Davies also advocated for this break because of the renewed vision she saw in women coming back from maternity leave:
And as I watched my friends take their real maternity leaves, I saw that spending three months detached from their desks made them much more sure of themselves. One friend made the decision to leave her corporate career to create her own business; another decided to switch industries. From the outside, it seemed like those few weeks of them shifting their focus to something other than their jobs gave them a whole new lens through which to see their lives.
As a working woman myself, let me just say that I tend to agree with Davies’ first point. Women do tend to get stressed, overwhelmed, and burnt out easier than men, a fact which may be partially due to the difference between the hardwiring of the male and female brain.
But I tend to question the reasoning behind Davies’ second point. It may be true that women come back from maternity leave with fresh vision and confidence. But instead of stemming from an extended amount of self-focused “me-time,” might not that vision and confidence stem from the increased selflessness which new mothers have learned to pour into their children?
Which leads me to another thought. In the last several decades, culture has increasingly encouraged men and women to go to college, build their careers, and work their way up the corporate ladder, all the while delaying the time they devote to marriage and raising a family.
At the same time, America has increasingly been disturbed by the trend toward the “me-culture,” which puts self first and seems to be behind the stereotype of the lazy, incapable millennial.
Is it possible that these two are connected? Has our rush to encourage college and career for all only resulted in delaying or all-out ignoring the pathways of marriage and children which have traditionally led to adult maturity and selflessness?
Source
Men don't get burnt out? Bullshit. I know of a lot of guys that work jobs they hate to support a family and now this selfish entitled cunt thinks she is special. Special? More like special ed. Female narcissism knows no bounds.
The reasoning behind the “meternity” is that women get burned out easier than men and need some time away from the office. Davies also advocated for this break because of the renewed vision she saw in women coming back from maternity leave:
And as I watched my friends take their real maternity leaves, I saw that spending three months detached from their desks made them much more sure of themselves. One friend made the decision to leave her corporate career to create her own business; another decided to switch industries. From the outside, it seemed like those few weeks of them shifting their focus to something other than their jobs gave them a whole new lens through which to see their lives.
As a working woman myself, let me just say that I tend to agree with Davies’ first point. Women do tend to get stressed, overwhelmed, and burnt out easier than men, a fact which may be partially due to the difference between the hardwiring of the male and female brain.
But I tend to question the reasoning behind Davies’ second point. It may be true that women come back from maternity leave with fresh vision and confidence. But instead of stemming from an extended amount of self-focused “me-time,” might not that vision and confidence stem from the increased selflessness which new mothers have learned to pour into their children?
Which leads me to another thought. In the last several decades, culture has increasingly encouraged men and women to go to college, build their careers, and work their way up the corporate ladder, all the while delaying the time they devote to marriage and raising a family.
At the same time, America has increasingly been disturbed by the trend toward the “me-culture,” which puts self first and seems to be behind the stereotype of the lazy, incapable millennial.
Is it possible that these two are connected? Has our rush to encourage college and career for all only resulted in delaying or all-out ignoring the pathways of marriage and children which have traditionally led to adult maturity and selflessness?
Source
Men don't get burnt out? Bullshit. I know of a lot of guys that work jobs they hate to support a family and now this selfish entitled cunt thinks she is special. Special? More like special ed. Female narcissism knows no bounds.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
One of the good guys
There is a fellow MRA in the New Hampshire State Legislature and his name is Robert Fisher. Fisher is doing what he can to meet the demands of his constituents and the needs of New Hampshire while still promoting men's rights. Thank you Mr. Fisher for standing up for our rights and know that we will back you in your times of trouble. Fisher has been harassed by feminasties all his political life. I guess if you don't drink the kool aid of feminist stupidity then they hate you. Well fuck the feminasties. Fuck what they want. So Mr. Fisher we raise our glass to you:
Friday, April 28, 2017
The proper procedure for handling complaints
It has come to my attention that a few people have a problem with this website but don't know how to articulate their grievances. Fortunately we have come up with the following form that should solve that problem:
After you've filled out the form send it us via watermail:
After you've filled out the form send it us via watermail:
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Monday, April 24, 2017
Sean Hannity accused of sexual harassment
No good deed goes unpunished. I'm sure Sean Hannity is finding that out the hard way. He may lose his Fox gig if anymore women jump upon the bandwagon. They did it to Cosby and that gained attention. They did it to Bill O'Reilly and now they are doing it to Hannity. Hannity always played the white knight. When that situation with Ray Rice went down Hannity didn't care about Ray Rices's version Hannity went on the offense against Ray Rice. And now Hannity is getting fucked by a woman and not in the way he wants. Women don't love white knights they despise them. I'm sure Hannity is now finding this out.
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Snowflake central
all hail the gynocracy
Male Student Ostracized, Publicly Shamed After Questioning the Existence of Rape Culture
Earlier this week, Patrick Borum, a 20-year-old student at Grand Valley State University, questioned one of higher education’s most dearly held dogmas: the existence of a “rape culture,” where society “normalizes and trivializes” sexual violence.
“Rape culture isn’t real,” Borum posted on his personal Facebook account Tuesday. Cue the outrage.
Since then, other students have accused Borum of being a supporter of rape and even a possible rapist; his peers have slammed him with messages on social media calling him “a piece of shit,” “a piece of dirt,” and worse; he’s been a central subject in a campus town hall meeting on sexual assault; and his fraternity and the student senate have publicly denounced his comments as ignorant and offensive, prompting his resignation from both.
“My comments went absolutely viral on campus, and everyone was pissed off about it,” Borum told Heat Street. “I’m being ostracized in my own community. … I 100 percent feel like I’m being bullied.”
The controversy began earlier this week, when members of campus fraternities were told to take a mandatory survey, administered by a third party, about Greek Life and sexual assault, Borum said. He and other students noticed with dismay that almost all of the questions seemed to imply that alcoholism, misogyny, harassment and assault were commonplace in fraternities.
“The questions were all leading,” Borum said. “There was no correct answers you could post, so it seemed like you were a danger to women.”
For instance, fraternity members were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements like, “If a girl comes to a party dressed like a ‘slut,’ she is probably looking to hook up,” “in general, I try to control the women in my life” and “if a girl gets too drunk at a party, it would be partially her fault if she had sex with someone and didn’t really remember what happened the next day.” Students were also asked how many nights a week they drank, Borum recalled, “and there’s no zero answer provided.”
By deadline, Grand Valley State University did not answer Heat Street’s emailed questions or provide us with a copy of the survey. A spokeswoman said the university was unable to comment, saying many of its communciations staffers were absent this week because of the local K-12 spring break.
Frustrated by the experience, Borum took to Facebook. “It was four words,” he said. “It said, ‘Rape culture isn’t real.’ I just think that there’s really no factual evidence that our society likes to encourage rape. I think that’s actually ridiculous. … For people to say that women here in the United States are living in a ‘rape culture,’ that’s so dismissive to other people in the world where women don’t have rights and are actually are being regularly submitted to rape.”
The backlash was immediate, occurring in 15 minutes or less, Borum said.
On its official Twitter account, Kappa Sigma, where Borum was a member, Tweeted that it did not “accept or identify with” his comments. “RAPE CULTURE IS REAL, whether he understands that or not. We are embarrassed,” the fraternity added.
Josh Perez, the grand master of the fraternity, also issued an immediate statement apologizing for Borum’s “gross, pitiful and downright disrespectful social media post,” adding that the Kappa Sigma executive board would investigate the situation.
“I’m under the impression that [Borum] thinks his demographic as a fraternity person is being targeted, when really what rape culture is is belonging to a society that continually perpetuates the idea that rape and sexual assault is acceptable. And it shouldn’t be,” another Kappa Sigma member told the local Fox affiliate.
Borum said he felt like almost his entire fraternity had turned on him, so he submitted his resignation. Kappa Sigma denied it, saying it wanted to expel him instead, Borum added.
Perez did not answer Heat Street’s emailed questions about Borum’s membership status or the fraternity’s stance on free speech.
“First and foremost, we at Kappa Sigma would like to apologize for the action of an individual within our organization,” Perez wrote in an email. “We hope that you can recognize that his view does not represent the view or the pillars that our Fraternity is built upon.”
Two weeks ago, Grand Valley State University held its elections for student senate, and last week, Borum found out he’d won. His first day as a senator would have been Tuesday—but Borum said he heard other members of the student government were trying to pre-emptively impeach him because of his Facebook post.
The president of the student senate, Ella Fritzmeir, publicly denounced him, Michigan Live reported. By deadline, Fritzmeir did not respond to Heat Street’s request for comment.
Feeling frustrated, Borum also submitted his resignation to the student government. “I’m not going to be a part of an organization that is so hateful and won’t allow diverse thought,” he said.
Sean O’Melia, the student senate’s executive vice president, said Borum’s resignation was entirely of his own accord.
“We respect his decision and his freedom of speech,” O’Melia said. “We as a Senate disagree with his position on rape culture and think that more students such as Patrick could be better educated on sexual assault and how to best advocate to end this important issue. We hope that people can use this is as a learning experience and that more students will be aware of the consequences of their social media uses and the importance of not condoning rape culture or cyber bullying.”
O’Melia seemed to consider the post questioning rape culture to be “cyberbullying”—but all week, Borum said, he’s been deluged with mean messages from other students. He provided one such message to Heat Street as an example.The outcry against Borum wasn’t limited to social media. Grand Valley State University had scheduled a town hall meeting on sexual assault on Tuesday, the same day Borum made his controversial Facebook post. About 100 students attended, and the discussion quickly focused on Borum and his Facebook post.
“I think to deny rape culture is to support rape,” one student said, calling for Borum’s removal from student government before learning he’d already resigned.
“People would pre-suppose that [Borum] could be or possibly was, like, you know, or likely to rape someone because he was a white, fraternity young male,” another student said in a video, which was recorded by MLive.
“Statistics show, yes, he is more likely to,” responded one of the town hall speakers.
She added that “the fact that Pat could say this and think that’s an acceptable thing to say” was evidence “the education we have is not effective, or we’re not going far enough with the education ” about rape culture.
Borum, a junior, says he’s gotten far enough into his education at Grand Valley State University that transferring elsewhere isn’t really an option. He says he’s going to try to graduate early. Still, he’s feeling like most people on campus hate him.
“Now, I feel like everything I thought [about Grand Valley] is crumbling down,” he said. “I thought people would have acted better. I have not been met with any tolerance. I’ve been called a rapist. I’ve been called pro-rape. I’ve been called many things. If there’s a group of people on campus who are tolerant and will talk about the actual discussion rather than name-call, it’s a small minority.”
Source
Sunday, April 2, 2017
The other shadow presidency
One thing I don't like is the other shadow presidency. We have covered the one by Barrack Obama but now there is another one. The one by Ivanka Trump. When she was asked if she was going to be an adviser when she moved into the White House. She said she was there to be a daughter. She played it off very cutesy. I don't find it "cutesy" I take it as troublesome. Daughters have tremendous influence over their fathers and Ivanka is a feminist. She has admitted that to us. We've been getting loud and proud when it comes to men's rights and telling her father about it. I'm sure that has her very concerned. We can cause problems for the matriarchy and they know it. In fact we are very good at it. I like causing problems for the matriarchy especially big problems. I like keeping them up at night. This is a problem but not a major one. We've fried feminists before and this is no exception. Ivanka,if you are reading this,this song is dedicated to you:
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Damned if we do damned if we don't
“I know this move!”
That’s what Sarah Mimms, a deputy editor at BuzzFeed News, thought this week when she read about an agreement between Vice President Mike Pence and his wife, Karen Pence.
Mike Pence won’t eat alone with a woman who isn’t his wife, and he doesn’t attend events with alcohol unless Karen is present as well. Or at least he didn’t back in 2002, when he was a Congress member from Indiana. This detail about the Pences’ marriage was included in a Washington Post profile about Karen Pence.
The vice president’s office has not confirmed whether the Pences still have this agreement. We also don’t know whether it applies to Mike Pence’s women staffers, or just to social relationships outside of work.
Still, Mimms is familiar with members of Congress who follow similar rules restricting their contact with women: She reported on the phenomenon in 2015 when she worked for National Journal. She found that among a small group of congressional offices, women staffers were not allowed to spend one-on-one time with their bosses. For these young women, the rules could be a serious career hindrance.
I spoke to Mimms about her story to gain an understanding of why some congressmen would enact such a policy and how that could impact the careers of young female staffers. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Karen Turner
What did you learn when reporting out the story?
Sarah Mimms
We were doing a “women in Washington” feature at National Journal. We sent out anonymous surveys to women who worked on Capitol Hill. There was one question in the survey that was, “Has your gender ever gotten in the way if your work on the Hill?” And there were, I believe, two or three women who said point blank: I’m not allowed to spend any one-on-one time with my congressman boss because of how it will look, or for whatever reason.
So I started to report out the story. I talked to some female staffers who worked in offices where they weren’t allowed to drive around with their boss around or interact with them at evening events where drinks were being served.
I talked to some staffers who worked in offices where women weren't allowed to drive around with their boss or interact with them at evening events where drinks were being served. I also talked to male staffers who felt that they benefited from this policy because they were able to spend more time with their boss at evening events when a more senior staffer, who was female, was barred from attending.
Based on my reporting, it doesn’t seem like this is a very large problem on Capitol Hill. I didn’t find that a majority of offices do this. But there are certainly some. And for the women in those offices, this is a huge problem in being able to advance in their careers. What generally happens is that they hit a certain level and they realize they’re not gonna get past it. They move either to a new office or off the Hill entirely.
Karen Turner
Why does this happen? What was the cause?
Sarah Mimms
Between talking to some members who had informal policies like this and staffers who were in these kinds of offices, it seemed like this wasn’t about feeling like female staffers are lascivious or anything like that. They’re not concerned about what is actually going to happen. The concern is about giving people a reason to start rumors in a town that loves to start rumors about politicians and sex.
In some cases, it seems like it’s the wives that are uncomfortable with it. I heard that from a number of people. A lot of these guys, particularly in the House, they are from these more rural, small-town-based districts where the idea of walking around with an attractive woman under the age of, say, 30 at night, and being seen constantly with a young woman next to you could be a problem. So it’s really about trying to stop rumors before they start.
What’s interesting is when I talked to members who have this policy or who have similar, more informal policies in their offices, like not letting a female staffer drive them around, I felt that the idea that this could be preventing these female staffers from advancing in their careers honestly had not occurred to them.
When I was reporting out that story, I talked to congressmen Jason Chaffetz and Tim Huelskamp. Chaffetz, he won’t allow staffers to stay very late or show up very early, and Huelskamp said he likes to make sure that he’s surrounded by several people so that he can’t wind up being alone with any one staffer. Both [Chaffetz] and ... Huelskamp, who is actually not in Congress anymore, but who was at the time, were saying it’s really more preventing a certain perception. And I completely understand that. That makes sense to me.
But here’s what other women who have been in different offices are saying. They’re saying, I can’t become chief of staff if I can’t spend one-on-one time with my boss. They were saying, I can’t advance my career if I can’t spend this time with them. Men are being allowed to go to these events at night where, quite frankly, a lot of policy talk happens, and I can’t be there.
I got the sense that this just didn’t occur to congressmen who had this rule. It wasn’t something they had thought of. Again, this is not something that affects a large number of offices. But it still seems to be happening. It doesn’t seem to have changed. And I think the reason for that is that members of Congress have to get reelected. Everything in their lives is about perception. And it’s just such a big deal to them that that’s kind of taken precedence.
Karen Turner
Can you elaborate a little more on why this can be damaging to female staffers and their careers?
Sarah Mimms
Moving up in a congressional office is really about forming a close relationship with that member. It’s really like in any work environment. You get closer to a boss by being able to anticipate their needs, by understanding them on a policy level, by being able to write in their voice. And you can’t get that with limited access.
In some of these cases, I heard about how female staffers couldn’t sit with their boss in his office with the door closed. How are you supposed to have a conversation with your boss about raises, about moving forward in your career, about things you could be doing better, or issues with another office, how are you supposed to be having those conversations when the door is open? You really can’t.
A lot of women were saying to me, I had to leave my job, or I’m going to have to leave my job because I just don't see any other way for me to advance. And they’re saying, I care about my career and that’s why I came to Congress and Capitol Hill, because I wanted to work here and I want to do it at a high level and do it very well. But how can I move forward when men are able to have these interactions and I’m not?
Karen Turner
Is this practice discriminatory?
Sarah Mimms
I talked to a discrimination lawyer here in DC and Congress’s Office of Compliance. The lawyer, her name is Debra S. Katz, she said this was pretty cut-and-dried. If this was happening in the private sector, it would be discriminatory. These women would have grounds to sue. It would be a really, really major problem. The question is how does that apply to Congress and does it apply to Congress?
She’s been doing this for a while and reached out to a few other colleagues for me and passed on their responses as well. Their overall consensus was they had never seen this. Not in modern times. This is not something they had cases about, and they had not heard about this from clients. This was just not a thing outside of Congress.
And I think again that some of that is the nature of Congress. It’s very image-focused, it’s all about crafting an image around yourself, avoiding scandal, and it’s kind of the nature of Washington and Washington reporters. We love this kind of scandal. But also, it’s pretty old-fashioned up on the Hill in general. So it’s almost — I don’t want to say it’s not surprising, but if I knew that it was happening somewhere, it seems like Congress would be that place.
Karen Turner
Do you feel like the Mike Pence controversy fits into this practice?
Sarah Mimms
I was reading about the Mike Pence controversy the other day and immediately thought, “I know this move!” But for one thing, we do not know if this applies to meetings with staff. This is something that he said 15 years ago about having dinner with women or going to events where there’s alcohol with women without his wife present. So I don’t know if it applies to him having meetings with staff or anything like that, which was true in Congress. So just that caveat.
But with the Pence thing, this seems to be similar to the Billy Graham rule ... modeled after the famous evangelist. His rule was that you should not spend any time with a woman who is not your wife one-on-one as a married man. The rule says there’s no reason to do it, it’s better for the marriage, and you should avoid temptation and scandal.
Now, I didn’t see any particular correlation between this [female staffer exclusion] happening with very religious or evangelical members, although there were certainly some who fit that. But I do wonder how prevalent this really is outside of Congress and within the Christian community in general.
Karen Turner
Are there any women who don’t mind the policy?
Sarah Mimms
One former Capitol Hill staffer who I talked to was a young woman working for a House Republican, and he had a similar policy, not letting women drive him around and things like that. She was not bothered by this policy. She told me she appreciated that he was showing her that kind of respect. For her, it was more a sign of respect. Which I thought was really fascinating.
But that was a minority opinion of the women that I talked to. Now, it’s very possible that it was a self-selecting group of people who weren’t bothered by it who didn’t talk to me for the article. In particular, in light of this Pence thing, I have had a lot of people tweet at me about the topic, saying this is relationship goals, this is the way men should be — only wanting to spend time with their wives. So I think there’s a very interesting debate here.
But again, one of the reasons I wrote the piece and one of the things I talked to a lot of these members about was that I think what’s sort of flying under the radar here is just how much this can affect a very young woman’s career, particularly the career of a woman who wants to go into public service. And I think that’s the important part here.
Correction: This article has been edited to include that some male staffers felt that they benefitted from being able to attend events in place of a more senior female staffer barred from going.
Source
First of all I don't blame these guys. No one wants to be falsely accused. It almost cost Clarence Thomas the Supreme Court Judgeship. If these guys are Republicans that are doubly screwed because they already have a target on their back by a media ready to destroy them. It seems these feminists have trouble connecting the dots or they do connect them and they don't like what they see so they play the ignorance card. If he is alone with a female staffer and she gets mad at him or just PMSes out she can accuse him of sexual impropriety,guilty or not and the press will eat it up. If you women have a problem with this take it up with your fellow sisters. You know the ones who make false accusations and get away with it. If he isn't alone with her she cries discrimination. If you women have a problem connecting these dots you are in bigger trouble than I thought.
That’s what Sarah Mimms, a deputy editor at BuzzFeed News, thought this week when she read about an agreement between Vice President Mike Pence and his wife, Karen Pence.
Mike Pence won’t eat alone with a woman who isn’t his wife, and he doesn’t attend events with alcohol unless Karen is present as well. Or at least he didn’t back in 2002, when he was a Congress member from Indiana. This detail about the Pences’ marriage was included in a Washington Post profile about Karen Pence.
The vice president’s office has not confirmed whether the Pences still have this agreement. We also don’t know whether it applies to Mike Pence’s women staffers, or just to social relationships outside of work.
Still, Mimms is familiar with members of Congress who follow similar rules restricting their contact with women: She reported on the phenomenon in 2015 when she worked for National Journal. She found that among a small group of congressional offices, women staffers were not allowed to spend one-on-one time with their bosses. For these young women, the rules could be a serious career hindrance.
I spoke to Mimms about her story to gain an understanding of why some congressmen would enact such a policy and how that could impact the careers of young female staffers. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Karen Turner
What did you learn when reporting out the story?
Sarah Mimms
We were doing a “women in Washington” feature at National Journal. We sent out anonymous surveys to women who worked on Capitol Hill. There was one question in the survey that was, “Has your gender ever gotten in the way if your work on the Hill?” And there were, I believe, two or three women who said point blank: I’m not allowed to spend any one-on-one time with my congressman boss because of how it will look, or for whatever reason.
So I started to report out the story. I talked to some female staffers who worked in offices where they weren’t allowed to drive around with their boss around or interact with them at evening events where drinks were being served.
I talked to some staffers who worked in offices where women weren't allowed to drive around with their boss or interact with them at evening events where drinks were being served. I also talked to male staffers who felt that they benefited from this policy because they were able to spend more time with their boss at evening events when a more senior staffer, who was female, was barred from attending.
Based on my reporting, it doesn’t seem like this is a very large problem on Capitol Hill. I didn’t find that a majority of offices do this. But there are certainly some. And for the women in those offices, this is a huge problem in being able to advance in their careers. What generally happens is that they hit a certain level and they realize they’re not gonna get past it. They move either to a new office or off the Hill entirely.
Karen Turner
Why does this happen? What was the cause?
Sarah Mimms
Between talking to some members who had informal policies like this and staffers who were in these kinds of offices, it seemed like this wasn’t about feeling like female staffers are lascivious or anything like that. They’re not concerned about what is actually going to happen. The concern is about giving people a reason to start rumors in a town that loves to start rumors about politicians and sex.
In some cases, it seems like it’s the wives that are uncomfortable with it. I heard that from a number of people. A lot of these guys, particularly in the House, they are from these more rural, small-town-based districts where the idea of walking around with an attractive woman under the age of, say, 30 at night, and being seen constantly with a young woman next to you could be a problem. So it’s really about trying to stop rumors before they start.
What’s interesting is when I talked to members who have this policy or who have similar, more informal policies in their offices, like not letting a female staffer drive them around, I felt that the idea that this could be preventing these female staffers from advancing in their careers honestly had not occurred to them.
When I was reporting out that story, I talked to congressmen Jason Chaffetz and Tim Huelskamp. Chaffetz, he won’t allow staffers to stay very late or show up very early, and Huelskamp said he likes to make sure that he’s surrounded by several people so that he can’t wind up being alone with any one staffer. Both [Chaffetz] and ... Huelskamp, who is actually not in Congress anymore, but who was at the time, were saying it’s really more preventing a certain perception. And I completely understand that. That makes sense to me.
But here’s what other women who have been in different offices are saying. They’re saying, I can’t become chief of staff if I can’t spend one-on-one time with my boss. They were saying, I can’t advance my career if I can’t spend this time with them. Men are being allowed to go to these events at night where, quite frankly, a lot of policy talk happens, and I can’t be there.
I got the sense that this just didn’t occur to congressmen who had this rule. It wasn’t something they had thought of. Again, this is not something that affects a large number of offices. But it still seems to be happening. It doesn’t seem to have changed. And I think the reason for that is that members of Congress have to get reelected. Everything in their lives is about perception. And it’s just such a big deal to them that that’s kind of taken precedence.
Karen Turner
Can you elaborate a little more on why this can be damaging to female staffers and their careers?
Sarah Mimms
Moving up in a congressional office is really about forming a close relationship with that member. It’s really like in any work environment. You get closer to a boss by being able to anticipate their needs, by understanding them on a policy level, by being able to write in their voice. And you can’t get that with limited access.
In some of these cases, I heard about how female staffers couldn’t sit with their boss in his office with the door closed. How are you supposed to have a conversation with your boss about raises, about moving forward in your career, about things you could be doing better, or issues with another office, how are you supposed to be having those conversations when the door is open? You really can’t.
A lot of women were saying to me, I had to leave my job, or I’m going to have to leave my job because I just don't see any other way for me to advance. And they’re saying, I care about my career and that’s why I came to Congress and Capitol Hill, because I wanted to work here and I want to do it at a high level and do it very well. But how can I move forward when men are able to have these interactions and I’m not?
Karen Turner
Is this practice discriminatory?
Sarah Mimms
I talked to a discrimination lawyer here in DC and Congress’s Office of Compliance. The lawyer, her name is Debra S. Katz, she said this was pretty cut-and-dried. If this was happening in the private sector, it would be discriminatory. These women would have grounds to sue. It would be a really, really major problem. The question is how does that apply to Congress and does it apply to Congress?
She’s been doing this for a while and reached out to a few other colleagues for me and passed on their responses as well. Their overall consensus was they had never seen this. Not in modern times. This is not something they had cases about, and they had not heard about this from clients. This was just not a thing outside of Congress.
And I think again that some of that is the nature of Congress. It’s very image-focused, it’s all about crafting an image around yourself, avoiding scandal, and it’s kind of the nature of Washington and Washington reporters. We love this kind of scandal. But also, it’s pretty old-fashioned up on the Hill in general. So it’s almost — I don’t want to say it’s not surprising, but if I knew that it was happening somewhere, it seems like Congress would be that place.
Karen Turner
Do you feel like the Mike Pence controversy fits into this practice?
Sarah Mimms
I was reading about the Mike Pence controversy the other day and immediately thought, “I know this move!” But for one thing, we do not know if this applies to meetings with staff. This is something that he said 15 years ago about having dinner with women or going to events where there’s alcohol with women without his wife present. So I don’t know if it applies to him having meetings with staff or anything like that, which was true in Congress. So just that caveat.
But with the Pence thing, this seems to be similar to the Billy Graham rule ... modeled after the famous evangelist. His rule was that you should not spend any time with a woman who is not your wife one-on-one as a married man. The rule says there’s no reason to do it, it’s better for the marriage, and you should avoid temptation and scandal.
Now, I didn’t see any particular correlation between this [female staffer exclusion] happening with very religious or evangelical members, although there were certainly some who fit that. But I do wonder how prevalent this really is outside of Congress and within the Christian community in general.
Karen Turner
Are there any women who don’t mind the policy?
Sarah Mimms
One former Capitol Hill staffer who I talked to was a young woman working for a House Republican, and he had a similar policy, not letting women drive him around and things like that. She was not bothered by this policy. She told me she appreciated that he was showing her that kind of respect. For her, it was more a sign of respect. Which I thought was really fascinating.
But that was a minority opinion of the women that I talked to. Now, it’s very possible that it was a self-selecting group of people who weren’t bothered by it who didn’t talk to me for the article. In particular, in light of this Pence thing, I have had a lot of people tweet at me about the topic, saying this is relationship goals, this is the way men should be — only wanting to spend time with their wives. So I think there’s a very interesting debate here.
But again, one of the reasons I wrote the piece and one of the things I talked to a lot of these members about was that I think what’s sort of flying under the radar here is just how much this can affect a very young woman’s career, particularly the career of a woman who wants to go into public service. And I think that’s the important part here.
Correction: This article has been edited to include that some male staffers felt that they benefitted from being able to attend events in place of a more senior female staffer barred from going.
Source
First of all I don't blame these guys. No one wants to be falsely accused. It almost cost Clarence Thomas the Supreme Court Judgeship. If these guys are Republicans that are doubly screwed because they already have a target on their back by a media ready to destroy them. It seems these feminists have trouble connecting the dots or they do connect them and they don't like what they see so they play the ignorance card. If he is alone with a female staffer and she gets mad at him or just PMSes out she can accuse him of sexual impropriety,guilty or not and the press will eat it up. If you women have a problem with this take it up with your fellow sisters. You know the ones who make false accusations and get away with it. If he isn't alone with her she cries discrimination. If you women have a problem connecting these dots you are in bigger trouble than I thought.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
3 manginas bite the dust
The alleged getaway driver now facing possible murder charges in the fatal shooting of three teen burglary suspects outside Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Monday allegedly "instructed" the trio to rob the house, according to a probable cause affidavit.
On Tuesday, police with the Wagoner County Sheriff's Office identified the alleged driver as 21-year-old Elizabeth Marie Rodriguez. Authorities also released the names and ages of the slain teens: Maxwell Cook, 19; Jacob Redfearn, 17; and Jaycob Woodruff, 16.
Killing of 3 teens during burglary may test Oklahoma 'stand your ground' law
Authorities said that around 12:30 p.m. Monday, Zach Peters, the son of the homeowner, called 911 to report that people had broken into his home and that he'd shot them in the kitchen area with an AR-15 rifle. Peters was in the house with his father at the time, police said. Neither were hurt.
In a 911 recording released today, Peters tells the operator that the alleged burglars were shot in the upper body and that he can hear one of the alleged burglars still talking.
"I'm barricaded in my bedroom," he says. "I am still armed in the southeast corner of my house."
Police said when they arrived, they found three deceased male teenagers. Two were in the kitchen area of the house; one appeared to have run from the home after being shot but had died in the driveway. Chief Deputy Les Young said the teens had been shot multiple times.
According to police, Rodriguez turned herself into authorities after the shooting, allegedly saying that she had information about the incident.
According to the affidavit, Rodriguez told police that she'd dropped the teens off at the residence and was waiting for them to return. The affidavit said that she "willfully" took the teens to the house and only left when she heard gunshots.
"It was learned through a witness at the scene that Rodriguez had previous knowledge of the house and the homeowner even [called] him by his first name," the affidavit said. "Rodriguez planned the burglary and took the three suspects to the residence on two separate occasions on today's date wanting to steal items."
Rodriguez was arrested on three counts of felony first-degree murder (for deaths that occur during the commission of a felony), three counts of first-degree burglary and one count of second-degree burglary. She has yet to be formally charged.
Authorities said they had not determined if Peters would face charges. Oklahoma has a "stand your ground" law, which applies the Castle doctrine to any place. State law presumes homeowners have a fear that justifies use of defensive force just by virtue of someone breaking into a home.
Rodriguez is scheduled to appear in court on April 5.
Source
On Tuesday, police with the Wagoner County Sheriff's Office identified the alleged driver as 21-year-old Elizabeth Marie Rodriguez. Authorities also released the names and ages of the slain teens: Maxwell Cook, 19; Jacob Redfearn, 17; and Jaycob Woodruff, 16.
Killing of 3 teens during burglary may test Oklahoma 'stand your ground' law
Authorities said that around 12:30 p.m. Monday, Zach Peters, the son of the homeowner, called 911 to report that people had broken into his home and that he'd shot them in the kitchen area with an AR-15 rifle. Peters was in the house with his father at the time, police said. Neither were hurt.
In a 911 recording released today, Peters tells the operator that the alleged burglars were shot in the upper body and that he can hear one of the alleged burglars still talking.
"I'm barricaded in my bedroom," he says. "I am still armed in the southeast corner of my house."
Police said when they arrived, they found three deceased male teenagers. Two were in the kitchen area of the house; one appeared to have run from the home after being shot but had died in the driveway. Chief Deputy Les Young said the teens had been shot multiple times.
According to police, Rodriguez turned herself into authorities after the shooting, allegedly saying that she had information about the incident.
According to the affidavit, Rodriguez told police that she'd dropped the teens off at the residence and was waiting for them to return. The affidavit said that she "willfully" took the teens to the house and only left when she heard gunshots.
"It was learned through a witness at the scene that Rodriguez had previous knowledge of the house and the homeowner even [called] him by his first name," the affidavit said. "Rodriguez planned the burglary and took the three suspects to the residence on two separate occasions on today's date wanting to steal items."
Rodriguez was arrested on three counts of felony first-degree murder (for deaths that occur during the commission of a felony), three counts of first-degree burglary and one count of second-degree burglary. She has yet to be formally charged.
Authorities said they had not determined if Peters would face charges. Oklahoma has a "stand your ground" law, which applies the Castle doctrine to any place. State law presumes homeowners have a fear that justifies use of defensive force just by virtue of someone breaking into a home.
Rodriguez is scheduled to appear in court on April 5.
Source
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
President Obama’s legacy lives on and continues to thrive under the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers.
The White House and Congress, which ostensibly want to undo the expansive regulatory framework of a Democratic administration, are doing nothing as its Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) expands its longstanding mission of blackmailing colleges into judging all accused students guilty of rape.
Brooklyn College Prof. KC Johnson, co-author of The Campus Rape Frenzy, writes at Minding the Campus that OCR is amassing enormous power for itself without so much as a peep from the White House.
Don’t be fooled by the “skinny budget” request by the Trump administration for the department as a whole, which doesn’t address OCR, says Johnson.
An OCR leader hired three days before Donald Trump’s inauguration is now enforcing its lawless diktats, former Harvard Title IX coordinator Mia Karvonides, who is a “true believer” in Johnson’s words:
The slowness with which Trump has filled executive appointments has maximized the power of Obama holdovers. … Karvondes’ rushed appointment leaves the impression that the outgoing administration intended to maintain the unfair Obama rules regardless of what Trump did. Every day that passes without Trump staffers in OCR allows Karvonides to implement her agenda unchecked.
The rogue office also continues to impose “voluntary” resolutions on schools under Title IX investigation, meaning they won’t be affected by any Trump reversal, and on its way out the door, the Obama administration sought funding for 157 new OCR staff investigators.
That’s because OCR’s years of encouraging students to file Title IX complaints had produced a bumper crop of sexual-violence allegations – and they aren’t just going to be investigated case-by-case.
Johnson cites a recent BuzzFeed article that says the recently departed OCR chief – now the chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights – secretly changed its protocol:
When Catherine Lhamon ran OCR under Obama, she expanded all Title IX sexual violence investigations to become institution-wide, so investigators reviewed all cases at a school rather than just the cases that sparked federal complaints, former Education Department officials told BuzzFeed News.
Here’s what this means, according to Johnson:
[Lhamon] had decided OCR would investigate not merely the complaints it received but thousands of other cases, even though no accuser had filed a Title IX complaint about any of these individual cases. On this matter, as on virtually all OCR-related matters during the Obama years, no sign of congressional oversight existed.
The next step is for the Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions to show it’s consistent about reining in Title IX abuse, and refuse to defend OCR’s 2011 and 2014 “Dear Colleague” letters that junked due process for accused students.
But more importantly, Congress needs to wake up and use “the power of the purse” to stop OCR’s vast agenda in the Trump administration, Johnson says.
Source
This is getting old. Real old real fast. We need to get in touch with the right people. We've got to shove this in the face of the Republican leadership. That is why we contact the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Senators James Lankford and Lamar Alexander are not to friendly to this bullshit either so we write them as well. Let's also contact President Trump and let him know too. The more of us they hear from the better. We helped to get rid of Cantherine Lhamon now let's get rid of Mia Karvondes and Dear Colleague.
Monday, March 27, 2017
Attention feminist/mangina troll
I received several comments from a feminist or mangina telling me I have a small dick,can't get laid and other material that has been used and abused over the years. This individual posted their comments on several posts. Rather than respond individually I would address them here. If you are a feminist then we got your attention and if you hate my blog that tells me I'm doing something right so I march on. If you are a mangina keep this in mind. Feminists eat their own. Especially male feminists. Men making deals with feminists in like making a deal with the devil. How close do you get before you get burned? Come back and tell us when they kick your ass. Then we'll see what tune you're singing then.
Sunday, March 26, 2017
No man is safe
I was listening to the 3-21-17 Tom Leykis Show in which Leykis had on Los Angeles attorney Adam Sacks. Sacks is usually on Tuesdays where he gives legal advice to the men who call in. Sacks defends men from the gynocracy that seeks to destroy them. This time was different. This time Sacks himself was a victim of the gynocracy. What happened was that Sacks was in the hallway of a court building in Los Angeles where he was conferring with a client. Out of no where some woman walks up to them and gives them a hassle. Sacks said this only happened for a few seconds and that he doesn't remember what she looked like. After she stormed off Sacks and his client went back to the courtroom. While in the courtroom Sacks said that there were a lot of Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies in the courtroom. They asked to talk to Sacks in the hallway. To the best of my knowledge he went with them. They accused him of battering and hitting the woman who argued with him and that they have the evidence on video. Sacks denies this. Stating he did nothing wrong. I guess his client went out and saw what happened because he backed up what Sacks had said. The thing was since Sacks stated he was innocent this didn't sit right with the cops because they called for reinforcements to intimidate Sacks. Sacks asked if he was free to go. The lead cop played some bullshit drama game but let Sacks go. Like I said his client backs what he is saying. The thing is that gynocentricity is running rampant. Cops are acting like her big brother instead of neutral 3rd parties. The thing is this happened to an officer of the court in a courthouse with judges and defense attorneys walking around. They are not afraid of them. Not anymore. The LASD,the Frankenstein monster,is ready to turn on its creator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)