Dominique Strauss-Kahn — America Still Allows White On Black Rape

100 percent of the cases, in which a woman of African descent, publicly claimed that she was raped by a white man, resulted in the women being trashed, their supporting attorneys disbarred, and their cases derailed before reaching a jury.  In the matter of Strauss-Khan, all of these conditions have been met, except for the disbarment of  the victim's attorney, Kenneth P. Thompson, who pointed out that the state didn't even have the will to follow protocol, "one of the first things you do is you try to get them to make a statement. They didn't do that. Instead, for five hours he sat there and nobody had the guts to go up to him and ask if he had committed these acts."

In May of 2011, a woman of African descent, Nafissatou Diallo, complained that a guest at the hotel where she worked, Dominique Strauss-Khan, attacked her, locked the door to his suite, and dragged her to another location, where he violently brought her to her knees, forcefully grabbed her by the back of the neck, and gripped her head painfully, while forcing her to perform fellatio on him.  In the process of molesting her, he violently grabbed her vagina.  Forensic test revealed Strauss-Khan's sperm on her uniform, and the carpet and walls, mixed with her saliva, from spewing her revulsion, repeatedly, and in several directions.  His DNA was on her pantyhose and underwear. Her pantyhose was torn, a ligament in her shoulder was partial torn, her vagina was visibly bruised, and she was obviously in distress when she encountered the first outcry witness, a housekeeping supervisor.  Thereafter, her ordeal was told to the hotel security staff, and ultimately police detectives, doctors and nurses — all of whom described her demeanor as consistent with that of a rape victim.  But instead of a trial, at the end of her torment, the DA claimed, that because she told a few survival-type lies in her life, that almost always accompany poverty and oppression, her case will be dropped.

After learning her secrets, probably by coaxing her into telling them, with the typical inducements like, we must know everything so there won't be any surprises,  Manhattan's District Attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., delivered every thing she told them, in a letter to her abuser, virtually transforming the State into a witness for the defense.  Then they teamed up with the media to discredit her, even inferring that she is a prostitute.  Finally, they tested the public's tolerance for abuse, by making public their plan to drop the case, using female ADA's to deliver the bad news, since they also serve as symbols of denial, that the State is at least consenting to, and probably facilitating, violence against women.  That is, women of African descent . . .

By contrast, in the same month of the same year, a woman of European descent, who is a prostitute, responded to a telephone invitation from a San Diego police officer, Daniel Edward Dana,  to meet him.  According to her, when they met, he told her that she would have to have sex with him, without pay, or he would arrest her.  He drove her to a park, where she performed fellatio on him, and he had sexual intercourse with her.  Several hours later, she reported it to the police, and with no claims of violence, no claims of resistance, and even with the admission that she would have had sex with him for a fee . . .  And without even an assertion that the word "no" was used; and without witnesses, or injuries; and with a back drop of prostitution, multiple parole violations, and time spent in jail, on her word alone, Officer Daniel Edward Dana is going to trial.

The one encouraging feature in all of this is the obvious belief, on the part of the gate-keepers, who preserve the racial status quo, that they can't count on the American people, to carry out their agenda.  For that reason, in these matters, they avoid juries, at all costs.   Fearful that a jury will live up to our founding father's belief that " . . . trial by jury . . . (is) the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution."