The Duke Lacrosse Team - Still Another Sacrifice to the Great God Feminism?

Rape is a vicious, unforgivable crime.

Worse is to send a man to jail for a rape he didn't commit. De rigueur in the discussion and deliberation over each instance of that particular crime is that concerning "mental trauma" - to the woman. We aren't talking much about what happens to the man who is wrongfully convicted. We don't talk much about the fact that women who wrongfully charge rape are seldom prosecuted, either, or that they have in a way done to their innocent victim what they alleged he did to them.

Even more seldom does anyone ask what happened to the woman who committed this most deadly of sins where a society and its system of justice are concerned.

Neither can society escape the onus of having convicted what may be as high as forty percent of men in prison erroneously. As a crime to be prosecuted, rape is in a class all by itself. It is the only crime requiring one witness and little corroboration for that witness' story. No prosecution for crime is so driven and controlled by politics and political considerations. If the woman who chooses to use her female prerogative to send the innocent to prison ought feel shame, and to demand true justice rather than support for her pet "ism," what should be said of her society and the nation that permits it?

We’re shooting into the crowd again, carpet bombing. The guy we want is in there somewhere, and to get him we'll kill as many as is necessary. We want a sacrifice to the Political God called Feminism, and all that is necessary for "closure" is a victim.

And how much longer will it be before more of our vaunted system of justice and Bill of Rights are subjected to still another kind of ideology like feminism? Why bother with courts, with forensics, science and logic - why not just hold a Nancy Grace or Greta Van Susteren gossip trial on television, then have a write-in referendum?

In the U.S. today, any time you say anything publicly - maybe I should just stop there, but I won't - about women's "issues," you can expect to draw a blizzard of pseudo-historic rhetoric and psycho-babble, ranging from barely cogent or well-considered to outright diatribe and emotional nonsense. The other day, I wondered aloud and a length about such sacrosanct sacramentals as feminism's versions of the crime known most commonly as rape (the feminists, of course, who split every hair again and again when the hair is language - prefer "sexual assault"). Actually, referring to that interjection back there, they've damned near re-written the dictionary on that account. One of these days, I'll compile a list of the "feminism-isms" we now have courtesy of militant panty-hose.
Anyway, in my earlier writing, I considered and wondered about "vaginal bruising." HOLY CRAP! -what a brouhaha! Sorry girls - and the rest of you, too - I won't change a word. I think you're full of baloney, and the barrage of PMS-derived nonsense and language-generated virtual reality loosed upon me in the last few days is a microcosm of the same loosed on society at the outset of this "revolution" of yours. History will remember that the "American" female wasn't interested in what she could do for her country, but what it could - and must - do for her. Forty years later, we're seeing the unmistakable effects of that.

And speaking of "full of it," and my original topic here, there is no aspect of our public life where there is more pure, unadulterated bullshit than where the subject is the carnal knowledge of a female without her permission. And, gentlemen, to use that quote from Shakespeare and Hamlet again, "there's the rub." Permission. Read the feminist's definition of that word, where "carnal knowledge" is concerned. If your head isn't swimming when you're through, it's made of rock. That shouldn't come as any surprise, either. One woman who wrote to me said no one could agree on what FEMINISM was. Don't believe me? Have a look at one feminist website, picked at random: http://www.quotegarden.com You'll find the same kind of incisive objectivity everywhere during the feminist discussion of rape.

The crime of rape, of course, has been the single most frequently availed vehicle for promotion of the feminist "movement" and recitation of their strident dogma. I remember from personal experience, as a matter of fact, an example of the way the girls bring to a halt all deliberation on issues far more pressing and critical at the time, in order to cram their "women's issues" into the public consciousness. No matter what the threat against the nation or society - pestilence, war, famine, name it - the national news media bellows the story of a rape somewhere, spending hours of million dollar a second time on the travail of some obscure woman somewhere.

Some years ago, when I still had a business, I declined an offer from two women desirous of initiating an aerobics class in one of my health clubs. The negotiation happened to be in my office at one of the clubs, after closing time. When I went to the door and opened it to signal that our discussion was at an end, one of the "ladies" looked around meaningfully at the empty club and said, "How would you like to be charged with rape?!" Only when I had laughed and pulled from my pocket the tape recorder I had been recording everything on was I able to end the interview.

Neither was that the only time that sort of thing happened. Another involved a female claimant in a personal injury claim. Investigating the matter for a friend, Ralph Summa of Farm And City Insurance Company, I was confronted by a woman threatening to tear off her clothes and run from the house yelling "rape!" "You'll lose your wife, your children, your job, and your reputation," she said. "People always believe the woman - they HAVE to nowadays." Producing and playing back for her what she had just said drew a torrent of invective like none I had never heard before. It seems the "lady" had been demanding a $20,000 settlement and was sure I had the authority to write the check.

When my last marriage was being torn apart by the Internal Revenue Service, Karen, my wife, threatened me with rape in order to justify to her children her adultery with the trucker she later married. I can only wonder how many times the average male has been threatened with rape during his lifetime. It might be interesting to find out, wouldn't it?

Yeah. The reader will perhaps see why I haven't been surprised to learn of the hideous number of men convicted for a crime they didn't commit. The latest chapter in this hideous history is the absolutely outrageously celebrated Duke Lacrosse Team Rape Case. I'm reminded of another such case of my acquaintance, one in the East some years ago. In that one, the young "lady" invited an ex-boy friend with whom she admitted - oops: SAID SHE HAD - sex before to her bedroom, "to watch TV." She also ad . . . SAID - she now had a new boyfriend. It is only incidental that the fact she had chosen for the occasion an ensemble featuring white short shorts - and that said shorts did not quite cover the cheeks of her ass - was ruled inadmissible by all female correspondents and pundits at the time; I don't know what the court said. Neither do I know how the court ruled on the admissibility of evidence that the "victim" wore at the time of her alleged rape a skimpy (oops, again) . . . -let's just say, since it is a mathematically provable fact, that it left one-third of the breasts uncovered - halter top. All that, feminists would argue, is irrelevant.

From there, testimony was all the "victim's." I hope you notice that's always the "state's witness" - the woman. Even the nearly more than one hundred men who have been proved incontrovertibly innocent of the crime they went to prison for are never referred to as "the victim." It's like being a mother: a man can't be one.

Now, I keep using quotes because this is the one crime that is all but always tried with language and verbiage alone. The woman's intellectual forte, language. Among the recitations classic where rape cases are concerned is the one that goes "rape is a very difficult charge to prosecute," or "the burden of proof is very high in rape cases." Yeah? Well, it certainly should be, inasmuch as one of the oldest and most venerated - in any other instance, anyway - rules of Roman-English-American jurisprudence is the one that holds and instructs that one witness is no witness, "Testis unis, testis nullas." There's also one that says, "Nemo judex in sua causa" - no one should be the judge at his own trial. Does that remind you of anything - like what we happen to be talking about nationally? And one more bears on the subject, too - the one that goes "Volenti non fit injuria." That means one to whom what he ought have expected happens can't claim anyone but himself to be at fault.

But all that changes when the matter involves rape. There is one witness. There is often no evidence to support what she says in testimony. The young woman in the case I've mentioned told the court that she COULDN'T have wanted to have sex with her old boy friend because she had a NEW boyfriend. That no one can ask without drawing the outrage of the nation's femi-nazis what the hell she invited another guy to her bedroom for, then, explains pretty completely and thoroughly how we've come to put as many as ten thousand - that's my statistical projection, based on current known data - innocent men in jail for rape. And if all that weren't enough, the judge in the case is often . . . a WOMAN! Try to imagine what would happen to a defense attorney who asked a judge to recuse herself in a rape case.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that the fact that the new boyfriend in the case I'm speaking of had come by while the ex-boyfriend was still in the house, and that it was not included in the trial record? Irrelevant, I suppose. To a feminist lawyer, anyway.

Hoo, boy - I can hear it now! What an outrageous insinuation! Yeah, then how come this, something I came across during research recently (things I found on the way to finding something else) is a set of facts? You'll forgive me if I'm not definitely NOT surprised to learn:

"For centuries before women entered law, the US had murder and incarceration rates lower than Canada, Denmark, France, and Portugal, and equivalent to Australia and Germany. Since women entered law in the 1960s in the US, however:
Incarceration and illegitimacy rates have quintupled.
Murder, male suicide, and divorce rates have doubled.
20,000 unconstitutional gun control laws have been implemented.
Every fundamental principle of the US Constitution, except quartering troops in our houses, has been violated.
In the industrialized world, the US now has the distinction of having the highest incarceration rate, at the same time that it has one of the highest rates of violent crime, at the same time that it resolves a far fewer percent of crime.
For each 1% increase in the percent of female judges there are:
61,000 extra men in prison.
390 more murders each year.
270 fewer resolved murders each year.
100,000 more female criminals unpunished each year."

Interesting, huh? But just suggest once that a woman should not sit on a rape trial jury and see what happens. That's only an example of the never-never land that is jurisprudence and law where assault on women is concerned. After one case back in Iowa - 1983, as I recall - I had occasion to interview with a woman who had been on a jury that had convicted four young men of rape. To my question, she said, and I quote verbatim, "It had to be rape; no women would willingly have sex with four men at the same time." Well, not telling of it afterward, anyway. NOW do you wonder how we could convict so many innocent men?

In the earlier essay, I made reference - much to the fury of a number of women who wrote to vilify this "male-chauvinist pig" (me) - to my own sexual experiences. Well hell, girls, a good writer writes about what he knows for certain - and besides, as far as being a Don Juan is concerned, I'm a piker. On the other hand, I did find that simply asking at the right time and under the right circumstances found women receptive far, far more often than not; and DNA-supported statistics that reveal of late that women conceive as many as thirty percent of their children during a tryst with someone other than their husband bear me out. Boob jobs and all that stuff they put on their faces aren't the only thing cosmetic where the "American" female is concerned.

But that may be beside the point. That a number of the women I've been to bed with at one time or another threatened me with rape charges for one petty reason or another isn't. That, ultimately together with my experiences as a private investigator, were to result at length in my becoming celibate for nearly ten years - fearful during my war with the IRS of a federal rape "sting." In my book, "Letters to Aaron, the Hal Luebbert Story," I relate two instances of what I was, and remain, certain was a "tender trap" set by the feds. All they needed was circumstances in which there could be no witness or evidence to contradict what their bait woman said. If she could testify that she was a police officer or official of government, that would have served their case all the more. It's a sick world, and woman's penchant to lie about being raped represents perhaps the most powerful of weapons used by the state to silence opposition. Still another time, one of the tape recorders I carry always saved my bacon in each instance.

Women don't lie? I like math, and statistics, the result being that I like to see what known data can tell us about things otherwise up for conjecture and "politically correct" interpretation. Consider this: There are about 92,500 rapes reported each year. If we use the percentage of cases where DNA was decisive, there are at least 23,000 women who have lied to put men in jail (FBI stats say that at least twenty-five percent - and as many as FORTY percent - of men convicted of rape aren't guilty). Lied? Lied - the question "are you certain" must always be answered at some point, and no one can be certain of what isn't so. Unless, of course, they have been behaviorally altered by an ideology or religion. Like feminism. Like I said, it's a sick society.

It's worse on the distaff side of the population. PMS, I suppose. Consider that if facts given on websites like www.RAINN.org are true, men in the U.S. commit rape roughly seventeen hundred times more often than men in countries like Germany, Sweden, Norway, England, Spain, India, Japan, Italian, or France. Do you REALLY think that's likely? The feminist does, and says so. In fact, the entirety of sites like that one represent a massive restatement of the typical cock (you should pardon the expression) and bull story told by the typical rape victim, a veritable script for her to follow. The frequency with which statements made by alleged rape victims in cases and trials far separated by distance and time parallel or even duplicate one another is both scientifically and logically significant and clear evidence of the sociologically hypnotic effect of relentless feminist dogma and preaching. Propagandized, proselyted, catechized, and behaviorally conditioned by their femi-nazi sisters, women claiming to have been rape victims recite on the witness stand like parrots. Seldom, almost never - he is jeopardizing both his career and any chance of further political success - does the defense attorney resort to the grilling a state's witness would get in any other prosecution. And did I speak of parrots? Consider the male attorneys who continually parrot to the media the "tough case to prosecute" mantra. What claptrap!

Tens of thousands of innocent men in jail, and at least a few who have been executed. You'd think that would give pause to the mobs of women like Nancy Grace, Greta Van Susteren, and their ilk, women howling presently for conviction of the Duke University lacrosse players.

It won't. In a recent segment on one or the other or our tabloid-aping TV media, a black feminist, an official of one black pressure group or the other, averred that the fact of whether rape had occurred was no concern of hers. Her duty, she said, was to support her sister, the black woman. If her sister, the black woman, wanted these guys in jail, that's what she wanted, too. Another black gentleman, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the Black Panther Party, said much the same thing, although in a decidedly less obvious, blunt, and blatant fashion. If you think there aren't a lot of women in the country who feel the same way, you're not paying attention to the statistics.

Then there's the modern feminist psycho-babble that is all but invariably de rigueur in a rape case and trial. The Internet abounds in it, and in the instance of the RAINN site, I simply picked at random - didn't even bother to read from it. If you thought me exaggerating when I spoke of parroted statements, I wasn't kidding. Have a look. The invariable repetition, again and again, and again, of the same verbiage, is neurotic at least, and psychotic at worst - reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.

That rape has become a political crime in the United States is absolutely incontrovertible, a fact looming like the Rocky Mountains. No one observing the Duke Lacrosse Team prosecution can fail to see the ineluctable forces directing events. As I've noted already, the prosecutor simply has no choice, if he wants to be re-elected. He brings charges, or he loses his career or hope of higher office. The fact that such is the case just about everywhere in the land is as obvious as is the Duke instance, yet nothing will be done about it, BECAUSE it is a political matter, where right and wrong have little import, and where right or wrong, guilt or innocence is determined not by science and logic, but by political considerations.
(As I wrote this, the prosecutor won his party's nomination, and being unopposed in the coming election, has won his office again. It will be interesting to see what he does now. There's always the next election to think about, and this case still hangs like the Sword of Damocles for Mr. Nifong.)

You still doubt that feminism has turned rape into the one crime where guilt or innocence is a foregone conclusion determined by politics and partisan prejudice, and where - the entire society being held captive to those demanding conviction - not even change of venue is possible? Let's imagine for a minute that science were to discover a device by which, like DNA in rape cases, all of the evidence in any and every trial could be proved or disproved with absolutely certainty. And let us imagine further that the new method revealed that forty percent of those convicted under our system of justice were innocent - including those executed. What an uproar! You think there are a lot of senate and congressional hearings in Washington now? The nation would tear down and rebuild - that over the objections of the lawyers, of course - its system of justice from top to bottom. We'd have things like the new Homeland Security Gestapo overnight, and more.

But how much do you think the system would change where the crime in question was rape? I rest my case.