Due Process On Campus

Excerpt:

“As the intimacy progressed, knowing that they both wanted to engage in sexual intercourse, Jane Doe advised Plaintiff that she was not on birth control. Accordingly, Plaintiff asked if he should put on a condom. Jane Doe clearly and unequivocally responded ‘yes.’ . . . They proceeded to engage in consensual sexual intercourse, during which Jane Doe . . . demonstrated her enjoyment both verbally and non-verbally.”
The next day, one of Jane Doe’s classmates, who neither witnessed nor was told of any assault, noticed a hickey on the woman’s neck. Assuming an assault must have happened, the classmate told school officials that an assault had occurred. Jane Doe told school officials the sex was consensual: “I’m fine and I wasn’t raped.” Neal’s lawsuit says she told an administrator: “Our stories are the same and he’s a good guy. He’s not a rapist, he’s not a criminal, it’s not even worth any of this hoopla!” Neal recorded on his cellphone Jane Doe saying that nothing improper had transpired, and soon the two again had intercourse.
Undeterred, CSU Pueblo mixed hearsay evidence with multiple due process violations, thereby ruining a young man’s present (he has been suspended from the school for as long as Jane Doe is there) and blighting his future (his prospects for admission to another school are bleak).
Title IX of the Education Amendments enacted in 1972 merely says no person at an institution receiving federal funds shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex. From this the government has concocted a right to micromanage schools’ disciplinary procedures, mandating obvious violations of due process.

Read the rest HERE

Sign Them Up!

An excerpt:

“While this is unfair and sexist — women should be allowed to serve in combat roles just as men are — it is immoral to force people to go to war, no matter their sex,” Julie Mastrine, the petition’s author and Care2’s activism marketing and social media manager, says in the petition document.  
But Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the No. 2 Democrat in the House, said this week that registering women is a matter of equality. 
“Women ought to be treated equally,” he told reporters. “If you’re going to have Selective Service registration continue, and you’re going to have women available to serve in the armed forces in either front-line capacity or support capacity — or both, which I think is now the case legally — then I think it makes sense to have eligible individuals, male or female, register as long as

Read the rest HERE

The “Dear Colleague” Letter and the inevitable backlash

An excerpt from THIS article:

As colleges face increasing pressure to aggressively investigate reports of sex assaults, some critics say the rights of the accused are being trampled. Now they want federal guidance on the issue to be tossed out.

Their target: a “Dear Colleague Letter” issued by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights in 2011 that laid out specific requirements for dealing with sexual violence under Title IX, a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.

Schools that don’t comply risk losing federal funding.

Critics say the letter unlawfully imposed binding regulations, with severe consequences for the accused, without going through the public notice and comment process required by federal law. The letter should therefore be withdrawn and schools should review any resulting punishments of students, they say.

#FeeltheBern of the Social Democrat, not a Democratic Socialist

An excerpt:

Sanders, as everyone knows, calls himself a “democratic socialist.” The word “democratic” is fundamental here, because historically socialism has not, typically, come about as a result of free and fair elections. In most socialist countries, like the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic where your humble author was born, socialism was imposed at the point of a gun. Sanders, therefore, is wise to distance himself from the socialists of yesteryear and insist that socialism in America should be chosen, freely and fairly, by the electorate.

As many of Sanders’s supporters have repeatedly and rightly pointed out, socialism is not communism. In fact, for most of the 20th century, socialism was understood to be a halfway house between capitalism and communism. The latter was a utopian vision of the future characterized by classless, stateless, and moneyless communal living. Strictly speaking, therefore, no communist country was ever “communist”—not even the Soviet Union (a.k.a., the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

What then was socialism? Socialism was an economic system where the means of production (e.g., factories), capital (i.e., banks), and agricultural land (i.e., farms) were owned by the state. In some socialist countries, like Poland, small privately owned farms were allowed to operate. In other countries, like Yugoslavia, small mom-and-pop shops also remained in private ownership. Strict limits on private enterprise limited accumulation of wealth and supposedly provided for a relatively high degree of income equality.

Two important caveats need to be kept in mind. First, lack of private enterprise resulted in low economic growth and, consequently, low standards of living. Thus, while income equality was relatively high (if party bosses and their cronies were excluded from the calculations), people in Soviet-bloc countries were much poorer than their counterparts in the West. Nobody has yet figured out a way of combining genuine socialism with high rates of growth over a long period of time.

Second, top members of the communist parties, which ran socialist countries, were generally exempted from limits on wealth accumulation. As such, communist leaders from Josip Broz Tito in Yugoslavia to Kim Il Sung in North Korea enjoyed luxuries unimaginable to the rest of the populace. Most importantly, top members of the government were above the law. They could not be accused, arrested, or convicted of ordinary or even extraordinary crimes (e.g., Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot). As such, inequality of status between the governing class and the governed masses in socialist countries was as great, if not greater, as it was under feudalism.

Read the rest HERE

How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Answer: 12
One to screw it in,

one to excoriate men for creating the need for illumination, 

one to blame men for inventing such a faulty means of illumination, 

one to suggest the whole “screwing” bit to be too “rape-like”,

one to deconstruct the light bulb itself as being phallic, one to blame men for not changing the bulb, 

one to blame men for trying to change the bulb instead of letting a woman do it, 

one to blame men for creating a society that discourages women from changing light bulbs, 

one to blame men for creating a society where women change too many light bulbs, 

one to advocate that light bulb changers should have wage parity with electricians, 

one to alert the media that women are now “out-lightbulbing” men, 

one to just sit there taking pictures for her blog for photo-evidence that men are unnecessary.

As you can see, I despise feminism. When the women’s rights movement morphed into a permanent victim cult, it lost any sense of integrity the movement once had. 

I am all for the women’s rights movement but I feel feminism is a hate filled anti-male ideology hell bent on destroying the family.