Book Review: The Death of American Virtue - Clinton vs. Starr

The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr – by Ken Cormley

As a social studies teacher during the Clinton administration, I had assured my students that it would take the United States 100 years to recover from Clinton's presidency – if it ever did.

Ken Cormley's book on the evolution of scandal into scandal with its eventual climax in the impeachment proceedings has been universally (as far as I can tell) praised as being an even-handed work of scholarship. Cormley is a Constitutional Law scholar and dean at the Duquesne University Law School, and his account of this David vs. Goliath (hint: David is Ken Starr, for illustrative purposes) struggle is indeed one of the finest works of historical inquiry that I have read. And as a former social studies teacher, I have read a lot of history. It is intricately sourced and indeed, even-handed, yet reads like the finest of novels.

As one would expect from a work praised for its lack of bias, the book reflects real world realities starkly. We know who is wearing the white hats and the black hats in this story, just as anyone whose conscience has not been perversely twisted during the actual Clinton scandals. Bill Clinton is a vile, monstrous, deceiver – a man of few principles and zero conscience. What you will learn, perhaps for the first time by reading Cormley's book, is that Clinton is also a world-class coward. Ken Starr, however, is a man of impeccable character, respected as a man of integrity by everyone who was not a defendant in this case, including Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno (pp. 340ff). While Starr occasionally appears (and admits to being) somewhat befuddled by the prosecutorial task of following allegations, he is clearly a man of honesty and honor whose shortcomings are entirely human and do not affect the final outcome of the investigatory task. Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and others, are proven repeatedly to be the liars that we all knew that they were back in the day.

Having said all that, I would say that reading Cormley's book has significantly changed my mind about a few things.

First of all, back in the day I considered it to be axiomatic that Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, et al., were obviously telling the truth about being sexually harassed, raped, and what have you, by Bill Cinton. Upon reading Cormley's book (did I mention that it has been praised for being even-handed?), I am convinced that they were not, in fact, telling the truth.

Paula Jones repeatedly expressed a desire to have her case concluded with a fair settlement just so that she could “have her life back.” Her advisors, including (but not limited to) conservative activist Susan Carpenter-Macmillan and Jones' own ex-husband, continually twisted her arm to keep the ball rolling. Had Jones actually been harassed in the way that she described, I cannot imagine her being willing to dismiss her allegations upon payment of funds to a charity, especially when the allegations of Clinton's alleged character as a rapist began to be published abroad. Further, Jones repeatedly assured various characters, including her own lawyers, that she would do certain things (settle the case) and wouldn't do certain things (pose naked in a porno spread), and reneged on those commitments. Finally, in one of the most outrageous lies ever known to man, Jones maintained to her lawyers once the said buff pictures had indeed been published that she was unaware that she was being photographed. *Ahem.* Anyone who has seen any of those pictures knows that Ms. Jones was quite aware that she was being photographed. Jones is an unstable liar, and her allegations against Clinton should be discounted accordingly.

Willey's case is, if anything, even more cut-and-dried than Jones.' Willey alleged that Clinton accosted her when she came to seek a political job from him, pinning her against the wall, biting her lip, and aggressively fondling her breasts. However, on the very date on which Willey suggests that this occurred to her, Linda Tripp maintains that she saw Willey coming out of Clinton's office appearing in an almost dreamy state, relaxed and happy – certainly not distraught in any way. Additionally, Willey's friend, Julie Hiatt Steele, denied that she had ever maintained that Clinton had misbehaved with reference to her. Willey, in fact, confessed to being behind closed doors with Clinton and willingly kissing and mutually groping him.

In short, by all evidence that exists beyond mere prejudice, it appears that these two women (and a host of others, whom I will ignore in the interests of brevity) were mere opportunists who sought to gain something – whether a Penthouse spread or a job – by the filing of false allegations against the president.

The hypocrisy which congeals around these allegations, which were simultaneously widely considered to be false among the intelligentsia and yet widely circulated by that same intelligentsia, is astounding. Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post and the boss of Mike Isikoff, who broke the Lewinsky story among the “respectable” [sic] media, admitted that, while a great fan of JFK (whose credentials as a “girler” were impeccable), it was necessary to pursue and publish similar allegations against Clinton: “[Clinton] made the news.... I mean, we didn't take up with Monica Lewinsky.... Where do I draw the line? I draw the line at truth.”

Ahhhh, but there is the rub. Any time Bill Clinton is involved, the lines between truth and falsehood become marvelously blurred, don't they?

While it is true that Clinton is among that vilest of the class of human beings – those who treat their marriage vows as if they were clauses in a contract riddled with exceptions – and is singularly the most perverse and shameful politician to have ever inhabited the national stage (BHO44 notwithstanding), and while it is true that Clinton had (shall we say?), an extremely full social calendar, while broadcasting abroad the truth that Clinton was a devilish adulterer whose compulsion apparently exceeded that of one Tiger Woods, the press simultaneously broadcast the known falsehoods of the myriad of empty pockets, heads, and lives who swarmed around the Starr investigation like sharks around chum, seeking Warhol's proverbial 15. In short, the truth that Clinton was (and still is) an adulterer is not an excuse for knowingly accusing him of nonconsensual antics – including rape (Exodus 20:16).

But when lies are being tossed around, Bill Clinton is in his element. He is not just a Master of the Lie, in fact he is The Ringmaster of the Lie. Kevin Ohlson, a Justice Department appointee under Clinton, expressed fear when Janet Reno recommended handing off the Lewinsky matter to the Office of Independent Counsel (and by the way, contrary to the insane warblings of the Clinton administration, the investigation into the Lewinsky matter had nothing to do with sex – it was rather an investigation into obstruction of justice and the possibility of bribery being passed through Vernon Jordan in the form of a jobs-for-silence conspiracy): “Oh my God, this could lead to the president's resignation... out of sheer and utter embarrassment” (343). Of course, Ohlson can be forgiven for the unprovable assumption that Bill Clinton possesses enough conscience to feel embarrassment about anything. It is a common trait among sociopaths, of course, that they display no capacity for shame....

And so the false allegations against Clinton produced, not the truth, but rather an engorgement on falsehood that resembled, spiritually, the chaos present whenever my mother-in-law and a buffet are in the same room. Clinton was more than happy to engage in denials of the truth (one of which had his law license permanently revoked in Arkansas), character assassination (“Drag $100 through a trailer park and who knows what you'll come up with?”), and a scorched-earth policy of mudslinging (as successive Republican Speakers of the House resigned under the assault emanating from the Clinton White House through model citizen and *Hustler* publisher, Larry Flynt). Because Bill Clinton is a liar deep in his soul, he is in his element when the lies are flying fast and furious. And if winning counts, then he won. But if someday one is held to account for *how* one wins, there may be a somewhat different verdict before a slightly more majestic bar than the impeachment panel rightly convened against him.

So yes, it is quite an even-handed treatment of a chaotic period of American history. Cromley's objective treatment show Bill Clinton to be the vile criminal that he actually is in real life – a man so alienated from truth that he is destined to be remembered primarily for lies. Both the lies that he himself told, and the slanders that were proffered against him.

What has not been discussed in Cormley's book, or any other, of course, because the topic is expressly *verboten* among polite society (luckily, I do not consider myself to be polite at all), is the nexus between the Clinton scandals and feminist doctrine.

First, one may justly wonder, though Ben Bradlee seemed not to do so, why it is that the philandering of JFK, FDR, and (possibly) other presidents were largely covered up by the media, while Clinton's were declared, as it were, from the housetops. Now, liberals have their own explanation as to why this occurred (a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” but then paranoia is a natural aspect of the mental disorder known as liberalism), but liberals are always wrong, and have been proven so by history. So what is the real reason?

One word: court. Court documents. OK, that's really two words.

Marcia Lewinsky, Monica's mom, essentially paints her daughter as the victim of a perjury trap, noting that EVERYBODY'S first reaction when caught in adultery – even when you have got “the goods” on them – is to deny it. She makes the point that Paula Jones' public display was voluntary (though Jones herself would deny this, saying that she was thrust into the spotlight by *The American Spectator*): “Just because Paula Jones may have thought it was her right to make a public spectacle... I think Monica [similarly] thought it was her right to keep it private. And not to tell anyone about it, and to deny it, which is exactly what she did” (p. 399).

And I would agree, except for one thing: feminists generally, and Bill Clinton specifically, not Paula Jones, long ago made the decision for all of us that sex was going to be a public matter to be wielded like a weapon whenever it stood to benefit a woman to do so (and with so-called “rape shield laws,” feminists similarly established that feminism is not really about equality, but about enacting a series of double standards, when they also devised evidentiary standards in legal cases which kept relevant information about a so-called “victim's” past out of evidence, thereby reducing all rape, domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual harassment claims to “he said/she said” status).

In 1994, Bill Clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as a sop to the feminist movement without whose devotion he would not have been elected (and, as subsequent events would confirm, as a sop to his wife as well). VAWA contained several provisions that were designed to promote the filing of false charges by women against men:

• VAWA removed the possibility of perjury charges for any testimony that a woman makes in a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) hearing.

• VAWA lowered the standard of evidence for obtaining a DVPO from the “likelihood of imminent harm” standard, which has been the standard for obtaining restraining orders in English Common Law since prior to the establishment of the American experiment, to the much more mushy “subjective fear of the woman.” In practical terms, this means that traditionally, in order to get a restraining order, a person had to prove that absent such an order, there was an imminent probability of harm. Under VAWA, however, any woman willing to manufacture false allegations (and nearly all DVPO proceedings are merely a convenient venue for the airing of generic grievances which have nothing to do with “violence” - it is estimated that false DVPO proceedings drain the economy of $20 billion annually, see http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-False-DV-Allegations-Cost-20-Billion.pdf), against a man need only convince a judge that she possesses fear of that man (and not even that such fear is justified!) in order to be granted a restraining order. Obviously, it is exceedingly rare for a requested DVPO to not be granted, on even the flimsiest of evidence. I have seen DVPOs granted by courts because the husband was an evangelical Christian or, in one case, because a husband canceled an insurance policy – which caused his wife to very dramatically intone in her testimony, “I just don't know who he is anymore. That is not the kind of thing he would do. I feel naked and exposed – I am SO SCARED.” Subjective fear of the woman requirement satisfied: DVPO granted.

• VAWA further continues to corrupt the judicial system by controlling the continuing education classes taken by judges and attorneys on the topic of “domestic violence.” Of course, all such continuing ed courses are taught either by doctrinaire feminists, who view the breakup of the family as a part of their ongoing political project, or by representatives of women's shelters, whose funding depends on an ever-expanding definition of and finding of “domestic violence.” Lawyers and judges at the district court level, where these matters tend to be disposed of, are now thoroughly brainwashed by feminist dogma, which has no relation to facts.

Clinton had, then, as one of his first major triumphs of policy, signed into law a piece of legislation that was designed to produce false allegations. It has done so in spades. This is entirely consistent with everything that we know about Bill Clinton, because the one reality that history will inevitably connect with his name is "liar." A man who lies as much as Bill Clinton always has, would certainly be a man whose alienation from truth is so complete as to desire to encourage lying in the general populace.

Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones were hardly the first females to use... uhhhhh... "creative" interpretations of sex to accomplish their purposes, whatever they were. In the book of Genesis, we see that false allegations are second only to seduction in the female weaponry utilized in the war against men (Genesis 39:7-20).

But the United States, under the tutelage of Bill Clinton, the notorious liar, and consequent to the Violence against Women Act, is the first society in all of human history to actively encourage these false allegations. Bill Clinton signed VAWA with the full knowledge that false allegations would ensue, that innocent men would be separated from their children (at least) and unjustly convicted of crimes (at worst), and that the American family would experience incomprehensible carnage. And that is exactly what has happened.

The purely karmic reality, however, is that Clinton was one of the very first to suffer under this regime.

God does exist.

And He has quite a sense of humor.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, there is nothing funny about the carnage that has been wreaked on the American family by Bill Clinton's signing of VAWA. It will, indeed, be 100 years before America recovers from the Clinton administration.

If it ever does.

Who Harms Women?

‎"Feminists have done more damage to women since the 60s than men have done in all of human history." Carmen Connors on WRDU's (106.1, Raleigh/Knightdale, NC) "The Morning Rush"

Interesting FEMALE perspective, wouldn't you say...?

My Chat With an Attorney

So I was talking to an attorney earlier this week. The conversation shifted - lurched - from a generic "how-are-you-doing?-how's-the-family-how-ya-likin'-your-new-office-manager?" to "Why I no longer practice family law...."

The attorney says to me, "I've had it. All family lawyers are outrageous liars."

This was not news to me.

"And the judges - for God's sake! - the judges tolerate childish antics from the attorneys because they are afraid of calling women out on their neurotic and juvenile behavior..."

Of course, the implicit fact behind this statement is that most family lawyers are, indeed, women. Oddly, family law once was the area of practice that the bottom ten per cent of a law school class went into because it isn't really law - it is more like institutionalized temper tantrum throwing, which suits women well....

"... and the women!" the attorney continued. "Holy #$@&!!! I guess the judges in family court tolerate perjury so much because if they didn't, the women wouldn't be allowed to testify at all!!!"

While I agreed with what the attorney was saying, and inwardly was cheering, I did find it odd to be hearing all this - from a FEMALE attorney!

While I was tempted to ask her how many of the men she thought were lying, I figured that question might telegraph my position a bit much. Instead, I offered, "Yeah, and those godawful domestic violence hearings. I mean, once I saw a guy get thrown into jail because he had cancelled an insurance policy without telling his wife - she claimed it "made her fearful for her safety" and under the DVPO law in our state, the judge just locked him up....."

My female attorney friend didn't miss a beat. "Phshaw!" she exclaimed. "Domestic Violence indeed! I swear that 85% of the allegations offered by women are patently, obviously false. These women start committing adultery and in order to keep their husbands from finding out - or worse, ratting them out to friends and family - all of a sudden their husbands are "controlling" and "emotionally distant" and "emotionally abusive. I have yet to see a woman enter a DVPO hearing complaining of bruising, if you know what I mean" my attorney friend volunteered, somewhat craftily.

So it turns out that my FEMALE attorney friend, who admits that she started her law practice with "high hopes" and "faith in the system," now considers herself "jaded" and "never to darken the doors of a family court again." Why?

"Those lying women," both the family law attorneys and their clients.

Who'da thunk it?

Draconian Feminist Sentencing Destroys a Woman

Michelle Taylor got drunk one night and allowed a 13-year old boy to fondle her breasts.

She was charged with the crime of committing lewdness with a minor (a charge which feminists in Nevada had recently been part of having the legislature change the sentence for, in an attempt to fight the bugaboo of "sexual predators" - i.e., as a means of having men who were slandered by their wives in custody battles locked up permanently), she was tried, and convicted.

Now she appears at her sentencing "hearing" with only one possible sentence: life in prison.

Everything that the defense attorney says in argument against the legislative statute is true. It is a draconian, unconstitutional violation of due process. The female lawyer is particularly compelling, I think, when she argues that if Ms. Taylor had killed the "victim" (?) after allowing him to fondle her breasts, the maximum sentence would be only 50 years. As I say, everything that the defense attorney says is true. What is the greatest truth, however, is what went unsaid - what went unsaid despite a direct question.

At one point, the female defense attorney says, "This law was never intended to apply to... people like Ms. Taylor," and the judge responds, "Why not?" The defense attorney, shaken, promises "I'm getting to that," yet she never explains why Ms. Taylor should have been excluded from the application of this law, or what type of person it was intended to apply to.

She doesn't say it because she can't say it. Nobody can say it, though everybody in the room knows the answer. It is literally the pink elephant in the room.

For, though organizations such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) deny it, it is plain that feminist involvement in "child abuse" and "child molestation" issues is far more about ensuring that men are pliant on custody and other issues during divorce, and about adding another tool to the feminist toolkit for destroying men. One organization, Stop the Silence, accessed through the NOW website, states that one of its primary objectives is working on issues of "protective custody" (i.e., not letting Junior and Janey be around Daddy, whom Mommy slandered when Daddy showed up in court with lawyers!) and "other prevention measures, i.e. a focus on appropriately dealing with offenders."

Of course, appropriately dealing with offenders means being sure to hyperventilate appropriately prior to locking innocent men slandered in divorces up for life.

So the defense attorney can't say what she is thinking: "Your honor, the dirty little secret of the legal system, that everybody in this courtroom knows, is that this law was enacted only to burden men with such harsh treatment - and many of them for doing less than Ms. Taylor did. Only men were supposed to be warehoused for life after their ex-wives invented false allegations of child abuse against them. 'Life in prison' for such a mediocre crime as allowing a 13-year old boy to fondle one's breasts is too much for a woman."

But it is a law that was sought and pushed by feminists as a means of destroying men.

And men face such kangaroo court proceedings as this every day: in fact, every single Domestic Violence hearing in the United States today is a "hearing" only in the same "star chamber" sense as the "hearing" endured by Ms. Taylor - the end result is already determined, no matter what the evidence is shown to be. For men, to be accused is to be guilty of domestic violence. At least Ms. Taylor had the chance at a trial - though her lawyer complains that she was not offered an opportunity to plead out.

Every day in America, innocent men are accused of rape, domestic violence, and child abuse by women who have no morals, who are encouraged to do so by "women's shelters," attorneys, police, and courts who not only knowingly countenance such false allegations, but refuse to charge them with perjury when their slander is evident. Every day these men's lives are destroyed, and many innocent men end up in jail under such draconian laws, designed by feminists in their war against men.

But now, it turns out the proverb is true: "Whoso diggeth a ditch shall fall therein" (Proverbs 26:27).

For feminists, I hope that each of you one day tastes the equality that you have designed for Ms. Taylor and for thousands of innocent men that your immoral and hateful program has destroyed, or attempted to destroy.

For Ms. Taylor, I sincerely hope that somehow you (and the thousands who did less than you - all men slandered by women) are released and find grace to rebuild a meaningful life.

Face of Feminism: Linzi Gorman, False Rape Slanderer

Get drunk: Check!

Bang a couple of strangers in the bushes at the park: Check!

Feel regret or fear: Check!

Make up story about being raped: Check!

Send police on witch hunt: Check!

Allow innocents to be arrested and charged: Check!

Hey Femtards! How's that whole "women don't lie about rape" thingy workin' out for ya?


This story originally appeared in the Belfast Telegraph:

Face of a rape liar

Sunday, 25 April 2010

[No author given]

This is the drunken liar whose false rape claim almost wrecked the life of a grammar school pupil.

Lying Lindsay Gorman, known as Linzi, sparked a huge manhunt when she told police she had been sexually assaulted late at night in Belfast's Botanic Gardens in April 2008.

The 20-year-old from the plush Walnut Hollow area of Larne had, in fact, had drunken consensual sex with two different men in bushes at the park.

But detectives believed her pack of lies and a short time later arrested Campbell College student Mark McLean.

In June 2008, the innocent 18-year-old from east Belfast appeared in court charged with rape.

He was freed on £3,500 bail after being forced to stand handcuffed in the dock while a lawyer publicly accused him of being a sex offender.

A detective, fooled by Linzi's lies, even told the court that police had forensic evidence linking Mark to a “high-profile stranger rape”.

Three weeks later later bed-hopping Linzi went to Newtownabbey PSNI station and admitted she made a false rape claim.

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?

Defining Rape Down, and Down, and Down.... (Guest Column from theFIRE.org)

Originally posted at theFIRE.org

This is yet another feminist legal innovation and a repudiation of all that is good and right and fair about Western jurisprudence: in order to commit a crime, it has traditionally been required that one possess the mens rea - guilty mind or knowledge that one is doing wrong - of a crime. Feminists would rather just have all men be known as rapists, so now it is necessary to define rape in such a way that one isn't aware one is committing it.... [ed.]

New Duke Policy Renders Students Unwitting Rapists; Removes Protections for Those Accused of Sexual Misconduct

April 7, 2010

DURHAM, N.C., April 7, 2010—Duke University has instituted a new "sexual misconduct" policy that can render a student guilty of non-consensual sex simply because he or she is considered "powerful" on campus. The policy claims that "perceived power differentials may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion." Duke's new policy transforms students of both sexes into unwitting rapists simply because of the "atmosphere" or because one or more students are "intoxicated," no matter the degree. The policy also establishes unfair rules for judging sexual misconduct accusations. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is challenging the policy.

"Duke's new sexual misconduct policy could have been written by Mike Nifong," said FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley. "Members of the men's basketball team could be punished for consensual sexual activity simply because they are 'perceived' as more powerful than other students after winning the national championship. Students who engage in sexual behavior after a few beers could be found guilty of sexual misconduct towards each other. This is not just illogical and impractical, but insane. Given its experience during the lacrosse team rape hoax, Duke, of all schools, should know better than to institute such unjust rules about sexual misconduct."

The new policy was introduced at the beginning of the school year with fanfare from the Duke Women's Center—the same center that apologized for excluding pro-life students from event space in a case FIRE won last month. Women's Center Director Ada Gregory was quoted in Duke's student newspaper The Chronicle justifying the new policy, saying, "The higher [the] IQ, the more manipulative they are, the more cunning they are ... imagine the sex offenders we have here at Duke—cream of the crop." (In a follow-up letter to The Chronicle, Gregory claimed that the quote was inaccurate and did not reflect her views, but stood by her analysis that campuses like Duke are likely to harbor smarter sex offenders who are better able to outwit investigators.)

Duke's vastly overbroad definition of non-consensual sex puts nearly every student at risk of being found guilty of sexual misconduct. Students are said to be able to unintentionally coerce others into sexual activity through "perceived power differentials," which could include otherwise unremarkable and consensual liaisons between a varsity athlete and an average student, a senior and a freshman, or a student government member and a non-member.

Further, students are said to be unable to consent to sexual behavior when "intoxicated," regardless of their level of intoxication. Duke has turned mutually consensual sexual conduct, which might merely be poorly considered, into a punishable act. Adding to the confusion, if both parties are intoxicated at all, both are guilty of sexual misconduct, since neither can officially give consent. North Carolina law does not support this definition of consent.

"Of course, there is no way that everyone who was intoxicated during sexual activity, let alone 'perceived' as more powerful, is going to be charged with sexual misconduct," said Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program. "Add to that the provision about an unintentional atmosphere of coercion, and anyone can see that Duke's policy is impossible to rationalize or to fairly and equitably enforce. As a result, this policy effectively trivializes real sexual misconduct, which is a gravely serious crime."

The new policy even makes reporting of so-called sexual misconduct mandatory for any Duke employee who becomes aware of it, regardless of the wishes of the alleged victim.

Furthermore, Duke has made fair enforcement of the sexual misconduct policy even more difficult by establishing different procedures and even a different "jury" to judge sexual misconduct complaints. For instance, sexual misconduct charges are judged by two faculty or staff members and only one student, but all other offenses are judged by a panel of three students and two faculty or staff members. Duke fails to explain why a jury with a majority of one's peers is necessary for charges like assault or theft but not sexual misconduct.

Other problems in the sexual misconduct policy, detailed in FIRE's letter to Duke President Richard Brodhead of March 4, include giving the complainant more rights than the accused, requiring the results of a hearing to be kept secret in perpetuity even if one is found not guilty or is falsely accused, and allowing anonymous and third-party reporting so that the student may never be able to face his or her accuser.

FIRE wrote, "As a private university, Duke is not obliged to agree with the authors of the Bill of Rights about the value of the right to face one's accuser. Nevertheless, Duke ignores their wisdom at the peril of its own students and reputation." Duke has declined to respond to FIRE's letter in writing.

"More than any other school in the nation," Shibley said, "Duke should be aware that its students deserve the best possible rules and procedures for ensuring that rape and sexual misconduct charges are judged fairly. Sexual misconduct is a serious offense. Duke students deserve a policy under which true offenders will be punished but the innocent have nothing to fear."

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation's colleges and universities. FIRE's efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.

Empowering Women!

So I am talking to this femtard. She assures me she is neither "doctrinaire" nor "extreme." She isn't a follower of the Femtard Goddess, Oprah, nor does she "hate men." She is a "reasonable" feminist.

So I say to her, "No, you are not a 'reasonable feminist.' Nobody on earth is a 'reasonable feminist' because nobody has ever become a feminist through reason. You are a feminist - to whatever degree - because of your emotions."

"That's the most outrageous thing I have ever heard in my life. I just believe that men and women are equal - that's not emotional, it's a fact." quoth my soon-to-be weeping femtard prey.

"Well," quoth I, "both you and the feminists say that you believe that men and women are equal. But here are two propositions that neither you nor feminists can argue with: first, there are NO facts which indicate that men and women are equal, and secondly, both you AND feminists believe that women are inferior to men."

"Feminists believe that women are inferior to men? You... you're...."

"Exactly," I said. "Listen, I hear your words. I hear you when you say 'Women can do anything that men can do.' I hear feminists say that as well. But I know you are all lying. Lemme ask you something: If women are capable of anything that men are capable of, then why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards in the military (for both admission and promotion) so that more women can do what men have already been doing for hundreds of years? If women are capable of doing anything that men are capable of doing, why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards in police forces and fire brigades so that more women can get jobs that men have already been doing for hundreds of years? If women are capable of everything that men are capable of, why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards of admission - specifically for women, not across the board - so that more women can be admitted to law school, medical school, and MBA programs?"

"Well, just because a woman can't do everything a man can do physically...."

"Oh, so now you admit that men and women are not equally capable?" I said as I cornered her (the first time).

"Uh, no. No, I didn't say that."

"You just said that women can't do what men can do physically," I reminded her.

"Well, you aren't so stupid to believe that a woman who is 5'2, 120 pounds, is going to be able to do everything that a man who is 6'2, 230 pounds can do?" she replied.

"No, I don't believe that at all. But I am not the one who said women and men were equally capable. You said that. So now you are arguing with yourself?"

"No, of course not. But there are some women who are able...."

"But we aren't talking about some women, we are talking about women as a group. Feminists do not desire to hold women to the same standards as men - which would allow some women, those who are able to perform at the same level as men to get the same jobs or opportunities as men - I am more than happy to have women who are physically and otherwise as capable as men to do the things that men do. But that is not the feminist goal. The feminist goal is to lower standards for women so that women who are not capable of doing the things that men are doing can have the jobs that only men are capable of doing well."

"It's not just women, feminists want equality for everybody," she replied, both off-topic and smugly.

"Really? So what feminists really want is for men who are 5'2 and 120 pounds to be given jobs as firemen?" Trapped again, she was.

"Uhhh, maybe so." She lied, of course.

"Really? Because I have never seen any legislation ever introduced by feminists that would have accomplished that! Rather, what I see is a continual desire to define competency down so that - more women alone - so that women can finally manage to reach the ever-decreasing bar of competency and act as if they are equal to the guys who met minimum levels of competency that were much higher."

"That's outrageous."

"Maybe so. But is it wrong? Did I misspeak? Am I factually wrong? Can you tell me any feminist initiative that would have benefited men that are 5'2 and 120 pounds?"

Realizing she was unable to answer, and therefore refusing to do so, she retorted, "Well, just because women are not able to do what men can do physically doesn't mean they are inferior."

"Well, it certainly means they are physically inferior, if physical output is the measuring stick. But we aren't just talking about physically are we?"

"If there is any real difference between men and women, it is physical," she insisted.

"That may or may not be, we haven't established that yet," I replied, as if I knew a secret that she didn't. "But I can guarantee you that feminists do not believe what you just said. Feminists actually believe that women are also intellectually and morally inferior to men."

"I can't do this anymore..." she whined.

"Oh, come on. Don't let reality crowd your neurosis there, OK? You aren't afraid of the truth are you?"

"What you are saying is not the truth."

"How would you know? You haven't even tried to counter it!"

"But I've never heard all this before...."

"Of course not. Feminism depends on the ignorance of the populace - it can't prosper any other way. A mind that had ever been acquainted with merely ONE fact would thoroughly reject the 'Long ago in a land far away' ideology of feminism. But aren't you glad you are hearing it now for the first time?"

"You say such outrageous things. How do feminists believe that women are morally inferior?" At this point, my prey is near tears and is visibly shaken. Her voice quakes.

"Not just morally, but also intellectually inferior. Yes, feminists believe that. They reveal that they believe women are intellectually inferior when they attempt to lower standards for admission to law school, medical school, and MBA programs (among others) so that more women can be employed in the professions. Again, it is pretty clear that if women are equally capable, there is no reason to lower standards."

"No," she said, "what you don't get is that those 'standards' were set by men." When she said "standards," she indicated quotation marks with her fingers.

"What difference does it make who set them? If men and women were equally capable, women should have no problem meeting the standards whether they were set by God, the Queen, or a passing UFO. I mean, which aspect of 'equally capable' do you not understand?"

"Because women were not allowed to give input when these standards were set...."

"Foolishness," said I. "Nobody consulted me when the rules of basketball were designed. That has nothing to do with whether or not I am equally as capable at basketball as is Michael Jordan. Nobody consulted me when the rules of backgammon were designed. Nevertheless, if I am gonna play backgammon, competently or otherwise, I am expected to abide by the rules that were set by somebody else. And by the way, nobody consulted me when VAWA was passed either, and VAWA has far more impact upon men than the rules of backgammon, so your indignation seems both hypocritical and misplaced.... But who makes the rules is irrelevant. We all live in situations in which the rules have been provided by someone else and we are nevertheless expected to excel or demonstrate competence. If I want to claim to be equally as capable as Michael Jordan, then no matter who made the rules, I have to perform with him."

Silence. So I continued.

"So when feminists demand that standards to professional schools be lowered so that women can be admitted and practice law and medicine and whatever, when men have already been entering, leaving, and practicing from Harvard Law for a century or more, they are admitting that they do not believe that women are 'equally capable' with men intellectually.

"Now, let's talk morals..." I continued. "Feminists also do not believe that women are as morally sound as are men."

"See, this is what I hate. You are just being silly now." Smug again. Confident. Right where I want her....

"Well, OK. When feminists changed the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA] under Bill Clinton, it was the legislative enactment of the feminist myth that 'women don't lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse.' Of course that silly little fairy tale first gained wide exposure during the Clarence Thomas hearings, when that braying feminist ass, Anita Hill, was revealed to be lying about sexual harassment. And so people rightly guffawed at the myth at the time. But that pissed feminists off so much that they began to seek to have their mythology codified into law - one result of that compunction to enact feminist fairy tales into law was VAWA."

"I don't see what that has to do with women's morals," she interjected. Fair enough. I had been interrupting her as well. Though for two different reasons: I interrupted her because what she was saying wasn't worth hearing, and she interrupted me because she didn't want to face the truth.

"You don't see it because you are talking when you should be listening," I said quite righteously. "Now, as I was saying, the femtard fairy tale that 'women don't lie' was codified in several ways - in the presumption of guilt for those accused (inescapable in Domestic Violence Protective Order [DVPO] proceedings, where the standard of evidence is the 'subjective fear of the woman', but present also in rape proceedings where a woman is referred to as a 'victim' even when she is revealed to be lying about rape, and in shielding her identity without shielding the identity of the one slandered by her), in the exclusion of relevant evidence from courts (so-called 'rape shield' laws, but they represent the only time that I know of in Western jurisprudence in which character evidence that has a direct bearing on the allegations being brought are excluded, even though they could indicate that the accuser is lying), and a lowering of evidentiary standards. Again, the standard of evidence for issuing a restraining order prior to VAWA was 'the probability of harm.' In other words, if the order was not issued, it was probable that harm would accrue to the petitioner. But for a DVPO, the standard of evidence was changed to 'the subjective fear of the woman.' In other words, if a woman can convince a judge that she 'fears' her husband/daddy/lover, then she can take everything he owns and have him treated as a criminal - no evidence necessary."

"What the &^%$ are you talking about? I don't see this!" she objected.

"Let me ask you something: If women are so morally superior to men that they never lie - even if they only never lie about certain things, like sex or violence, why is it necessary to lower the standard of evidence? And by the way, they didn't just lower it, but they lowered it to the extent that it is essentially no standard of evidence at all - merely to make the claim is to be considered to be telling the truth by a court (quite a violation of the "innocent until proven guilty" tradition in Western jurisprudence, wouldn't you say?). If women are morally equal to men, shouldn't their ability to tell the truth be tested by the same standards of evidence that have always tested the testimony of men? Shouldn't the men that they slander be considered innocent except for objective evidence proffered of their guilt? Shouldn't women who slanderously accuse men have to meet the standards of evidence of 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' 'a preponderance of the evidence,' or 'probability/likelihood of harm?' Sure they should! They should, that is, IF it is true that they are just as capable of telling the truth as are men! But by insisting on an impossibly LOW standard of evidence for the complaints that only women make, aren't feminists simply demanding to be believed for the sake of their own complaint? And if I insist that YOU believe ME just because, am I not admitting to you that there is something wrong with me or my story, and asking to be given the benefit of the doubt? And if I am asking to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to telling the truth in court under oath, am I not admitting that in the moral matter of telling the truth, I am morally inferior to those who must prove their complaints with real evidence?"

"You know, I don't think either of us is going to change each other's mind," she stated, rather than trying to rebut my exquisite logic.

"Of course we aren't. You won't change my mind because I am right and you are wrong. And I won't change your mind because you are not interested in truth and facts."

"What you are saying isn't the truth," she stated again.

"Then why won't you show the error in what I have said?"

"You know," she said, "It's not all about facts. People's opinions matter."

"No, people's opinions don't matter at all. They are all different, and generally contradictory. How can they all be true? And if they are not true, how can they matter? After all, it is our responsibility to form our opinions based on reality, not to try to bring reality into conformity with our opinions, as feminists do."

"There's more to it than that," she said. "It's not all about facts and truth. It's about self-worth and self-esteem. It's about a world in which I can feel good about myself."

"Thank you," I said.

"Thank me for what?" she asked.

"Thank you," I said again, "for admitting that you are a feminist because of feelings and not facts. As I said when we started talking about this, no feminist ever became a feminist intellectually. It's all about feeling, emotions, and a certain neurotic preference for castles in the air rather than cold, hard, reality."

Full circle....