A lesbian couple faked a hate crime that left their home a pile of charred rubble at their Venore, Tenn., property in 2010, local reports said.
An insurance company caught on to the ruse months after the blaze and accused Carol Ann and Laura Stutte of perpetuating a hoax and blaming the fire on their neighbor, the Knoxville News Sentinel reported.
A federal jury ruled in favor of the insurance company’s belief that the couple spray-painted an anti-gay slur on their own garage to spin the fire as a hate crime based on their sexual orientation.
Only women, ethnic minorities, non-Christians and homosexuals are recognized by the Left as having “rights,” a term the Left understands as entitlement — a “right” to favorable treatment from the government, at the expense of demonized classes who have no such rights because they are said to be “privileged” by systems of social oppression. This worldview has been taught in schools, colleges and universities for the past 20 or 30 years. These attitudes are also promoted by both the entertainment industry and the news media, so that few Americans under age 40 are able to think beyond the constraints of Cultural Marxism (otherwise known as “political correctness”). Anyone who questions the Left’s ideas is accused of hate and bigotry — sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. — and by this method of character assassination, critics are excluded from participation in academia, journalism, politics or any other field where the intelligentsia’s influence is decisive.
Am I angry about this? Honestly, I’m more angry that other conservatives aren’t as angry about it as I am.
Radical feminism could be defeated if so many people weren’t afraid of being considered “sexist” for speaking out against it. If conservatives would pay attention to the Culture War, and focus on the weakest link — i.e., the blatant dishonesty of feminism’s claims of “oppression” — we could blow a hole in the Left’s agenda big enough to drive a truck through. If you’re a praying person, pray that people will wake up to this situation. while there is still any hope at all.
Recalls a mildly vulgar joke (to which the title alludes). I’ll quote the setup:
The auditor said, “Well, sir, you have an extravagant lifestyle and no full-time employment, Which you explain by saying that you win money gambling. I’m not sure the IRS finds that believable.”
“I’m a great gambler, and I can prove it,” says Grandpa. “How about a demonstration?”
The auditor thinks for a moment and said, “Okay. Go ahead.”
You can totally bet your bippy that Her Majesty would cast The Donald as the new Perot, and he’d lose with a smile on his face. Allow me to speculate as to why:
Her Majesty has substantial dirt on The Donald.
The Donald has substantial animus against the GOP.
Her Majesty would offer The Donald some plumb position in Her Privy Counsel (formerly known as the Cabinet).
Summarizing: I was entertained by The Donald last night at the debate in Ohio. I found his unabashed willingness to mention profit highly refreshing (even as he probably energizes Her Majesty’s Commie base thereby). And, if the GOP is so asinine as to let JEB buy the nomination, I’ll play this idiotic game right with The Donald.
I was scarcely on Twitter yesterday because I was doing research for my Sex Trouble series, but this morning I received notification that I am locked out of my account @rsmccain and I won’t be able to unlock it for 12 hours. There was no explanation given, but probably some enemies — feminists, maybe? Neal Rauhauser’s friends, maybe? — have falsely accused me of “harassment.” Yet the fact is I’ve been using Twitter since 2009 and have myself frequently been a target of harassment that Twitter has seldom done anything to prevent.
In fact, false accusations of online “harassment” (which have become a standard tactic of the Left) are a deliberate form of harassment used against the Left’s opponents. Critics of feminism, especially, are not permitted to engage feminists on Twitter, because the silencing of opposition is necessary to their success: Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.
Anyway, my friends should ask @Twitter@Support what this is about, because they didn’t bother explaining it to me.
Pope Francis has correctly described the unborn as “the most defenseless and innocent among us.” But in the sordid tale of strategic crushing of the unborn to better harvest their hearts, lungs and livers, many Democrats have incredibly cast an organization with a roughly $1.3 billion annual budget in the role of the innocent and defenseless. Hillary Clinton emerged as Planned Parenthood’s highest profile protector Monday, decrying the “assault” against her allegedly helpless campaign donors.
The Democratic Party shilling for barbarism — whether by politicians, liberal media outlets, union officials or unrestricted abortion advocates — is not likely to be viewed favorably by future generations. These Democrats will be remembered for demonizing the activists who lifted the veil on a previously sanitized process and for seekingrestraining orders to silence truth tellers. They will be remembered for publishing dehumanizing decrees — as The New Republic did — that people stop criticizing Planned Parenthood because as a medical matter, “The term baby … doesn’t apply until birth” (that thing on your sonogram is nothing more than a “product[] of conception.”) And they will be remembered for demanding investigations into citizen journalists for meticulously exposing atrocities in our midst.
Read the whole thing. Science is on the side of life. For more than 30 years now, parents have had the experience of staring at that ultrasound screen and seeing their own children alive in the womb at 10 or 12 weeks gestation. And, because of advances in neo-natal care, there are adults alive today who were born more than three months premature.
Madeline Mann, who was born in 1989 weighing less than 10 ounces, graduated with honors from Augustana College in 2012, and last year got her master’s degree in psychology. She is certified in suicide prevention.
Life deserves a chance.
Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise . . . Well, they’re evil.
“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
— Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (KJV)
Rolling Stone‘s UVA rape hoax continues to echo in discussions of the legal and cultural consequences of bad journalism:
Tamara Tabo is a summa cum laude graduate of the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of the school’s law review. After graduation, she clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She currently heads the Center for Legal Pedagogy at Texas Southern University, an institute applying cognitive science to improvements in legal education.
What is surprising is, even after the Rolling Stone debacle, how many dubious beliefs persist about women who allege that they have been sexually assaulted, the men those women accuse, and how the media reports on it. . . .
The folks at Rolling Stone were apparently so afraid of throwing shade on a woman who claims to have been raped that they were tripping over themselves to seem as sensitive as possible, even once her story began to crumble. . . .
When men say that it doesn’t matter whether a woman is telling the truth about a sexual assault because what really matters is the “big issue,” those men have internalized their own oppression too. They’ve adopted the attitude that any harms done by a woman lying about a rape are not important. They’ve bought into the lie that “good guys” continue to focus on the suffering of women, even when facts suggest that a woman has inflicted suffering on men she has falsely accused.
A man blaming “campus rape culture” or “the patriarchy” or whatever instead of blaming an alleged rape victim whose story unravels is no more noble than a woman telling another woman that she must have been “asking for it” if she was raped.
How many false gang-rape allegations need to happen before everybody cultivates some healthy skepticism?
(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) The astonishing thing is how, despite the clear evidence that the “campus rape epidemic” is non-existent (i.e., sexual assault has actually declined signifcantly in the past two decades) and despite indications that feminists have created a witch-hunt climate that has produced numerous false accusations, we see lawmakers and university officials acting as if there really is such an “epidemic.”
If there is an epidemic of anything on campus, it’s a Binge Drinking epidemic, which leads to a Bad Sex epidemic, and that in turn has created a Maybe My Bad Drunk Sex Was Rape epidemic. It is ridiculous to expect teenage college kids to responsibly negotiate “affirmative consent” after they’ve been doing tequila shots all night.
In October 2014, before the Rolling Stone hoax, but after Jesse Matthew had been arrested in the murder of UVA student Hanna Graham, the feminist “rape culture” discourse was critiqued by Heather MacDonald. She quoted a Duke University coed who had described to Laura Sessions Stepp the morning-after reaction to a typical drunken hook-up: “You roll over the next morning so horrified at what you find next to you that you scream.” It is this reaction, I believe, which provides the emotional energy behind the “campus rape epidemic” hysteria.
Robert Tracinski has suggested that “the emotional dark side of promiscuity” is a major factor in this phony crisis. I’ve made this point more bluntly: “Why Do Drunk Sluts Get Drunk?” Alcohol can function as moral anesthetia that suppresses the qualms of conscience, enabling people to overcome their inhibitions and do bad things they want to do, but would have difficulty doing if they were sober. When they wake up with a hangover, they are overcome with a sense of shame about their drunken revelry, which they may barely remember.
Given the prevalence of the Bad Drunk Sex phenomenon on our college campuses, how are we to discern the difference between the roll-over-and-scream morning-after remorse reaction and actual incidents of sexual assault? In a he-said/she-said scenario, is there no room for skepticism? Must we cast aside all doubt and embrace policies that effectively void the due process rights of male students who are accused under such circumstances? Is it too much to expect female students to stay sober, keep their britches on and avoid the situations in which these incidents typically occur? We know that feminists don’t give a damn about facts, but must we allow these unscrupulous ideologues to destroy what little credibility still remains in the news media?
