Connect with us

News

CRIME: ‘Sexy Talk’ On Texas College Campuses Considered ‘Rape’

Published

on

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has made sexy talk on college campuses a crime punishable as rape, according to local media outlets.

Per the provisions of the new law: if they hear something and don’t say something, campus staff at any university in the Lone Star State potentially face the same penalties as a serial rapist under Texas Penal Code.

After signing SB 212 last week, the governor made it legal for law enforcement to jail any campus employee who hears — or even “overhears” — a sexual “joke” on campus and doesn’t report it. To not do so makes them guilty of a Title IX violation.

Trending: 36-Year-Old Woman ‘is Gang Raped’ by Migrants ‘After Stopping to Talk to Them about Their Situation’

“Abbott signed both SB 212 and a related bill, HB 1735, that uses the same definition of sexual harassment and deprives accused students of basic due process. Texas law will conflict with U.S. Department of Education rules if proposed Title IX revisions remain substantially similar in the final published regulation,” one reporter writes.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Would you vote for Donald Trump in 2024?

  • POLL: Would you vote for Donald Trump in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The law gives “teeth” to the “Obama administration’s subjective definition of campus sexual harassment,” writes Katherine Timpf at National Review, which the previous White House defined as follows:

Unwelcome, sex based verbal or physical conduct that: in the education context, is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that the conduct interferes with a student ’s ability to participate in or benefit from educational programs or activities at a postsecondary educational institution.

Elsewhere, it’s believed that this vague standard could effectively include sexual jokes that were merely overheard. The law allows state authorities to punish any college campus worker with up to six months in jail if he or she “witnesses or receives information,” the College Fix reports, also noting that hearsay is permitted and acceptable.

To put it simply: college staff must now engage in sanctioned eavesdropping, since anything overheard can be classified as sexual harassment under the Obama administration’s broad definition.

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, says that the current definition of sexual harassment “is missing any kind of objective, reasonable-person standard, instead conditioning the permissibility of speech (and the requirement to report) entirely on subjective listener reaction,” adding that “any definition of sexual harassment that lacks an objective component is unconstitutional.”

“Without an objective requirement, students and faculty are held hostage to the personal feelings and opinions of their accusers, no matter how unusual or even unreasonable,” the organization argues. “Given the offense taken by people on both sides of arguments about sexuality and gender generally, the list of victims of ‘sexual harassment’ under this broad definition is functionally endless.”

What does this “sexy-talk-is-rape” law supposedly accomplish? The answer: it “fixes” the sensationalized, totally-discredited & nonexistent campus “rape culture.”

Evidently fearful of losing Texas to the Democrats, Gov. Abbott has joined the throngs of left-leaning humans who apparently do not realize that there are many steps between casual college sex-themed conversations and gang-rape orgies and hookers in dumpsters.

Discussions of sex on any Texas college campus could possibly be punished as if it were violent rape, that is, if they are campus staff or university employees.

Meanwhile, a law protecting the Alamo and requiring transparency over how money is spent on the Alamo by state employees was too controversial to for the House Rules Committee even consider. The spiking of the monument protection bill this session was largely blamed on Gov. Abbott and his henchmen in the legislature.

Critics of the law may have reason to be encouraged, however. SB 212 is unlikely to stand up in court. When district attorneys attempt to prosecute horny college students, judges will likely be obligated to throw the case out on grounds of insufficient evidence.

That’s because, SB 212’s twin features are things that every attorney understand will automatically kill the prosecution’s case. Every lawyer will know SB 212 violates “Law 101,” especially someone like Abbott. Before becoming governor Abbott, was Texas attorney general & brains behind the legal argument that saved the capitol’s 10 commandments statue.

Those “twin features” are specifically: 1) hearsay and 2) fruit of the poisonous tree.

The entire law rests on hearsay: that is, unproven & unsubstantiated claims. Supreme Court precedent says hearsay is inadmissible. The state must prove a defendant’s guilt. Consequently, that makes any argument given by the prosecution “fruit from the poisonous tree.”

FIRE, cited earlier  predicts that the new laws will be struck down in court, since similar speech restrictions “have fallen time, and time, and time again in Texas.”

The “poisonous tree” is the ultimate dead end for any attorney, and requires a full stop — no exceptions. No attorney worth their juris doctorate keeps litigating a case on the basis of “he-said-she-said” evidence.

Finally, and some might argue, most importantly, the law applies sentences for a real crime that is already clearly defined under Texas law to a new crime sharing none of the same characteristics. That violates several centuries of case law, but also a basic constitutional bedrock requirement that punishment must reflect crime.

The Bill of Rights includes an amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Some may, therefore, like conclude that SB 212 is unconstitutional for sentence-swapping.

Moreover, situational environment may offer advocates legal trouble in court as well. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that when someone has no reasonable expectation of privacy, for example, then things they do that are illegal in full view of the public can be held against them and used in court even if there was not a warrant –– simply because they were standing in a public place with no expectation of privacy.

Similarly, rape charges for discussing or verbalizing sexual thoughts and themes in an environment that is traditionally considered a culturally-acceptable venue for unsolicited exchanges about that topic doesn’t square with traditional legal doctrine about the expectations of the space.

California law now requires college students to exchange consent papers to hold hands. When surveyed, most Texans say their state is still a long way away from such extremes.

Campaign 2020

The American Right Should Beware of Campaign Consultant Grifters

Some people want to make a quick buck with zero results to show for it.

Published

on

Heading into 2022 and 2024, America First operatives should be careful dealing with campaigns run by grifters. 

Patrick Clerbune of VDARE put out an informative post that serves as a warning to all about the rampant corruption within Republican political consultant outfits. 

He highlighted a Washington Post piece detailing how donors gave more than $8 million to Kim Klacik, a black woman running as a Republican candidate in Maryland’s 7th district. In reality, the money donated to Klacik’s campaign went straight to the fat pockets of political consultants who knew full well that she couldn’t win.

The Post went into further detail about this naked grifting opportunity:

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Would you vote for Donald Trump in 2024?

  • POLL: Would you vote for Donald Trump in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Her campaign is an example of how some consulting firms are profiting handsomely from Republican candidates who have robust appeal in today’s politically charged environment…

By the end of Klacik’s campaign, she would raise a staggering $8.3 million and pay nearly $3.7 million of it to Olympic Media, according to campaign finance filings.

For political veterans, this is nothing new under the sun. Political consultant parasites such as Karl Rove are notorious for enriching themselves by running failed campaigns and diverting resources from actual winnable races. Rove was also involved in the Georgia Senate dumpster fire, where the GOP dropped a whopping $1 billion and still ended up losing both seats. 

Pointing out how the managerial state is detrimental to all Americans, especially minorities, is one thing. But using failed ethnic pandering and running campaigns in districts that can never be won by Republicans is another. 

In the aforementioned case, Maryland’s 7th district has never gone Republican in its history and was the long-time home of Elijah Cummings from 1996 until his death in 2019. Democrat challenger Kweisi Mfume completely obliterated Klacik 74 to 25 in the 2020 general election. 

Intelligent nationalists would be wise to recognize that certain races are lost causes, which drain resources that could otherwise be allocated towards winnable campaigns. A large degree of skepticism should always be directed towards the political consultant class. Their money-making model does not always translate into electoral success.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending