Thursday, May 26, 2011

Going to Go Against the Men on This One

As anyone knows, I give most men the benefit of the doubt, especially in a court of law, where you must be convicted "beyond a shadow of a doubt," and especially when the alleged "victim" is too drunk to remember much.

But this case stinks to high Hell.

Two ON DUTY cops were called to help a drunk woman out of a cab. That means she was so drunk someone thought to call the police - THE POLICE - those folks PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS to SERVE AND PROTECT. And here was their chance to do so.

What happened?

No one is sure. They took her up to her apartment and let themselves in.

And then stayed a while. The woman claims she woke up and was being raped by one of the cops.

The cops declare one of them was asleep ON HER COUCH and the other was "cuddling with her to comfort her."

WTF is that, I ask? You guys get paid to assist the public. Assisting here meant getting her in the front door and getting the fuck out of her PRIVATE RESIDENCE. In fact, I'd be happier if you left her in the hallway if that wasn't also a little risky. WITH NO WARRANT, YOU ARE NOT TO ENTER A PRIVATE RESIDENCE. PERIOD. This case warranted a little dash into her place to set her down.

And that's what they should've done.

Instead one decided to get a little "cuddle time?" And for whose benefit was that!?!?!? She was too drunk to consent to ANYTHING including holding her hand. You set her down and walk away. Instead he lies down with her? To do what, read her a story? And the other cop decided to sleep on her couch. WHY? Its not his couch. IS HE STUPID? Is he making himself at home?!?! He has no right to be there. Period.

These things make me EXTREMELY suspicious that these two clowns were up to no good.

When a woman is drunk most guys will tell you they do and say things they ordinarily wouldn't do and say. Many men have probably gotten things they otherwise wouldn't have gotten. I don't blame men for this. They will naturally gravitate to sex with a woman. Women ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES - THAT MEANS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU ARE DRUNK IS YOUR PROBLEM. PERIOD.

But these men - POLICEMEN - showed up KNOWING this lady was drunk and were asked TO HELP HER. If this woman stripped naked in her apartment and demanded a threesome, these cops should know enough to politely refuse, turn around and walk straight out. Instead they made themselves at home and it seems may very well have taken advantage of her, KNOWING she was drunk. Later they even lied to get back to her block and speak to her. What hoodlums.

Later this woman met with one of the cops (how did she get his contact info?) and asked him if he wore a condom during their sex. He said he didn't have sex with her, but when she asked him this question he said "Yes," but later said he was just trying to calm her down. This guy is doing this girl way too many favors. What he should've done was left her the Hell alone. Further, I think he did have sex with her. She was setting him up and that's entrapment, but frankly, he's a cop and she's not. He can clearly get away with more than the average person can: the entrapment was justified. He had no business being in her place longer than it took to set her down and he did commit a crime. What happened? HE WALKED. And his sleeze-bag partner too. They were fired as cops - these days, that's quite something, considering off-duty cops that physically assault people in front of witnesses WALK SCOTT FREE without even losing EMPLOYMENT OR RANK. Rape might've been a stretch given there was little physical evidence; and that's really horrible because the lack of evidence is due to the fact she was drunk and immobile and the cops knew this and exploited it, CLEARLY. Motive is also HUGE here. Why would she want to cuddle with a total stranger? She wouldn't. Period.

BTW, ladies, take a hint here: DON'T GET FALL DOWN DRUNK. Ever wonder why conservative cultures like Islam insist women don't drink? ITS NOT FOR THE MEN'S SAKE!

No one MUST help you, and now it appears you can't even trust the cops!

Given this woman's totally inebriated state and some physical evidence, along with the fact these men WERE IN HER APARTMENT MUCH, MUCH, MUCH LONGER THAN NECESSARY with one near the door and one IN HER BEDROOM WITH HER, these guys were on VERY thin ice. Then he affirms to her that he "wore a condom." Sexual Assault or Gross Sexual Misconduct seemed a given here at least. Rape also possible. Instead they walked. SCOTT FREE.

You want to trust a cop these days? HOW DO YOU TELL THE GOOD FROM THE BAD. These two idiots couldn't even help a drunk woman to her own apartment without getting mixed up in mischief.

By the way, the perp in question was a SEVENTEEN YEAR POLICE VETERAN.

By Pei-Sze Cheng

Two NYPD officers were cleared of rape and burglary charges but found guilty of official misconduct in the case of a woman who said she was assaulted when the officers brought her home after a night of drinking.

A jury deliberated seven days and on Thursday acquitted Kenneth Moreno, 43, and Franklin Mata, 29, of the most serious charges in the December 2008 incident, including several counts of falsifying business records.

"I'm glad it's over," an emotional Moreno said outside court.

"I just want to get on with my life," Mata said.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said later that the official misconduct conviction "warrants immediate termination from the department" and said the officers would be fired from the NYPD "today."

On the night of the incident, Moreno and Mata were initially called to help the drunken woman out of a cab. Prosecutors argued that when they took her up to her apartment, Moreno raped her while Mata stood as a lookout. Both officers denied the charges.

The accuser testified that she was so drunk she did not remember parts of the night, but told the jury that she woke up in her bed as she was being raped.

During testimony in court, Moreno said he cuddled with the woman to try and comfort her because she was ill from drinking, but said no sex took place. Mata testified that he was asleep on the woman's couch while his partner was in the other room.

Moreno did make a fake 911 call about a vagrant so that they had an excuse to return to the woman's block.

No DNA evidence was presented in the case, and experts were divided over whether an internal mark on the woman was the result of a rape. A doctor testifying for the defense said he didn't interpret it as evidence of rape.

The woman had secretly taped Moreno in an encounter a few days later, and he denied they'd had sex. But he also said "yes" when she asked if he had worn a condom. He later said he was trying to calm her down because she was threatening him.

Mata was on the force for about five years and Moreno for 17.

Defense attorney Joseph Tacopina said outside court that "we're obviously elated with this verdict today."

They face up to one year in prison for the misconduct charge and are set to be sentenced on June 28.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said in a statement that prosecutors "respect the jury's verdict, which acknowledges that the defendants' actions that night not only violated the law, they violated the victim's rights, and the public's trust."

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

To All the Princesses: Wake Up

The younger generation disgusted with some of its own members for the same reason many men are: outrageous feelings of entitlement.

No one owes you a GODDAMN THING ladies of America. Not a baby, not a house, not a car, not a diamond ring. You deserve NOTHING. You must GIVE, you must EARN gifts and respect and love. Want to be given things? Want to be a trophy wife? Find a really stupid jock and hope he goes in the first round of the draft.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Indian Killed for Carving Wood

Not running at a cop with the knife over his head and screaming. Not throwing a knife at a cop.

A native American woodcarver carving wood on the side of the street, SHOT FIVE TIMES AND KILLED after being told to "drop the knife."

When asked why he shot him, the officer said, "He was sitting there carving the wood with the knife; I told him to drop it and he didn't so I took him down."

Fellow Officer: "Good Job."

Me: Just what the fuck did they teach you idiots at the police academy?!?!!?!?

This was murder. I mean, WHAT THE %$^$&*#$$% WAS THAT COP THINKING? I've held a gun and held a knife. When you have a gun, you're not too afraid of people with knives, especially at a distance. This cop is a trigger-happy psycho.

If he did have to shoot him (HIGHLY doubtful), what is wrong with one or two shots in the leg? FIVE TIMES AT CLOSE RANGE? Against a man NOT CARRYING A FIREARM?


Tuesday, May 17, 2011


VP Biden: ‘Biggest thing to overcome - society views women as chattel’
May 11th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

With this guy at the top, it’s no wonder we don’t know anything about domestic violence. OK, he’s only second from the top, but it’s close enough for government work, don’t you know.

This article is reprinted from Glamour magazine and it’s an interview with Vice President Joe Biden about domestic violence (Huffington Post, 5/6/11). Well, it’s not exactly about domestic violence. It’s more about the myth of domestic violence that’s been repeated interminably for 40 years and that the interviewer, Joe Biden and his wife (also interviewed) have all accepted without question.

It’s about 1,500 words and, by the end, knowledgeable readers are left with the burning question “Can this guy be this dumb?” Or maybe he’s just lived his life as if all his actions were directed by a GPS system manufactured by feminists. I can just hear it: “Turn left at the next corner. Read Catharine MacKinnon’s “Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.”

Seriously, this is the Vice President of the United States and he volunteers this:

This attitude of how society views women as chattel — that’s the biggest thing to overcome.

Really? Chattel? It’s a fascinating theory. I suppose it would be better if it had a single iota of anything to support it. But for Biden, it’s not only self-evident but “the biggest thing to overcome.”

Chattel? Let’s see, this is a society in which women have more of the good and less of the bad than men in almost every imaginable category. Longevity? Check. Education? Check. Exemption from military conscription? Check. Exemption from combat if they do serve? Check. Lower rates of homelessness? Check. Higher rates of health insurance coverage? Check. Lower rates of suicide? Check. Numerous laws like VAWA and sexual harassment laws that are designed specifically to protect women but not men. Check. Fewer killed or injured on the job? Check.

And that doesn’t even mention family law and adoption law that seem as much as anything to be enacted for mothers, by mothers. I could go on forever about how those areas of law privilege women and mothers.

So maybe the Veep could explain to us ignorant savages how he figures that women are seen as chattel in this society. Someone should tell him to lay off the Kool-Aid.

Girls March With 'Slut Walk': No, I'm Not Making That Up

Where do I even begin here.

'Slut Walk'? Is that someone's idea of a really bad joke? It sounds like some VERY confused young girls (women would know better) have latched onto a REALLY stupid idea.

Having read the article MANY, MANY times it seems these women are standing up in defense of women who were sexually assaulted and were accused of being "sluts" to justify the attack.

First of all, not all sexual assaults have anything to do with assault. Hell, I've seen very many rape charges that pretty much boiled down to a misunderstanding, bruised feelings, pride, or just plain vindictiveness, especially in the absence of ANY physical evidence. Further, I've seen others made from women who were quite frankly an ABSOLUTE MESS. Drunk, half-asleep, passed out, breasts falling out of their FAR TOO SMALL top, missing a shoe, and struggling to even identify or describe who they had sex with, where they were or what happened when, and no, there was no evidence of them being drugged.

Pretty tough for the police to arrest a man when you can't even tell us what happened, when you were with him, never mind what he looked like or what he did that was illegal. I'll leave out the fact that throwing yourself at the alpha male in the bar while wearing a cut-to-your-navel top and a pin saying "I like to F--k" is going to lead to a guy thinking you'll sleep with him in the near future. And if you think that doesn't happen, you didn't read the Ben Rothlesburger case very closely.

These ladies seem to be parading around the fact that women should be able to dress however they want, whenever they want and that however they are dressed, 1) that does not make them a 'slut,' and 2) being a slut does not justify sexual assault.

#1 - Yes, you can dress however you want - this is the United States of America and you can dress in whatever you like. Welcome to Freedom. But guess what? Women dress to show off their figure (or perhaps hide it) and this attracts men (or repulses them) depending on the shape of the female's body and the clothing covering it. This is just mother nature. We are mammals and that's what we do. Look it up. Its science. That said, if you dress VERY provocatively, men, right or wrong, are going to think you're cruising for some physical affection; further men are going to be VERY turned on, in a VERY PRIMAL way if you are a very well-built woman. EXPECT IT. Women are VERY intuitive. They can see men stare. They know goddamn well what reaction they're causing... that's what they're after in most cases.

If you are dressed provocatively enough, many men will consider what you're wearing to be simply TOO revealing. And men HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT JUDGEMENT. TELLING YOU that judgement may be rude or undeserved, but it is their opinion and may I remind you, that a woman who sleeps around WILL RUIN A MAN FOR LIFE if he's one of the men that sleeps with her - he will be forced to support "his" baby (that she keeps and raises). And guess what? Men don't like to be bankrupted by a child they didn't want and further, they don't like to be cheated on. So any hints that this woman sleeps around or could be unfaithful, is rather important to men; a woman with children that may or may not be yours, a woman who has incentive to lie, cheat or steal is NOT someone you want to sleep with. This has always concerned men. Dress too provocatively and men will think you may be sexy and worth having sex with, BUT ARE NOT A WOMAN WORTH COMMITTING TO. Men have the right to make that judgement and further, they should and they must.

#2 - No, looking like a 'slut' DOES NOT justify any assault of any kind. But I am forced to reiterate an older point. When you dress like a 'slut' you are inviting attention. Some of that attention is good - alpha males want you. And some of it is bad - sleazy, desperate, crazy men also want you. Now, women want to breed with the best mate they can find - again, this is entirely natural of them. And to do that you need attention and that means casting a wide net. I would further argue that the discriminatory practices of the feminazis have REMOVED good, earning, potential mates for women and that has made them MORE competitive with one another for the remaining men and that means dressing more provocatively. That said, drawing attention, especially sexual attention in heavy doses IS NOT in women's best interests. Period. In the old days (as few as 10 or 15 years ago), MODESTY in a woman was considered by many men to be attractive. And given there were plenty of men to choose from, women didn't have to try hard to 'attract' one. If anything, a form-fitting, or slightly form-fitting outfit is plenty to let men see your figure. Trust me. Every man I've ever known could make out a woman's shape in anything better than a burlap sack. Women used to know that. Today they dress like a dime store prostitute and scream at anyone that suggests they could be sending the 'wrong' message. That message is; I'm advertising for sex: interested? And when men try to have sex with them and succeed and then ditch them, these women are emotionally scarred and bitter - frankly, wake up ladies. Wearing what amounts to slightly larger than normal underwear is like giving a robber the address to an unguarded bank: expect him to show up, gun drawn. In other words, respect men's instincts. And don't expect to 'control' a man or his behavior. He's not a woman. You can't just verbally 'massage' the right response from him. He probably doesn't know and doesn't care what the Hell you're talking about. He motivated by hormones. Respect that. Its not asking too much.

Another reason for the extremism in many women's dress is their own insecurity and anxiety. To feel attractive, to feel desired and wanted, is very important to most women. To gather the attention of many men makes many women feel better about themselves and of course, allays any self-doubt they may have about their appearance. Men used to be allowed to be forward and aggressive with women and while I'm sure this was annoying, it did not leave a lot of women who were unsure about their sexual attractiveness.

Today men can do nothing. Hell, staring is practically a crime. I'm not kidding.

With even looking at women being frowned upon, with men castrated in the classroom, with divorce laws RUINING men for life, with college campuses calling a sly grin a form of sexual misconduct, with sexual harassment laws that make it illegal to even imagine women in a sexual way in the office, men have simply been put off from women most, if not all, of the time. They have largely regressed, shrunken from, and abandoned their aggressive nature with women altogether (note 'aggressive' in courting and romancing; aggressive does not entail assault).

Women are have simply become a woven basket of complexities. Men want them, but courting rituals are like the tax code in Rome. You can gawk at her... now.. oh... now. Now, but not..... wrong time. NOW! Missed it. Now she thinks you're a wuss who doesn't know how to conquer a woman like an alpha man should. Try again.....Oh, that was wrong again. Now you've offended her. Whups. Start over. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200 dollars. You may touch her... now. Whups, not yet. Too soon. Start over. Actually, you have to ask permission as your are on a college campus and you will be prosecuted if you don't. And if she's drunk (pretty common these days) and goes 'too far,' you could be accused of rape and prosecuted. That is a felony. You will go to jail; you will have to check the 'felony' box on every job application you ever fill out. Oh, you say she may have been a little drunk and giggled when you grabbed her butt? That doesn't matter. You should've stopped and taken her straight home so she wouldn't have any regrets the next day. You're a man which means you're supposed to be her lover and father all at the same time and know which one she needs and when.

Men's response? What video games are available for sale, sir?

Do you blame them? I don't.

Yes, men have largely checked out. Women dominate work, they dominate home, and getting close to them requires that you think as they do, that you practically be one of them.

Respectfully, no thanks. How about I be a man and you be a woman and we do this the "old fashioned" way? If not, then you need to find some other guy.

'Slut Walk': feminist folly
This is idiocy, not liberation
May 11, 2011

Have you heard about the "slut walks" sweeping the globe?

No, they aren't being organized by frat boys. Quite the opposite: Thank the gals in the so-called feminist movement for this one.

Toronto, Ottawa, Boston, Dallas and London have all seen "slut walks" in recent weeks, with 24 more planned around the world. It was all spawned by a Toronto police officer's boneheaded comment at a January campus-safety forum that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."

Women bear responsibility for their rapes? OK, anger at that notion is plenty righteous. So, the Toronto slut walk was born to demand respect for sexual-assault victims. But the idea that being a "slut" is a bad thing also raised ire -- it's why the Toronto organizers announced on their Web site that they were "tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality. [We are] taking the [the word slut] back."
Walk of weirdness: Scantily clad 'feminists' romping against rape Saturday in Boston. More 'slut walks' are planned around the world. -
Walk of weirdness: Scantily clad "feminists" romping against rape Saturday in Boston. More "slut walks" are planned around the world.

Just what the women of the world have been clamoring for: to call themselves sluts.

No wonder a 2008 Daily Beast poll found that just 20 percent of women call themselves "feminists," and only 17 percent would want their daughters to use the label.

Want to cringe some more? A Slut Walk Boston organizer told a reporter, "We are using these efforts to reclaim the word 'slut.' " So at one event after another, women held up signs saying, "Proud Slut," "Sluts Say Yes" and "Slut Pride." They marched in bras and fishnet stockings, some with the word "slut" scrawled on their bodies with lipstick.

And slut-supporting men beamed in their "I love sluts" T-shirts. You bet they do.

In Boston, feminist writer Jaclyn Friedman bellowed, "Today we all march under the banner of sluthood!" In Ottawa, revelers chanted, "Slut, slut. Ho, ho. Yes means yes, and no means no!" The Web site "Feministing" described the slut walks as a "movement," with one blogger saying, "Sign me up for Team Sluts." The Slut Walk DC Web site boasts a banner, "Reclaiming the word slut."

This is supposed to pass as progress for women?

Slut-walk defenders say that they're being ironic, that it's supposed to be funny that women are turning a word used to dehumanize them into a badge of pride.

If you don't like the slut walks, then you just don't get the hilarity of women debasing themselves in the name of empowerment.

OK, the early feminists -- from whom the imposters ruining the movement claim to descend -- did manage to turn the pejorative "suffragette," coined to mock the seekers of equality, into a positive word. But a name that meant to mock is different than a word meant to dehumanize.

Here's a prediction: Feminists will no sooner turn "slut" into a positive word outside their ever-shrinking bubble than African-Americans who call each other the "N-word" have taken away the sting of that dehumanizing epithet. Some words should be retired for good.

And many gays may now march proudly as "queer" -- but plenty still bristle when an outsider uses the word. That's unlikely to change, considering the original intent of it.

Sex-positive feminist icon Erica Jong presciently told writer Ariel Levy in 2003: "I was standing in the shower the other day, picking up my shampoo. It's called 'Dumb Blonde.' I thought, '30 years ago you could not have sold this.' I think we have lost consciousness of the way our culture demeans women. Let's not kid ourselves that this is liberation."

Yes, please, and let's not pretend that women holding "slut walks" is a step forward for womankind or will in any way change the treatment of rape victims.

While the so-called feminists are tarting up themselves to reclaim a vile, misogynist word, perhaps the rest of us should fight to reclaim the word "feminism" and return it to its roots of working for true equality.

If we leave it to this gang, we're screwed.

Read more: