Author Archives: Dr. Eowyn

New perverse sex trend: ‘stealthing’

Women who engage in casual “hookups” beware.

There is a new, but widespread, sexual practice that some men engage in, called “stealthing” — the male’s surreptitious removal of his condom during coitus, without notifying or obtaining the consent of his sexual partner.

Not only does “stealthing” leave the woman feeling betrayed and violated, which some call “rape-adjacent” or rape by deception, it also renders the woman susceptible to sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unwanted pregnancy.

Alexandra Brodsky of Yale Law School reports this in her article, “‘Rape-Adjacent’: Imagining Legal Responses to Nonconsensual Condom Removal,” Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2017.

From interviews with people who have experienced condom removal and online accounts from victims, Brodsky determined that nonconsensual condom removal is a common practice among young, sexually active people. Both men and women have fallen victim to stealthing. Some realized their partner had removed the condom at the moment of re-penetration; others did not realize until the partner ejaculated or, in one case, notified them the next morning.

Internet forums provide not only accounts from victims but encouragement from perpetrators. Promoters provide advice, along with explicit descriptions, for how to successfully trick a partner and remove a condom during sex. “Stealthing is controversial,” writes Mark Bentson, who runs a website dedicated to teaching others how to trick their sexual partners into condom-less sex.

Note: Bentson’s Twitter feed indicates he’s a homosexual, who claims to have sodomized married men. Condomless sex between homosexuals is called “barebacking” — a dangerous practice that’s increasingly favored among young “gay” men. See:

So why do some men do this?

From articles and an online sub-community of “stealthing” perpetrators, Brodsky gleaned that the men who engage in this deceptive practice view “stealthing” as their masculine “right” to “breed” — spread and deposit their “seed”.

One commenter on an article about stealthing wrote, “It’s a man’s instinct to shoot his load into a woman’s *****. He should never be denied that right. As a woman, it’s my duty to spread my legs and let a man shoot his load into my wet ***** whenever he wants.” Another defender, commenting on a blog post detailing one man’s “strategy” for stealthing, explained: “Oh I completely agree with this. To me you can’t have one and not the other, if she wants the guy’s **** then she also has to take the guy’s load!!!” One commenter on the blog post asked whether the sexual partners of “stealthers” “deserve to be impregnated,” to which another replied: “Yes, they deserve it. That’s how god created this universe, we are born to do it.”

Men who stealth assault other men display similar rhetoric focused on a man’s “right” to “breed” and spread his seed—even though there is no conceivable way that his semen could ever impregnate another man.

At present, Brodsky knows of no victim of nonconsensual condom removal has considered bringing legal action, and there is no record of a court case in the U.S. But, as Brodsky observes, “Nonetheless, survivors experience real harms—emotional, financial, and physical—to which the law might provide remedy through compensation or simply an opportunity to be heard and validated.”

The rest of Brodsky’s article is on what legal avenues victims of stealthing might take — in criminal law and tort law. She concludes:

“[T]he current legal landscape has failed to send a clear message that nonconsensual condom removal is unethical…. While overlooked by the law, nonconsensual condom removal is a harmful and often gender-motivated form of sexual violence. Remedy may be found under current law, but a new cause of action may promote the possibility of plaintiffs’ success while reducing negative unintended effects. At its best, such a law would clearly respond to and affirm the harm victims report by making clear that ‘stealthing’ doesn’t just ‘feel violent’—it is.”

In the morally corrupt but litigious landscape of American society, the threat of lawsuits and of arrest, if a case of “rape by deception” can be made, are the only ways to punish the perpetrators and curb stealthing.

There is already an international precedent.

Lauren Tousignant of the New York Post points out that in January 2017, a Swiss court convicted a man of rape after he took off his condom without telling his partner. The court concluded that it was rape because the woman would have said no to sex if she knew the man would remove his condom.

~Eowyn

Advertisements

Fake anti-Muslim hate-crime: Indiana State U. fires professor for lying about being a victim

The Left’s conferment of special victim status on favored groups creates incentives for members of those groups to make false claims. See, for example:

The latest is a professor at Indiana State University, Azhar Hussain, 56, who is caught lying about being the victim of anti-Muslim hate crime.

Terra Haute’s Tribune Star reports that Azhar Hussain, an assistant professor of aviation technology at Indiana State University (ISU) was arrested for making false reports of being the victim of anti-Islamic threats and of an assault that authorities say never happened.

The charges stem from a series of emails, beginning on March 8, which were received on campus, containing anti-Muslim messages and threats of potential violence against members of the Muslim community. The messages specifically mentioned Hussain as a target.

On March 24, Hussain reported being assaulted in the College of Technology. He claimed he was attacked from behind and thrown to the floor as he was entering his office early that morning. He said he had not seen his attacker, and no words were spoken. ISU Police at the time said Hussein’s story was not corroborated by four people in the vicinity who had seen no suspicious activity or people.

Investigators tracked the computers from which the hate emails had originated and uncovered evidence that Hussain had sent the emails himself. He was booked into Vigo County Jail at at 4:51 p.m. on April 21, 2017, and faces a felony charge of obstruction of justice and a misdemeanor charge of harassment. Bond has been set at $10,000 cash.

Earlier, before the fake hate-emails, Hussain had been notified by Provost Mike Licari that he would not be reappointed to his faculty position beyond the 2017-18 academic year due to his inability “to fulfill the conditions of his original appointment”. ISU’s chief of police Joseph Newport thinks Hussein concocted the fake hate-crime to solicit sympathy from the university administration.

Newport said:

“Based upon the investigation, it is our belief that Hussain was trying to gain sympathy by becoming a victim of anti-Muslim threats, which he had created himself. It is extremely unfortunate that this situation caused undue concern on other members of the ISU community.”

In a news releass, ISU said Hussain has been suspended from teaching duties and that the university is initiating formal dismissal proceedings against him in accordance with university policy. Arrangements are being made to cover his remaining classes and administer final exams.

According to a resume that Hussain posted on a job site, he holds an MBA in aviation management from Embry-Riddle University and a bachelor’s in aviation from the Florida Institute of Technology. The resume also claims he has a doctorate from ISU in curriculum design earned in 2017, which the Tribune Star could not independently verify.

Hussain’s resume also claims prior teaching experience at Everglades University, as well as former aviation jobs including airport operations coordinator at Kissimmee, Florida, Gateway Airport and airside operations officer at the Broward County, Florida, Aviation Department.

H/t Constitution.com

See also “News the MSM won’t report: Homosexual haters deface church in Calif”.

~Eowyn

50,000 in Poland march for Christianity against Muslim invasion

News you didn’t see on the MSM-Deep State Media.

On November 11, 2015, some 25,000 to 50,000 Polish nationalists peacefully marched in Warsaw, Poland, to mark the country’s return to independence after the First World War, to uphold Poland’s Christian civilization, and against the Muslim invasion of Europe.

The 50,000 figure is that of the march organizers.

The rally was held under the slogan, “Poland for the Poles, Poles for Poland”, in reference to the ongoing “migrant” invasion.

Chanting “God, honour, homeland” and “Yesterday it was Moscow, today it’s Brussels which takes away our freedom,” the marchers trampled on and burned an EU flag, and held banners that read “Great Catholic Poland” and “Stop Islamisation”. (Breitbart)

Even Snopes admitted that the march received sparse news coverage, reported by only Bloomberg and U.S. News and World Report, and in Europe, by Telegraph, Express, Financial Times and RT.

One would think that a march that massive, of tens of thousands of people, would warrant at least a mention in the New York Times, or Washington Post, or the alphabet TV news.

It is also ironic that instead of the countries of western Europe, it is Poland — a former communist party-ruled country that was officially atheistic — that defends Christianity.

H/t FOTM‘s stlonginus

~Eowyn

How safe is your hospital?

Want to know how your hospital ranks in safety?

Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grades (formerly known as Hospital Safety Scores) are assigned to more than 2,600 general acute-care hospitals across the nation twice annually. The Safety Grade is becoming the gold standard measure of patient safety.

Leapfrog’s methodology:

  • Leapfrog works under the guidance of a seven-member Blue Ribbon Expert Panel to select 30 measures and develop a scoring methodology. The Expert Panel is made up of patient safety experts from across the country — MDs and PhDs from major universities, such as Stanford University and Johns Hopkins University.
  • The data for Leapfrog’s scoring are national performance measures from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Leapfrog Hospital Survey, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American Hospital Association’s Annual Survey and Health Information Technology Supplement.
  • Taken together, those performance measures produce a single letter grade (A, B, C, D) that represents a hospital’s overall performance in keeping patients safe from preventable harm and medical errors. The Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grade methodology has been peer reviewed and published in the Journal of Patient Safety.

Note: A hospital must have enough safety data available for Leapfrog’s experts to issue it a letter grade. At this time, Leapfrog is unable to assign a grade to military or VA hospitals, critical access hospitals, specialty hospitals, children’s hospitals, outpatient surgery centers, etc. Leapfrog is studying ways to rate them in the future.

To find out the safety grade of your hospital:

  1. Click here or go to http://www.hospitalsafetygrade.org/your-hospitals-safety-grade/about-the-grade.
  2. At the top of the page is a green horizontal bar “How Safe is Your Hospital?”. Select your city/state or search by your zip code.

You’ll be surprised by the ratings. As an example, a hospital in Fort Smith, Arkansas — Mercy Hospital — has a top “A” grade, whereas a hospital in San Francisco, CA — Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center (formerly, San Francisco General Hospital) — is rated the lowest grade of “D”.

So what grade did your hospital get?

~Eowyn

CA judge blocks Trump’s defunding of sanctuary cities

It’s judicial over-reach by activist judges all over again.

The AP reports that today (April 25, 2017), a federal judge, U.S. District Judge William Orrick, blocked any attempt by the Trump administration to withhold federal funding from “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities on deporting illegal “undocumented” aliens.

Note: William Horsley Orrick III, 63, was nominated by Obama to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California. On May 15, 2013, the U.S. Senate confirmed his nomination by a vote of 56 to 41. According to Public Citizen, a non-profit, consumer rights advocacy group, Orrick, then employed by Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, raised at least $200,000 for Barack Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting Obama.

“Sanctuary cities” is a loosely defined term for jurisdictions — cities, counties, states — that don’t comply with immigration authorities.

Orrick issued the preliminary injunction in two lawsuits – one brought by the city of San Francisco, the other by Santa Clara County – against Trump’s executive order to defund sanctuary cities, counties, and states. The injunction will stay in place while the lawsuits work their way through court.

The Trump Administration maintains San Francisco’s and Santa Clara County’s lawsuits are premature because the federal government hasn’t cut off any money yet or declared any communities to be sanctuary cities. The administration says sanctuary cities allow dangerous criminals back on the street and that the order is needed to keep the country safe. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erodes trust that is needed to get people to report crime.

Acting U.S. Assistant Attorney General Chad Readler had defended Trump’s executive order as an attempt to use his “bully pulpit’ to “encourage communities and states to comply with the law.” But Judge Orrick contends that President Trump has no authority to attach new conditions to federal spending. And even if he could, the conditions would have to be clearly related to the funds at issue and not coercive because “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves.”

San Francisco and Santa Clara County argue that Trump’s executive order threatens billions of dollars in federal funding for each of them, making it difficult to plan their budgets. But Readler said the threatened cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security grants and would affect less than $1 million for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco.

In his ruling, Orrick sided with San Francisco and Santa Clara, saying the order “by its plain language, attempts to reach all federal grants, not merely the three mentioned at the hearing. And if there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments.”

Trump’s executive order has also led to lawsuits by Seattle; two Massachusetts cities, Lawrence and Chelsea; and the city of Richmond in the San Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco and Santa Clara County lawsuits were the first to get a hearing before a judge.

Meanwhile, mayors from several U.S. cities threatened with the loss of federal grants emerged from a meeting today with Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying they remain confused about how to prove their police are in compliance with immigration policies – a necessary step for them to receive grant money.

The sanctuary city order was among a flurry of immigration measures Trump has signed since taking office in January, including a ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries and a directive calling for a wall on the Mexican border.

A federal appeals court blocked the travel ban. The administration then revised it, but the new version also is stalled in court.

~Eowyn

After losing 2016 election, Democrats are defecting to Communist Party USA

People’s World, the bilingual news site of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), reports on April 19, 2017, that CPUSA “has been receiving membership requests ever since Donald Trump was elected President.”

Emile Schepers, CPUSA’s International Secretary and an anthropologist by profession who was born in South Africa, told Granma International that “Although the phantom of the McCarthy era still looms across the U.S., there is growing interest in communist ideas. The global financial crisis affected many people and left the sense that today’s youth are worse off than their parents. Neither recent Democratic nor Republican administrations have been able to resolve the serious problems affecting the majority of the country’s citizens. Although the United States is in no way experiencing a pre-revolutionary situation in the communist sense, capitalism is showing terminal signs worldwide.”

What Schepers neglected to say is that Marxist intellectuals have been insisting that “capitalism is showing terminal signs worldwide” for more than a century.

But how to explain the 2016 U.S. election that voted uber capitalist Donald Trump as president?

Schepers attributes that to an “ideological manipulation” that unleashed a right-wing upsurge because “popular discontent doesn’t always take a progressive route.” Even in his current home state of Virginia, not only the wealthy, but also many poor whites with “false class consciousness” voted for Trump. Schepers blames Americans’ “false class consciousness” on the corporate mass media and “local news stations in the interior of the country [that] only broadcast preachers announcing the end of the world.”

Schepers is convinced that if Bernie Sanders had been Trump’s opponent, Sanders would have won — the same avowed socialist Sanders who is a millionaire with three homes, including a $600,000 lakefront estate purchased just five days after the 2016 Democratic National Convention that selected Hillary Clinton as the party’s presidential candidate.

Schepers admits that the great challenge for CPUSA continues to be organizing American workers and trade unions.

CPUSA stopped offering its own candidate in US presidential elections years ago. Instead, CPUSA has endorsed Democratic Party presidential candidates in every election since 1988, beginning with Michael Dukakis to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The CPUSA opposes U.S. militarism and supports the Palestinian cause, the Cuban Revolution and more recently the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela — the same corrupt regime that mismanaged and destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and ignores and suppresses the tens of thousands of Venezuelans who protest and march against the government. Way to go, CPUSA!

Unlike Emile Schepers, the Democrats who have gone over to the Communist Party USA at least are honest, as the Democrat Party long ago had morphed into the communist party in all but in name. See:

~Eowyn

Obama IRS targeted for audit 1 in 10 donors to conservative groups

Under Obama, conservative Americans suddenly found themselves living not in the U.S.A., but in the (former) Soviet Union.

In 2013-14, news came that the all-powerful Internal Revenue Service of the Obama administration was singling out for scrutiny conservative groups that had applied for non-profit status. See:

But what actually happened is even worse. It turns out Obama’s IRS targeted for audit:

  1. Not just conservative groups that had applied for non-profit 501(c)(4) status, but also conservative groups that already were 501(c)(4)s.
  2. Not just conservative groups, but also individual conservative Americans.

(1) Obama IRS targeted all right-wing groups

In February 2014, then-Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) stated that:

“Additionally, we now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s.  At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83 percent were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100 percent were right-leaning.

The right-leaning groups that were targeted included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Leadership Institute, a 501(c)(3) that trains young conservative activists. The group’s president, Morton Blackwell, told Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) the audit had cost his organization more than $50,000 and hundreds of man-hours. As part of the investigation, the Leadership Institute was required to produce 23,430 pages of documents and answer far-ranging questions about its interns and other miscellaneous topics.

(2) Obama IRS targeted conservative individuals

On July 22, 2015, the D.C. citizens’ watchdog group Judicial Watch announced that it obtained documents from IRS which confirm the IRS had used donor lists to conservative tax-exempt organizations (such as the aforementioned Leadership Institute) to target those donors for audits. The IRS produced the records in a Freedom of Information lawsuit by Judicial Watch seeking documents about selection of individuals for audits, based upon application information and donor lists submitted by Tea Party and other 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations (Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:15-cv-00220)).

One of the damning documents is an exchange of letters between then-Democrat Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman:

  • In his letter to Shulman of September 28, 2010, Baucus wrote: “I request that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations.…”
  • Shulman replied in a letter dated February 17, 2011: “In the work plan of the Exempt Organizations Division, we announced that beginning in FY2011, we are increasing our focus on section 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) organizations.”

Note: Sen. Roy Blunt wrote that Douglas Shulman was cleared to visit the White House more than 100 times during his four years as Obama’s IRS commissioner. In contrast, Shulman’s predecessor, Mark Everson, says he was cleared to visit the Bush White House just once during his four years as IRS commissioner.

After receiving Sen. Baucus’s letter, the IRS considered the issue of auditing donors to 501(c)(4) organizations, alleging that a 35% gift tax would be due on donations in excess of $13,000, which required the IRS audit the donors.

But the 35% gift tax was really just a ruse because a gift tax on contributions to 501(c)(4)’s was considered by most to be a dead letter since the IRS had never enforced the rule after the Supreme Court ruled that such taxes violated the First Amendment. In fact, the IRS had not enforced the gift tax since 1982.

The documents show that individual donors to Crossroads GPS, associated with Republican Karl Rove, were specifically referenced by IRS officials in the context of the gift tax audit. IRS attorney Lorraine Gardner emailed a 501(c)(4) donor list to former Branch Chief in the IRS’ Office of the Chief Counsel James Hogan. Later, this information was shared with IRS Estate Gift and Policy Manager Lisa Piehl.

In September 2014, another Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit forced the release of documents detailing that the IRS sought, obtained and maintained the names of donors to Tea Party and other conservative groups. IRS officials acknowledged in these documents that “such information was not needed.” The documents also show that the donor names were being used for a “secret research project.

At a May 7, 2014 hearing, the House Ways and Means Committee announced    that, after scores of conservative groups provided donor information “to the IRS, nearly one in ten donors were subject to audit.” In 2011, as many as five donors to the conservative 501(c)(4) organization Freedom’s Watch were audited, according to the Wall Street Journal. Bradley Blakeman, Freedom’s Watch’s former president, said he was “personally targeted” by the IRS.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said:

These documents that we had to force out of the IRS prove that the agency used donor lists to audit supporters of organizations engaged in First Amendment-protected lawful political speech. And the snarky comments about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the obsession with Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS show that the IRS was targeting critics of the Obama administration. President Obama may want to continue to lie about his IRS scandal. These documents tell the truth – his IRS hated conservatives and was willing to illegally tax and audit citizens to shut down opposition to Barack Obama’s policies and reelection.

See also:

~Eowyn