The NFL, domestic violence and race. The clashes of PC

I hate Political correctness because it clouds good sense.  It creates artificial obstacles to our ability to handle issues in our society.  It adds the “you can’t do that because he’s..” or “you must do that because he’s..”.   What a person is should no longer factor into how they are treated.  They must be judged by their behavior, attitude and performance, and nothing else.

But we can’t get away from it because each time someone steps up the chorus of PC lovers shout that person down, THEN try to ruin the person’s life.

However, there have been a couple of situations popping up in our PC driven society that are going to be a joy for me to watch unfold, not because I like the harm caused by the acts, but I will love to see how they get themselves out from under the mess PC has caused.

First, there is the case of Ray Rice, who beat his girlfriend, now wife, on camera.  PC demands he be thrown out of society, lose his job, lose his ability to make a living in order to support his wife and family.  Yet, Ray Rice is black.  Ray Rice came from a part of our society we have allowed the glorification of female abuse in music, the culture and in our media.  We don’t flinch when rap music talks about “slapping those bitches.”  In fact, our PC society rewards the artists with money, gold and..well bitches.

We look the other way when our black culture abuses young women because well “you can’t say anything because they are…”

However, we have made domestic violence a third rail in the PC world.  Abusing your spouse is wrong.  Knocking her out and then standing over her like she was a piece of meat and dragging her like a sack of corn meal- on video- is REALLY wrong! Yet, Ray Rice has a reputation of doing good things for the community and being a nice guy. So was this a one time thing? It was obvious both of them were at each other, so is there a less than stellar victimhood here for the wife?

A couple of generations ago, during my youth, there was a golden rule- you didn’t hit a woman.  Feminism has demanded women be treated like men.  Over the last twenty yers or so, we’ve seen women literally morph into men as far as attitude and violent behavior. ESPECIALLY in the black culture.  Something the liberal white elites simply don’t get.

Here’s a couple.

So, does the rule still apply?

Let’s put that aside for another day.  You know how I feel about the cancer of glorification of thug behavior.  Let’s talk about race vs feminism in the light of the NFL.

First and foremost, I support the NFL if it decides to be the FIRST organization in America to no longer tolerate thug/criminal/abusive behavior as a term for employment.  Somebody has to start that ball rolling in the nation!

However, IF they decide to do this, it must be applied equally across the board.  A third stringer goes, a star goes on equal charges.

But the problems this creates are many and deep.  The first one that comes to mind is the issue of culture (not necessarily race but that will be the argument).  IF the NFL says to teams that they will suffer the loss of  highly paid player if that player commits a crime, then the teams will do what is prudent- background checks on potential players in order to see past behavior.  Past behavior is indicative of future behavior.  Not a bad idea, it is done in a number of field, including law enforcement.

But that will come at a price.  Some of the best athletes come from troubled backgrounds. And sometimes the opportunity of playing pro sports gets them out. (Ray Lewis for example.) So does the NFL say you can come in, just leave your thug behavior and life behind?  Is one offense the end all- like apparently it will be for Ray Rice? Is there a sliding scale?

And of course, will the activists in the black community point out the obvious. If the NFL demands a squeaky clean record, then, much like the city of Ferguson, the NFL won’t find many qualified black players.  That equals racism, as you have noticed.

And then the fun begins.  Feminists and DV advocates will demand a good man play sports.  The fans and the black activists will scream racism, because far too many young black players grew up in the thug community and were in trouble.  It would take a full generation of up and coming players to adjust their personal lives BEFORE entering the league to shake out the troublemakers.  A kid that is ten now will have to realize if he wants to play he needs to stay clean- no drugs, no gangs, no fighting, no crime.  And that poor kid will have to do that in an environment where if he does try to stay clean he might end up dead at the hands of fellow blacks thinking he’s gone “Uncle Tom” on them.

That’s how it is in the real world.  So, what to do?  Do we continue to look the other way why a culture grows kids who think beating and abusing women is a rite of passage? Or do we hold the paycheck as the carrot, and living like a thug for the rest of your life being the stick?  And do we stop there in the NFL?

How about the law? Are judges and lawyers going to be held to the same career ending level of behavior?

An Alabama federal judge was arrested on a misdemeanor battery charge early Sunday after he allegedly hit his wife when she accused him of infidelity.

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Fuller, who was a registered Republican before he held the mallet, is known for sentencing former Alabama governor and Democrat Don Siegelman to prison on bribery charges.

But this time it’s Judge Mark Fuller, 55, who might have to take the stand.

According to the police report, the federal judge and his wife, Kelli Fuller, 41, both admit to an altercation but each blamed the other for the blowout that happened at the Ritz-Carlton hotel on Sunday.

Mark Fuller said he was watching television when his wife threw a drinking glass at him as she accused him of cheating with a law clerk in his Montgomery office. He told officers that he was defending himself when he grabbed her hair and threw her to the ground.

And that could be very true, which swings back into the feminism “treat me like a man” moment. A man screams at another man, throws a drink on him and then ends up on the ground stunned.  Nobody goes to jail.  Just saying…

And if you think it is a race thing, this is that judge.

But then there is THIS judge.  Remember, PC is an issue.

Lance Mason

CLEVELAND — Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Lance T. Mason has been indicted for an Aug. 2 attack on his wife, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty announced Tuesday afternoon.

A Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Mason, 47, on two counts of kidnapping, a first-degree felony; three counts of felonious assault, a second-degree felony; one count of domestic violence, a first-degree misdemeanor; and two counts of endangering children, a first-degree misdemeanor.

But what did he do?

Court documents reflect that Mason hit his wife with his fists, slammed her head against the dashboard and bit her.

They have been married since 2005 and separated this past March.

In a 9-1-1 call, his wife told dispatchers he threw her out of the car, beat her and then drove off with the children.

Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court records show that Aisha Mason filed for divorce Aug. 4, citing extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty.

Oh THAT!…. The old “beat the piss out of you and throw you from the car” trick.  Not good.  And then when they went to his house reported that authorities confiscated a cache of weapons from inside the judge’s home for “safe keeping”:

- About 2,300 live rounds of various calibers
- Nearly 500 shotgun slugs
- A Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun
- A Winchester shotgun
- A 50-shell shotgun belt
- A FNH P90 semi-automatic rifle still in the box
- A JLD Enterprises Inc. PTR-91 semi-automatic rifle with a scope
- A Smith & Wesson handgun
- A Springfield Armory .40 caliber-handgun
- A sword
- Four canisters of smoke grenades
- A KDH bulletproof vest
- A Jaguar knife

So should both men go to jail and lose their careers, their ability to make money and eat because they beat a woman?  Will the federal judge, who we can argue did quite a bit less in DV incident get treated different than the Ohio judge who just, well whupped himself into some legit jail time?

(PS- the FHN P90 is the same caliber that Hasan used in Fort Hood. If the judge decides to make a statement one day- he’ll do some serious damage.)

If that happens, will Al and Jessie show up, dragging Eric and Barack behind them to scream racism?  If NEITHER go to jail because of their protected profession, will the feminist scream holy hell?

If you’ll note our vaunted NOW gang isn’t yelling at Ray Rice as much as they are yelling at the big money and far safer target played by Roger Goodell.  This is a man trying to manage a herd of not so easy to manage people.  To blame him is easy. To understand his plight takes a little more effort.  He represents billions of dollars.  He is in his position because a bunch of very rich Type A personalities think he can manage their billion dollar investments.  He has to market to the entire nation a product of professional football players made up of all kinds of characters, good and bad.  And the bad ones who are special get a pass.  That’s the business.

Adrian Peterson is a good example of the professional thug.  He is a great football player.  A year or so ago, everybody felt bad when one of his kids died.  He went to the funeral, which as it turned out, was one of the few times he actually saw the kid.  Why? Because Adrian has baby mommas all over the nation.  When he quits playing million dollar football, he’s screwed.  Beating his kid with a switch caused him to get arrested, and his post football commentator opportunities to dwindle. (Again, is that fair?)


Baby No. 5, who’s living with her mom in Minnesota, is a 3-month-old daughter, decked out adorably in a purple-and-gold onesie proclaiming her love for the Vikings, her fast-and-loose father’s franchise, according to

Peterson, 28, has admitted that he only saw the boy for the first time after the child was in a coma.

It was unclear if Peterson has met his little fan/daughter, but the baby’s mother said she was upset over the little boy’s death.

“Today has been a long day finding out my [daughter’s] brother passed away and knowing that she never even got to meet him,” the mother, a steak-house waitress, said on her Facebook page, according to The Web site said the girl’s birth certificate lists Peterson as the last name.

But another woman has come forward to say she is the mother of another Peterson child — a 4-year-old boy — and that the running back has fathered enough children to run offense on seven-on-seven drills.

So what about that behavior- or is having kids out of wedlock okay?

As I write this, Jessie Jackson has already complained the NFL hiring three women to work on the DV problem wasn’t good enough, because they were white.



Posted in PC, politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“The Benghazi Brief” from CTH.

I think it’s worth the link to here.  They have done an outstanding job picking out the details of Benghazi and putting together the narrative that makes sense.  Why we were there, why we didn’t supply the right amount of protection, why we stayed behind, and why the compound was attacked.

It is a combination of silly policies, foolish academic theories and liberal agendas, not to mention Obama’s desire to prove he was smarter than GWB by taking over a country (or two) without our boots on the ground. A “clean coup” if you will. If your remember, he did quite a bit of crowing about that after the initial ouster of Gaddafi.

But not so much nowadays. From their main website. (And remember, these are the guys who dug up all the bad stuff on Trayvon while the MSM and Obama’s DOJ were working hard to hide it!)

As most readers are now aware the Benghazi FUBAR is essentially two-thirds a result of bad policy, and one-third a result of terrible decisions as a result of that bad policy. To date nothing has surfaced to undermine the essential research we have shared within the Benghazi Brief.

Here is the basic outline.

March 2011 through Pre 9/11/12 attack: Who knew of Operation “Zero Footprint”?:

        • President Obama and Vice President Biden (both Dems)
        • Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Dem)
        • CIA Director Leon Panetta (March 2011 – June 2011)
        • *CIA Director General David Petraeus (?) (Sept 2011 – Nov 2012)
        • NATO Commander, James G Stavridis
        • White House National Security Advisor Tom Donilon (Dem)
        • White House National Security Spox Tommy Vietor (Donilon aide)
        • White House National Security Advisor John Brennan (Dem)
        • Speaker of the House John Boehner (Rep)
        • Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi (Dem)
        • House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers (Rep)
        • Minority House Intel Committee – Charles Ruppersberger (Dem)
        • Senate Minority Leader – Mitch McConnell (Rep)
        • Senate Majority Leader – Harry Reid (Dem)
        • Senate Intel Chair – Diane Feinstein (Dem)
        • Minority Senate Intel Committee – Saxby Chambliss (Rep)
        • [State Dept] U.S. Libyan Ambassador – Chris Stevens
        • [State Dept] U.S. Asst Secretary of State – Andrew Shapiro
        • [State Dept] Senior Head of U.S. Weapons Office – Mark Adams

And who knew after?

This Brings us to who knew about “Operation Zero Footprint” post Benghazi 9/11/12 attack:

To wit you can easily add:

        • CIA Director General David Petraeus
        • Adjunct, and Interim, CIA Director – Mike Morrel
        • U.S. Attorney General – Eric Holder
        • President Obama Advisor and now Chief of Staff – Denis McDonough
        • President Obama Advisor and now Treasury Sec – Jack Lew
        • President Obama Advisor and now National Security Advisor – Tony Blinkin
        • Former UN Ambassador and now Senior Nat Sec Advisor – Susan Rice
        • Chief White House Communications Director – Ben Rhodes

So they caution we may never get to the bottom of this.  1. It wasn’t illegal, just unwise.  2. A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE knew about it that now claim ignorance. Do you think Gowdy will chase down the “gang of eight” or McConnell?  Naahh…

But it does explain why everyone is eager to cover it up.  This was a monumental error in judgement that continued like an out of control train, crushing everything in its path- including the four killed on 9-11-12.   It can be argued that ISIS is an indirect result of Obama and his people’s desire to prove just how smart they were, at a great cost to an entire region.

Now the Pandora’s box is open, whether by accident or by bad design, and ISIS has jumped out to kill and maim and destroy.

That is on Obama and Hillary.  He’ll never admit it. She wants to be President.

Think about that.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Funny thing happened on the way to the war.

Just a short note.  Is it me, or is it a little ironic that Obama refused to leave a force behind in Iraq (and yes, we can argue about how much effort he put into it), even the five thousand or so that Iraq wanted, and now we are back in Iraq, and the estimates now coming in on how many people we’ll have to send there is about…five thousand?

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden told Fox News Sunday that up to 5,000 American troops will be in Iraq by the end of the year.

He’s basing that estimate on the number of support troops it will take to carry out the air campaign against ISIS.

The Hill:

“In terms of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, logistics, advice, command and control assistance, tactical air control parties, look I’m betting we’re up close 5,000 by the end of the year,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Hayden explained he doesn’t think they will be “combat maneuver units,” but predicted U.S. special operations forces could wind up on the ground in Syria. 

“I think we will at some point. It might be through covert action rather than more overt activity,” he said. “I actually think we will end up with small American special operations forces active within this broad theater in Syria and Iraq.” 

The most difficult plan to execute, Hayden said, will be training and arming the Free Syrian Army, or vetted moderate opposition groups in Syria. 

The U.S. would be “starting from zero” to create a “substantial” combat power, said Hayden, who served as director of the CIA under President George W. Bush and director of the National Security Agency under Bush and President Bill Clinton. 

“That is a result of an American policy not to help that group over the last few years,” he said.


Now it’s not like Obama wasn’t warned about what would happen if he left Iraq.

It’s not like the Left didn’t know.  They just didn’t care.





Posted in Iraq, politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama and the moment when people realize they are being led by “feckless” man.

“Feckless” belongs to Charles Krauthammer. He’s been pushing that description, along with narcissist, for a long time over at FOX.  To watch Charles, who is a veteran psychiatrist, deal with his colleagues while they try to figure out how come Obama is such a screw up is priceless.  Charles gives them the “Why can’t you SEE what is in front of your face!” look almost every time.  Why? Because to Charles, the verdict is in, and has been for a long time.

Obama is nuts.  Worse, he’s a weak, indecisive nuts.  Not the crazy, “woo-hoo look at me I’m a bird!” nuts, but the “I’m the greatest thing since Jesus” nuts.  The thing with these nuts is when the reality of the world hits them in the nose, instead of waking up, they retreat farther into the alternate reality they inhabits, sadly taking many of us with them.

Even the good people in the government are struggling to maintain a mask over the situation.  What are they going to do, tell the truth and let the world slip farther into a hole?

Here’s how psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, M.D., explains it in his classic best-seller, “People of the Lie”:

Malignant narcissism is characterized by an unsubmitted will. All adults who are mentally healthy submit themselves one way or another to something higher than themselves, be it God or truth or love or some other ideal. They do what God wants them to do rather than what they would desire. “Thy will, not mine, be done,” the God-submitted person says. They believe in what is true rather than what they would like to be true.

… In summary, to a greater or lesser degree, all mentally healthy individuals submit themselves to the demands of their own conscience. Not so the evil, however. In the conflict between their guilt and their will, it is the guilt that must go and the will that must win.

The reader will be struck by the extraordinary willfulness of evil people. They are men and women of obviously strong will, determined to have their own way. There is a remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others.

As we will now see, Obama has been preparing to “control others” for a long time.

Two things are apparent now. The United States is a world power which needs to be engaged in the world’s activities in order to keep civilization on some kind of even keel.  The Left complains we can’t be the world’s policeman forever.  Agreed, but we need to accept the fact when we pull away from that responsibility, we have to accept that into the vacuum will flow evil.  And because we have allowed Europe to grow fat and lazy under our NATO umbrella, we cannot expect them to jump up and defend anything.  Their choice was to let us spend our money on armies while they spent their defense budget on the welfare state.  Obama wants to do that here, which means our armies are leaving, and the Europeans are going to have to make some hard decisions in the future.

One of those decisions the rest of the world has made is NOT to get caught in Obama’s version of reality.  In his world, he’s never wrong.  He is a strong leader never wavering from his commitments.  And he never loses.  In the REAL world, he is almost always wrong- a predicted outcome of liberal theories running into the real world reality of life, he is a “feckless” leader moving positions to match the events on the ground so he can say he was right all along- even though we SEE him move (remember…nuts).   And he runs from any conflict he can’t control.  You see, he may be nuts, but he’s not crazy. He lives in our world, he sees our world, he just doesn’t accept it because all of us are so stupid and can’t see how great he is.

This is why when he decides, because of bad optics to bomb ISIS, he can’t get any real help. But after admitting how the bad optics affected him, (Not how badly it affect Foley’s parents, a total disconnect that even people other than Krauthammer had to pause over.) Obama does it again.  The spanking he got from the first didn’t sink in because he believes that it is OUR fault for feeling that way.

It really is that simple.

What we see is his people supporting his decisions beyond what we would consider reasonable. Why is that? Can’t they see the hole?  Maybe not.  There has been a great deal written about corporate narcissism. Interesting stuff.  Here is one take.

Don’s now the Evan Pugh Professor, Smeal Chaired Professor of Management at the Smeal College of Business at Penn State.

A few years ago, Don decided to explore through a rigorous academic study just how damaging Narcissistic CEOs can be.  It turns out they can be amazingly damaging – to the point of, in some cases, eventually killing their companies.

Don just completed a follow-up study that offers even more clarity on the problems they cause.

Why study Narcissistic CEOs?

Besides the fact that we know lots of them exist out there today in business, Don explains it this way:

[O]rganizational researchers may not believe that executive narcissism is of much theoretical or practical significance.  They may see executive narcissism as incidental to organizational functioning – annoying to those who must endure it, grist for jokes about self-absorbed CEOs, but little more.  However, narcissism in the executive suite can be expected to have effects on substantive organizational outcomes, potentially including strategic grandiosity and submissive top management teams.  Narcissism can affect an executive’s choices in such areas as strategy, structure, and staffing.

Although we throw around the term narcissism easily, there’s been extensive study of the topic by psychologists over the years.  Hambrick, going from the psychological literature, defines a narcissist as someone showing the following four personality characteristics:

(1) Exploitativeness/Entitlement –> I insist upon getting the respect that is due to me;

(2) Leadership/Authority –> I like to be the center of attention;

(3) Superiority/Arrogance –> I am better than others; and

(4) Self-absorption/Self-admiration –> I am preoccupied with how extraordinary and special I am.

One of the key challenges Don faced in studying this topic is that it’s hard to approach a corporate CEO who you believe to be a narcissist and ask him to fill out a personality questionnaire to see how narcissistic he is.  You don’t get past his assistant with that request.  So, anyone studying the topic has to find unobtrusive ways at assessing how narcissistic someone actually is.

Luckily, Don’s a smart and creative guy.

Here’s a summary of what Don found in both studies with his co-author Arijit Chatterjee:

-  In the first study, the authors studied 111 CEOs in the computer and software industries between 1992 and 2004.  Coincidentally, I can think of a number of Narcissistic CEOs from the world of tech in recent years including Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Eric Schmidt, and John Chambers. (I’ll say more later about why I don’t think Steve Jobs was a Narcissistic CEO in the way that was defined in this study.)

- They created a 4 measure index of CEO narcissism which were:

  • The prominence (size) of the CEO’s photo in the annual report

  • CEO prominence (number of mentions) in company press releases

  • CEO’s use of first person singular pronouns in transcripts of public comments to shareholders

  • The gap between the CEO pay (salary, bonus, deferred income, stock grants, and stock options) and the pay of the 2nd highest paid executive

What did he find?  They kill companies.  Worse, they have loyal followers who enable the murder. Here is another take.

How does narcissism occur in the workplace?

What links patrimonial bureaucracy and totalitarian organizations? The answer is narcissism. Narcissism includes the narcissists and their codependents (or enablers/followers). Patrimonial bureaucracy occurs when employees become personally loyal to their superiors in such a way as to always feel the need to seek their approval before acting.

Corporate narcissism is spreading with epidemic proportions throughout the business world.1

Narcissists foster this type of behaviour in their subordinates, and peers if possible, who become codependents. It works well for the narcissist’s self-esteem, but not so well for the business. Narcissism in the workplace results in poor judgements that turn into costly decisions,2 ultimately resulting in negative long-term outcomes.3 As patrimonial bureaucracy spreads throughout the business, it becomes a totalitarian organization.

Corporate narcissism occurs when a narcissist becomes the leader (CEO) or a member of the senior management team and gathers an adequate mix of codependents around him (or her) to support his narcissistic behavior. This leads almost inevitably to a deterioration in the organization’s performance. Narcissists profess company loyalty but are only really committed to their own agendas, thus organization decisions are founded on the narcissists’ own interests rather than the interests of the organization as a whole, the various stakeholders, or the environment in which the organization operates.4


Huh….sound familiar?

And as we wind down our experience with the grand experiment of letting a far Left narcissist be President, I might want to remind you that Hillary is just another side of the same coin.

We need a break.  Find an adult with some humility and put him in charge.  (Or her if we can find one qualified BEYOND being a female!) Over at the NYTimes one writer talks about “The Great Unraveling.”  It is pretty bleak and ends up with this passage:

It was a time of disorientation. Nobody connected the dots or read Kipling on life’s few certainties: “The Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire / And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.”

Until it was too late and people could see the Great Unraveling for what it was and what it had wrought.

Heady stuff.  What he doesn’t talk about is HOW IT BECAME UNRAVELED!  Who did it?

A hundred years of progressive agenda in Europe and the United States has left our nation, the one that leads the world, rudderless and amoral.  Until we face why it happened, we cannot fix it.  And the next column that author writes will be far darker.


Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The “That doesn’t apply to me.” moment. An example of “bad policing” looks like when caused by other bad decisions and policies.

Big title, complicated and silly event.  Why?  Because this story is an example of how the police are often stuck doing something they don’t want to do, by other forces, often misguided.

Years ago, I told a story trying to illustrate how the cops are not the bad guys they are thought to be BECAUSE they are just tools reflecting the current environment and desires of the population.  A abbreviated version goes like this-

A young man hires on as a cop back in the early sixties in Alabama. All he wants to do is keep people safe.  But his boss tells him one day that the mayor wants the cops to get the dogs, water cannons, batons and shields and go and beat up a bunch of black people who are protesting.  He does because that is part of his job, to follow the orders of the society he represents.

Not happy, he quits and goes to another job in Chicago around 1968.  It’s a great job, a great city, but suddenly he gets a heads up from his sergeant, who tells him the Chief said the Mayor said that the cops needed to get their batons, shields and tear gas and beat up a bunch of smelly hippies protesting on the street.  He does, because that is what he was told to do by the powers at the time.

But he doesn’t like it at all. That is not what he wanted to be.  So he quits and goes to a job in Cleveland.  What could go wrong in Cleveland?  In 1972, he is minding his own business when he is told the Chief was told by the Mayor that the cops needed to get their batons, shields and tear gas and go and beat a bunch of white folks who were protesting blacks coming to their kids’ schools.  Now the irony of all of this is not wasted on the smart, still young cop.  But he suits up, because in between being asked to be the “strong arm” of society, he is actually helping people. It makes him feel good and saves countless lives.

But again, it doesn’t sit well.  So he sees the chance to go to another agency, one in California called San Fransisco.  It’s great.  Everything is fine, UNTIL he gets a call from his boss saying a group of gays are protesting and he needed to get his shield, baton and helmet.  At this point he’s just not sure why he is doing what he is doing.  But he goes. It’s the tradeoff he has made to do some good when he can.  That’s just a cop’s life.

Why?  Because the police are a reflection of how the people want to be managed. They either demand it (murder is wrong- arrest the fiend!), suggest it (speeding IS bad, you need to stop me on occasion), or allow it without comment (the millions of regulations and rules created by unelected bureaucrats).

In the end, the face of the law is that poor schmuck in a uniform. He/She may love the power (a bad thing) or consider it a necessary burden that helps get a job done (a good thing).  He may be smart or a bit slow, or quick tempered or steady as a rock. The point is he is just like you, being asked to do things you don’t want to do.

Sometimes he runs into a person, usually it is a young person or a person of color with an entitlement bent, who just doesn’t realize the rules DO apply to them.

HOUSTON — The day after HISD police officers wrestled a 10th grade girl to the hallway floor of Sam Houston High School, the girl and her family protested in front of the campus demanding an investigation and an apology.

In cell phone video first aired on KHOU Tuesday night, three HISD police officers surround Ixel Perez, two of them have her pinned to the floor face down. One officer has his knee pressed to the side of her head.

“Both of the cops just tackled her down to the floor. They put her knee on her head and after that they just arrested her, took her phone,” said student Gustavo Lucio who took the video on his cell phone. “The cop just said you can’t use your phone and after that, no words no nothing, just actions, grabbed her, threw her down.”

“It was embarrassing,” said Perez outside the high school Wednesday morning.

Boy, sounds bad, but wait, there is more.

Perez, with her mom and her brother by her side, described the chain of events that led to the officers wrestling her to the floor.

She says her reading teacher caught her using her cell phone in class, which is against school rules, and told her to go to the hallway. That’s where Perez says she was confronted by an assistant principal who demanded she relinquish the phone. Students caught using phones in class are required to turn them over to school administrators and then retrieve them at the end of the school day, for a fee.

“I just didn’t want to give up my phone,” said Perez who said she was talking to her mom who suffers from medical conditions. Perez said she was trying to make sure her mom was OK.

“She asked me for the phone and I didn’t want to give it to her, because I was scared. I ended up walking down the stairs trying to get away from the AP (assistant principal) and then she had already called the cops.”

The HISD resource officers also demanded she hang up the phone and hand it to them. Perez admitted she refused again.

‘He grabbed my hand, one of them was right here, one grabbed my hand, I didn’t want to let go of my phone because I was on the phone with mom,” she said.

Perez was detained. Her mom says she was turned away when she rushed to the school to make sure her daughter was OK. And as of Wednesday morning Perez said school officials had not returned her cell phone, in lieu of a $15 fee she would need to pay.

“We all know it was wrong,” said Perez’ brother Chris Cardenas. “It doesn’t take three cops to take down one teenage girl, especially a 70-pound teenage girl!”

Well, actually it does when the seventy pound girl is being a bitch about it.  Let’s go over the problem step by step to illustrate how dumb this whole mess is.

1. Is it illegal for a girl in school to have a cellphone? We know how obsessed they are with them, so trying to teach them anything while Face Book updates and tweets are coming in would be a waste.  So, the administration (not the cops, not the elected officials) decide to make a rule everybody understands- including this girl.  A good idea?  Legal to charge a fee to get back personal property? (I’m not sure about that- sounds a little like extortion. Here is some questions an enterprising reporter should ask- “Where does that money go? Is there an accounting of it? Where is the statute that allows seizure of personal property and its return for a fee?) However, it is up to the people running the place and who is in charge of them.  I will state in the past I’ve dealt with the little Nazis who run schools.  Talk about an assumption of power by a group of people who should have no power!  I had a SRO actually warn me the principle BELIEVED he was running the place like a kingdom, HIS kingdom. But that is what citizens ALLOW to happen, an argument for another day.

2. The girl was asked by two sources of authority to stop violating a rule she knew was a violation, and she refused.  That is the “It doesn’t apply to ME!” syndrome cops deal with all the time. At any time she could have complied. She chose not to.


One of the most difficult types to deal with. An outraged teenage girl!

3. The SRO works for the school.  He is actually the legal arm of the principle, the same guy/gal who thinks he really is a king. I’ve had SROs run interference for the principle against me, while I was conducting a lawful investigation.  A move I quickly corrected.  But it shows how easy things can go sideways.  The police tell her to stop being a spoiled child (in essence at least) and she again refuses.

But is it against the law?  At this point yes.  School administrators have the responsibility to enforce their rules.  Those rules may not be legal or ethic or even right. But they are rules.  However, when the police show up and order you to do something, a good citizen complies IF that order doesn’t put anyone in jeopardy.  You may disagree, you may want to protest- and can as you are complying, you can file a complaint later- and the girl should have.  But at the time, when told to comply a good citizen does.  A kid thinking she has a “right” to do something else is going to get jammed up.

4. “He grabbed my phone and I didn’t want to give it up.”  At this point silly is taking over. It is no longer a case of phones or rules or anything outside a young female teenager going nuts over something as silly as a phone.  (Which again points to why the schools put limits on them having phones! I swear if you took the phones away from teenagers, they would look like fish flopping on the riverbank gasping for air!)

The cops have no choice- their “bosses” told them to get that phone and probably take the girl to the office. The girl decides THIS is the hill she is going to make her stand, and we have the classic irresistible force meeting the immovable object standoff.  Well, not really the cops pounce on her and that is that.

Except for the blowback that is coming.  The school says we need to keep students safe.  I’m not sure how jamming that girl up fits the description, but it is the standard bumper sticker statement that translates to “move along, nothing to see here.”  But there is.  The police officers will get sued.  They did nothing wrong.  The school will get sued, you can argue they could have done things differently- like escort the girl and her phone to the office, call the mom- who is apparently near death but can still get to the school in a hurry??

And the media will pick this low hanging fruit trying to make a Hispanic version of Ferguson out of it, so they can report more “outrage”.

And the police get more of a bad rap.

All over a freaking teenager and a phone.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Branca at Legal Insurrection gives a primer on self defense. We should listen.

A few caveats.

1. In this current environment, if you find yourself killing people in self-defense, and those people turn out to be black, and there are no witnesses- walk away.  Do not help Sharpton and Holder label you racist.

2. If, IF the police show up (and that’s a big if, especially when the police figure out from the crime scene what happened) tell them the story and why you left, which was you didn’t want to be attacked again.

3. All of this predicated on you not telling anyone else EVER what happened.

4. Don’t fall prey to the sad “what a wasted life, who could he have become” crap you see. They are thugs. They will always be thugs. They will make thug babies- who will grow up being thugs.

It isn’t race, it is a culture.  This is a battle between civilized and uncivilized. Makers vs takers.  They want you, your stuff, your fear, your blood.  (Just listen to the chants when the victim is being pummeled, it is a WAY OF LIFE!)  They exist in the tribes in Afghanistan, and the warring tribes of the Boko Harem in Africa.

5. We encourage it here, because of PC.  No more PC. No more listening to ignorant white/black/liberal/silly people telling you we need to do more.  Enough. Holder knows his window is closing and it took them SIX years and one manufactured race shooting (Zimmerman the “white Hispanic” Seriously??) to find a “racist” crime he can launch his discussion with.  A brave news person would lead every interview with Holder with the clips of the black thug on white victim videos and ask him to comment.  But we suffer PC blindness, don’t we?

Fight PC. It is a cancer that kills nations. Ask Britain.

(Here is the raw story on the beating at Krogers.  This falls under the “numbers of assailants” defense theory. )

Now to Branca and the legal aspect of violent confrontation with thugs.  Branca went into detail he linked to in an earlier post.  Here are the salient points.

 One of the most common laments to come out of Ferguson these last days has been that surely it was outrageous for Office Darren Wilson to use his service pistol to shoot an “unarmed” Mike Brown.  (Earlier iterations of this narrative went further in their misinformation, describing the 18-year-old 6’4″ 292 pound Brown as a “kid” or “child,” as well as falsely claiming that Wilson shot Brown in the back, but such misinformation falls outside the scope of this post.)  Similar arguments were made in the context of the shooting by George Zimmerman of the “unarmed” Trayvon Martin.

The notion that a defender may use a firearm in self-defense only if they themselves are faced with a firearm is entertainingly naive, but has no basis in actual law, nor in common sense.

In the eyes of the law a gun is not some magical talisman of power, it is merely one of perhaps an infinite number of means of exerting force.  Legally speaking the law tends to divide force into two broad buckets:  non-deadly force and deadly force.

Deadly Force: Force Likely to Cause Death or Grave Bodily Harm


It should also be noted that when the legal system uses the phrase “deadly force,” it is not merely referring to force than can literally cause death.  Of course, force likely to cause death qualifies, naturally.  But the law’s view of “deadly force” is broader than the phrase might suggest.  In fact, “deadly force” includes BOTH force likely to cause death, as well as force likely to cause “grave bodily harm.”

We all understand “death,” but what could possibly be meant by “grave bodily harm.”? Typically, grave bodily harm means something along the following lines:  the temporary loss of an important bodily function/organ, the permanent loss of even a minor bodily function/organ, maiming, rape, or debilitation to the point of defenselessness.

Note, also, that under the law of self-defense, NONE of these must ACTUALLY be experienced by the victim before the victim can lawfully respond.  Rather, there must be an imminent threat of one of these occurring, as perceived by a reasonable and prudent person, in the same or similar circumstances, possessing the same or similar capabilities as the defender, having the same or similar knowledge as the defender, and experiencing the same or similar mental stress as would a defender being threatened with such harm.

Proportionality of Force

One of the five elements of the law of self-defense is proportionality (the others being innocence, imminence, avoidance, and reasonableness). Proportionality governs the degree of force that a defender can lawfully use in self-defense.  In brief, the defender’s force must be proportional to the force with which he is threatened.

Again, limiting ourselves to instances of the use of deadly force in self-defense, such use of deadly force is permissible only where the defender was facing an imminent threat of deadly force.  Or, more accurately, the use of deadly force is permissible only where the defender was facing an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm.

A gun almost always represent a threat (or, if fired, a use) of deadly force.  So in order for a defender to be lawfully permitted to “go to the gun,” they must be facing a reasonably perceived imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm against which they are defending themselves.

Does that mean that they can only go to the gun if they are faced with a gun?  Of course not.  There are myriad ways that an attacker can represent a threat of death or grave bodily harm, only one small slice of which involve the attacker using a gun.  Naturally, an attacker bringing to bear a “classical” deadly weapon such as a gun or knife would represent a threat of death or grave bodily harm.  But such a classical deadly weapon is not required.


Disparity of Force

What the law actually looks at is not whether the attacker possessed a classical weapon, but whether the attacker presented the defender with a disparity of force, such that the defender faced a reasonably perceived imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm unless the defender himself resorted to deadly force.  Again, for a defender facing a gun or knife, the disparity of force is obvious.  This disparity of force also arises, however, in many other circumstances.

Disparity of Numbers

Disparity of Fighting Ability

Disparity of Size/Strength

Disparity of Physical Fitness

In the Disparity of Numbers we have the Kroger beating and the couple being jumped in Missouri.  Both of those situations call for the victim to target and eliminate as many of the attackers as possible, until they break and run.  Don’t chase them, shooting all the while, just leave.  Pick up your brass, and leave.

Remember, as Zimmerman proved, in THIS current environment you cannot assume being right and being legal will protect you. Hyper-racial politics is being used as a saber wielded against anyone who doesn’t fit the narrative.  When the police show up, and you are standing there, you simply state “I was in fear of my life.  I want to talk to my lawyer.”  Apologize for not doing more and making the detective’s job harder, he or she will get exactly what you are doing- protecting yourself. It would be what they would do or ask their families to do.

Someday, if history is written honestly, we’ll look back on this time as a very dark period, where race and guilt and power and corruption came together to enrich a few and victimize many- of all races and colors.

But that is for the future.  What you need to concentrate on is surviving the present.  Stay alert, stay armed, be ready to do violence to those who would do violence to you. If you don’t do these things, this could be you.









Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leading from behind creates vacuum. The Obama theory of leadership falls apart.

PJ Media has a pretty good take on it. I’ll let them have the floor.  Toward the end of the article the point is made. It starts out talking about the growth of ISIS and how “backing them” was a bad idea.

Poole cites a litany of sources to suggest that the boundary between the FSA and ISIS was a nebulous one. He adds, “As if more evidence were needed, it should be noted that American journalist James Foley, who was beheaded by ISIS several weeks ago, reportedly came into ISIS custody when the FSA-aligned Dawood Brigade that kidnapped and held Foley pledged allegiance to ISIS and delivered him to ISIS as a token of their submission.”

However that may be, it’s simple-minded concepts like “enemy” that are the problem. Poole simply cannot think except in these categories [irony alert]. Now in wartime, alliances of convenience and games of double-cross are unavoidable. Factions often enter into temporary arrangements with people they will later fight.   Yet Poole is right to observe  the essential shapelessness of the administration’s policy. He can’t tell Who’s On First and lights on the problem that neither Drum nor Beauchamp can come to grips with.

When you lead from the front, you control the coalition. When you lead from behind, the coalition controls you. This indecision can be disguised under the pose of “sophistication” or “nuance,” where you claim to adapt your behavior to the “context.” But it is really a euphemism for spinelessness. When you’re not in charge, someone else is.  Since Obama has declined to take charge, someone else has. Because in the last analysis, no game theoretic and certainly no war can have meaning unless it defines at least two terms: us and them.

This explains why everything is so confusing. Why nothing makes sense to lesser mortals.  Without a course of his own to steer, Obama’s ship of state seems blown this way and that by every puff of wind.  Don’t worry that he’s relinquished the stick and rudder of the airplane to the foe, because he has the trim wheel firmly in hand.  Yet if you can’t explain policy even to your supporters, there’s a good chances the policy is actually inexplicable. This is a possibility Obama’s most ardent supporters cannot admit. It is pitiful to watch them reduced to deciphering hieroglyphics on a wall. They’ll be damned if they can understand it, but assume it says something profound.


And that is about it.  America meddles in other people’s problems because we know sooner or later that problem will appear at our doorstep.  When we try to influence the outcome it may not always work out, but the justification for it is clear.  We want to make sure everything is running smoothly for everyone- except the bad guys.  The “us vs them” deal.  It is a good concept, one lost on people trained to hate America like Obama and Powers.  Messy and inefficient, sure. But at least we control the events at some level, not like what we’ve see today.

There is a movie out there called “The Good Shepard.” There is a scene in it where Joe Pesci’s character complains to Matt Damon that he was the people who made big wars.  Damon’s answer was “We make sure the wars are small ones.”

In a sense, that was America is all about. We can’t stop all evil, but we can stop it when it gets out of hand.  If only the Left in America accepted that role, and the Right knew where the line was between helping and hindering.

But all things considered, I’ll take us fumbling around doing our best against letting the evil run rampant.




Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The coming threat of ISIS. They won’t attack bases, they will do this.

The question would be how would our disconnected President respond? And please don’t say he’ll send this guy in!



Gateway Pundit took the time to remind us this is the tenth anniversary of the Beslan school attacks.  Many people in America didn’t pay the first lick of attention to this, which is too bad, because the people who planned and executed the attack are now members of ISIS.

It was the first day of school.

A group of 32 armed Chechen separatists and Islamic fundamentalists, including one Saudi national, took more than 1,200 schoolchildren and adults hostage at School Number One (SNO) in the town of Beslan, North Ossetia-Alania.
334 died in the massacre.

Little did the children and parents know what the next 56 hours would bring.

Guns, wires, and bombs.
During the siege the terrorists separated young girls from the other children and took them out of the gym to be raped. The Islamists forced their hostages to clean up blood off the floors from the dead children and adults. It was so hot the children were forced to strip off their new clothes. They drank their own urine to stay alive. They were not allowed to move. After the explosions in the gym one boy dragged his younger brother through the halls. He pulled his limp body through a broken window.

I watched and studied that attack. The same people who planned it and executed it are now part of ISIS.  As I said, this is an asymmetrical war.  We bomb them with planes, they bomb our children with cars and trucks, or snipe at us, or kill us in local terror attacks such as this, all hoping to break our will or freeze our leadership.  And as we’ve seen, that won’t be hard. Their own ideology crashing into reality has caused them to hesitate already.

Either way the bad guys win. They can stop us from attacking them and they get to kill the children of Satan.  It’s a madness borne of centuries anger and vengeance.  You can’t cure it, you can only kill it.  From the interview of the only surviving Belsan terrorist-

She asked me if I want my kids to be like me. I’d really like them to be like me, sure,” he said. “But I don’t want them to share my fate. I wouldn’t want that. But I’d only be happy if they really were like me.”

The terrorist might sound confident, while not actually feeling that way, said Alevtina Luchnikova, the senior psychologist at the penal colony Kulaev is kept in.

When I talked to him, he confessed he often has nightmares. He sees blood coming from the walls,” she told RT.
A terrorist’s logic is distorted,” the psychologist added. “It’s based on emotions, there’s no common sense left. They believe in some mission based on some religion which is also distorted. I don’t know any religion that would approve of murdering children.

THIS is a crusade, not a war.  Get onboard or get killed.

Johad Works Both ways copy




Posted in politics | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The cancer of Political Correctness and the rapes of children, approved by the British government.

You can’t make it up.  At some point, somebody has to get some gas, dump it on the former British Empire and light a match. The rotting corpse is starting to stink.  They have killed themselves with political correctness and multiculturalism- both cancers inflicted on good societies.  Here is just one example of the inevitable outcome.

In Britain, there are more, from beheading a soldier to blowing up buses to indoctrinating schools.  Yet, the Brits STILL push it forward.  Suicide by tea and crumpets.

You can write that as the epitaph of Great Britain. The British government kowtowed to Islamic supremacists “for fear of being thought as racist.” The British government hounded counter-jihadists domestically and banned ones from the U.S. from entering the country “for fear of being thought as racist.” The British government worked with Islamic supremacists it mistook for “moderates” “for fear of being thought as racist.” The British government funded liars who exaggerated claims of Muslim victimhood “for fear of being thought as racist.” The British government for years ignored an Islamic supremacist takeover of public schools “for fear of being thought as racist.”

As Britain collapses into inevitable chaos, civil war, and jihad in the streets, Blair, Cameron, May and the rest, and all the dreary Sarah Browns (one of the proprietors of the Leftist dhimmi hate site Harry’s Place) among their dreary, dreary supporters, can congratulate themselves that as they bring down a once-great civilization upon their own heads, at least no one will think that they were “racist.”

“Rotherham child abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited, report finds,” BBC, August 26, 2014:

At least 1,400 children were subjected to appalling sexual exploitation in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, a report has found.

Children as young as 11 were raped by multiple perpetrators, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated, it said.

The report, commissioned by Rotherham Borough Council, revealed there had been three previous inquiries.

Council leader Roger Stone said he would step down with immediate effect.

Mr Stone, who has been the leader since 2003, said: “I believe it is only right that as leader I take responsibility for the historic failings described so clearly.”

The inquiry team noted fears among council staff of being labelled “racist” if they focused on victims’ description of the majority of abusers as “Asian” men.
‘Doused in petrol’

Professor Alexis Jay, who wrote the latest report, said there had been “blatant” collective failures by the council’s leadership, senior managers had “underplayed” the scale of the problem and South Yorkshire Police had failed to prioritise the issue.

A victim of sexual abuse in Rotherham told BBC’s Panorama: “I was a child and they should have stepped in”

Prof Jay said: “No-one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1,400 children were sexually exploited over the full inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013.”

Revealing details of the inquiry’s findings, Prof Jay said: “It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered.”

The inquiry team found examples of “children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone”.

Five men from the town were jailed for sexual offences against girls in 2010, but the report said police “regarded many child victims with contempt”.
Ch Supt Jason Harwin Ch Supt Jason Harwin said victims had been “let down”

District Commander for Rotherham, Ch Supt Jason Harwin said: “Firstly I’d like to start by offering an unreserved apology to the victims of child sexual exploitation who did not receive the level of service they should be able to expect from their local police force.

“We fully acknowledge our previous failings.”

Ch Supt Harwin said the force had “overhauled” the way it dealt with such cases and had successfully prosecuted a number of abusers.

But he admitted: “I accept that our recent successes… will not heal the pain of those victims who have been let down.”
‘Racism’ fear

The report found: “Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”

Failures by those charged with protecting children happened despite three reports between 2002 and 2006 which both the council and police were aware of, and “which could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham”.

She said the first of these reports was “effectively suppressed” because senior officers did not believe the data. The other two were ignored, she said.


There is no excuse, except that of fear, PC and bureaucratic madness.

And before you condemn them, realize we are doing the same exact thing here. CAIR muzzles any attempt by our people to identify who the real violators are.  Every jihadist is a lone wolf.  Every event driven by Islam is denied, and some other lame excuse is given as for the reason why a jihadist did the crime.  Even when the jihadist tells us Islam is the motivation.

I ask a few simple questions here. Did they talk to the street cop over there, or just his PC boss?  Did the community have knowledge and did nothing? What is the real scoop, or is it just as bad as we fear.  How in the world did they get into the mess they are in now?

At some point we have to shake the yoke of Political Correctness or one day we’ll wake up to thousands of young girls being raped on our soil, “in the name of Allah.”


Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

What happens when you shoot the drunk driver who killed your kids? Well in Texas, nothing.

As it should be.

A fascinating case. Imagine this: A man and his two boys are pushing their car along a road, just 100 yards or so from their home, after it runs out of gas. Another car comes barreling along and smashes into the rear of their vehicle, crushing one of the kids instantly and throwing the other far enough that he later dies from his injuries. The driver, who turns out to have been drunk, is unconscious at the scene in the driver’s seat. When the cops arrive a short time later, he has a bullet in his head. More from the Houston Chronicle:

Two of the witnesses, William Taylor Duncan, 17, and Landon Lain, 18, testified they saw the crash while driving home together that night. They pulled over when flagged down for help by a man saying his son had been hit.

“(He said) ‘Call the police, my kid has been hit, make sure they don’t leave,’” Duncan told jurors. He said he believed the man was referring to any occupants in the Malibu…

Each teen told jurors the man who flagged them down, asking them to help his children, was not at the crash site for about three minutes. They say he later returned and approached the Malibu.

The teens testified they later heard a gunshot, but neither say they saw anyone with a weapon.

A woman came upon the accident scene and saw a man who appeared “angry,” although she couldn’t (or wouldn’t?) identify him as the boys’ father. A cousin of the drunk driver later claimed that he saw the boys’ father punch the driver through the window of his car. The defense showed at trial that the driver’s window was intact and rolled up when the police got there, but the prosecution countered that the father might have simply opened the driver’s door and punched him that way instead. The gun was never found and no gunshot residue was discovered on the father’s hands, but if he didn’t do it, evidently some random stranger stopped at the scene of a horrible accident, casually murdered the driver by shooting him in the head, and then went on his merry way. Verdict: Not guilty.

The trouble I have with this is the comments in the post.  Frankly, I am tired and done with the whole moral relativism. I like the idea that at some point you pay for what you did.

In this case the drunk driver, a repeat offender I believe, killed two young sweet kids (here is their blogspot).  The father whacked his ass.  Done and done.  In Texas, neither the witnesses or the jury had a problem with it.  The prosecutor, a lawyer by trade, thought he had to bring charges.  He probably was hoping for the same outcome.

Here are the kids, who will never be able to discover who they could have been.  What right does the drunk have to continue living himself?



Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment