The Lynching That Wasn't

Remember that saying, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. 

Its called Occam's razor.

http://www.pjtv.com/s/GEZDSMRS

STOP HAVING BABIES OUT OF WEDLOCK

Even Bill O'Reilly sees the utter DISASTER that has become the black community.

I Support George Zimmerman..... but

he should've minded his own goddamn business.

I know, there were robberies in the neighborhood and the community has a right to uphold the sanctity of its homes. That said, Martin was a PRIVATE citizen walking down a PUBLIC sidewalk. He had the right to be LEFT. THE HELL. ALONE.

Instead he was confronted and questioned by a total stranger and may himself been afraid. But he did a very stupid thing: HE ATTACKED his questioner with force and was seriously injuring him when stopped by a gun fired at close range. He should've said something crass and rude and simply walked off; instead he attacked a man who WAS NOT attacking him, not physically anyway.

Reader, trust me, people DIE from blows to the back of the head. Routinely. The head is not made for being bashed into the sidewalk. After Mr. Zimmerman's head was bashed quite a few good shots (more than I would've tolerated), he was filled with panic and fear and resorted to his last, emergency device - his 9 mm handgun. Shot at close range it can be lethal and it was this time.

That is a travesty as Mr. Martin was NOT guilty of anything that should result in his death. But he put a man in a desperate position and pressed his advantage - you've got to respect someone's dire reactions at such a time. Mr. Zimmerman was desperate and desperate men do desperate things. It was foolish to put Mr. Zimmerman in that position. Did he put himself in that position? In part, but not enough to justify the violence he was being subjected to. He did nothing physical to warrant the attack he received.

By the way, let's all act surprised by the fact that Mr. Martin, really, a young man of 17, was and is fatherless. The greatest lesson any boy can receive from his father is when to get physical with another man and when to let things lie. I tell my son repeatedly NOT to engage in violent congress unless faced with no other alternative; that most men are full of noise and will likely insult and berate you repeatedly, but will not attack you. In such cases you merely return their verbal abuse and/or shrug it off, but you do not provoke them and you do not attack them; however if you are yourself attacked, you must defend yourself quickly and fiercely with force. I believe that if one practices enough martial arts, it is possible, against an ignorant opponent, to disable them without hurting them, quickly and without severe physical damage (which will only get you sued, of course).

Not mentioned with any emphasis in any news media is the fact that Mr. Martin is fatherless, that I'm aware of. Why? Because being fatherless is SO WIDESPREAD it is not even considered noteworthy.

Liberate Men? Society (especially women) would rather they were slaves

http://www.merinews.com/article/liberate-men-from-the-shackles-of-manhood/15877700.shtml

You Can Take the Thug out of the Ghetto.....

...but not the Ghetto out of the thug, or so it would seem.


Aaron Hernandez can from a very bad neighborhood. There were rules and customs most people simply do not deal with.

Respect is very, very important. A pecking order, such as is established in nature among competing males must be established. This is normally done through athletics and scholarship in the classroom. With so many men dropping out of school and/or involved with street crimes/drug dealing, etc., in an attempt to acquire money and therefore elevated status, competition among males can quickly fall into a gang, or mafia-style in which violence becomes the predominant method of separating strong males from weak ones.

A male who is first insulted is then singled out for not having the courage to stand-up for himself or retaliate. Lack of retaliation invites more ridicule, perceived weakness and lack of access to females, which is what this is all about. Due to this very fine line of being a male females will consider or not consider, the males become VERY sensitive to their reputation. Reputation is EVERYTHING. So at the most minor of slights to them, they will retaliate with FORCE. Of course many men become wildly oversensitive to this and their reactions can become wildly over responsive. To the point where Aaron Hernandez felt justified in killing a man because he perceived the man's actions as a 'snub' to him and his reputation.

Think of how screwed up one's mindset must be when he is a multimillionaire athlete in the upper classes of society and he feels the NEED to kill a man simply because of a perceived slight in a social situation that few others took seriously.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Men are Pigs, but..... uh oh.

What Girls Are Thinking

girls are angry at being called slut, being told to STOP SLEEPING AROUND, being told they encourage bad behavior with the TOO-tiny outfits they wear. 

They are all sleeping around so much, the men NOW EXPECT SEX, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO IT. The girls have OVERFED the men, so to speak. 

#1 - girls think they MUST do this because men and women are THE SAME

#2 - girls look to men for what they expect and how to please them and men's response is predictable: sex. What else? Why would they not? Men are programmed to have sex!

#3 - girls watch women having sex and they emulate women. Women in movies, in magazines, on t.v., in commercials, on the internet, everywhere. We are a culture of constant and total sex.

people, you don't get it. Trust me. We are not a culture of sex when compared to Saudi Arabia. WE ARE A CULTURE OF SEX COMPARED TO SWITZERLAND. We are so far past the "center" of what might be "reasonable" that people don't even notice anymore. 

WE ARE A BOILED FROG. 

The "envelope" of acceptable sexual imagery in public has been pushed to the point where a FASHION SHOW OF SEXY WOMEN IS CONSIDERED "ENTERTAINMENT." Folks, what's next? Soft-core porn? This is PAST RIDICULOUS.  

Men's sexual lust and drive is on OVERDRIVE/RED-LINE. 

People, men didn't DEMAND THIS. There was no national MARCH or PROTEST by men demanding these things or redress in the form of these things. 

HOLLYWOOD+COMMERCIALISM+SEX APPEAL = BUY/STRIP/SELL/SCREW message into your head. 

Men are programmed for sex - they don't need a push. 

Women? Women are FREAKING DOOMED. Folks think men like me hate women. 

FUCK YOU.

I'm the only one who seems to be aware of the UTTER DESTRUCTION this has on them.

Girls want male attention. And they'll COMPETE for it. So instead of a smile or a fitting top, THEY HAVE TO SCREW THE GUY. Why? BECAUSE THE BAR HAS BEEN RAISED THAT HIGH. 

With sex SO WIDESPREAD and SO PREVALENT, girls who genuinely do not want to sleep with a man FEEL COMPELLED TO DO SO OR ELSE LOSE ACCESS TO HIM; lose his attention, lose his interest and lose out on him as a potential mate. 

GIRLS do not do what they must do in this case - stick their middle finger up and say fuck you, I won't do it. They are TOO AFRAID of being seen as an outsider, a prude, as different, as a girl that boys SHOULD AVOID. 

Women will read this and fire back that men should not sleep around or ask girls to. 

THIS IS TOO STUPID FOR WORDS. BOYS WILL NOT REFUSE SEX, YOU FREAKING MORONS. Men are BIOLOGICALLY PROGRAMMED for sex and boys have RAGING hormones!!!

Give GIRLS a break and get them to band together and NOT SLEEP AROUND. How? TRADITIONAL MEANS. PARENTS, FRIENDS, CHURCH, TEACHERS, COACHES, THE GREATER COMMUNITY.

IT MUST HAPPEN NOW. 

The status quo is JUST DREADFUL. And while the men are oversexed and have developed a false expectation for sex, YOUNG GIRLS ARE REELING: they are depressed, anxious, angry, confused, AND NOW BITTER.

Feminism is the New Quack Religion

Today I was told "I understand the love of children. But to make the leap to feminism is unnecessary is stupid."

There was a time when feminism didn't exist. SO DID WOMEN LIVE IN CHAINS AND DARK CAVES!?!?!?

Oh wait, that's right, the divorce rate back then was practically nil, everyone spoke and preached responsibility and accountability.

Today?

Today I'm told we "need" feminism. The person who said this made NOT ONE statement, assertion of fact, link, reason, article, or support of his statement.

He merely mentioned this as though IT WAS OBVIOUS AND CLEAR AND WIDELY AGREED UPON by everyone. Like saying "swearing is bad, don't do it." A blanket statement that simply cannot be argued with on MORAL grounds.

I mean, OF COURSE we NEED feminism! I mean..... shhhh..... CAN YOU IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT IT!?!??!!

GASP!!! PERISH THE THOUGHT!

This individual tried quickly and bitterly to dismiss me or even engage in any point/counterpoint argument as he was well aware HE HAD NO POINTS TO OFFER.

Like a robot or monkey he's merely REPEATING WHAT HE'S BEEN PROGRAMMED TO SAY.

People, WHY IS THIS THING, IDEA, PHILOSOPHY, ETC. NECESSARY, DESIREABLE, OR GOOD!?!?

Be honest with yourself. If you're answer is, well, it....its obviously something that's required given the type of things that happen today..... you see.....

OR ANYTHING THAT SOUNDS SIMILARLY VAGUE, NONSENSICAL, MEANINGLESS, OR PRESUMPTUOUS, THEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE SAYING.

You cannot believe - IT BOGGLES THE MIND - to know how many GROWN, COLLEGE-EDUCATED ADULTS have made those same statements to me without being able to describe EXACTLY WHAT THEIR POINT IS, or just WHAT. EXACTLY. THEIR. ARGUMENT. IN. SUPPORT. OF. THIS. IDEA. IS.

It is literally revealed to themselves RIGHT BEFORE THEIR OWN EYES THAT THEY HAVE. NO. ARGUMENT. 

And even in the face of that fact, THEY CANNOT EVEN UNDERSTAND THEY DON'T RECOGNIZE THEY HAVE NOT ACTUALLY SAID ANYTHING of substance. 

NOTH-ING.

What to Even Say to This?

Basically, this is nothing more than women assigning every bad event, every Hollywood-backed commercial designed to get them to buy things based on anxiety, every bad feeling or bad thing said to them to some vague, single, external force. 

And the antidote to that force is Feminism.

What do you even say to that?

Ladies, ITS NOT.

When women were all married and the divorce rate was practically zero, MEN WERE MEN, and ladies acted like ladies. You are all individual people. Simply state out loud, you want respect for yourself and you will not accept anything disrespectful. Some men, some people will DISAGREE with you or do things you don't like.

These girls also fail to see a man's side of.... just about everything. Minimizing men as we are, and ELIMINATING their role in the family as caretaker and breadwinner, THEY ARE ANGRY and LASHING OUT.

Men in 1950 DID NOT DO THIS. They had a job, a role, they felt important, THEY. FELT. NEEDED.

What happens when someone has no role in society or the family?

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO WOMEN, how would they behave, IF THEY DID NOT BEAR OR RAISE CHILDREN? Why then, THEY WOULD BE TOTALLY DISCARDABLE, superfluous, temporary people to men, wouldn't they?

They THINK that's what they are now, but in reality THAT is what feminists have made MEN!

THE IRONY!

http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/


Who is this group? They define themselves below. They have banded together to defend the word 'feminism.'

READ THAT AGAIN.

They do not declare defending THE CONCEPT, IDEAS, IDEALS, OR PURPOSE of Feminism.

JUST THE WORD ITSELF.

They do not even consider WHY people are lashing out at feminism. ITS NOT EVEN ADDRESSED. They only know feminism must. be. good. They don't say WHY it must be good. Or why its needed. They simply aim to make something many people HATE, seem better.

THIS IS ABSURD, HYSTERICAL, AND JUST MIND-BLOWINGLY NARROW.

"Identify yourself as a feminist today and many people will immediately assume you are man-hating, bra-burning, whiny liberal. Perhaps a certain charming radio talk show host will label you as a “Feminazi” or “slut.” Even among more moderate crowds, feminism is still seen as too radical, too uncomfortable, or simply unnecessary. Feminism is both misunderstood and denigrated regularly on a broad societal scale.
We, the 16 women of Professor Rachel Seidman’s Women in the Public Sphere course at Duke University, have decided to fight back against these popular misconceptions surrounding the feminist movement. Our class was disturbed by what we perceive to be an overwhelmingly widespread belief that today’s society no longer needs feminism. In order to change this perception, we have launched a PR campaign for feminism. We aim to challenge existing stereotypes surrounding feminists and assert the importance of feminism today. We feel that until the denigration surrounding feminism and women's issues is alleviated, it will be hard to achieve total gender equality, both statistically and socially.
 has decided not to release a single, “official” definition of feminism. The goal of our project is to decrease negative associations with the word that would keep anyone from identifying with the movement. However, we encourage you all to keep defining it yourselves… you have given better answers than we could have ever imagined!"

Whatever We're Doing, We Need REAL CHANGE NOW.

India Imports US Model of Criminalizing Men in Divorce

And it blows up in their face.

There is now a skyrocketing number of guess what? Male suicides (as a man has no money to offer in remarriage, he has no value), and divorces in general. As many women who were forced to marry in order to leave the home decide to get out from their marriage (in some cases from a bad marriage, in some cases from a good marriage, and in some cases, the marriage was fine and they just wanted the money). 

Now women are being given the incentive to blowout their husband WITH NO REASON NEEDED, and walk away. Hopefully no one EVEN CONSIDERS marrying these women in the future....

Remember INDIA IS STILL A VERY POOR COUNTRY. People do things just to survive. If you REALLY want to go from poor to rich or even middle class, YOU PROBABLY NEED TO GET YOUR HANDS DIRTY. 

It used to be women married IN ORDER TO move up in lifestyle or class. This had its downsides BUT IT ENCOURAGED MARRIAGE AND FAMILIES!!!  Is that SO AWFUL?

Which is worse? Providing incentives to marry or WHAT THEY HAVE TURNED TO: PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR DIVORCE?


http://www.498a.org/

Why supreme court calls 498a as "Legal Terrorism"?

25 reasons “Why IPC 498A is Anti-Social?”

1 It is handled under the Criminal law for marriage related matters and not under Civil Laws.

2 Non-bailable warrant does not require proof before arrest. No investigation necessary. This exposes the vulnerability of the accused taking away their basic human rights.

3 Even those who were not part of the 'day-to-day' family life could be named and arrested on one complaint, which can also include pregnant women and children.

4 Accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent. No where in the world it is so.

5 Gifts are sometimes misunderstood as dowry. Who decides that the gift exchanged were 'gifts or dowry'?

6 It is non-compoundable which means that the complaint can’t be taken back that hinders any scope of reconciliation between the couple.

7 After a man is accused of 498A, he will not take his wife back later.

8 Old parents who lived with dignity and respect have to live with the stigma of harassing their daughter-in-law for the rest of their lives.

9 Groom’s relatives don’t find a suitable bride after they are accused under 498A

10 Most of the cases are filed because the husband refuses to throw his parents out of the house at the wife’s demands.

11 Husband’s job is at risk when he is accused under 498A who could even be the only breadwinner of the family.

12 The health of the old parents dangerously deteriorates after they are arrested in a 498A case.

13 Some even commit suicide for not able to withstand the depression and frustration of been falsely accused.

14 Old parents after 498a case become very apprehensive and advice their son not to marry again.

15 The family ends up paying a very high price to settle the case, the money that was saved for the parent’s health.

16 Most often the lawyers tend to take the family for a ride to extract as much money as possible.

17 The possibility of a woman over-reacting on a trivial matter in the family is never considered as a reason of complaint.

18 A woman tries to get divorce proceedings faster by filing a 498a case even if no dowry was demanded.

19 The witnesses (neighbors) tend to support the woman for not getting into a police case. They even fear of been accused by the woman if they don’t support the woman.

20 Some women marries an NRI and slaps a 498A case only to extort large sum of money

21 Even after knowing that the complaint can be false, police tend to support the woman and asks the man to settle the case with a financial compensation.

22 The case can easily linger in the court for years and only the groom’s family has to pay the price.

23 498A case can be filed even after the divorce, which only means that the accuser wants to demand money legally apart from maintenance.

24 There is no prohibition clause in the 498A law that would stop women to misuse it.

25 It is nearly impossible to file a case of defamation on the accuser because the police will not register the case and it would be hard to prove it.

Note :The existence of dowry deaths in the rural areas is not the reason for lenient laws as understood by women organizations. The law is already unfair, biased and inapplicable. The true reason for dowry deaths in rural areas is poverty and under-developed civilization. Dowry deaths still flourishing in the rural areas and misuse of 498a law is flourishing in the urban areas. Unwillingness of the women’s organization to alter the law so that misuse of law can be stopped is evident. On the contrary, women organizations are planning to strengthen and increase the severity of the 498a law to curb dowry death, which is absolutely preposterous. One must not forget that the chunk of the GDP comes from the urban cities where these laws are prevalently misused. If the misuse of laws still continues then the social infrastructure will collapse which will have a direct unfavorable impact on the country’s economy. If the law can’t curb dowry deaths, can’t even stop misuse, then what is the use of such a law that causes millions of people to suffer ? 

Wait, You Think She Should be Held.....ACCOUNTABLE!?!?!?! WHAT?

Tiger Woods: Domestic Abuse Double-Standard?

In terms of marital fidelity, Tiger Woods is apparently a two-timing cheating douchebag; which must be stated explicitly off-the-bat.

Notwithstanding his gigantic marital ’shank-o-potamus’ infidelity woes, the one majorly-overlooked legal aspect of the recent Tiger Woods salacious saga is the legal debate on the potential ‘domestic abuse’ implications of this case.

With more and more women coming forward about their alleged trysts with Tiger- including an $8-an-hour diner waitress at a local Perkin’s restaurant in Florida- it is becoming more and more clear that Tiger is not the ‘golden boy’ that his PR team has spent diligently trying to create and protect.

Because not only has he cheated on his wife, but he has also cheated on his two young children: Daughter Sam Alexis (2 years old) and his even younger 10-month-old son Charlie Axel.

You cheat on your wife; you cheat on your babies.

Simply put; marital infidelity of any kind against your spouse (and your children) is completely inexcusable; but ‘domestic violence’ of any kind is also equally inexcusable in our American legal system, regardless of the gender of the abuser.

For those of us in the universe who have seen this HILARIOUS animated ‘re-creation’ of the Tiger Woods saga below by Taiwanese television, there are two possible ‘animated’ scenarios about what transpired that one infamous evening in question:

(HINT: You do NOT have to speak a word of Chinese to love and appreciate the absurdity of this YouTube video)

Now, moving on to the law in Florida relating to ‘domestic abuse’ and spousal violence…

Notwithstanding the fact that millions of people may (rightfully) believe that Tiger had deserved ‘to get his ass whooped’ for his many marital transgressions; let’s flip the script for one moment and imagine that it was his wife Elin who had been hypothetically cheating on Tiger and that her hypothetical facial lacerations/injuries were caused when Tiger had beaten the crap out of her with a golf club after finding out about her extra-marital affairs and cheating.

In that hypothetical flipping-of-the-script, would any of us be talking about the steamy details about her lovers?

Would we be talking about dumb-ass text messages and voicemails that she may have sent to her lovers in this hypothetical scenario?

Hell…No…

Let’s be honest; we would ONLY be talking about domestic abuse and how the police should throw Tiger’s ass in jail for ‘domestic violence” for beating his wife with a golf club and causing those injuries.

This is where our American ‘domestic abuse’ double-standard may come into play.

You see; because of Florida’s very strict domestic-violence laws, admitting to the police “that [his wife Elin] Nordegren in any way harmed him would virtually guarantee that the glamorous Elin would be led out of their mansion in handcuffs, even if he protested it…”

In 1991, Florida became one of many states to set up a pro-arrest policy in domestic-violence cases. For years, women’s rights advocates had complained that police treated domestic-violence cases as “private family matters” and assumed the abused spouse (usually women) would never follow through and press charges against their abusers.

Let us also remember; there have been scores of men who have also been victims of domestic abuse from their crazy-ass violent abusive wives and girlfriends.

Although the overwhelming majority of domestic abusers are certainly men, let us also not forget the much-smaller (but equally-reprehensible) pantheon of celebrity female abusers:

Tawny Kitaen, the chick from the Whitesnake videos charged in 2002 with committing domestic violenceagainst her then-husband major league baseball pitcher Chuck Finley of the California (now Anaheim) Angels; the infamous Tonya Harding, the ex-Olympic ice skater who allegedly threw a hubcap at her former boyfriend; Ms. Kim Mathers (the slightly-demented true love of Eminem); and Mrs. Brynn Hartman, the wife of legendary Saturday Night Live comedian Phil Hartman, who murdered him in their marital bed and then killed herself in May 1998.

And of course, Mrs. Lorena Bobbitt; who became famous in the annals of human history for cutting off the ‘Tiger Wood’ of her husband and then subsequently tossing it out of her car window during a leisurely drive.

So again; let’s hypothetically flip the script for a moment.

If Elin had hypothetically cheated on Tiger instead and it was found out that he had beaten the crap out of her with a golf club, would we as a society be obsessed with her fictitious extra-marital lovers and saying that she probably ‘deserved’ the beating?

Again…Hell no.

We would rightfully be throwing Tiger’s ass in jail for ‘domestic abuse’ and seeing his mug-shot within our global cyberspace with the magical (and seemingly ubiquitous) TMZ.com watermark circulating through our viral airwaves.

Yes; anyone who cheats on their spouse (and their own children) is a douchebag; you will never see any debate here.

But, if it is officially found out that his wife beat the crap out of him; then why the domestic abuse ‘double-standard’?

If women and men are truly equal, then shouldn’t potential ‘domestic abusers’ of both genders be treated equally under the law as well?

Or do we as Americans only consider it ‘domestic abuse’ when a man beats the living crap out of his wife?

And not vice versa.

Feminism Too Radical for Educated Women of the Middle East

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-10/jailed-at-home-tailed-abroad-iran-writer-on-sex-voting.html

"Parsipur: I am not a feminist. Society is made of men, women and children, so we cannot separate them."

Her country beat her, jailed her, and outlawed her books, and even she can tell Western Feminism IS COMPLETELY WHACKO.

But Women Don't Leave Men!

They don't have greed or lust or anything of the sort.

THEY'RE PERFECT!

or so the foul garbage spewed by the mainstream media would have you believe:



http://madamenoire.com/279105/and-when-she-get-on-she-leave-yo-arse-for-a-industry-man-celebrity-women-who-left-their-men-when-they-got-fame/

PURELY EMBARRASSING: Supreme Court is Now a Joke

Remember, the Courts, as envisioned by the founders, were put in place to ensure FIRST AND FOREMOST, IF NOT ONLY, THAT YOU'RE RIGHTS WERE NEVER VIOLATED. PERIOD.

Criminals sometimes walk the streets because authorities simply cannot detain ANYONE without evidence of a crime.

READ ALL OF THIS NOW.
From Karl Denninger:

The Judiciary Is Dead

 

There is no longer any doubt at all; the American Experiment is now dead and what remains is the question of whether the people will rise and put a stop to the crapfest that we are experiencing or whether our nation will be overtaken by the likes of a Pol Pot, Hitler or Mao.

I recently wrote on a case in Panama City, FL -- quite near here -- where a drug dealer had the charges against him tossed out.  He was pretty-clearly guilty of the crime he was accused of, but the Bay County Sheriff's office unlawfully attached a GPS tracking device to his vehicle -- they failed to get a warrant before doing so and trespassed to replace its batteries.

That was bad enough but then they lied during discovery.  The operating theory on "why" is that the Sheriff knew damn well that had they disclosed the GPS during discovery and depositions the evidence was subject to exclusion because it was improperly obtained.  Since the Sheriff's Office had no other way to discoverwhere the marijuana was without the illegal tracking device their case would have collapsed but for their illegal conduct. 

The Judge was having none of that crap and tossed the charges -- properly so.

Contrast this with the Zimmerman case where Team Skittles has repeatedly tried to muddy the waters and hide behind various ruses.  One of the many prosecution games in this case deals with "Witness 8", the infamous "Dee Dee", who it appears may not in fact be one person but is two or more who have been conveniently substituted as the "prosecution" and their advocates wish.  Without "Dee Dee" the gist of the case is that a man was attacked, mounted and while having his head smashed against a concrete sidewalk and he defended himself by shooting the attacker.  This is hardly the stuff of a Murder 2 charge but that's what the defending party, George Zimmerman, is facing.  For those who believe that being mounted and punched repeatedly, having your head bashed upon concrete, is not justification for shooting the attacker in self defenseplease read about the soccer refereee who was killed by a single punch thrown by a*****ed-off player.

The prosecutor and "family lawyer" (Crump) have repeatedly tried to obfuscate and hide evidence, including the contents of the deceased's cell phone and the judge has been, up until now, complicit in that crap.  The 5th District Court of Appeal, however, yesterday reversed said Judge unanimously and is going to allow Crump to be deposed as to the "interview" he conducted with said witness.
Is justice beginning to appear in the Zimmerman case?  We don't yet know.

But what we do know is that yesterday another case came down from the US Supreme Court, Marlyland .v. King.  King was arrested and charged with assault.  Incidental to that arrest his DNA was taken and ultimately matched against a "cold case" file implicating him in a******for which he was tried and convicted.
The question before the court was whether the forcible taking of DNA evidence from an arrestee, who remains entitled to the presumption of innocence until tried and convicted, was a search subject to 4th Amendment protections -- and if so whether that search in this case was unlawful and therefore excluded.
The hoops the Court jumped through in order to justify what they admitted was a search, including outright fabrication, reach the levels found when the PPACA ("Obamacare") was ruled Constitutional.

If you remember the central point of Obamacare was that Congress, supported by a lengthy Congressional record, crafted the language of the statute to result in the imposition of a penalty for refusing to buy the allegedly-required health insurance.  Congress did so because the imposition of a direct tax is only legal by Apportionment in Article 1, Section 2.  The income tax required a separate Constitutional Amendment for this reason, as it was not an excise and previous attempts to levy such a tax were struck as explicitly unconstitutional.

When the law was challenged the Roberts Court could not find a means by which imposing a penalty onrefusal to commit an act was Constitutional.  Therefore, they simply re-wrote the law and claimed that in fact the law imposed a tax, ignoring the fact that direct taxes can only be levied by apportionment and thus the result they reached was explicitly unlawful standing alone!

Yesterday's ruling is no less outrageous nor any less of an utter fabrication.  That the suspect appears to in fact have committed the******in question is not the issue.  The issue is whether or not law enforcement can engaged in unbridled intrusions into one's person, say much less property.

If you make me dictator I can stop virtually all gang-related shootings and drugs, for example.  Youmerely have to let me search anyone and anything at any time I'd like, and I'll find most of the drugs and guns before anyone can use them.  Yet this is, and should be, blatantly unlawful exactly as was the search by the Bay County Sheriff's office.

Rather than judge the facts what happened here, as with Obamacare, was that the Court tortured the English language, the facts and the Constitution to reach a pre-ordained result.

To reach that result in this case the court ruled that the statute authorizing the collection of DNA fromsuspects was reasonable because:

The Act serves a well-established, legitimate government interest: the need of law enforcement officers in a safe and accurate way to process and identify persons and possessions taken into custody.

That would sound appropriate on first blush until one examines the time-line on which the sample in question was analyzed.  Specifically, it sat un-processed for months after the arrest and in fact the defendant was out on bail for an extended period of time before analysis was commenced!

There was no need to collect the sample to identify the defendant; they knew damn well who he was and no processing of his DNA was going to change that.  The US Supreme Court invented from whole cloth justification for their ruling through a pure fabrication that was not and could not be reached from the evidence placed before them.

Scalia wrote a blistering dissent on this opinion, essentially calling out the court's opinion as fabrication founded on fantasy, and with good cause.

But this is not the first such opinion of note recently, it is the second.

A founding principle of justice is that when one is wronged you have recourse to the courts which exist to provide a check and balance on the improper behavior both of private individuals and the government.  Without that check and balance alleged society is reduced to tit-for-tat recourse, or worse, preemptive and often violent action taken by those who believe they have been wronged. 

It is for this reason that drug dealers shoot one another on street corners rather than sue over contractual disputes or lay charges for theft when one rips off the other; barred from the use of the civil and criminal systems of justice due to our idiotic insistence on prohibiting their trade in the first place they turn to the only means of justice available to them.

Our civil society depends on a clean and mature arbitration procedure by which results flow from acts and principles, not the other way around.  To eviscerate that ability is to invite and promote preemptive and retributive violence both against private parties and against the government as the civilized alternative and superior means of settling disputes has been corrupted.

Abuse by the US Supreme Court is nothing new; Wickard .v. Filburn is one other such "shining" example in which the Court ruled that a man growing wheat on his own land for his own personal consumption nonetheless "influenced commerce" and thus was subject to regulation because the farmer would, absent that growing of wheat, be inclined to buy it from an out-of-state supplier.  The mental gymnastics and outright invention of facts not in evidence required to reach that conclusion stood as testament to judgment by desired result rather than judgement through examination of the facts.

Now we have seen not one but two repeat performances that eclipse even the outrage of Wickard in just the last couple of years.

No nation's civil order can or deserves to stand when the people lose recourse to the law.

Kennedy, along with Roberts and the rest who joined in this opinion, have a special place in the 9th Circle of Hell waiting for them, and when, not if, our civil society dissolves they should be, and will be, charged with their large part of the destruction of our justice system which led to the inevitable loss of both civil order and our nation.

Why Don't Men Just Robotically do Whatever Women Demand!?!?!?!

Up next, a law requiring men to become fathers. unless and until such time a woman wants to be a single mom, then the father gives all his money to her. the end.

May 27, 2013 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

I think we’re seeing the leading edge of an epidemic in the United Kingdom. Its symptoms have so far appeared only in feminist women. They include high fever, childlessness, a pronounced tendency to blame men for the absence of children and a propensity for just making stuff up. The only known treatment requires the victim to write lengthy screeds damning men for her problems. Therefore, if any feminist in your life is exhibiting these symptoms, please direct her to The Guardian, The Daily Mail or any other major daily paper.
It was just a few days ago that I posted a piece on an article in The Guardian by Barbara Ellen. Now we’re treated to this by Melissa Kite who seems to be in the advanced stages of the disease (Daily Mail, 5/22/13). Plainly, she needs help.
Kite is now 41. She doesn’t have a child, a situation she tells us is OK with her. But she once wanted one and the fact that she’s without just isn’t her fault. It’s the fault of not one but two men with whom she had relationships in her late 20s to her late 30s. She was scheduled to marry the first one, but broke it off at the last minute in order to be with the second one.
I called off a wedding in my early 30s amid serious doubts about the direction in which my fiancé and I were heading - doubts made worse when he kept saying 'maybe next year' to the prospect of a baby.
So she took up with the other man, a broker, and they apparently had sex without using any sort of contraception, taking the “if it happens, it happens” approach. No go. Kite didn’t conceive, so the pair went to an assisted reproduction clinic. The man at first agreed to go through with the regimen, but backed out at the last minute. Kite was 38 and her window of opportunity was fast closing.
Well, doubtless the man’s ultimate refusal to follow through with the assisted reproduction try was traumatic for her, but her assumption that, if he had, the process would have been successful, is ill-considered. The fact is, she hadn’t conceived despite the absence of contraception, so there’s a pretty good chance that either her eggs or his sperm were unequal to the reproductive task. Typically, Kite never considers the possibility. She’s too busy calling the broker a coward and a fraud to examine her own behavior and assumptions.
So I guess I’ll have to. Here’s one key quotation:
There are still some stubborn taboos about conception, and one of them involves the myth that deciding to have children is something women and men do together in an open and honest manner.
For some lucky couples it may be like that. But that is not my experience, nor the experience of many of my girlfriends.
It’s a pretty remarkable claim that men and women talking honestly about having or not having a child is a “myth.” In the finest feminist tradition, Kite cites no science for her proposition, when in fact there’s a fair amount that suggests that men and women do discuss and decide these things. Many don’t of course, but many do.
Then there’s Kite’s casual assumption that she and “many of my girlfriends” constitute the entire world of women or, failing that, represent it. In fact, they don’t. As but one example, a study out of Germany finds that a whopping 41% of women in Kite’s demographic of university-educated women “remain childless with a high proportion doing so intentionally.”
Kite of course doesn’t do science, preferring to project her own feelings onto the world.
Behind the smile of every stoical so-called 'freemale' who says she doesn't mind being childless is probably a woman like me, with a story about a difficult man.
Nope, it’s just not true, but Kite is content to pretend to herself and us that whatever’s true of her is true of women generally. What nonsense.
But of course it gets worse — much worse. Kite is so intent on avoiding responsibility for her own childlessness that she never once acknowledges what is surely apparent to her readers — that she behaved passively and therefore ambivalently on the subject of children.
Go back to her claim that men and women don’t discuss “in an open and honest manner” whether to have children. Well Ms. Kite, speak for yourself, because that’s exactly what you didn’t do. Never once did you sit down with any of your boyfriends and say some version of “I really want a child, and I’d love for you to be the father. So I’d like you to tell me if you want to do that or not. If you do, let’s get started. If you don’t, I’ll understand and I hope you’ll understand that I’ll have to move on with my life. If you want some time to make up your mind, that’s OK, but it can’t be indefinite. I’ll give you six months.”
See? That’s all it takes to discuss the matter openly and honestly. It’s simple and straightforward, but Kite never did it. The failure to discuss the matter in adult terms and to put a time limit on the decision clearly reveals ambivalence on her part. If she were sure, she’d have done so as countless women do every day. Instead, she describes this scene.
A few weeks in, he had whisked me away to his godfather's country estate for a weekend with relatives who had brought their young families. As the children played on the lawn, he put his arms around me and said: 'Wonderful, aren't they?' 'Yes,' I said, feeling pangs. 'Although you wonder how people with so many children manage.' 'Oh, you'll manage,' he said.
To Kite, that constituted not only a promise to have children with her, but one that was forever binding. From then on, according to her, he couldn’t change his mind. Her ambivalence is plain for all to see, but he’s not entitled to any. Did she ask him what he meant by his statement? No. It’s clearly open to interpretation, but for Kite, it can only mean what she wants it to mean.
Having refused to behave like an adult, it comes as no surprise that Kite also refuses to examine herself, but we can. According to her description of her two relationships, they both went the same way. At first, the guy looked like a good prospect both as a mate and a father, but as time went on, he became less and less enthusiastic about performing the latter role. I wonder why. Kite never scrutinizes herself, but don’t we have to ask whether the two men found that prolonged exposure to Kite, er, chilled their ardor?
After all, here’s a woman who’s all too ready to blame all her own shortcomings and failures on her partners. She’s a woman who’s perfectly willing to call those men cowards and frauds. She wanted a child, but never once had a “put up or shut up” discussion with them. In short, she comes across as not very nice, not at all responsible, passive-aggressive and immature. What’s not to like?
With such a woman, no one will be surprised to learn that she makes no effort at empathy. For Kite, the men in her life are to function as tools of her desires. They’re there to do for her, not to have lives of their own, wills of their own, wants, needs, etc. She never considers the possibility that they have perfectly good reasons to reject the idea of fathering her children. Just think about what a skirmish or two in family court might look like to a father when Kite is on the other side.
And if we’re to treat those men like human beings instead of automatons, if we’re to try to stand a minute in their shoes, we can see a multitude of reasons — perfectly sound reasons — for their hesitancy at fathering children. Obvious enough is that from here Kite looks like one of the worst possible partners. But beyond that, what every man with a pulse knows is that fathering a child is fraught with peril.
Any father worth his salt will love the child and devote himself to it. He’ll bond with it, work to support it, change himself from free spirit to pram-pusher and on and on. But then one day, for any reason or no reason, his partner can take all that away. She can raid his wallet while she denies him any contact with his child. Meanwhile, she’ll have made sure to slander him in court making him out to be an abuser of her, his child and anything else that comes to mind. If he manages to stay out of prison, the child still grows daily more distant from him and, if it suits his ex’s preference, may be taught to hate and fear him. All the while he’s paying alimony and child support.
Again I ask, what’s not to like?
Would Kite have done those things if she’d managed to convince one of her partners to produce a child? From her description of herself, I wouldn’t be at all surprised. It’s always been all about her, so why would that have changed?
But whatever might or might not have happened, how’s a man to know? Agreeing to father a child is like diving into a lake at midnight. Who knows what’s on the bottom or how close the bottom is?
All of that is beyond Melissa Kite’s grasp. Her narcissistic worldview has room for only one thing — blaming others for her many problems. If she and Barbara Ellen are any indication, it’s a disease, and it’s catching.

Hook-Up Culture: Romance, Emotions Dead, Hollywood and Sex Rule

Could some ultra-left wing liberal who says things have changed, we are more "enlightened," everything is fine, please read this and tell me how the fuck you bother to declare yourself an intelligent human?

Thanks.

BY FOX NEWS INSIDER //MAY 23 2013 // 12:09PM

AS SEEN ON AMERICA'S NEWSROOM

When Martha MacCallum shared her reaction this morning to an op-ed she read recently on what's being termed the nation's "hookup culture." In the article, MacCallum said a female college student talked about how the routine of drinking and having sex, then pretending you don't know each other, was getting her down, adding that she thought it would be nice if 'you could at least acknowledge each other' on campus the next day.

Questioning the root of this new trend and what it means for our society in the big-picture, MacCallum took it upon herself to find out ... by going to the source. College.

One male student sitting with a group of his guy friends said, laughing, "Most of my female friends I have hooked up with or tried to."

And forget going on "dates." In the hook-up culture, getting to know each other means getting it on ... and without the promise of any follow-up.

"The next morning you wake up, see what she looks like, and then maybe she gets your number," said another male student. [JB: emphasis my own]

Sigh. Is chivalry dead? Watch the full segment and let us know what you think!

Read more: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/23/martha-maccallum-investigates-hook-culture#ixzz2U8hddiut

EIGHT TIMES?!?!!? Officer Kills Hostage and Perp

I know its hard being a cop. I know cops. But I'm afraid this one doesn't smell right.

First off, the Press is fellating the police department. ASK SOME POINTED QUESTIONS! YOU ARE THE PRESS! ITS YOUR JOB!

But no. Instead they spent THIS entire column making excuses. Wow, GREAT job, Huff Post. As always.

The officer was confronted with a hostage situation. First off, you always try to talk the guy down. Well, that didn't work. Instead, the perpetrator pointed a gun at him while using a hostage as a human shield.

No good options there. You have to defend yourself as the cop. However, I might insist you wait for the guy to shoot first, as before he shoots, its still just a threat. But then again, it wasn't me he was aiming at!

The officer fired his weapon - that's understandable.

What's confusing is that he seems to have TOTALLY disregarded the hostage! I'm sorry, but the hostage here is HIS FIRST AND ONLY CONCERN. And YES, that means he puts himself second. Don't like that? THEN DON'T BE A POLICEMAN.

Its a TOUGH job and that's why. Lives are on the line, including yours.

Now the cop shot. EIGHT TIMES. That's a lot of shooting people. Now he was a good shot. He hit the perpetrator SEVEN TIMES. Problem is he hit the INNOCENT HOSTAGE, once in the head. And killed her.

SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF A COP IN THAT SITUATION? Killing both people? If the perpetrator killed the hostage, he himself would almost certainly be caught (he was a low-level thug with a long record on parole!) and dealt with appropriately, perhaps given the death penalty. But if the Perp is left alone, he may not harm the hostage, and he may eventually surrender, turn himself in, etc.. Remember. If the cop simply leaves or backs up, or whatnot and REMOVES HIMSELF from the equation, the guy could take the hostage inside and it turns into a standoff. Then you have him. WHY you ask?

BECAUSE HE WILL RUN OUT OF FOOD! He can't stay in there forever! He has no means of escape and killing hostages only gets him the death penalty. Unless he has a death wish, HE'S SCREWED.

So if the cop can get a REALLY CLEAN SHOT, with VERY LOW chance of hitting the hostage, that may be a good idea, BUT you have to consider that if you just back away and get him in the house, HE'S SCREWED, EVENTUALLY. So why take that chance?

And the cop shoots EIGHT TIMES? How about twice and assess? Pop, pop. Ok, is the perp still standing? Is he hit? Is he a threat? Can the hostage clear the line of fire (can she get away)?

No, no, no, no?

Ok. Shoot again, Pop. Assess. Same questions. No on all? Shoot again.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. The guy shot EIGHT TIMES INSTEAD. That's Pop, Pop, Pop, Pop, Pop, Pop, Pop, Pop. That's panic shooting. Cops are NOT supposed to panic fire. Why? Because innocent people are killed that way. Its reckless.

Remember, its HARD to stay on target the more times you shoot BECAUSE OF THE RECOIL OF THE GUN. A 9 mm has LESS recoil than most guns, but it sill kicks in your hand. SO THE MORE  YOU SHOOT, THE LESS YOUR ACCURACY.

BUT THE PRESS DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT. ASSHOLES.

The cops KNOW THIS AS WELL. So any cop will tell you, when accuracy counts, DO NOT rapid fire. One or two shots at most. Remember, HE HIT HIM SEVEN TIMES. So he wasn't missing. All he had to do was pause for a second after the first, second, third, etc..

Unless he hit the victim with the first shot (she was hit in the head).

In that case, she's dead.

And he has no reason not to unload on the perp at that point. Although, AGAIN, once the man is no longer a threat, YOU STOP SHOOTING. Period. He's a perp, not a shooting target. The point of shooting him IS NOT. TO. KILL. HIM. Its to eliminate the threat he poses to lives. Once that's done, he's given to the courts to assess the crime. Period.

Instead there are two bodies and it turns out the bad guy DID NOT SHOOT ONCE.

The bad guy had better judgement than the cop. Yeah. He did. He was threatening, trying to get the cop to back off. He was scared. The cop got scared (understandably), AND OPENED FIRE.

Hello?!?!? THERE IS A HOSTAGE IN THE LINE OF FIRE.

The military has a saying; DO NOT FIRE UNTIL FIRED UPON. They play "escalation" games; our enemies will make threatening moves towards us. But if we fire first, WE STARTED THE ENGAGEMENT. And the enemy is retaliating. So you ALWAYS wait for the enemy to fire; because he almost never does. I mean almost NEVER. Because he knows what he's starting.

That, like it or not, is what happened here. Only the good guy was supposed to wait for that first shot. AND EVEN THEN, he should hesitate before firing! Why? BECAUSE THE HOSTAGE'S LIFE COMES FIRST. The cop acted as though the hostage WASN'T EVEN THERE. EIGHT TIMES.

The bad guy was in the driver's seat. And he knew it. That's why he was so threatening. He had the advantage. He had a shield.

By the way, the bad guy had a pistol. Not a bazooka. Not a machine gun. The cop had a bullet-proof vest on. Pistols aren't ultra-deadly people. Unless you're shot at close range in the chest or head, you'll probably survive a pistol shot. They're not laser beams. They're not high-powered hunting rifles. The cop had a vest on. The bad guy didn't. And the bad guy, LIKE MOST BAD GUYS, didn't realize his pistol was NOT a laser beam. He's also probably not a crack shot. The odds of him shooting the cop in the head at that range? Not great. He had one hand on the pistol. This ain't the movies.

Cops, UNFAIRLY, must control their fear, put themselves at risk, and make choices ON BEHALF OF THE HOSTAGE.

We have entered into this era of the cops coming first, second, and last. Uh, THAT'S NOT "serving and protecting."  That's saving their own ass and leaving yours out to twist in the wind. I know someone has a right so protect their own life. I support that right.

But shooting eights times, in this case, was a STUPID decision, and the policeman should've known better. Fire him, at a bare minimum. Remember, THIS WAS NOT A SHOOTOUT. The bad guy NEVER FIRED HIS GUN. There are people who can have a gun pointed at them and not panic. THOSE people can be cops. The people who panic and unload half their magazine? NOT COP-ELIGIBLE. PERIOD.

The authorities USED TO attempt to figure out which one you were. Not anymore.

Obama Outraged Over IRS Abuse

THROW THE IRS OFFICIALS IN JAIL THEN AS THE LAW DEMANDS.

Oh, that's right, they will apologize because the law doesn't apply to them.

You know what that amounts to? It amounts TO THEM DECLARING THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW.

A Sip of Poison from The Chemist's Hand

I'm trying really hard not to laugh in Ms. Grossman's ignorant, dumb-struck, pathetic face, HARD, here. 

I'll settle for this:

Hey Ms. Grossman, what GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND, BABY. Poison the well, AND NOW YOU CAN DRINK FROM IT. 

HOW DOES IT TASTE!?!?!?!? 

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A FEMINIST'S SON IS ACCUSED OF RAPE

April 24th, 2013 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

There used to be a saying, a joke really, with a point to make. My memory of it isn't perfect, but it went something like this: a conservative is a liberal who's just been mugged; a liberal is a conservative who's just lost his job. Or words to that effect. So in the same vein, I guess a fathers'/men's rights activist is a feminist who had this happen to her son (Wall Street Journal, 4/16/13).

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."

"Could not possibly have believed existed..."? Really? Ms. Grossman is a feminist who doesn't know what much feminism consists of. The idea that she has a son in college and didn't know about the feminist-inspired and backed attacks on male sexuality, particularly on college campuses beggars belief. After all, how long has it been since we heard about The Antioch Rules under which every male student must obtain clear verbal assent to every single thing he does with a woman. Failure to do so can result in academic discipline up to and including expulsion. "Is it perfume from a dress that makes me so digress?"

Needless to say, no woman on Antioch's campus need do the same toward her male date. That's because, in the time-honored feminist tradition, women are deemed incapable of any form of sexual offense against men, but men are pretty much walking rape machines.

So Ms. Grossman wants us to believe that, highly intelligent, highly educated feminist that she is, she's never heard of the Antioch rules or the agitprop that passes for education about healthy male/female relationships on college campuses. She claims to be a shocking revelation the "Dear Colleague" letter sent to every college and university in the land by the director of the Education Department's Office of Civil Rights, feminist Russlyn Ali, last year informing them that henceforth allegations of sexual assault must be adjudicated by campus officials using the lowest standard of evidence in American jurisprudence, that of a "preponderance of evidence." This informed feminist pretends that she's never heard of the many cases of false allegations or the railroading of men off campus and sometimes into prison. She claims she doesn't know about the more than 100 separate organizations that have spoken out against Russlyn Ali's "Dear Colleague" letter.

I, for one, am not buying it. Her WSJ piece comes directly under the heading of the famous line from "Casablanca." Grossman is "shocked, shocked!" at the news that college campuses are traps for male students accused of even the slightest sexual impropriety.

Still, she's writing in the pages of a very influential and widely-read newspaper, so her "discovery" that campus sexual assault policies come close to Stalinism in their "guilty till proven innocent" mindset is welcome.

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.

And that, my friends, is a pretty fair summary of what's laughingly called "due process" regarding allegations of sexual misconduct on campus. It's a perfect description of a system that's designed to do one thing - convict. Noon is a dark time on campus these days.

And of course, lest anyone think the consequences of said system stop at the campus gates, think again. The accused is essentially required to defend himself and without access to an attorney, so he'll likely say a lot to try to clear his name. What he probably doesn't know is that, if he's ever brought before a criminal tribunal, every word he said at the college hearing can be used against him in the criminal trial.

Grossman is an attorney and was able to help her son through his Star Chamber ordeal without punishment. Good for her. Better is her "death row" conversion.

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...

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.

Has her son's experience truly made her understand her own complicity in it? She's a feminist, so what was she doing while Russlyn Ali and countless other feminists were doing everything in their power to make sexual assault an ever broader term and sexual assault claims ever easier to prove? Did she, as part of her activist zeal, ever write a letter to NOW, to Ms., to any of the feminist organizations that blatantly demand one set of standards for the sexual behavior of men and another for that of women? She's a lawyer, so what's she done about false claims of domestic or sexual abuse as part of a campaign to deny children real, ongoing relationships with their fathers?

We hear a lot from feminists to the effect that there's a Great Silent Majority of them who aren't radical, who don't hate men, who would never lie about domestic violence, the wage gap, patriarchy, the "rape culture," etc. But the fact is that if there were that many feminists who differed from what feminism has become, well, it wouldn't have become what it is. Grossman's anguish is real enough, but only because it was her son whose head was on the block. Had it been another young man's - and it has been far more than she has any idea - she'd have ignored it completely.

But of course, that's how the fathers' and men's rights movements get so many of their adherents. Second wives of fathers who pay too much child support but don't get to see their kids, or who pay alimony to an ex who wouldn't dream of getting a job and off the gravy train are a constant stream of new recruits for us. Mothers whose sons find themselves the victims of paternity fraud or see their children adopted away without their consent are too. And of course there are many others.

Judith Grossman should be ashamed of herself. She was always oh-so aware of injustice except when it was done to others and when it was done by those on "her side." It's only when her ox is gored that she wakes up and sees what she and her comrades have wrought over the years.

On the other hand, at least she sees it now and wrote a piece for millions to see about her tardy epiphany.

THE NATIONAL PARENTS ORGANIZATION IS A SHARED PARENTING ORGANIZATION

The National Parents Organization is a non-profit organization that is educating the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents and extended families. If you would like to get involved in our organization, you can do so several ways. First, we would love to have you as an official member of the National Parents Organization team. Second, the National Parents Organization is an organization that believes in the importance of using social media as a means to spread the word about shared parenting and other topics, and you can visit us on our Facebook Page to learn more about our efforts. Last, we hope you will share this article with other families using the many social networking sites so that we can bring about greater awareness of shared parenting. Thank you for your support.