Thursday, November 16, 2017

Is the U. S. Congress a 'safe space' for sexual predators?



American Thinker  "Many universities today provide “safe spaces” for people who feel threatened because of their sexual orientation, race or even political affiliation. These safe spaces within the confines of the educational facility and are supposed to be free of harassment or anything thought to be offensive to the protected group.

"By law, every work place in America is supposed to be a “safe space” for women to be free from sexual harassment and abuse from other employees.
"Shockingly, we have now learned that the United States Congress may not be a “safe space” for women to work. And to top that off, when women are sexually harassed or abused while working in the U.S. Congress, the congressional rules for reporting and resolving any sexual harassment or abuse charges are designed specifically to protect the identity of the perpetrator while sweeping the incident under the carpet and out of the public eye.
"While a female working in the United States Congress is not restrained from going to outside authorities and exposing the alleged sexual predator to the public, interestingly, to date, no women working in the U.S. Congress has ever done so.
"With respect to any women who have been a target or victim of a sexual predator, maybe the women working in the U.S. Congress who have been sexually harassed or abused decided not to go public and expose the guilty sitting Congressman or Senator because they were offered a big cash settlement to bury the incident.
"The Washington Post reported that “between 1997 and 2014, $15.2 million was paid out to 235 claimants.' ”  . . .

No Democrats, you don't get your virginity back  . . . "Besides, it wasn't just Clinton.
"It was Ted Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
"Democrats -- and frankly, most Republicans -- were cool with keeping Kennedy in the Senate after he got drunk, ditched his car in the water, and left a woman to die.
"And 22 years later, Democrats wanted to deny Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court because a woman said he put a hair on a can of Coca-Cola." . . .

See the source image

No comments: