Latest Posts

Feminist Introduced Rape Law, Acquit Guilty, Jail Innocent..

Sanchez,feminist and hypocrite, queried on voter fraud..
She (Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif (above)) single-handedly helped prove, once and for all, the hypocrisy of the feminist movement when she scheduled a fund-raiser for Al Gore at the Playboy Mansion. 

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) Caught in Multiple Scandals; Sex & Voter Fraud



Feminists have no problem whatsoever in introducing their own versions of what law should be in their own opinion and in the case of human rights or the independence documents, well, they are just a hindrance to their efforts at ensuring men are not only vilified but also falsely charged and jailed for something they were not aware of. This "rape law" introduced by feminists could have been introduced by other species pretending to be feminists, maybe it was..
Air Force Col. Don Christensen, called it “almost incomprehensible.”“If you had 100 monkeys with a typewriter, they’d probably come up with something like this,” Christensen declared during a 2009 aggravated sexual assault case.
And he could leave it there but more was required to clarify what level of brain dysfunction and damage those feminists were suffering from..
Christensen, the Air Force judge, said during a trial. “I just think it’s a prime example of what happens when legislation is influenced by what they see on ‘Oprah’ and what advocacy seekers propose, as opposed to what’s really necessary.”

‘Flawed’ New Rape Law Roils Military Justice System 
WASHINGTON _ Six years ago, Congress tried cracking down on rape in the military. Prompted by disturbing reports of sexual assaults in military academies and war zones, lawmakers rewrote the rules. They wanted to protect victims and help prosecutors.Now it’s clear that the effort backfired.The politically attractive but poorly understood legal changes have incited courtroom confusion, judicial frustration and constitutional conflict. Extensive interviews and a McClatchy review of thousands of pages of court documents and internal studies find a congressionally caused crisis of military justice that few civilians know anything about.The rewritten sexual assault law puts judges “in an impossible position,” the top military appellate court warned. 
Military lawyers find it “cumbersome and confusing,” a Pentagon task force noted. It leads to “unwarranted acquittals,” Defense Department officials added. And some judges call it unconstitutional.“The law is an abomination as it is now written,” said Charles Gittins, a former military judge advocate who’s now a defense attorney.Individual military judges likewise assail the new law. One, Marine Corps Lt. Col. Raymond Beal II, called it “horribly flawed.” Another, J.A. Maksym of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, blasted it as “poorly written, confusing and arguably absurd.” Yet another, Air Force Col. Don Christensen, called it “almost incomprehensible.”“If you had 100 monkeys with a typewriter, they’d probably come up with something like this,” Christensen declared during a 2009 aggravated sexual assault case.A Senate bill introduced in June and proposed by the Defense Department tries to fix the problems that the earlier congressional action created. 
The bill is pending.The present law now under fire has particularly complicated trials that involve intoxicated victims and those who say they’ve been assaulted by acquaintances, two common allegations in the military. The confusion about the law can lead to injustice.Consider the case of a former Air Force enlisted man stationed at California’s Travis Air Force Base.Stephen Prather, 23, had been accused of aggravated sexual assault by an intoxicated guest of a party that Prather and his wife threw in October 2007.Prather said he and the guest had engaged in consensual sex. The woman, though, testified that she fell asleep and woke briefly to find Prather on top of her. When she awoke again, she said, she found semen on her underwear.Prather had raised the woman’s alleged consent as a defense. Prosecutors countered that the woman, whom court documents didn’t identify, was too intoxicated to give consent. 
The problem was that the rewritten law had shifted the burden of proof involving consent, appeals court judges concluded. Prather, as the defendant, had the burden to prove that the alleged victim was capable of consenting. Under the Constitution, though, it’s the prosecution that’s supposed to shoulder the burden of proof.This “results in an unconstitutional burden shift to the accused,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces said of the new law in its February 2011 decision dismissing Prather’s conviction.Prather already had served almost 11 months of a two-and-a-half year prison sentence. He’s awaiting his discharge papers.“I just want Congress to know this law has messed up a lot of people’s lives,” he said in a telephone interview from his home in Houston.“My wife left me. I can’t get a good job. I had to register as a sex offender. My life is ruined. All for something that should have never been a crime to begin with,” Prather added.Recently, the military decided not to re-prosecute Prather. 
For other military defendants, the legal ambiguity will continue as challenges inundate appeals courts. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will review several challenges to the law in coming months.Meanwhile, sexual assaults in the military continue.More than 4 percent of active-duty women and almost 1 percent of active-duty men reported unwanted sexual contact in 2009, according to the latest annual study from the Pentagon’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.All told, the military services completed investigations of more than 3,200 suspects in sex-related crimes in fiscal year 2010. Of these, 16 percent faced court-martial.Heightened political scrutiny of the military’s handling of sexual misbehavior dates at least to the 1991 Tailhook affair, in which Navy aviators aggressively groped women at a convention in Las Vegas.Congressional involvement accelerated in early 2004, after reports of sexual assaults on female troops in Iraq.A year later, the Pentagon established an office dedicated to responding to and preventing sexual assault. 
Lawmakers also directed the Pentagon to review the military’s laws, known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice.In an 826-page report, the Pentagon ultimately advised that no changes were necessary. Congress thought otherwise and rewrote the sexual assault provisions as part of a fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill. The intention was clear: Lawmakers wanted to assist prosecutors and shield victims.Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., a key proponent of the changes, called them a “major step” in convicting rapists. Skeptics feared otherwise.“I’m not a member of Congress, and that’s their job to do what they think is necessary,” Christensen, the Air Force judge, said during a trial. “I just think it’s a prime example of what happens when legislation is influenced by what they see on ‘Oprah’ and what advocacy seekers propose, as opposed to what’s really necessary.”

Female Teacher Jailed 25 Years for Rape of Minor..

Wow, have we just witnessed the beginning of the end of the pussy pass, that card that women use to escape accountability and receive a much lighter sentence than even children receive ?

Can we now expect the population of female teachers to finally take notice and be made aware of the fact that shagging any underage student under your care is going to land you in the slammer for a  minimum of 25 years. Think they will change their mindset and behaviour, or what ?

Court documents..

ALLANAH TUMURA BENTON,  LC No. 09-024636-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before:  SERVITTO, P.J., and MARKEY and K. F. KELLY, JJ.
MARKEY, J.
 Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal
sexual conduct (CSC), MCL 750.520b(a)(1), for which she was sentenced to concurrent prisonterms of 25 to 38 years. She appeals by right. We affirm. 
Defendant, a former elementary school teacher, was convicted of engaging in sexualintercourse with a 12-year-old  former student from her sixth grade class. The victim hadacademic and behavioral problems and was suspended from school for fighting with anotherstudent at the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year. Defendant intervened on the victim’sbehalf and persuaded the school principal not to expel the victim from school. After the victimreturned to school, defendant invited him to religious activities at her Masjid (mosque) and to herhome, purportedly to offer him guidance and help him with his anger and academic problems. The victim was subsequently expelled from school after a second fighting incident.  After hisexpulsion, he spent more time with defendant at her home, with his mother’s permission. According to the victim, he and defendant progressed from hugging, to hand-holding, andto kissing, before eventually engaging in sexual intercourse. The victim testified that he anddefendant had sexual intercourse on two different evenings in October 2007. After the secondincident, the victim called defendant from his home and inadvertently recorded the call. Duringthe recorded call, the victim referred to defendant as his girlfriend, and stated that he was proudto be involved with a grown woman. The victim’s mother heard the recording and reported it tothe school. The school board later terminated defendant from her teaching position and thatdecision was upheld by the tenure commission.
And further information..
Twenty-five year minimum sentence for statutory rape is not cruel or unusual punishment 
In People v. Benton, No. 296721, the Court of Appeals considered whether a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct constituted cruel or unusual punishment. The defendant, an elementary school teacher convicted of engaging in sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old student, argued that the mandatory minimum sentence for a statutory rape conviction prevented the court from considering mitigating factors and other particular circumstances of the offense. Most notably, the defendant wanted the court to be able to take into account her assertion that she never used force, violence, or coercion and her assertion that she did not physically or psychologically injure her victim. The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument and concluded that Michigan’s public policy goal was to prevent adults from engaging in sexual activities with pre-teens. Moreover, the Court of Appeals determined that the defendant’s assertion that she was less culpable than most other sex offenders was unpersuasive, noting that the defendant used her position of power and authority to insinuate herself into her victim’s life, isolate him in her home, and then engage in sexual activities with him. The court also noted that other states had similar minimum sentences for an adult offender’s first offense against a pre-teen victim, regardless of any purported mitigating factors.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that the trial court violated the defendant’s constitutional rights by refusing to admit under the Rape Shield Act her victim’s prior sexual experiences. The defendant claimed at trial that her victim’s testimony about his inexperience with condoms created the untrue impression that her victim was sexually inexperienced. The defendant alleged that the trial court’s refusal to admit evidence about the victim’s past sexual experiences to contradict this impression violated her constitutional right of confrontation. The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument, noting that while in limited situations a rape victim’s past sexual history is admissible to preserve a defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation, the victim in this case had never actually stated that he was sexually inexperienced.

Feminism Destroys Your Moral Compass..

Winner - Hugo Schwyzer
I do believe the feminasty movement are still annoyed over the fact that we forced them to change the named "Women's Studies" program to "Gender Studies" which ofcouse did not make an iota of difference to their male bashing, male hating agenda, they had originally installed.
The same cretins are still involved in that misnomer and occasionally, the odd named individual or three, rears their sexist, morally corrupted head and endeavours to gestate another inane thought process that only other morally corrupt feminist could possibly comprehend.
Schwyzer, (the winner of our famous Mangina Award for morally corrupt male feminists who sold their soul and their own sex out for poon) once again demonstrates beyond doubt why he is paid to promote these mindless, delusional, inane thought processes as he would find it impossible to sell that load of drivel for cash. Always good to rely on the taxpayers dollars for your rent seeking malfeasance..

The article penned by Schwyzer is about accidental rape. One has to wonder what he has been up to to warrant such a title. Feminists have already introduced a plethora of interpretations to the "R" word, so what's another one..
RapeMarital RapeDate RapeAccidental RapeEye Rape (i.e. thought rape)

Bill at The Spearhead sums up this recalcitrant nicely in this complimentary article..

Hugo Schwyzer on Consent

by W.F. PRICE on SEPTEMBER 27, 2011
In giving Hugo Schwyzer a platform, the Good Men Project has lost whatever credibility it may have had. Although Schwyzer stirs up some controversy and thus garners pageviews, his questionable personal morality and willingness to collaborate in deception have already tainted the publication. Founder Tom Matlack, on the other hand, strikes me as a fairly sincere person who just happens to be incorrect about some things.
Sincerity, however, is not Schwyzer’s forté. In an article that enraged many an MRA, he argued that it doesn’t really matter whose kid you’re bringing up — “…it is love, not sperm, that makes a great dad.” In the article he reveals that he may have fathered a child with a woman, and then collaborated with her to deceive the other man she was sleeping with at the time into thinking the child was his. This is a disgusting thing to do to both the other man and the child, and a sneaky way to disguise parental irresponsibility and selfishness as some sort of noble act. I accuse Schwyzer of insincerity because I’m pretty sure he’ll ask for a DNA test if he gets socked with a paternity suit for years of back child support some years down the line (assuming the story is true). I can see him in front of a judge arguing: “your honor, it was just my sperm, and that doesn’t mean anything…” I’d fork over some cash to sit in on that hearing.
He later defended that piece by saying that guys who felt differently about a child upon learning that he or she was fathered by another man are “contemptible,” and then proceeded to shamelessly excuse himself for his act of deception because the woman he conspired with was “not in an exclusive relationship when she last slept with me.” Well, duh.
In his latest piece, Schwyzer touches upon the issue of “accidental rape.” From a legal standpoint, this could be an interesting issue, because fudging the notion of consent has resulted in prosecutions where there is no clear indication of mens rea — usually a requirement for a crime to have occurred (in fact, I think statutory rape is one of the very few crimes where mens rea is not required). However, rather than clarify the issue, Schwyzer further muddies the waters by offering a deceptive etymology for the word consent:
The root of consent is the Latin consentire, which means “with feeling.” Consent is not just about words “no” or “yes”—it’s about the unambiguous presence of desire.
This is sleight of hand. The Latin root sentire means “to feel” or “to hear,” but it does not mean emotion or desire, as in “I feel sad,” or “I feel horny,” so much as it means “to think” (e.g. “sentire cum ecclesia” — to think with the church). A more accurate translation would probably be “to perceive.” In any event, Latin terms generally entered the English legal lexicon through French or the church. Given the fact that the word “sentient” (conscious, perceptive) also derives from sentire, it can safely be assumed that the meaning of the term consent is much closer to “accept with awareness” than it is to “agree with ‘the unambiguous presence of desire.’” For example, I consented to a search of my car at the border on Sunday, but I certainly wasn’t overcome by desire at the prospect.
In fact, what Schwyzer is describing is not consent at all. We already have a word for it: assent. If feminists want to change the standard for rape to sex without assent, they should be honest about that, but I don’t think it would work, because the term consent has just enough neutrality to it to be acceptable to the ordinary female sensibility, which recoils from the idea of “assenting” to sex, because that’s just too slutty.
Semantics aside, the article is just another example of Hugo’s disingenuous hand-wringing over the finer points of female sentiment. As a “gender studies” teacher, he is paid to do that, so no surprise there, but what we must keep in mind is that what Mr. Schwyzer is propounding could have some very nasty blowback, including inducing one of his young female students to say that she had been “raped” because she didn’t enthusiastically assent to sex and (in retrospect, of course) realized that she only reluctantly went along with it (i.e. consented). After her friends convince her to call the cops and the boy’s name is dragged through the mud in the press, maybe the poor sap will be “lucky” enough to avoid prison.
Would such a scenario bother him? To answer that, we need only ask whether it would bother a man who has no moral qualms about hiding the fact that another man may be raising his child from both the man and his child. This man demonstrates that claiming to act on behalf of women is the perfect cover for utter scum, and that’s exactly what we should expect to find in gender study departments across the land. “Good men” my ass.