The current travesty occupying Washington bears remarkable parallels to the Salem witchcraft trials. Both cases involved female accusers and sexual violations. Supporters urged others to believe the victim. They said that any denials by the accused were evidence of guilt. In both trials, there was a presumption of guilty until proven innocent. In both of them the reason given was that witchcraft (rape) was prevalent, and since it was too difficult to prove they would simply condemn without proof.
In the actual trial of Brett Kavanaugh, conducted Thursday, Cotton Mather’s role was played by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Cotton Mather had built up a reputation as a public intellectual before the witchcraft trials. After them he lost a considerable amount of his prestige. Like Mather, Feinstein is losing much of her reputation as a moderate. Since this is really a non-trial trial, rules of evidence are tossed and the victim’s reputation besmirched.
What is happening to Kavanaugh is very similar to a trauma-informed investigation. In a trauma-informed investigation (really it is a pseudo-investigation), the investigator coaches the accuser on what to say. She (the pseudo-investigator) works to make sure that there are no facts to corroborate, so that the defendant is helpless to defend himself. Both Christine Blasey Ford and Dorothy Ramirez have stories which have carefully been scrubbed of any details, so they cannot be refuted. Having coached them on what to say, they can repeat with confidence the story they have been told by the ‘investigator’. In fact, Ramirez admitted this happened over a period of six days.
Trauma-informed investigators will, like any good con man (or woman), pretend that this is ‘the latest research’ and ‘scientifically proven’. Before you believe that, look at the ‘oppressed’ women running around in uniforms from A Handmaid’s Tale with signs saying, ‘believe all women’. These are the kinds of people who developed the ‘science’ behind trauma-informed investigations. Do they look objective? If you were on trial, would you trust them on your jury?
Here is a typical example of a trauma-informed investigation. Joshua Horner was accused of molesting a minor, convicted and sentenced to 50 years. There was only detail they could check – the accuser said that the defendant frightened her into silence by killing her dog. It took the Oregon Innocence Project 18 months to find the dog alive. The prosecutor cooperated with the Innocence Project, so that is to his credit. The man’s conviction was tossed. That is why these trauma-informed investigators try to keep the accusation vague so there are no details like that to check. There are many men in jail with similar charges but no details they can use to exonerate themselves. You can read about it here.
This is not the only way in which liberals seek to destroy others with rape non-trials. Thanks to Obama (with a new ‘interpretation’ of Title IX), universities are holding a kind of non-trial trial. These are the Title IX tribunals. On very flimsy evidence, female students are making accusations of ‘rape’ (usually consensual sex). The proceedings and personnel are heavily slanted against the accused man. For example, in one Ohio State case, an OSU official allegedly helped a rape accuser lie. The judge rules she could be sue and held personally liable. Standard of proof is preponderance of evidence, and the university denies due process to the man. If you date the wrong woman, it is very easy to be kicked out of school. Adding to the injury are the heavy student loans which must be repaid.
Federal courts are stepping in to guarantee the rights of accused men. Colleges, including publicly funded ones, are arguing that men do not deserve any rights, but they are losing these cases. In a few cases, there have been settlements that include compensation. Men have been fighting back and winning. Naturally, left-leaning ‘civil liberties’ non-profits like the ACLU are nowhere to be seen in these fights. You can read more here.
This stain is spreading to the workplace. Expect to see closer monitoring of workers seeking to fire those who have deviant opinions. Google already (and obviously) enforces groupthink on its workers. Soon freedom of speech (unless you agree with the dominant culture) will be a thing of the past.
Democratic Party politicians know they will never suffer from these laws. Bill Clinton was credibly alleged to have raped Juanita Broddrick and nothing happened to him. Nothing happened to Ted Kennedy, who left a woman, Mary Jo Kopechne, to die. A few politicians have suffered disgrace, but once #metoo is properly weaponized they can go back to abusing women. They don’t really care about women, and neither do female colleagues like Dianne Feinstein. It is all about power.
This is why Judge Kavanaugh matters. Does anyone think that a member of the Supreme Court nominated by a Democratic president would do anything to stop these travesties? Justices like Ginsburg were chosen to further liberalism. Why would they suddenly start caring about freedom and the constitution?
The other thing that matters is the midterms. If the Democrats lose at the ballot box, it will make them think twice about these things and give Republican politicians time to pass laws to stop these travesties. If we don’t, freedom will soon be a thing of the past. Vote!
