It cannot have escaped anyone’s notice that on May Day (May 1, 2014), and within hours of one another, the nation and the media have been bombarded with more than a half dozen exquisitely choreographed and coordinated reports demanding action based on claims of skyrocketing sexual assaults occurring on campus and on the battlefield.
But are these claims plausible? I argue not.
Singly, or in combination, all of these claims suffer from one or more of the following five fatal flaws.
- Sexual allegations made by females are not taken as allegations but rather as “settled fact.” These claims do not even consider the possibility that women might lie about any manner of things sexual and there is no statistical correction for false sexual allegations.
-
Women commit sexual assaults on men but female sexual perpetrators only rarely are prosecuted and male reports of abuse by female sexual predators only rarely are believed.
-
In order to “cook” the rapidly rising numbers needed for political effect, the Obama Administration has demanded that all investigations lower the standard of proof required for conviction or expulsion from “clear and convincing” evidence to a “preponderance” of evidence, which basically is a coin toss.
-
In order to falsely boost the rapidly rising numbers needed for political effect, the Obama Administration has moved the goal posts by expanding the definition of “sexual assault” to activities and circumstances most citizens would not even remotely consider to be rape. The former definition of forcible rape has morphed into anything sexual without “consent” and with the determination of “consent” left entirely up to the woman, even to be determined on the morning after.
-
Forcible rape is ranked second only to murder as a serious crime. Yet, Obama and the Progressives want to remove the investigation and prosecution of sexual crimes from the venues of the police and the courts and rather transfer these responsibilities to unqualified but ideologically sympathetic administrative units in universities and the military where the conclusion is foregone. Under Obama and the Progressives, men are stripped of all due process and cross-examination rights that they normally would be guaranteed in a court of law. Truly innocent men have no way to prove their innocence.
Finally: Men — don’t drink and have sex. A core principle of the Obama Administration’s New World Order is this: If alcohol crosses anyone’s lips, the male automatically is guilty of sexual assault and the female automatically is an innocent victim. With the consumption of any amount of alcohol, consensual sex does not exist.
The overwhelming onslaught of exquisitely choreographed and coordinated claims suggests that Obama and the Progressives are launching a War on Men to get the votes of women and advance their political base. This War clearly is designed to create not only “hostile work environments” but “dangerous work environments” for men on campus and in the military. This War further appears to be designed to eliminate men from the institutions to which they have striven and attained in the past and rapidly to make these coveted, prestigious and high paying positions open only to the political base of Obama and the Progressives.
Will Congress and the nation succumb to this loss of due process for men?
One hopes not. In my view, the words engraved above the entrance to the United States Supreme Court should prevail and apply equally to the sexual lives of both men and women: “Equal Justice Under Law.”
Editorial note: this item first appeared on NCFM.org. –DE
