Crystal Gail Mangum - Feminist Icon

Finally, Crystal Gail Mangum has been called to account for her crimes!

You will, of course, remember Ms. Crystal Gail Mangum. She is the slanderous harpy (i.e., feminist) and "exotic dancer" (i.e., hooker) who lodged false allegations against the Duke University Lacrosse team in 2006 - apparently because she felt slighted when she was not tipped what she thought she deserved for dancing at one of their parties.

As per usual, when North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper intervened and administratively dropped the charges against the lacrosse players, the decision was made in the local district attorney's office to not prosecute Mangum for her crimes of abuse of process, filing a false police report, obstruction of justice, or even perjury.

The stated excuse for not filing such criminal charges against her was that she was too mentally unstable to be legally responsible for her crimes (but then, aren't all feminists similarly mentally unstable?). However, let's never forget that it is the official legal dogma of the feminist movement that slanderous women who file false allegations against innocent men (and there are many - up to or exceeding 60% of the aggregate allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and child abuse or molestation are false allegations) should never be prosecuted, inasmuch as such prosecutions of slandering hussies will deter "real victims" from filing their complaints. Oddly, feminists have never argued that those who file false insurance claims should not be prosecuted lest such prosecutions deter those with real insurance claims from filing....

But one district attorney in a false allegations case, in explaining why he would not file charges against the perjurious feminist who slandered an innocent man, demonstrated the depths to which femtard mythology has penetrated into the black heart of the legal system....

"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them."

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), in fact, codifies this feminist desire to encourage false allegations by encouraging states to adopt no-prosecution policies against any women who file charges of "domestic violence" against a male - even if such charges are determined to be false.

The end result of this turn of events is that feminists strive for a cultural milieu in which women are encouraged to file false charges against innocent men by removing all costs to themselves for doing so. It is the decriminalization of the crime of perjury - if one is a woman, of course.

Now of course, morally, matters are much stickier. For in fact, we have all known that Crystal Gail Mangum was a criminal nearly from day one. That the state refuses to prosecute her based on its political corruption by feminist dogma does not mean that she is not a criminal - for certainly she is a criminal, regardless of whether she has been prosecuted. And she is rightly viewed with contempt across the board in this country today.

But nevertheless, the whole Duke Lacrosse situation remains an interesting illustration of what passes for "justice" in the twisted feminist mind. Emotionally unstable and mentally shortchanged women are encouraged to approach life from a perspective of vigorous anger and self-absorption, never considering the lives of so much as their own children, and certainly giving less than a care about any man or even society itself. When such women act out... errrrrrr... lash out... uhhhhhh... "empower themselves," the innocents whom they are in the process of destroying are expected to simply accept their punishment (in the criminal realm, or settle, at a cost of thousands or millions of dollars in the civil). Meanwhile, the costs to those individuals is astronomical (as the Duke Lacrosse players and their families had to expend millions of dollars to defend themselves against the slander of Mangum and District Attorney, Mike Nifong), the costs to society are unexpected and far-reaching (as the Duke Lacrosse team lost an entire season of play, Mike Nifong lost his job and wound up in jail, Duke University settled out of court for willingly participating in the slander against the lacrosse players, several players did not graduate from Duke, the lacrosse coach lost his job, and the entire Durham community was divided along political lines) over what was, remember, merely a woman acting out because she had been brought up with a sense of feminist entitlement in a feminist culture which teaches women that if they do not get what they want they are justified, nay, even required, to be assertive and stand up for your rights and not be any man's doormat and lash out in some way at whatever displeases them.

Feminism is, of course, a mental disorder. It is a form of neurosis, in which its adherents are taught to ignore reality, replacing it with a dream world designed in their own heads. Further, it is a form of sociopathy, in which social conventions and the rights of others are submerged into an extreme narcissism and self-absorption that produces a bent toward aggression and crime. Whether those crimes be the filing of false allegations, other forms of perjury, or the slaughter of unborn innocents on a scale that dwarfs the Holocaust, feminists are simply and inarguably criminals - though mostly unprosecuted, as was Mangum.

Feminists often tell us that "sexual predators" (i.e., those whose lives have been unjustly stained by the feminist false allegations industry's slanders) should be stopped on the first sign of deviance, so that far greater crimes in the future may be avoided.

Would that feminists were equally as concerned about the criminal potential of their own adherents, whose crimes are not imagined. Mangum's criminal record, for instance, is interesting. She was arrested for driving while impaired in 2000, and surrendered (or had revoked) her license in lieu of prosecution. But in 2002, Mangum was charged with grand larceny, driving while impaired, speeding to elude arrest, and assault on a government official when she stole a taxi belonging to a man to whom she was giving a lap dance, initiated a high-speed chase with police, and attempted to run over a policeman who approached the taxi on foot. She pled guilty to misdemeanor charges and spent three weekends in jail.

Then, of course, came the moment(s) of truth. On February 17, 2010, Mangum's daughter called Durham County's 911 and reported, "My mom's gonna die if you don't hurry."

Upon arrival, the police found Mangum in a violent, chaotic meltdown. She was, of course, merely "being assertive" in feminist style. Police report that they observed her "kicking, scratching, and throwing objects" and that they heard her threaten to kill her boyfriend (!!!???), one Milton Walker, when she screamed "I'm gonna stab you, motherf****r!" Yes. In front of police. Think maybe Missy has come to believe that there are no consequences for her wrongdoing...?

Upon further inspection of the home, police discovered that she had deposited her boyfriend's clothing in the home's bathtub and set them on fire.

Did I mention that Mangum's three children - aged 10, 9, and 3 - were present in the home?

I am pleased to report that Mangum has finally been charged with a crime -a whole slew of 'em, in fact! From attempted murder, to simple assault, arson, child endangerment, communicating threats, identity theft, damage to property, and resisting arrest, she has finally had the state endorse the proposition that all of us knew to be true from early in 2006 - that Crystal Gail Mangum is a sociopathic criminal who ought to have been locked up long ago.

Yet, something bothers me about all this....

I have previously pointed out that Mike Nifong is a feminist icon. It really doesn't make sense that he has been disbarred, charged and convicted with crimes, and locked up in jail - all he did was exactly what feminists have demanded that all law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts do: believe all allegations made by women against men regardless of the evidence.

In the same way, I can't really see charging Mangum with any crimes since all she is doing is exhibiting the strong, independent, assertive (some would say narcissistic and sociopathic) personality type that is encouraged in women by our feminist culture.

For instance, feminists encourage the filing of false allegations against men, and even admit that they are not really concerned that such false allegations take place! One Catherine Comins of Vassar College remarked in Time magazine....

Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."

Undoubtedly this is true. Primarily, I would think they gain a realistic perspective on feminism.

If false allegations are merely a public service done by women toward men, why then, who is more of a feminist iconoclast than our beloved Crystal Gail Mangum?

Feminists additionally assure women that, when they feel that their rights are trampled on, or when their feelings are not taken into account by the male authorities in their lives (be that daddy, hubby, lover, or employer), they are justified in manufacturing criminal or civil charges, in the form of a false rape claim, a claim of domestic violence, or a manufactured civil claim of sexual harassment.

Undoubtedly, Mangum merely looked at the economic hardship of her country (for she is undoubtedly a patriot), and decided to handle her problems without further burdening a family court system that is already overburdened with the false allegations of thousands of other women! Criminal? Hardly. Mangum is merely a feminist who respects Hayek!

Feminist culture teaches women that their happiness, self-fulfillment, self-esteem, and self-absorption is the primary issue in all of reality. It justifies the destruction of innocent men, the devastation wreaked upon the institution of marriage, justifies the groaning weight of the welfare state, and even serves as a ready reason for the slaughter of the unborn in the womb. Children are merely appendages that can be disposed of at will when the interests of the mother are at stake.

It is puzzling, then, why Mangum could be charged with child abuse. After all, had the fires that she set inside the house actually gotten out of hand and her children had perished, undoubtedly she would not have thought of it as murder, but rather as a 40th-trimester abortion (at least for her ten year old, feel free to do your own math on the other two kids!).

I could go on, but I think the point I am making is rather much clear. Crystal Gail Mangum may or may not be a criminal, but in a feminist culture in which her behaviors are merely the logical extension of femtard agitation it is worth considering: Is it true that Crystal Gail Mangum is a feminist icon, having mastered the behaviors and attitudes encouraged by feminism, and if so, is it also true that feminism is merely the politicization of a criminal sociopathy?

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 7472: Guest Column by Paul Elam

Sadism, Sodomy, and Other Forms of Justice

a guest column by Paul Elam

Renada Williams got mad at her boyfriend. So she had him beaten, raped and tortured.

According to Philadelphia police, Williams, who was angry at her 29 year old lover for undetermined reasons, orchestrated a plan of revenge so sadistic and unconscionable that readers must be warned in advance that the details are graphic and disturbing.

Williams lured the man into her bedroom with the promise of sex. At some point, she excused herself from the room and returned with two assailants, including one juvenile, whom she had recruited to express her considerable displeasure. She enlisted the men’s help by alleging that the victim had previously raped her.

The two attacked the innocent man in William’s presence, pummeling him with fists, even as he denied having committed rape.

Then the beating worsened. The assailants dragged the man from the bed and tied him to a sofa where they went after him with a 4 by 4 wood plank, extension cords and a mop. Police reported that the wood plank inflicted multiple lacerations. The perpetrators doused the open wounds in Clorox bleach and ammonia.

Next, they sodomized him repeatedly with a mop handle, which they lubricated with Pine-Sol cleaner.

The attack lasted 24 hours, and would likely have continued to a deadly end had Williams’s roommate not arrived and managed to free the victim, despite attempts by the trio to prevent her from dialing 9-1-1 and notifying authorities.

The reaction from police to the case was predictable. “This type of crime shocks your consciousness,” said Detective Captain Jack McGinnis.

There was no indication if he was referring to the brutality of the two men, or the vile scheming of the woman involved. Perhaps it was both.

With due respect to the police, it hardly matters.

Because, our repugnance aside, we might at some point need to wonder what difference there is between Renada Williams and Crystal Gail Mangum, the infamous liar and false accuser of the Duke Rape case, other than they each sought a different form of power to enforce their will.

And I say we “might” wonder, because it seems apparent that we should actually be asking a question that is really more to the point.

What is the difference between the assailants in this case and the criminal justice system itself?

As it applies to the crime of rape, the answer is as simple as it is disturbing; negligible.

With all the indignation and repulsion we feel for the almost unspeakable things happened to this man, we learn absolutely nothing from it if we don’t recognize that what happened here is not so different than what we sanction and justify routinely in the name of justice.

When it comes to rape, even the substantial number of them that are of the concocted variety, we pay officials to react with the same destructive mindlessness as those two disgusting automatons acting on behalf of Williams. Indeed, we cheer them on as surely as she must have done while they violated and abused an innocent man.

So, perhaps we should not be so outraged when private citizens emulate the actions of people that we vote for and admiringly call the guardians of the public peace. Thugs with mop handles are thugs with mop handles, even if we dress them in black robes, or call them Mr. Prosecutor.

You see, those two culprits weren’t torturing a human being. No, no, no. They were delivering some by-god-law-and-order on behalf of us decent folk. The enforcers acting at William’s behest were doing so with no less regard for presumed innocence than Mike Nifong or a slew of other state functionaries strewn across the Kafkaesque landscape of the American legal system.

It’s the stuff of Mel Gibson movies; Charles Bronson in slightly older school terms; not justice, but naked vengeance. And as a culture, we eat it up like beggars at a free buffet.

It is a biologically driven bloodlust to protect women by playing hero for them. Any of them. At times we play that role so well that we look at a lying, skanky, and drug addled hooker- and imagine that she is actually a damsel in distress. Then we can go after a bunch of college kids, who have never committed a crime in their lives, and do everything we can to destroy them.

We created rape shield laws so that even when the accuser is a lying, skanky, and drug addled hooker, it can’t be taken into account by jurors in determining her credibility. School administrations, like the one at Duke University, will host rallies, light torches and instigate other fomentations. Media outlets across the land saturate us with the story and run features on the plight of women to drive in some emotional punch.

And unless the accused is able to prove quadriplegia or clinical death at the time of the alleged attack (and often when he can), most of us will sit and wait for the orgasmic moment that the hammer comes down on his head.

When those falsely accused are convicted, as many of them have been, they are sent to prisons where they are regarded as the lowest of the low, and are often subjected to the very tortures for which they were wrongfully convicted- over a period of years.

Yet we are outraged about this being done summarily, and on the street, rather than through the system?

Please.

The culprits in this case are nothing more than vigilantes that cut into the action of a system that routinely does the same from behind a thin facade of legal decorum that is every bit as manufactured as Williams’ phony story.

Rape vigilantism and rape justice have simply become two different railroads, the latter only distinguished from the former by the pomp of placebo credibility, and the fact that vigilantes actually believe they are going after guilty people.

One might imagine that the scores of innocent men now imprisoned are not so comforted by all of this. That comfort is left to be enjoyed by the masses who patronize, buckets of popcorn in hand, the criminal justice systems theatre of lies.

And in the end, the poor unfortunate in this case may well have been lucky. His accuser could have sought, and would have received, help from the state, had she chosen them to act out her rage rather than a couple of hoodlums. The way things stand now, he has escaped with his life and his freedom, and he will get one benefit that seldom falls on those falsely accused.

There will be some who will believe his innocence and see him for the victim he actually is.

Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief or Men’s News Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.

Women Never Lie About Rape - Chapter 7245: Tim Cole Vindicated

To merely ponder some truths is to be fully persuaded of the mental illness and moral vacuum that is feminism.

The Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer (March 20, 2010), from wire reports, states that the family of a man from Forth Worth, Texas, who died while imprisoned for a rape he did not commit cried and hugged at his graveside Friday, holding a framed copy of the first posthumous pardon granted in the state of Texas' history.

Gov. Rick Perry had already granted Timothy Cole's pardon nearly three weeks ago. He gave Cole's relatives the pardon document earlier Friday.

Cole was cleared by DNA testing in 2008 (though please note, he had always been innocent, unlike his accuser, who presumably wobbles around scarfing down huge amounts of chocolate, discussing Oprah and American Idol, and continues to refer to herself as a "victim" even as we speak), nine years after he died in prison at the age of 39 consequent to asthma complications. He had spent the final 13 years of his life behind bars.

On several occasions, Cole had been offered opportunities to walk free and receive a pardon if only he would admit his guilt in the rape. He had always refused, maintaining till his untimely and tragic death that he was innocent.

Cole served his country in the United States Army and would have graduated from Texas Tech University excepting for the false allegations made against him by feminist icon, Michelle Malin.

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 4762

Women do not lie about rape. We all know that because the feminists have told us that it is so.

And if a woman ever lies about rape, she is a liar, but not because she lied about rape. Rather, she is a liar because she lied about lying about rape. For the one thing that we know (because feminists have told us so!) is that women do not lie about rape. We have yet to receive a similar memo on whether women lie about lying.

Women, of course, know that there is far too high a social cost to lying about rape. For instance, they might be charged with a crime. Oh, wait.... Well, anyway, everybody immediately blames her for being raped, like in the Duke Lacrosse and Hofstra cases. Oh, waitaminnit.... Well, of course, her sexual history is then explored.... Dang! Duke Lacrosse again!

Well, at any rate, women have no reason to lie about rape. I mean, it's not like they would lie about rape to try to extort money from somebody. And a woman would never lie to make a political point. And a woman would never lie to simply be vindictive. And no woman is vile enough to make stuff up during a custody battle, divorce, or similar legal proceeding. And of course, women are so morally evolved that they would never even think of lying about rape in order to excuse their own questionable behavior. And of course, it is the height of misogyny to believe that a woman might level charges that could expose an innocent man to dozens of years in prison merely to get something as worthless as, oh, say, a day off from work?

Well, now we can add one more reason why a woman would have no reason to lie about rape: to get her own sorry rear out of trouble!

Turns out a 15-year old in the Carrick section of Pittsburgh, PA, recently told cops that some loathsome figures had kidnapped her, spirited her away in the back of a van, and raped her in the privacy of the woods.

Is this the part where we add the obligatory "she feared for her life!"???

The truth?

Our repugnant little minor had been feuding with ol' Mom and Dad. She took off, no doubt thinking, "I'll show THEM a thing or two!" But when she realized she didn't have a job, didn't have a place to live, her various boyfriends' parents might not take her in, and no offers to be CEO of major corporations (or even to teach Women's Studies at Yale! the utter inhumanity!) were incoming, she decided it might be a good idea to make her way back home.

Problem: How to avoid being grounded until 2015?

Ahhhhh! I know, I'll become a victim!

For, being a public school student (no doubt), our repugnant little minor has long ago learned the central issue of all of feminism: victims are not responsible for their actions, and therefore cannot be punished!

And who best fits this profile?

Crystal Gail Mangum... Danmell Ndonye... you get the idea. When a woman makes a false allegation of rape, domestic violence, abuse, or sexual harassment, she is not a perpetrator of the crime of perjury, she is a victim. Someone to be pitied and treated, not punished. A false allegation of rape is a free pass out of whatever trouble may be ailing you!

Our children have learned well the lessons of feminism. And feminism has successfully enabled those who are willing to slanderously destroy others for even the smallest of rewards. You shouldn't have to suffer being grounded, punished, disciplined, or corrected honey - just slander and you can have your way.

If she were my kid, she'd be grounded till 2015....

Women Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 2478

"The reason feminism uncovered this reality [of male oppression], its methodological secret, is that feminism is built on believing women's accounts of sexual use and abuse by men."

Catharine MacKinnon, Feminism Unmodified



“It’s incumbent on us to believe what complainants tell us ... It’s a matter of support. They’re vulnerable.”

Sergeant Doug Smith, the cop who investigated the false charges against a Canadian Member of Parliament (who will remain nameless because he is the REAL victim), and levied felony charges against him despite the "victim's" inability to remember in which year the "rape" took place, despite the 15 drafts of the complaint that it took to work out all of the "victim's" inconsistent claims, and despite the fact that the "victim" had been previously convicted of lying about a Social Security scam and had falsely accused one of her bosses of sexual harassment.

From reports at WCBSTV.com.

Wrongly Named In Hofstra Rape: 'Happy To Go Home'

Charges Dropped Against 4 Men Under Arrest; Search For 5th Called Off

September 17, 2009, 9:22 A.M.

REPORTING: Magee Hickey

NEW YORK (CBS) ― Just minutes after the charges were dismissed against four men accused of gang-raping a Hofstra student, there were hugs and jubilation from family members as the quartet was released from the Nassau County Jail Wednesday night.

The bombshell admission that the 18-year-old Hofstra University woman had lied came when she was talking to prosecutors Wednesday, the Nassau County District Attorney's office said.

She told them she had made up the story that she had been gang-raped by five men in a dorm bathroom on Sunday. Instead, she said the whole sexual encounter had been consensual, something the four men had claimed at the time of their arrest.

"I'm happy that the truth is out, that we can clear our names. All of us have last names. All of us have families. I'm sure they were embarrassed. I'm just happy we're out of here, that you're here. That we can get our story told," said wrongly accused Kevin Taveras.

The 18-year-old woman at the center of the story has not been identified and the DA's office is now saying they've launched an investigation in her statements.

Hofstra Vice President of University Relations Melissa Connolly released the following statement:

To the Members of the Hofstra Community:

We have been notified by the Nassau County District Attorney's Office that the young woman involved in the alleged rape incident has recanted her claims against the five young men.

This week has been a very difficult one for our entire community, and we will need time to heal and understand the events of the last few days. As additional information becomes available we will post it on the University home page.

The four men, Hofstra student Rondell Bedward, 21, Stalin Felipe, 19, and Jesus L. Ortiz, 19, all of the Bronx; and Kevin R. Taveras, 20, of Brentwood, had been charged with five counts of first-degree rape.

They told CBS 2 HD's Kathryn Brown on Wednesday night they were happy to be released after spending three nights in jail, but did not offer opinions on the accuser. They said they did not know the accuser and had no idea why she would make up such accusations.

Felipe said he's just relieved the entire ordeal is over.

"I'm actually very happy that the truth finally came out," Felipe said. "I'm blessed. My family is here right now to pick us up and I'd just like to thank everybody for your support out there. The truth is finally out.

"I prayed to God on the inside that everything would work out. I actually thought everything was going to go down bad. It feels so horrible when you are innocent and then you are going down like you are guilty.

When asked if he had any reaction to the fact that the woman lied about the incident, Felipe took the high road.

"Basically I have no hard feelings toward her. I don't know why she did it. I don't know her so I don't want to say anything bad about her," Felipe said. "I grew up in an all-women household. I have sisters. All my women are aunts."

"I respect women. I would never disrespect women, so being accused of that hurt me and my brother, you know? I'm just happy that everything is finally out in the open and we get to go home."

Nassau County DA Kathleen Rice issued the following statement on Wednesday evening:

Moments ago my office moved to dismiss all charges against four men accused of committing a sexual assault on the campus of Hofstra University.

Late this evening, during the continuation of the Nassau County Police Department's investigation of the allegation, and under questioning by my office's chief trial attorney and chief sex crimes prosecutor, the alleged victim of the sexual assault admitted that the encounter that took place early Sunday morning was consensual.

Following the interview, my office moved quickly to appear before a night court judge to dismiss all charges and request that the judge order the individuals' immediate release.

Nassau County Judge Robert Bruno dismissed the charges and ordered their release. I have launched an immediate criminal investigation into the statements and reports given by the woman in connection with this incident. Further details regarding this investigation will be released at a later time.

CBS 2's Kathryn Brown contributed to this report


BREAKING: The New York Post is reporting the identity of the criminal who falsely accused these four innocent victims.

The four were arrested after 18-year-old freshman Danmell Ndonye made her ugly, false accusation. The fifth innocent person she accused was never arrested and his name was not released.

The Post further reports that at least one death threat has been communicated to the innocent victims and that one of the accused has been banned from his college campus. The Post is also reporting that a key piece of evidence (not available for all who are falsely accused) was that security cameras failed to corroborate the false accuser's story.

Women Don't Lie About Sexual Violence - Chapter 2043

Tila Tequila is allergic to alcohol.

According to Tequila's Twittering...

“I am allergic to alcohol. It has been publicly known for years. That is how I got the name Tila “Tequila” cuz the irony. I can’t drink.”

This will come as quite a surprise to many of her fans, who see her portrayed on television as a champagne-swilling "hottie" whose natural domain is the bar.

It also comes as quite a surprise to those who maintain that, on September 5-6, Tila Tequila was drinking at a San Diego night club, Stingaree, until closing time, about 2 a.m. It particularly comes as a surprise to the deputies who determined that she had been drinking. Deputies, you say? Yes, but I am getting head of myself....

Back to the story, of which, we all know there are always two sides - the lie and the truth. Let's cover the lie first: Tequila maintains that, in addition to being allergic to alcohol, she was assaulted, choked, and falsely imprisoned by Shawne Merriman on September 6. She called paramedics, deputies were summoned, and neither apparently found any injuries, but they took her to the hospital (you know how neurotic little women like to be fussed over!). Deputies also allowed her to sign a citizens' arrest against Merriman (a common ploy when law enforcement officials refuse to arrest because of obviously trumped-up charges), and Merriman was taken into custody charged with two felonies: assault and false imprisonment.

Now, Shawne Merriman plays outside linebacker for the San Diego Chargers and is nearly 6'5, 270 pounds. One scouting report calls him "a physical freak with an undeniable mean streak." Tequila, on the other hand, claims to be 4'11 and 93 pounds. Choking and assaulting with no injuries? Come again?



Oddly (?), several witnesses who were present at the scene seem to find inconsistencies with the story, as well. Or at least inconsistencies with Tequila's story. Merriman's attorney, Todd Mancuso, maintains...

"There were numerous eyewitnesses that will support [Merriman's] version of the events that transpired at his home."

Hmmmmm. A woman lies about matters tangential to the alleged assault but which provide context to it ("I don't drink."), numerous witnesses, from a bar owner to the nightclub employees, to eyewitnesses at the scene of the alleged violence. Law enforcement officials find no evidence of any injury. Law enforcement refuses to make the arrest on their own authority, and forces the complainant to take out a citizen's arrest. Everyone involved admits that the complainant appears to have been drinking quite heavily.

So of course, Merriman was arrested.

Now, the truth. Tequila's story was so tortured and twisted that it actually hurt to write it. The next story is clean and straightforward.

The truth is that Tequila was drinking heavily enough to be "visibly intoxicated" at a birthday party at which she was also seen giving lap dances all night to one Shawne Merriman. Upon the untimely (for Tequila) arrival of closing time, Tequila, Merriman, an assortment of friends, and at least two women sufficiently foxy to attract Merriman's attention made their way back to Merriman's home.

As these things are prone to go when you are young, good looking, tall, muscular, famous, and made of money (as is Merriman - well, I can't vouch for good-looking, but my wife said, "mmmmhhhmmmmmmmm!"), Merriman ended up in his bedroom <*coughcough*>, errrrrrrrr, in his bed <*coughcough*>, well, in a rather compromising position with the two foxy ladies previously asserted to have attracted his attention.

Tequila, as girlfriends are prone to do in such delicate situations (especially when drunk), wandered into Merriman's bedroom. Always jovial, and apparently unacquainted with the old saying about three being a crowd, invited Tequila to, uhhhhhhh, join him and his two, uhhhhhh, friends.

For some reason unknown to anyone other than her, Tequila took offense at this proposed arrangement. So she responded in the only way a self-respecting woman could respond: she stripped off all her clothes, threatened to have sex with the entourage, and threatened to drive home, both drunk and sans clothing (because the shoulder harness on a seat belt doesn't chafe as badly when you only weigh 93 pounds).

Merriman, forsaking his other two, uhhh, friends, then attempted to persuade Tequila that A) everything was going to be alright, B) it is against the law to drive while drunk, and C) walking and driving around in public without clothing is likely not the best life decision that a 93-pound sexpot can make. Even Britney Spears at least wears boots, for cryin' out loud.

What happened next can best be summarized thusly: drama, drama. Then, the inevitable happened! That Merriman became violent? Alas, no. The inevitability of male violence is a feminist myth, of course. But what is TRULY inevitable is that when a neurotic drama queen of any age (and any weight), whether famous or not, gets into a verbal tiff with her boyfriend/husband/father/lover/boss and can't seem to make him acquiesce, the false allegations begin to fly! 'Tis the feminist way, of course.

So 911 is called, deputies and paramedics summoned, you know the drill.

Tequila alleges violence. Merriman denies. The assembled crowd quietly grumble, "That ain't what WE saw." The medics say "She doesn't appear to be injured." The deputies say, "You don't appear to be injured. Are you sure you aren't drunk?" Tequila says, "Just because my name is Tequila everybody always thinks I am drunk! Don't you KNOW I am allergic to alcohol? You guys are such HATERS! Don't be a HATER!" The Deputies say, "We aren't going to arrest him." Tequila says, "I am only a little woman! Didn't you guys get the memo from the Domestic Violence Unit? You are supposed to always believe the victim!" The Deputies say, "Ma'am, we really don't want to arrest anyone till you are sober again." Tequila says, "I am allergic to alcohol! I want him arrested!" The Deputies say, "Well, we can let you fill out the papers for a citizens arrest...?" Tequila replies, "I'm not good at spelling since I majored in Women's Studies. Could you guys help me fill it out? Or are you gonna keep being HATERS?"

The most cogent observation offered (thus far) on the Tequila-Merriman series of events? From the bar owner, of course...

"It sounds like [Tila Tequila] is allergic to the truth."

Unfortunately, when a culture makes the decision to not only foster, but to encourage and protect false allegations, many will develop such allergies.

Thankfully, we have feminist dogma to help us interpret these events, which otherwise would be rather confusing. For feminists assure us, of course, that women never lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse.

Unfortunately, it appears that feminists may have their work cut out in convincing some of the folks who witnessed these events that feminist dogma is true. For it seems that those who actually were present and witnessed these events chalk it all up to a fit of jealousy on Tequila's part...

"Sources close to the story told Vara that Tequila -- also known as Tila Nguyen -- was unhappy that she was not the only woman getting attention from Merriman, and jealousy played a role in the early morning altercation."

Women Don't Lie About Rape Chapter 1736 - Rick Pitino

Karen Sypher - the face of evil; feminist icon

The sickness that is the Jezebel psyche - that malpsychia that feminism attempts to not only teach but to normalize - that mercenary, immoral, slandering, indeed, Satanic mindset that seeks to transform female seduction into hard, cold, CA$H - has perhaps never been quite so plainly displayed as in the case of one Karen Sypher.

Feminists, of course, assure us that women don't lie about rape! Oh, no! Why, the social stigma and the shame and the psychological trauma and [insert breathless, depression-inciting mishap of your choice here] simply PRECLUDE as a matter of course the idea that women would EVER lie about rape.

Well, yeah, OK, the Feminist assures us when we mention "Duke Lacrosse," sure women lie about rape, but only at the same rate that all other crimes are lied about. I mean, there are gonna be false reports, after all. Just like property crimes. Yeah, that's it - property crimes. So if people lie about getting their tires stolen or getting scammed by telemarketers at a rate of 2%-4%, then that is about right for rape as well! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Of course, there are reasons why false reports of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse MIGHT be much higher, the enlightened citizen replies to the feminist. First of all, for property crimes there is usually some evidence of a crime - it isn't he said/she said. In other words, one would be loathe to report the theft of one's tires with four new Goodyears on one's SUV. And one would certainly produce an empty passbook savings account for cops when one complains of a sociopathic telemarketer, no? But what is the evidence of rape, domestic violence (and note here that "domestic violence" is not to be equated with "assault" or "battery"), sexual harassment, or abuse? Merely the claim that someone has committed it.

Secondly, in all claims that I might make as an alleged crime victim, the person accused enters the courtroom with the presumption of innocence. This is normally not the case in cases involving allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, or abuse. Rather, in any of these instances in which a woman accuses a man in the modern Western legal system, there is a presumption of guilt on the part of the accused - the trial is not to determine whether he is guilty, it is rather to determine whether he is innocent. What else do you think that femtards mean when they say, "Always believe the victim?" [Susan Murphy-Milano states it well in her book, reviewed here, when she says: "be supportive.... Believe her. Don't say 'That's impossible' or 'I find what you are telling me hard to believe.'"]

And happily, for the pond slime that comprise the feminist movement, it seems that many police have internalized this concept. The charging officer in another false rape case responded to questions of whether he believed the false accuser in spite of her incredible, inconsistent, unsubstantiated, and outright mutually exclusive claims (during the 15 months it took the false accuser and the charging officer to work up the allegations!) with,

"It's incumbent upon us to believe what the complainant tells us.... It's a matter of support. They're vulnerable."

But those who deal with rape cases - lawyers and judges - in fact estimate that anywhere from 40% to 60% of rape claims are false.

It is a good thing that feminists happened along to "educate" us on the extreme unlikelihood of women lying about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, or abuse. I mean, in all honesty, they do have a point: What possible motivation could a woman have? Money? Revenge? Power? Getting herself out of trouble? Surely no woman is so morally fallen as to use seduction and slander in an attempt to ruin the lives of the perfectly innocent merely to grab at such mundane, temporal wares?

Enter Karen Sypher, the wife of the Louisville Cardinals' basketball team's equipment manager Tim Sypher. A 49-year old stunner, Sypher seduced the college basketball team's coach, Rick Pitino - former coach of the New York Knicks and college basketball legend, having coached both the Kentucky Wildcats and now, their in-state rivals, the Louisville Cardinals.

Well, these things happen. Let's not be too judgmental.

Act 2 of this drama, however, starts to get gnarly - and not in the "valley girl" sense of the term. Sypher contacts Pitino claiming to be pregnant - and he fronts $3,000 for an abortion.



That figure struck me. After making a few calls around, I discovered that the most expensive pricetag for an abortion procedure I could come up with was about $700. Odd....

Later, Karen's jealous hubby Tim approaches Pitino. You can almost anticipate what happens next, right? Louisville headlines screech: "JEALOUS HUBBY MURDERS CARDINALS COACH! COPS SAY, 'WE DON'T BLAME HIM!'"

But, no. See, Tim wasn't jealous of his wife's, uhhhhhh, charms. Rather, he seems to have been jealous of Pitino's money. Tim Sypher, the equipment manager of the Louisville Cardinals, approaches his world-famous boss with a list of demands. [On this point, I should mention both that the police have not charged Tim Sypher yet, and that he seems to be in the process of de-Karen Syphering himself. There may be more to this aspect of the story than immediately meets the eye.]

Oddly, none of the demands were "Keep your hands off my wife, you oaf!" Rather, the demands were for free college tuition for the Sypher's four kids, $3,000 a month in recurring payments, and money to pay off the couple's mortgage. All told, the value of the demands could have exceeded $10 million, according to prosecutors.

Prosecutors, you say? Yes, I said prosecutors. Because Pitino ratted the Syphers out, and in May, 2009, Karen Sypher was indicted for attempting to blackmail Pitino for in excess of $10 million.

So two months later, guess what happened? Sypher decides that she has been raped. Twice. Once in a restaurant with a witness nearby willing to testify that there was consensual sex (Did I mention that she FORGOT to mention this witness to the cops when she filed the charges?) and once on an evening when Pitino was actually in California.

Police say that, as of this moment, they will decline to file charges.

On the odd timing of Sypher's rape claims, USAToday reports:

"The more information I gather, the worse it looks for you," [Investigating Sgt. Andy] Abbott told Sypher during a July 13 phone interview, according to a transcript of the call.

Commonwealth's Attorney David Stengel announced in July, after reviewing a videotape of the interviews, that he wouldn't prosecute the case because Sypher's claims were void of credibility and lacked any supporting evidence.

During one interview, Abbott asked Sypher why she didn't report the alleged crimes when they allegedly occurred, and why she waited until after she was charged with extortion to finally report them.

Transcripts of the interviews show she offered varying responses to the first question, saying first that she wanted to forget about what happened, then that Pitino threatened her, and finally that "they kept throwing me crumbs to keep me happy." But she couldn't say what those were.

Abbott asked Sypher in the interview why she was coming forward now, only after she was charged.

"Because … where we are, it seems like retaliation," Abbott said.

"I know it does," Sypher responded.

So there you have it - everything that sensible people (i.e., non-feminists) have been saying about the flood of false rape allegations enabled and encouraged by feminism for 30 years. Women DO lie about rape. They do it for many reasons, including money, power, and vengeance, or to get themselves out of a hole (to name only the few reasons illustrated in this ONE story). And normally, the so-called criminal justice system enables them in doing it.

But if you are as famous and as beloved as Rick Pitino, with all of his millions, and happen to have been a continent away on the night you were accused of raping someone, sometimes you can escape having false charges taken seriously (though not always - see Tucker Carlson's story).

That's not much encouragement for the poor divorced plumber who sleeps at home, alone (and therefore without an alibi), and barely leaves his hometown, though. So I wonder if the fact that Pitino was not charged represents progress - or is it just an aberration?

Justice by Wise Latina Woman

Sonia Sotomayor boasts that the full-orbed experiences gained by and empathy demonstrated as a result of merely existing as a "Wise Latina Woman" will likely produce better results than those presided over by similarly situated Yale law grads, but ever so unfortunately white guy, judges.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

Contrary to the Obama administration's assertions, this statement was not merely an unfortunate choice of words on the part of Sotomayor, but rather is a statement which she (proveably) used in at least three public, prepared speeches.

Apparently, "reaching better conclusions" doesn't even remotely resemble what the average guy on the street would consider to be a close approximation of "justice."

Jeffrey Deskovic was falsely accused of rape when he was 17 years old. By now, if you have been reading this blog, you know the drill: he is assumed to be guilty because all men are, of course, rapists, the police violated his fifth amendment rights, he was taken to trial despite hair fiber evidence and DNA evidence that didn't match, prosecutorial misconduct followed, yada yada.

In other words, a typical rape case.

And Deskovic was, of course, convicted (I didn't really have to tell you that part, did I?). Follows a series of appeals. Or attempted appeals, at least. Because in one instance, his appeals lawyer got some bad advice from a court clerk and missed a filing deadline by four days. The prosecutor showed up to argue that the 96 hours in question were somehow prejudicial to the interest of the people of New York.

Funny, isn't it, how DNA and hair fiber evidence that doesn't match isn't detrimental to the people's interests, but a 96-hour filing deadline is? But I digress....

So Deskovic's attorney requested a ruling of "equitable tolling," which would have allowed the appeal to continue based on the fact that the missed deadline was the fault of the court itself and would have recognized the extreme weight of both the proceedings and the evidence. After all, which is more weighty - the possibility of an innocent man spending the remainder of his life in prison, or an arbitrary filing deadline that was, after all, missed on the advice of the court itself.

You guessed it! The court denied the appeal, which forced another appeal into the court of one Sonia Sotomayor. Thank God! Because the empathy and wisdom of Latina women is, of course, well-known.

Undoubtedly, when given a choice between merely procedural matters not the fault of an appellant and the substantive justice due to an innocent man, Sotomayor would utilize her "richness of experience as a Wise Latina Woman" and come up with the proper result, right?

Deskovic writes at Politico.com,

Sotomayor and a colleague upheld the lower court’s ruling, writing that “the alleged reliance of Deskovic’s attorney on verbal misinformation from the court clerk constitutes excusable neglect that does not rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance. Similarly, we are not persuaded that equitable tolling is appropriate based upon Deskovic’s contentions that the four-day delay did not prejudice respondent, petitioner himself did not create the delay, his situation is unique and his petition has substantive merit.”

A second appeal to her court resulted in the same decision, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear my case. I remained in prison for six more years, with no appeals left....

After six years, Deskovic obtained representation again, that attorney once again investigated the DNA evidence and found a match in a national DNA database. Deskovic, after serving 16 years total (and six years after experiencing the empathy of a Wise Latina Woman) was released. Today, he is an activist for victims of false imprisonment.

Learn the lesson: The much-vaunted "empathy" sought by Barack Obama, and located in Sonia Sotmayor, is not an empathy that focuses on entering into human suffering in order to ensure that proper and moral legal decisions are made resulting in some close approximation of justice. It is rather a politically-correct narrowmindedness which, freed from the constraints of morality, logic, reason, and law will consistently grant to liberal special interests the desired result, no matter the demands of actual justice.

And what desired result is more sacrosanct to the perverted postmodern mind than the feminist claim that there simply are no false convictions of rape? Women don't lie, police don't manufacture evidence, and all men are beastly perverts anyway. On procedural grounds or otherwise, we ought to just lock all the men up anyway (Obama excepted, of course), because if they have not yet raped, they are even now in the process of scoping out their prey.

Poster Mom

Below are two stories that recently appeared on page 9 of the June 2 edition of the Kinston Free Press, from AP wire stories. Given the increasing frequency of stories like these, it is long past time to start rethinking the presumption of the family court that women by default make the best caretakers of kids.

Mom Charged with Burning Disabled Child: Injuries Allegedly Inflicted with an Iron

FAYETTEVILLE, NC - A North Carolina mother, with a degree in social work, repeatedly burned her handicapped child with an iron after the young girl with physical and mental disabilities struggled to iron her dress on Easter Sunday, authorities said Monday.

Nia Michelle Brooks, 33, of Fayetteville, has been charged with aggravated assault on a handicapped person, felony child abuse and assault inflicting serious injury....




The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office said Brooks burned her daughter with an iron on both her arms, her left thigh, and her right leg, leaving scars that investigators said clearly came from an iron.

The 11-year old child told investigators that she was burned because she wasn't ironing her Easter dress the way her mother wanted....

Authorities... said [the child is nearly blind and] is mildly mentally retarded.

Runaway Sitter Now in N.C. Jail

RAEFORD, N.C. - A 17-year old babysitter accused of kidnapping a 9-month old child and heading to Alabama is due in a North Carolina court....

[Renesha Shante] Griner is charged with first-degree kidnapping and has a hearing scheduled Monday.

The sheriff says that the rising high school senior convinced a former boyfriend in Opp, Alabama, that the baby was his. Investigators say that the baby's real mother had left the child with the sitter last weekend.

Two observations on these stories:

1) One wonders how many times Nia Michelle Brooks, as a social worker, has presided over the confiscation of the children of others for offenses far less serious than that she inflicted upon her own child.

2) Ranesha Shante Griner demonstrates a couple of truths about the whole "women don't lie about sex" stupidity that is the foundation of the Feminist False Allegation Industry. First, women do lie about pretty much everything, even before they are aware that perjury is encouraged by feminist legal theory. Secondly, it appears that women are perfectly adept at lying, stealing, cheating, and even kidnapping for one central reason - it helps them get what they want. Today, they want a boyfriend, so they lie about being pregnant. Tomorrow, they are tired of the boyfriend, so they lie about "domestic violence."

Tactics of Women's Shelters 1

The role of women's shelters, in my state, is considered so important that their tactics cannot be discussed in a courtroom.

This is your first clue that something is up, and it probably isn't kosher.

I've been talking to women, in both formal and informal contexts, for a period of about five years about what goes on in women's shelters. All of the women that I have talked to have been on the inside of the shelters, and all of them have signed confidentiality agreements. So I will refer to them with alternate names on the remote chance that there might be liability involved for them. But they all agree on the essentials of what happens, and what happens is, quite frankly, both frightening, and is evidence of the fact that women's shelters have very little to do with protecting women, and are rather local fortresses for the war against men and the family.

I post the following for a variety of reasons. First, I think that men need to be sensitized to watch out for the behaviors discussed below, and should be forewarned as to the potential significance of the behaviors. Secondly, most people who support women's shelters with financial or in-kind contributions believe that the places simply exist to protect women - they have no idea what is actually going on inside. Hopefully, knowledge of what is really going on will go a long way toward helping private individuals and organizations - especially churches! - to reconsider their support for such radical, anti-family hate organizations.

Thirdly, evil loves a cloak of secrecy. Turn on the lights, and the roaches scatter.

Elizabeth F. gives a basic overview of what happens when a woman shows up at a woman's shelter. "I was told that I could stay for 24 hours, no questions asked. But if I was going to take advantage of the programs offered at the shelter or if I was going to stay longer than 24 hours, I had to file a Domestic Violence Protective Order" (DVPO) against her intimate partner.

Angie G. tells that there were several instances in which the police were actually brought into the shelter to "help" a woman fill out a DVPO "adequately." A responding officer, a detective, and the head of the sex crimes unit all came in with the "leader" of the women's shelter to "help" women fill out the DVPO for maximum impact.

Now, a few notes about DVPOs. A DVPO hearing is what one law professor has called a "quasi-criminal hearing." It is not criminal because, to have been found liable for "domestic violence" in a DVPO hearing does not result in a criminal conviction, nor even criminal charges being filed. However, the following things either normally happen or routinely happen when a DVPO is "continued." A "continuation" is a finding of liability that would be the equivalent of "guilt" in a criminal proceeding.

* For one year (or longer in some states), the person found to have committed "domestic violence" loses their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

* The person found to have committed "domestic violence" is generally immediately removed by governmental force from his home.

* The person will immediately lose custody of his children, and the fact of a DVPO will be a central finding in any custody hearings which follow.

* His paycheck may be taxed for alimony and child support without even so much as an initial hearing. Further, rest assured that a finding of liability for "domestic violence" will be a consideration of many courts in asset division, permanent alimony rulings, and permanent custody hearings.

* In my state, a DVPO that is "continued" can be used, on its face, as evidence upon which the police may base criminal charges.

Think about that. Think long and hard about that. A woman comes into a women's shelter with a desire to have some privacy for a few days. She is informed that, unless she makes allegations against her husband/intimate partner, she must leave first thing in the morning. The police investigators are summoned to help her fill out a DVPO complaint in such a way that it will "pass muster" in a DVPO hearing. Consequent to the hearing, the DVPO is "continued." Now, the police use the complaint that they themselves have helped to fill out as the sole basis for the filing of criminal charges.

One must assume that people who work in "Domestic Violence Units" or "Sex Crimes Units" would be peculiarly adept at recording evidence - or allegations - in such a way as to maximize the possibility of criminal conviction, no? It is a vicious cycle in which (in some cases certainly, and in every case potentially) the police help form the very allegations upon which charges will eventually be based.

And in fact, my own personal experience (which is certainly not exhaustive, but I have no reason to believe that it is abnormal, either) bears this out. I have witnessed over 100 DVPO hearings in approximately five years. Only once has anything been alleged that the man on the street would recognize as "violence." Yet only once in that 100+ hearings has a man failed to have his DVPO "continued" against him.

This would all be bad enough if women's shelters were merely passive organizations that waited for the abused to wander in to assist them. In fact, this is not the case. Women's shelters recruit heavily. I have personally seen stacks of business cards, posters announcing local organizations, schedules for local meetings, and placards bearing state hotlines in courthouses (conveniently hanging over the ubiquitous free forms to file for separation, divorce, custody, and of course, DVPOs), doctor's offices, the local free clinic, the Deparment of Social Services, universities, and even local gas stations.

My wife and I saw a poster which depicted a barefooted woman walking on the beach with her back turned to the camera, dressed all in white, holding a transparent white shawl above her head with both hands thrust in the air in a sign of victory, with a caption that read: "Need a new start? The State of _________'s Office of the Attorney General can help you relocate without a trace with your children if you have been the victim of domestic violence. Call 1-800-xxx-xxxx for more information."

These publicly-advertised meetings are not necessarily what you would think.

The average person seeing these posters saying, "Call xxx-xxxx for information on our next meeting" would undoubtedly assume that the meetings were to help women who were suffering from abuse to find a way out.

Yet Angie G., Elizabeth F., and Amy P. all agree that dealing with actual "violence" is only a subtext at such meetings.

Angie G. says, an unnamed woman "came in September and just sat through the meeting. She was asked if she had ever been abused, and she said, 'I feel emotionally abused by my husband.' She didn't really say much more. Everybody else said their piece, and the counselors continually reminded them that phrasing their story in certain ways was important to a finding of domestic violence in court. They made these recommendations even for the women who had already gotten their DVPOs continued. Every once in a while, they would get back to the new, 'emotionally abused' woman. One time the counselor even said to her, 'See how it's done?' When the 'emotionally abused' woman came back in October, she had this whole story about how she was being beaten, controlled, accused, and everything." [Emphasis added]

When I asked Angie G. if she had been encouraged to lie, she said, "No, not so much lie. The counselors and police are very adamant that you take things [that happened to you] in the most negative way possible." It is not so much lying as not giving anybody the benefit of the doubt. If it can be construed in a negative manner, then it becomes part of my complaint.

However, Amy P. states clearly, "When I said that I didn't have any physical abuse at all - I just wanted to be done with a cheating husband - they coached me on what to say."

Every woman that I have talked to on this subject agrees that one of the primary topics of discussion in these locally-advertised "meetings" is how to catch your man at domestic violence.

That will be the subject of the next entry.

View a four-part video series on Women's Shelters at Opposing Feminism.

Even Cops Admit: Women Use Claims of "Domestic Violence!"

It is the dirty little secret of America's family courts and the legal system generally. Liberals will not admit it because it is politically incorrect, and conservatives will not admit it because they have been brainwashed into believing that it sounds unchivalrous.

But inside the legal system, there are faint whispers of recognition that all feminist jurisprudence is a failed experiment. Repeatedly, I have heard from lawyers statements like, "The pendulum has swung too far...."

The false allegation is one of the primary weapons in the arsenal of feminism. Feminist organizations suborn the perjury of individual women as part of the larger war against men, promising them a brighter day of happiness and the transfer of assets consequent to their lies. Feminist leaders glaze the eyes of the public with ridiculous assertions that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse (despite all evidence to the contrary). And feminist jurisprudence covers for the perjurers by insisting that any attempt to properly punish these feminist-favored perjurers will result in legitimately-wronged women being made afraid to "come forward."

Yet even among professionals who work in the Feminist False Allegations Industry (FFAI), the strain is beginning to show. Liberal constitutional scholar and appellate lawyer Alan Dershowitz has stated, "Rape is such a serious crime that deliberately bringing a false accusation of rape should be an equally serious crime - and women are not being punished for those crimes."

In my own personal experience, lawyers who work on both sides of the FFAI refer to Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) hearings as "show trials," "star chambers," and "kangaroo courts." And even cops, who routinely arrest men based on what they know are false allegations, will secretly admit that perjury is a common occurence when a woman is committing adultery, seeking custody, or desires to be rid of a man but keep a hefty sum of his assets.

But rarely does one hear a policeman publicly decry the FFAI.

In an April 27 story, Tulsa's news channel 6 carried a story on its webpage by Lori Fullbright titled "Tulsa Woman Falsely Reported Rape." Fullbright quotes Tulsa Police Sergeant Gary Stansill of the Tulsa Sex Crimes Unit, "It's just a fact, in sexual assault investigations, we have false reports."

Two points: First, this is the evaluation of someone whose livelihood and profession is intertwined with the FFAI. This is brutal honesty masquerading as understatement. And unfortunately, it appears that our investigator has become jaded enough by all of the false reporting that he simply accepts it as "just a fact" of life.

Secondly, note that from the perspective of the annoyed police investigator, what the FFAI calls the "cries of the victim" and what courts call "perjury" is merely a "false report." Clinical. Clean. Administrative. No real harm, just a waste of time.

From the perspective of the falsely accused, however, it is a false allegation. A lie. A lifechanging slander. Vicious. Brutal. The needless persecution of the innocent.

And keep in mind, though feminists, with their amoral newspeak, continue to call such miscreants as the still unnamed criminal liar who slandered a man for no reason a "victim," there is only one innocent party here: the man who for years to come will still blanch anytime that he hears the word "rapist."

I recently picked up a book by an ex-Miami cop, ex-FBI agent, and former instructor of cops on the issue of "domestic violence." The book is titled, "Arrest-Proof Yourself" and the author is Dale C. Carson.





The book is decent enough, giving general advice on how to appear (or disappear) so that cops can't see you, how to be polite and protect yourself. The book is targeted to a general audience excepting two chapters: one chapter pertains to minorities, helping them overcome the propensity cops have for arresting minorities.

The only other chapter narrowly targeted is titled, "When Girls Tell a Tale that Sends You to Jail." That chapter begins, "This chapter is addressed to men. It will infuriate women.... It advises men how to defend themselves against women...." Odd way of putting it, don't you think? Because if the author were merely trying to get men to obey the law, wouldn't he say "here is how to protect yourself from cops!"? But rather he says, "You need to defend yourself against women."

Odd.

He then notes that, unfortunately, when a "girl tells a tale that sends you to jail," men often find themselves dealing with predominantly female judges, cops, and lawyers. This can be a dangerous spot, asserts the ex-FBI agent and teacher of cops on the subject of domestic violence, because "some of these women are on a mission from God to make men miserable."

Again, odd. Shouldn't these women be on a "mission from God to enforce the law?" But the author does not choose to put it that way....

He then goes on an extended discussion of avoiding arguments with women. He states, "Arguments that once might have been resolved by participants now result in arrests and imprisonment." Now note, he is not talking about beatings here, he is talking about arguments. The ex-FBI agent is admitting that merely arguing with a woman puts one at risk for imprisonment.

If so, that certainly lends credence to the idea that a controlling man is merely a man who refuses to cede control to a woman.... And of course, the greatest felony in the feminist rulebook is to be a controlling man.

Our author then continues, "Men and women argue. They yell. It may be a natural occurrence, but it can also be a crime." Wow, what an admission. Arguing is a crime. That which our author describes as a "natural occurrence" is, under feminist jurisprudence, now a crime? How long before belching, another "natural occurrence," is similarly criminalized?

But wait. This chapter is written to men, not to women. As a matter of fact, the author warned in the beginning that the chapter will "infuriate women," doesn't he?

Could this be an implicit admission on the part of our ex-domestic violence teacher and ex-FBI agent that arguing is only a crime for men? That which is "standing up for your rights" for women is "domestic violence" for men?

It seems that is precisely the conclusion at which one is to arrive. For in the practical advice section which follows, our ex-cop advises men, "Do not talk with the woman for at least three days.... Telephone calls, answering machine messages, or notes may be considered stalking.... [D]o not be in the woman's presence without a witness." No corresponding advice is sagely distributed to the woman.

Why in the world would such advice be granted to one sex and not to another? Glad you asked. For our ex-domestic violence teaching hero advises us at the end that such absolutist abandoning of a relationship is necessary for the following reasons:

* "The woman might lie and induce others to lie."

* "The woman might injure herself before police arrive so as to increase the charge against you from misdemeanor disturbance to felony battery."

* Women can recruit the power of the state to take their side in disputes with men, with disastrous consequences."

The moral? Cops who are honest know the following:

1) The law is written to place the state on the side of women in relationship disputes, regardless of who is ultimately at fault.

2) Women routinely act out and lie in order to recruit the state to help them dispose of inconvenient men, secure child custody, or capture assets.

3) Men are by default guilty of wrongdoing in any dispute with a woman, under feminist jurisprudence. There is no presumption of innocence, and the only "evidence" needed in most cases is to determine where the male is so that he can be locked up.

What is most disturbing about these stories is the disjuncture between what cops know to be true in real life and what courts actually suppose to be true. Cops know that women lie, and lie repeatedly, when it comes to issues of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse. They lie because they are vindictive. They lie to get their way. They lie because they are encouraged to do so and because there are no consequences to being found out.

Yet, for a man accused of any of these sins in either civil or criminal court, there is an assumption of guilt not found anywhere else in the law because of the most outrageous lie in all of feminist theory: "women don't lie about sex."

One Year Anniversary: Ice, Ice, DV

Add to the incomprehensibly long list of stories that seem (!) to undermine the feminist theory that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, abuse, their weight, their age, the bank balance, etc. Just a year ago, Vanilla Ice had charges of Domestic Violence dropped against him in Wellington, Florida.

---------------

Prosecutors decline to charge rapper Vanilla Ice

April 29, 2008, 6:54 PM EST

WELLINGTON, Fla. (AP) -- Authorities decided against prosecuting Vanilla Ice for a domestic battery charge since his wife recanted her original statement.

The 40-year-old performer (real name: Robert Van Winkle) — who sold 15 million copies of the single "Ice Ice Baby" in 1990 — was arrested April 10 at the couple's home. Authorities said his wife called 911 and claimed he kicked and hit her during an argument. She later told deputies he only pushed her.

In an affidavit provided to Palm Beach County prosecutors, Laura Van Winkle recanted her original allegations. She now says any physical confrontation was accidental.

Prosecutors on Tuesday closed the case.

---------------------------------------

I love this story because it demonstrates that women DO, in fact, lie about domestic violence. It doesn't matter what you think happened here, the complainant is a liar.

After all, count 'em folks - there are no less than THREE different stories told by Mrs. Ice Ice Baybee here. Which one is true?

Maybe none of them are.

Thank God the feminists have assured us that women do not lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, and child abuse - otherwise my very first thought would likely be that Mrs. Ice Ice Baybee has a problem with the truth.

Like Crystal Gail Mangum.

Oh, is that another lie?

Women Abuse More Than Men: But Who Cares?

When it comes to alleged abuse of women by men, society has a "zero tolerance" philosophy. When it comes to women abusing men, which actually happens more often, "every person must perform their own calculus to determine whether to get involved."

Women abuse men more than men abuse women. Nobody cares. Not even cops.

So says this ABC News report.





The cult of the battered woman is a religion like all others, requiring only faith to be a part of it. However, it is a particularly vicious cult, in that it is based on absolutely no truth known to man, and it is devoted to the destruction of men through the use of false allegations in the legal system... and perhaps even greater destruction can be both encouraged and tolerated.

Mary Winkler, of course, whose false allegations of "abuse" extended to the sheer horror of her husband asking her to wear platform heels in conjunction with sex, was convicted of shooting her husband in the back with a shotgun, butserved only 67 days of a potential 60-year murder sentence.

Now, as the former judge states in the following video, any man who makes a woman "feel bad about herself" is apparently susceptible to murder, and the woman is certain to find great sympathy and serve only a token sentence. This is the real legacy of the "all women are victims/all men are abusers" lies told by feminism for going on 40 years.





Does it come as a surprise that there is a boyfriend?

There is nothing so evil as a woman convinced by our Oprahized culture of her own victimhood. Except, perhaps, those who defend such a woman. Notice how immediately, in the local news blurb below, feminist apologists begin making existential leaps and excuses, accusing the REAL victim, the murdered father, of crimes that even his own murderous wife did not imply.





... As if to say, "Well, if the female murderess' crime was not justified by the story she actually told, then there must be something even more sinister than the story she told. For we know, no woman would ever murder her husband without cause. Because everybody knows that all men are abusers, and that means all women are victims, and are justified in whatever steps they take to deal with their victimization."

Did I mention that there is a boyfriend?

For an extensive bibliography examining the incidence of female on male violence, click here.

The Biggest Feminist Lie: Domestic Violence

It is commonly stated by feminists that 1 in 4 women will be victims of domestic violence. Remember, these are the same people that told us about 10 years ago that "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day of the year to be a woman," because supposedly every woman's husband would beat her at halftime. That ridiculous assertion, after it had been used to raise money for femtard organizations for a few months, was disproven. And the "1 in 4" statistic is just as much a lie as the "Super Bowl Sunday" claim was. The "1 in 4" statistic is only true if you accept a feminist definition of what comprises "violence."

In the U.S., the Violence Against Women Act was changed by the Clinton administration as a payoff to the feminist lobby in the mid-1990s. Where the act had formerly dealt with instances of real violence, the feminists were not getting enough federal money into their women's shelters and academic programs to suit them. So they argued that the definition of the word "violence" ought to be changed. As a payoff for their support (and likely because Hillary - a flaming Marxist feminist to begin with - supported the idea), Clinton changed the VAWA to accommodate feminist notions.

Not only was the definition of violence itself significantly broadened, but the standard of evidence required was changed. In the English common law tradition, there have traditionally been only two standards of evidence: for criminal cases, beyond reasonable doubt. For civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence. Beyond reasonable doubt has traditionally been explained to mean something approximating "the evidence must be so compelling that no other explanation is reasonably believable." The preponderance of the evidence standard has variously been explained as "most likely," "51%," or "more likely than not."

However, given that many allegations of "domestic violence" have traditionally not occurred until a child custody, divorce, or alimony case has arisen, feminists became perturbed that women seemed to not "win" enough of these cases. Sometimes, the claims were so outlandish that the cases were not even heard - a situation which feminists likened to "squelching the voice of the victim!" [Keep in mind here that most of the "victims" of "domestic violence" in America these days are slightly less credible than Crystal Gail Mangum.]

So feminists decided that the standard of evidence for the issue of domestic violence was all wrong. The important question to ask was not, "Did something happen?", but rather the important question is, "Does a woman believe that something might happen?"

So the standard of evidence was changed to something brand new in the history of the common law tradition: the standard of the subjective fear of the complainant. If you can convince a judge that you are "afraid," then you can have that judge issue a DVPO (Domestic Violence Protective Order, a specialized form of restraining order that incorporates this new standard of evidence; traditional restraining orders required a showing of "likelihood of harm.") and deny a man access to his home, his savings account, his tools, his car, even his children.

"Domestic Violence" thus became an exercise in prevention rather than a claim to be made for someone who has actually done something wrong. Claims of "domestic violence" are based on what a woman fears a man might do, not what a man has done.

Imagine this ridiculous standard of evidence in any other case:

PLAINTIFF: Your honor, I am bringing a suit today for Breach of Contract against Defendant.
JUDGE: All right, tell me what happened.
PLAINTIFF: Your honor, we made this contract, see?
JUDGE: (waiting impatiently) Is there more?
PLAINTIFF: More what?
JUDGE: Where is the breach? What has the Defendant done that was a breach? Has he failed to pay you on time? Has he not delivered promised goods or services?
PLAINTIFF: Oh, no, nothing like that. It is just that I FEAR that he might breach the contract!


DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We are here, your honor, in the matter of State v. Jones, a case of first degree murder.
JUDGE: Very well, what are the facts of the case?
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Mr. Jones is very mean. Frankly, he is a prick. And he owns guns. And he yelled at his wife. And he got in a fight when he was 17. And many of his co-workers think he is quite odd. He is one scary dude.
JUDGE: Very well, now, tell me about the murder.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, your honor, the State FEARS that there might be a murder someday.

I have sat in on over 100 "domestic violence" hearings. In the 100+ hearings that I have witnessed, only 1 time was the man not found to have committed domestic violence (A "conviction" rate that is unimaginable with any other offense - even DWI convictions in which someone has blown above the legal limit have a conviction rate of only in excess of 80% in my jurisdiction.). But, in only ONE of those 100+ hearings has anything that approaches the layman's definition of "domestic violence" even been alleged - and then so incredibly that it was obvious that the woman was lying.

Rather, the following are allegations for which a man has been found liable for "domestic violence" in hearings that I have witnessed:

* A man threw a sock at his wife.
* A man pushed his girlfriend off of him to try to escape while she was beating him about the head.
* After being hit in the head by a candle thrown by his wife, a man picked it up and threw it back on the bed on which she was sitting.
* During an argument, a man ran into another room, and in a fit of anger, punched a hole in a window.
* During a disagreement over separation, a man threatened to use his family's extensive wealth to win sole custody of his children.
* A man who discovered his wife was an adulteress called her a c**t, a w***e, and a s**t.

None of these, obviously, are domestic violence. But under the redefinition of domestic violence enacted in the 1990s, each of these men were found liable for committing domestic violence.

"Domestic Violence" and "Violence Against Women" don't really have anything to do with violence in the traditional sense. Rather, these ideas are a part of a complex social engineering strategy designed by feminism to do three things:

1) To make men more willing to "settle" in a manner advantageous to women upon the dissolution of a marriage or relationship, so that women have a constant stream of money from ex-husbands and ex-lovers, increasing the assets of women without making them work for it.

2) Increasing the flow of federal dollars and private grant monies into ideologically-driven "women's shelters" where radical feminists are employed and where future feminists are recruited.

3) Undermining the stability of the family so that the feminist utopia of "independent" women who totally control the rearing of children without any non-monetary contribution from men is easier to achieve.

Doubt me? I encourage you to take a look at the University of Virginia's Sexual and Domestic Violence Services website, where you will learn:

1) Failure to listen to a woman's opinion is a sign of a relationship that is susceptible to Domestic Violence.
2) Holding strong conservative, Biblical, or traditional convictions about gender roles, such as those held by most deeply religious people, is an act of Domestic Violence.
3) Saying hurtful things is an act of Domestic Violence.
4) Threatening to kill HIMSELF is an act of Domestic Violence against YOU! (This one really puzzles me!)
5) Failure to acknowledge the "feelings" of a woman is an act of Domestic Violence.

Poke around the website (link provided below), and then ask yourself, "If this is what 'Domestic Violence' is all about, then is it really true that 1 in 4 women are victims?"

And the answer, of course, is no.

Just as a postscript - I am always entertained by the propensity of feminists to engage in sheer contradiction while never even suspecting that such lunacy is evidence that their silly little theorems are bogus.

Think about it - women are capable of fighting on the front lines in combat (a feminist axiom) but are being "sexually harassed" by a bikini calendar in the workplace and are victims of "domestic violence" if I fail to properly acknowledge their "feelings?"

My, my, my... feminism just gets curiouser and curiouser.


Source:
http://womenscenter.virginia.edu/sdvs/