No Consequences an Invitation to Police-Thugs

From the horse's mouth:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/06/i-was-a-st-louis-cop-my-peers-were-racist-and-violent-and-theres-only-one-fix/?tid=trending_strip_5

Markets Soaring Also Preceeded Past Crashes...

Rape Culture a Crock of Shit

Study that concluded 1 in 4 women have been raped was TOTALLY debunked. Facts do not get reported in the media anymore, just sensationalism.

Rolling Stone's Reputation Thrown Out with the Trash

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/10/rolling-stones-uva-rape-story-just-took

"...with Rolling Stone editor Sean Woods' initial claim that "I’m satisfied that [the perpetrators] exist and are real. We knew who they were."

[JB] So a girl who wanted some attention, fabricated a story, slandered an entire fraternity (I'm no fan of frats, either), and nearly got a quasi-fictitious man thrown in jail. Every man on campus should thank her. If she had merely picked a different name, one man on campus could be headed to jail right now or even had his reputation ruined (wouldn't be the first time). I'm guessing "Jackie" here had sex she didn't mean to have, but like so many girls, didn't know how to stop it. She was traumatized by this. Maybe she even feared for her reputation (if her partner bragged to his frat buddies), so she spread this wild story to beat him to the punch.

Then she tried to withdraw the story and Rolling Stone went with it anyway? BRILLIANT, RS! WTF were you thinking?!?!?! 

Her friends, who were supposedly pricks worried about their own rep, came clean and ole' Jackie was left high and dry, surrounded by only her lies. Whups.

Its sad, because I do feel bad for Jackie, but that only goes so far. She committed slander, and libel and THOSE are actual civil offenses she should be held accountable for.

Frats, I worry, are filled with a pack of hormonal boys hellbent on sexual conquest (they're 18-21 for chrissake). Ladies, if you go to a frat, know that the guys are cruising FOR SEX ONLY. Forget any relationship bullshit. In short, stay away from them, I don't care how awesome their parties are.

Here's the timeline, according to the friends:

The three friends said that Jackie soon began talking about a handsome junior from chemistry class who had a crush on her and had been asking her out on dates.
Intrigued, Jackie’s friends got his phone number from her and began exchanging text messages with the mysterious upperclassman. He then raved to them about “this super smart hot,” freshman who shared his love of the band Coheed and Cambria, according to the texts, which were provided to The Post. ...
Jackie told her three friends that she accepted the upperclassman’s invitation for a dinner date on Friday Sept. 28, 2012.
Curious about Jackie’s date, the friends said that they failed to locate the student on a U-Va. database and social media. Andy, Cindy and Randall all said they never met the student in person. Before Jackie’s date, the friends said that they became suspicious that perhaps they hadn’t really been in contact with the chemistry student at all.
U-Va. officials told The Post that no student by the name Jackie provided to her friends as her date and attacker in 2012 had ever enrolled at the university. Randall provided The Post with pictures that Jackie’s purported date had sent of himself by text message in 2012.
The Post identified the person in the pictures and learned that his name does not match the one Jackie provided to friends in 2012. In an interview, the man said that he was Jackie’s high school classmate but that he “never really spoke to her.”
The man said that he was never a U-Va. student and is not a member of any fraternity. Additionally, the man said that he had not visited Charlottesville in at least six years and that he was in another state participating in an athletic event during the weekend of Sept. 28, 2012.

The Problem With Fallacious Arguments

Is that some intelligent people will notice.

#1, immigrants vote OVERWHELMINGLY for the very political party the president is a part of. So he has conducted a self-serving act for himself and his party while cutting out the other representatives elected by much of America?

#2, The President's mother immigrated from Kenya to Hawaii (in all likelihood AFTER he was born), and she had practically nothing; she and her husband had split up. Now her son says women like her should be granted, magically, full citizenship, and be given everything she might need - food stamps, shelter, health care, etc.. Its too late for that, Mr. President, and its not your singular right to go "saving the "helpless" women."


Note the video author specifically states open boarders are not the problem, open boarders PLUS a MASSIVE welfare state funded by trillions of taxpayer dollars cannot stand, as you cannot know who is coming to America to work hard and who is coming just to milk the system (live off your tax dollars). And remember, states like California are struggling with bankruptcy, in part, due to their ultra-lax attitude towards Mexicans coming into California and milking the social welfare state - and that was additionally confirmed to me by... a Mexican immigrant!

Bill Cosby: Indicative of All Hollywood

I'm no Bill Cosby apologist, but I think people are taking away the wrong message from his scenario, which is that he basically kept a harem of young women, and many of these women went along with it, it seems. Why!?!? Because THAT IS HOW MUCH OF HOLLYWOOD FUNCTIONS.

Now, I wish that NONE of the women had gone along with it, and that they had all kicked the guy in the groin and stormed off. That said, if a big-shot, rich actor has his personal assistant get you, a young, sexy woman, a room connected to his on a long trip, and Bill is "helping your career," whilst you give him..... well nothing, what do you think is going on!?!? This man IS NOT YOUR DAD and has no responsibility to act like him. So keep your eyes open to what's going on.

Secondly, much of Hollywood is DRUNK with money, power, control, and influence. It is ANOTHER WORLD. Sex is often used as payment or compensation for others helping your career or pushing your name to the top of the list. This is DISGUSTING, and I am APPALLED. This is so pervasive in Hollywood that I'm sure Bill Cosby is a little stunned at WHY HE IS BEING SINGLED OUT for doing what so many others continue to do every day, year-round.

They key takeaway here is that Hollywood has become BIZARRO-WORLD; bent, twisted, crooked, ass-backwards liberal mecca for the rich, powerful and corrupt (Hollywood movies even hint at this culture of sexual-favor in their own movies!). There are even rumors of pedophiles (with money and positions of power) swarming to the place to take advantage of the ultra-lax lifestyle and culture while authorities look the other way with their hand out for a cut of the river of Hollywood money rolling in.... I have no problem judging Bill Cosby as a exploiter of women, but I'd rather people focused on the TWISTED, SICK CULTURE in which this is made allowable for so long.

Also, the women (their careers be damned) should've come forward MUCH SOONER and demanded he be charged with gross sexual misconduct at a BARE MINIMUM. And remember what sort of filth is being done, circulated, and covered-up in trashy, bizzaro-world Hollywood, a hangout of slaves and their twisted Masters.

Ultimate Comparison: Lazy Woman vs. Constructive Woman

You are responsible for your own happiness. If you are not happy, it is your responsibility to do something about it.

Best example I've ever heard of it, from both sides, here:
Also, LISTEN UP, LADIES, if you hear yourself expecting dinner, big wedding, house, car, etc.,  you better be prepared to give - and give and give and give. Marriage is an exchange, not male slavery.



My one difference with the author of this video is that many women only want to work hard on raising their family - tending to the kids, housework, etc., and that's fine. That IS working hard. But if that is the case, then these women need to DIAL DOWN their expectations. Its very hard these days for a man to make the salary of TWO people. So if he is doing that, you need to BEND OVER BACKWARDS for the guy because he's probably killing himself day-in, day-out to make that kind of money.... Also, spending all of that money is not your right, so quit obsessing over every little material knick-knack you find.

The Sexodus: Why All the "Good Men" Have Gone Away

Best part of this article first:

In Part 2, we'll meet some of the men who have "checked out," given up on sex and relationships and sunk into solitary pursuits or alcohol-fuelled lad culture. And we'll discover that the real victims of modern feminism are, of course, women themselves, who have been left lonelier and less satisfied than they have ever been.

The Sexodus, Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society

13764

41

913

by Milo Yiannopoulos 4 Dec 2014, 3:34 AM PDT 2009 post a comment

"My generation of boys is f**ked," says Rupert, a young German video game enthusiast I've been getting to know over the past few months. "Marriage is dead. Divorce means you're screwed for life. Women have given up on monogamy, which makes them uninteresting to us for any serious relationship or raising a family. That's just the way it is. Even if we take the risk, chances are the kids won't be ours. In France, we even have to pay for the kids a wife has through adulterous affairs. 

"In school, boys are screwed over time and again. Schools are engineered for women. In the US, they force-feed boys Ritalin like Skittles to shut them up. And while girls are favoured to fulfil quotas, men are slipping into distant second place.
"Nobody in my generation believes they're going to get a meaningful retirement. We have a third or a quarter of the wealth previous generations had, and everyone's fleeing to higher education to stave off unemployment and poverty because there are no jobs.
"All that wouldn't be so bad if we could at least dull the pain with girls. But we're treated like paedophiles and potential rapists just for showing interest. My generation are the beautiful ones," he sighs, referring to a 1960s experiment on mice that supposedly predicted a grim future for the human race.
After overpopulation ran out of control, the female mice in John Calhoun's "mouse universe" experiment stopped breeding, and the male mice withdrew from the company of others entirely, eating, sleeping, feeding and grooming themselves but doing little else. They had shiny coats, but empty lives.
"The parallels are astounding," says Rupert.

*

Never before in history have relations between the sexes been so fraught with anxiety, animosity and misunderstanding. To radical feminists, who have been the driving force behind many tectonic societal shifts in recent decades, that's a sign of success: they want to tear down the institutions and power structures that underpin society, never mind the fall-out. Nihilistic destruction is part of their road map.
But, for the rest of us, the sight of society breaking down, and ordinary men and women being driven into separate but equal misery, thanks to a small but highly organised group of agitators, is distressing. Particularly because, as increasing numbers of social observers are noticing, an entire generation of young people—mostly men—are being left behind in the wreckage of this social engineering project.
Social commentators, journalists, academics, scientists and young men themselves have all spotted the trend: among men of about 15 to 30 years old, ever-increasing numbers are checking out of society altogether, giving up on women, sex and relationships and retreating into pornography, sexual fetishes, chemical addictions, video games and, in some cases, boorish lad culture, all of which insulate them from a hostile, debilitating social environment created, some argue, by the modern feminist movement.
You can hardly blame them. Cruelly derided as man-children and crybabies for objecting to absurdly unfair conditions in college, bars, clubs and beyond, men are damned if they do and damned if they don't: ridiculed as basement-dwellers for avoiding aggressive, demanding women with unrealistic expectations, or called rapists and misogynists merely for expressing sexual interest.
Jack Rivlin is editor-in-chief of student tabloid media start-up The Tab, a runaway success whose current strap-line reads: "We'll stop writing it when you stop reading it." As the guiding intelligence behind over 30 student newspapers, Rivlin is perhaps the best-placed person in the country to observe this trend in action. And he agrees that the current generation of young men find it particularly difficult to engage with women.
"Teenage boys always have been useless with girls, but there's definitely a fear that now being well-intentioned isn't enough, and you can get into trouble just for being clumsy," he says. "For example, leaning in for a kiss might see you branded a creep, rather than just inept."
The new rules men are expected to live by are never clearly explained, says Rivlin, leaving boys clueless and neurotic about interacting with girls. "That might sound like a good thing because it encourages men to take the unromantic but practical approach of asking women how they should behave, but it causes a lot of them to just opt out of the game and retreat to the sanctuary of their groups of lads, where being rude to women gets you approval, and you can pretty much entirely avoid one-on-one socialising with the opposite sex."
"There are also a lot of blokes who ignore women because they are scared and don't know how to act. It goes without saying that boys who never spend any time alone with women are not very good at relationships."
Rivlin has noticed the increased dependence on substances, normally alcohol, that boys are using to calm their nerves. "I've heard a lot of male students boast about never having experienced sober sex," he says. "They're obviously scared, which is natural, but they would be a lot less scared and dysfunctional if they understood 'the rules.'"
The result? "A lot of nice but awkward young men are opting out of approaching women because there is no opportunity for them to make mistakes without suffering worse embarrassment than ever."
Most troublingly, this effect is felt more acutely among poorer and less well educated communities, where the package of support resources available to young men is slight. At my alma mater, the University of Cambridge, the phenomenon barely registers on the radar, according to Union society president Tim Squirrell.
"I don't think I've really noticed a change recently," he says. "This year has seen the introduction of mandatory consent workshops for freshers, which I believe is probably a good thing, and there's been a big effort by the Women's Campaign in particular to try and combat lad culture on campus.
The atmosphere here is the same as it was a year ago - mostly nerdy guys who are too afraid to approach anyone in the first place, and then a smaller percentage who are confident enough to make a move. Obviously women have agency too, and they approach men in about the same numbers as they do elsewhere. There certainly haven't been any stories in [campus newspaper] The Tab about a sex drought on campus."

"I think that people are probably having as much sex as ever," he adds. At Cambridge, of course, that may not mean much, and for a variety of socioeconomic and class-based reasons the tribes at Oxford and Cambridge are somewhat insulated from the male drop-out effect.
But even at such a prestigious university with a largely middle- and upper-class population, those patronising, mandatory "consent" classes are still being implemented. Squirrell, who admits to being a feminist with left-of-centre politics, thinks they're a good idea. But academics such as Camille Paglia have been warning for years that "rape drives" on campus put women at greater risk, if anything.
Women today are schooled in victimhood, taught to be aggressively vulnerable and convinced that the slightest of perceived infractions, approaches or clumsy misunderstandings represents "assault," "abuse" or "harassment." That may work in the safe confines of campus, where men can have their academic careers destroyed on the mere say-so of a female student.
But, according to Paglia, when that women goes out into the real world without the safety net of college rape committees, she is left totally unprepared for the sometimes violent reality of male sexuality. And the panics and fear-mongering are serving men even more poorly. All in all, education is becoming a miserable experience for boys.

*

In schools today across Britain and America, boys are relentlessly pathologised, as academics were warning as long ago as 2001. Boyishness and boisterousness have come to be seen as "problematic," with girls' behaviour a gold standard against which these defective boys are measured. When they are found wanting, the solution is often drugs.
One in seven American boys will be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) at some point in their school career. Millions will be prescribed a powerful mood stabiliser, such as Ritalin, for the crime of being born male. The side effects of these drugs can be hideous and include sudden death.
Meanwhile, boys are falling behind girls academically, perhaps because relentless and well-funded focus has been placed on girls' achievement in the past few decades and little to none on the boys who are now achieving lower grades, fewer honors, fewer degrees and less marketable information economy skills. Boys' literacy, in particular, is in crisis throughout the West. We've been obsessing so much over girls, we haven't noticed that boys have slipped into serious academic trouble.
So what happened to those boys who, in 2001, were falling behind girls at school, were less likely to go to college, were being given drugs they did not need and whose self-esteem and confidence issues haven't just been ignored, but have been actively ridiculed by the feminist Establishment that has such a stranglehold on teaching unions and Left-leaning political parties?
In short: they grew up, dysfunctional, under-served by society, deeply miserable and, in many cases, entirely unable to relate to the opposite sex. It is the boys who were being betrayed by the education system and by culture at large in such vast numbers between 1990 and 2010 who represent the first generation of what I call the sexodus, a large-scale exit from mainstream society by males who have decided they simply can't face, or be bothered with, forming healthy relationships and participating fully in their local communities, national democracies and other real-world social structures.  
A second sexodus generation is gestating today, potentially with even greater damage being done to them by the onset of absurd, unworkable, prudish and downright misandrist laws such as California's "Yes Means Yes" legislation—and by third-wave feminism, which dominates newspapers like the Guardian and new media companies like Vox and Gawker, but which is currently enjoying a hysterical last gasp before women themselves reject it by an even greater margin than the present 4 out of 5 women who say they want nothing to do with the dreaded f-word.

*

The sexodus didn't arrive out of nowhere, and the same pressures that have forced so many millennials out of society exert pressure on their parent's generation, too. One professional researcher in his late thirties, about whom I have been conversing on this topic for some months, puts it spicily: "For the past, at least, 25 years, I've been told to do more and more to keep a woman. But nobody's told me what they're doing to keep me.
"I can tell you as a heterosexual married male in management, who didn’t drop out of society, the message from the chicks is: 'It's not just preferable that you should fuck off, but imperative. You must pay for everything and make everything work; but you yourself and your preferences and needs can fuck off and die.'"
Women have been sending men mixed messages for the last few decades, leaving boys utterly confused about what they are supposed to represent to women, which perhaps explains the strong language some of them use when describing their situation. As the role of breadwinner has been taken away from them by women who earn more and do better in school, men are left to intuit what to do, trying to find a virtuous mean between what women say they want and what they actually pursue, which can be very different things.
Men say the gap between what women say and what they do has never been wider. Men are constantly told they should be delicate, sensitive fellow travellers on the feminist path. But the same women who say they want a nice, unthreatening boyfriend go home and swoon over simple-minded, giant-chested, testosterone-saturated hunks in Game of Thrones. Men know this, and, for some, this giant inconsistency makes the whole game look too much like hard work. Why bother trying to work out what a woman wants, when you can play sports, masturbate or just play video games from the comfort of your bedroom?
Jack Donovan, a writer based in Portland who has written several books on men and masculinity, each of which has become a cult hit, says the phenomenon is already endemic among the adult population. "I do see a lot of young men who would otherwise be dating and marrying giving up on women," he explains, "Or giving up on the idea of having a wife and family. This includes both the kind of men who would traditionally be a little awkward with women, and the kind of men who aren't awkward with women at all.
"They've done a cost-benefit analysis and realised it is a bad deal. They know that if they invest in a marriage and children, a woman can take all of that away from them on a whim. So they use apps like Tinder and OK Cupid to find women to have protected sex with and resign themselves to being 'players,' or when they get tired of that, 'boyfriends.'"
He goes on: "Almost all young men have attended mandatory sexual harassment and anti-rape seminars, and they know that they can be fired, expelled or arrested based more or less on the word of any woman. They know they are basically guilty until proven innocent in most situations."
Donovan lays much of the blame for the way men feel at the door of the modern feminist movement and what he sees as its disingenuousness. "The young men who are struggling the most are conflicted because they are operating under the assumption that feminists are arguing in good faith," he says, "When in fact they are engaged in a zero-sum struggle for sexual, social, political and economic status—and they're winning.
"The media now allows radical feminists to frame all debates, in part because sensationalism attracts more clicks than any sort of fair or balanced discourse. Women can basically say anything about men, no matter how denigrating, to a mix of cheers and jeers."
That has certainly been the experience of several loose coalitions of men in the media recently, whether scientists outraged by feminist denunciations of Dr Matt Taylor, or video gamers campaigning under the banner of press ethics who saw their movement smeared as a misogynistic hate group by mendacious, warring feminists and so-called "social justice warriors".
Donovan has views on why it has been so easy for feminists to triumph in media battles. "Because men instinctively want to protect women and play the hero, if a man writes even a tentative criticism of women or feminism, he's denounced by men and women alike as some kind of extremist scoundrel. The majority of "men's studies" and "men's rights" books and blogs that aren't explicitly pro-feminist are littered with apologies to women. 
"Books like The Myth of Male Power and sites like A Voice for Men are favourite boogeymen of feminists, but only because they call out feminists' one-sided hypocrisy when it comes to pursing 'equality.'"
Unlike modern feminists, who are driving a wedge between the sexes, Men's Rights Activists "actually seem to want sexual equality," he says. But men's studies authors and male academics are constantly tip-toeing around and making sure they don't appear too radical. Their feminine counterparts have no such forbearance, of course, with what he calls "hipster feminists," such as the Guardian's Jessica Valenti parading around in t-shirts that read: "I BATHE IN MALE TEARS."
"I'm a critic of feminism," says Donovan. "But I would never walk around wearing a shirt that says, "I MAKE WOMEN CRY." I'd just look like a jerk and a bully."
It's the contention of academics, sociologists and writers like Jack Donovan that an atmosphere of relentless, jeering hostility to men from entitled middle-class media figures, plus a few confused male collaborators in the feminist project, has been at least partly responsible for a generation of boys who simply don't want to know.
In Part 2, we'll meet some of the men who have "checked out," given up on sex and relationships and sunk into solitary pursuits or alcohol-fuelled lad culture. And we'll discover that the real victims of modern feminism are, of course, women themselves, who have been left lonelier and less satisfied than they have ever been.
Some names have been changed.

I love this lady

Because she has a brain and she's using it, unlike the other 99% of female Americans.

I swear I cannot find one poor woman who can cut through all the soundbites/twisting/modern-media-bullshit like this woman can. When I ask women anything at all about rape/living as a modern woman/gender relations, I get some kind of save-the-poor-young-lambs bullshit speech that revolves around women as having zero responsibility and every man being an unstable predatory alpha-male.

Read this entire article right now:

http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/

The absolute morons over at Salon.com hate her (more like cannot comprehend her), so you know she's solid gold.

Parody of Potty-Mouth Video - 5x more Likes than Dislikes

Looks like some other people noticed the psycho-feminazis' horrible use of small children. And the Likes and Dislikes tell the story here.

According to Feminists, this is a great way to use innocent children. Almost 10k responses and 5.3k were thumbs down. So 4.3k feminazis watched this video.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying women should be belittled or minimized just because they're women (does anyone ever say that?), but this is nothing more than the bitter offspring of some angry, non-stereotypical women going batshit crazy and using these innocent children who almost certainly don't understand what it is they're saying.

Want to rage against the princess stereotype?

Fine. Go ahead. But don't use children to do it.

And by the way, plenty of girls like princesses. So what does this say to them? That they're substandard jerks?!!?

Calm down feminiazis. It's ok for girls to be girly. I've got 4 buddies with daughters and every one is a girly girl - no one is apologizing for that fact and no one needs to.

Young Black Men Doing Better? Reverse It.

Changed education to cut out corrupt, entrenched, underperforming teachers and losing classrooms?

Young, black men going to college?

Better change it then.

Radical Feminist Appalled Men Give Woman (Some) Crude Compliments

In reponse to this....http://libertyviral.com/uppity-white-liberal-upset-about-being-catcalled-by-minorities-in-nyc/#axzz3JGjzmeym

in which a very shapely woman walks around NYC (full of 4 million men) in tight clothes FOR 10 HOURS and gets a handful of sketchy men to catcall her... (otherwise known as 'entrapment'). [Men can be heard saying such terrible things such as “how are you this morning,” and “have a nice evening.”  Monsters!]

...comes this below, in which the Libertarian Republic tries to figure out just what the Hell was SO horrible about the video.


 
News Flash: there are some jerks out there, and they'll make some lewd comments if your girl parts are sticking out. Live with it. Or wear clothes that aren't so damn tight. Men are men and they have hormones. Some are rude. Hormones plus rudeness gets the what you see in the video (over 10 hours). Most of the men in the video are genuinely complimentary and they don't stalk or stare or do anything to make the woman fearful. 

The moron feminist in question states "We don't put up with harrassment  in school at home, at work, so why should we have to put up with it on the street." We don't have gangs or prisons at home, school, or work either - notice the point there? The street is not school, home, or work. There are strangers out there. You don't know them. Some were raised on broken, drug-addled homes and the boys raised there grew up to be pigs to women. The girls grew up to be white trash. Such is life. 95 years of liberal experiments to snuff out these broken homes have not worked. What do you suggest be done next? 

Here's an idea. If you are so disgusted by random men boy-jerks saying lewd things to you, meet a nice, complimentary man and get married; then you won't wander NYC for 10 hours looking for something to do. Oh wait, that's right. You've decided ALL MEN are pigs and therefore unworthy of anything but your snide, disgusted, juvenile attempts at exposing them as harassing pigs! If you dig for worms, long enough, you will find some. Don't complain when you do. 

I'm sorry there are some jerk-boys out there, but nothing will ever get rid of them, except of course more intact families with fathers, but the Feminists outlawed those a long time ago, so be prepared for things to get worse, not better. 

Be sure to thank your local N.O.W. chapter.

Man Shoots Intruder Coming Through Window at 5:30 a.m., Gets Death Penalty

Why? Because the intruder he shot was a cop attempting to, are you ready for this, SERVE A SEARCH WARRANT.

Let's summarize: there are good cops, great cops, below average cops and morons. File this under morons. The cop serving the warrant was an 18 year veteran. Someone please tell me how it makes practical sense to BREAK IN - yes, that's what they were doing, to deliver a search warrant?

The police did not knock on the door. Did not scream "POLICE, OPEN UP!" Nothing. Instead, in the early morning, when people are disoriented from sleep, they go in through a window? That's called breaking and entering. Its a crime. Its illegal. A search warrant does not give the police the right to break in. They must, BY LAW, give a copy of the search warrant to the resident notifying them of their rights as well as proving - via the warrant - that A MAGISTRATE has seen fit to issue a warrant giving the police the right to enter your home against your objection. This is always done calmly and deliberately because you are ENTERING SOMEONE'S RESIDENCE. GET IT? ITS NOT THE COP'S HOUSE. They can't just bust in the door and start screaming at people, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT. The only time a no-knock "raid" is considered justified is when there is a house of KNOWN felons who are KNOWN to carry weapons and even then the cops are on thin legal ice.

Now, the police have the right to defend themselves, so they often serve search warrants armed, with multiple cops, and, IF CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT IT, a S.W.A.T team; so again, if a house of 15 men known to carry arms is to be searched, SWAT would most likely come along to serve the warrant, its only prudent.

THE HOUSE IN THIS CASE HELD JUST ONE MAN. ONE. MAN. This did not require the police SWAT team - and their automatic rifles - at all. AT. ALL. They could've simply served the warrant DURING THE GODDAMN DAY! Hello? Are they morons? Why serve a warrant at 5:30 a.m.?!?!? I would be scared shitless if someone knocked on the door at that hour NEVERMIND came in through a bloody WINDOW! You go in someone's window, at night, Hell, even if you know them, be prepared to be assaulted. You will scare and startle someone and that can only instill them with fear, which leads to defense of their bodily person, something the U.S. CONSTITUTION PROMISES IS THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. PERIOD. THE END.

The cops BROKE IN to a SINGLE man's home, carrying guns, and they were shot at. GEE, NO KIDDING! WTF is so wrong with knocking on the door? And to top it off, THERE WERE NO DRUGS IN THE RESIDENCE! So they received a FALSE TIP that the man possessed drugs (not a really scary crime, if you ask me; unless he's got 50 kilos of cocaine or something, why would he be considered dangerous? Someone with a few grams of a banned substance is planning to use it themselves in all likelihood - what the Hell about that requires a SWAT team?), and then broke into the home and discovered no drugs were there. Uhhhhh, that equates to THE POLICE FUCKED UP, and since they broke into the home without serving the warrant FIRST, they have broken the law and should be sent to jail - YES, JAIL - no one, NO ONE, is above the law, NOT EVER. If the police get cut a little slack because of the difficulty of exercising caution, yet being exposed to attack, I'll understand, but this is something else entirely.

And what do we see? We see a court system that is MARRIED TO THE POLICE. The judges, prosecutors and police ARE ALL THE SAME THING. No prosecutor is charging the police with a crime, no judge is (yet) throwing out the charge against the man whose home was broken into! This case SHOULDN'T EVEN MAKE IT TO TRIAL. There is a clear justification of a man defending his person and home, AND THAT'S THAT! If the police don't want to get shot at, they should not BREAK AND ENTER A HOME without a warrant to BREAK AND ENTER (there is no such thing) - they have a SEARCH warrant, which they FAILED TO SERVE, so they are simply intruders after that. The resident of the home can't see or hear that THE POLICE ARE BREAKING IN THROUGH A WINDOW! And why would he think the police were breaking in, after all, that's illegal!!!!

That the police would even ATTEMPT to break-in to such a non-threatening home with one man in it, IS ITSELF WILDLY CONCERNING! There is NO CAUSE for the police to do that, especially in this case! This "bad guy" was one man home alone, asleep, and not in possession of any drugs!!!

Further, the REAL risk here is that people - law obeying citizens, stop cooperating with the police! Regular citizens could, justifiably, become AFRAID of the police and see them as assailants and NOT protectors! WHAT THEN!?!??! Then the police NEVER catch the bad guys because no one will testify as a witness or give a statement about a crime they have information about! So MORE bad guys go lose. Further, and a BIG ISSUE BEING MISSED BY ALL, is that if the police take any old tip from any "informant," without confirming it with their own research and reconnaissance, then THIS BECOMES THE SALEM WITCH TRIALS - like what is happening in Iraq. Have a business competitor you want to get rid of? Have a rival to the girl you want? JUST GIVE THE POLICE A TIP THEY POSSESS DRUGS! The police kick in the door to "serve a warrant" and a shootout takes place with the "accused perpetrator" (who is innocent) either shot, or accused of attempted murder/murder of a police officer!

This is not new. It is WELL known that members or family members of drug gangs tip off the police to hit rival gangs who possess narcotics or weapons, illegally. Its just a method to get rid of your competition.

Well, at this point, EVERYONE IS BEING TREATED LIKE A VIOLENT FELON/GANG MEMBER, REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL PAST RECORD!

Scary times.

How Bad (and False) is the "MAN IS BIG, EVIL MONSTER, WOMAN IS SMALL, HELPLESS CHILD" Narrative?

From the ultra-feminist The Guardian, a British rag that claims to be progressive and enlightened but usually just pushes the stereotypical crap about ALL men being monsters and perpetrators, comes this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/11/kelly-brook-punching-two-men-jason-statham-danny-cipriani-male-victims-violence?CMP=fb_gu

This article is just FULL of examples of the false modern-media narrative about domestic violence. It highlights one especially vulgar example, Kelly Brook, who struck not one, but two ex-boyfriends, then laughed about it in an interview (imagine a man doing that? He'd castrated as a "savage woman beater" on the front page news the very next day) and declared no biggie, she'll just keep moving on - yet another fine example of an emotionally damaged female pretending to act blaze and powerful about her relationships, when bouncing from alpha male to alpha male has clearly and irrevocably shaken her faith in herself as a woman able to retain a man as well as her ability to trust a man not to hurt her. Her pain translated to such rage, she struck two men - both of whom could've retaliated, but who instead ran away and failed to report the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE they suffered.

The only disappointment about the article is, of course, the comments section, which if full of "I am a big strong man so when old girlfriends hit me, it was ok, and not really abuse [sic]." Masterful job of missing the article's point, oh educated public. Violence is violence, regardless of gender. And when one partner hits another, bad things happen, including retaliation, sooner or later, and in some cases, justifiably so.

The bright spot in the comments come from the men who were beaten and scratched my female partners and called the police only to be ARRESTED THEMSELVES. You can't make this stuff up; throwing a big fat spotlight on what is a total farce of a DV policy. The DV policy in the western world is any-accused-of-DV-man-is-a-free-lunch for police to pad their arrest numbers, for lawyers to get a paying client, for more criminal cases to justify more judges, more state control of the family, more state employees, more tax dollars, more DV revenue, etc. etc. etc..

People who are part of this for-profit system will tell you from their own mouths they see injustice committed every. single. day. and are helpless to stop it or interfere with it for fear of being castigated a "misogynist, a woman-hater," [or conversely a man-lover? a modern-day "nigger-lover?!?!"]. Every society has its made-up villains. In the early 1900s the myth was the ravenous, violent negro who was going to rape the white women, and murder and plunder. Then came the managed ghettos in housing projects, the absurd drug laws making possession of mere grams of banned substances a 10 year prison sentence - a victimless crime with a mandatory minimum of 10 years?!?! These policies incarcerated 10% of the total African American male population - absolutely absurd figures. And today its the myth of the raping, violent, monstrous young alpha male, ignoring women's feelings, beating them and raping them at will with no consequence.

Ask anyone off the street what the raging epidemic of our times are, crime-wise, and they'll croon Domestic Violence - the men are abusing women. Ask ANY politician, esp. any Democrat, and they'll SCREAM DV, knowing that it resonates with their female voters and disillusioned, self-hating male voters, hoping it'll buy them a reelection, yet knowing damn well that no amount of laws will prevent dysfunctional men and women from engaging in physical conflict, something anyone with rational thought will understand, and something statistically proven by study after study.

But the modern media and its low ratings, the politicians and their ULTRA low ratings, the billion dollar National Organization for Women with NO LEGITIMATE battles left to fight, all have a message and an agenda and they will cram it down your throats no matter how little sense it makes.

We can only hope FACTS and REASON win out in the end. In the meantime, listen to all the lonely young women whine about how men avoid them like the plague....

Don't Rape? Thanks for Stopping Me! Ok, when do Don't Murder! Don't Steal! and Don't Commit Arson! come out?

Because all any (disturbed, possibly psychopathic, violent, drug-addled) person needs is a pamphlet to prevent them from raping someone!?!?!

Is this supposed to be funny? Because its logically comical. Rapists don't read pamphlets only days or moments before committing a rape.

I really have no idea what they will do, I'm not one, but from what I understand Rape is NOT about sex, its about POWER and people who are after power don't take advice from random posters begging them not to do something (anything).

Further this poster is wildly offensive. Don't put drugs in women's drinks? What? Is there a rash of that happening? I would submit there is not, but further I would submit that when you go to a loud noisy club full of strangers you ought not to be taking drinks from sketchy looking guys as a general rule; also as a general rule, you should not leave your drink unattended. Never, ever, ever go home with a man from a club. All any DECENT man wants when he buys you a drink is the chance to talk to you and ask for your phone number if he likes you. When the Hell did sex - THAT NIGHT - become involved? What a ridiculous escalation! What is this, the middle of WWII and people are all going to die tomorrow? Come now.

Further, statistics prove this is a joke. 1/3rd of all women on dating web-sites have sex with men they meet online on the very first date. Don't believe me? Look it up.

How sad is that?

Fellas, you don't have to spike anyone's drink. Just post an online profile showing you are a bad ass alpha male and take the girl out to dinner; now granted many of those online people are good matches and "hit it off" on the first date, but ladies, listen up - if you sleep with us on the first date, a little part of us, no matter how small, will lose respect for you and that will never come completely back.

And don't forget, sex means children. Don't give me your bullshit about birth control and family planning. Sex is mother nature's way of making children so EXPECT to get pregnant. Maybe not the first time, maybe not the second, but eventually, you will (and then you will act surprised).

But wow, I'm SO GLAD we're not making any posters that say "Gee, maybe all this sex with people who will not become your spouse is A BAD IDEA in general ESP. for women. Studies have shown when women have more than JUST ONE sex partner before marriage (not unusual) her long time odds of divorce go up MARKEDLY, in some studies as much as 50%.

So if we want to help women (like help them avoid DIVORCE), why not post posters that tell them not to sleep with any man who doesn't want to get married!?!?!?

And oh, sleeping with your future lifelong husband brings your rape risk down to what..... zero?

Let's make sure we don't say things like "DON'T GET DRUNK AND KNOCK ON AN OVER-SEXED ATHLETE'S DOOR AT 2 AM" cuz you know, if that guy let's you in and you start slobbering all over him and turn him on and he starts having intercourse with you IT IS ALL HIS FAULT.

Grow up, already. Give the girls a break. They're half-drunk, half-awake, doped up on anti-depressants, overeducated on feminazi propaganda, following doctrine that fails them, chasing alpha males that use them, and they're sick, tired, lonely, and depressed.

Wake up and get serious about the truth. The girls are trained to be targets because they're told SO MANY LIES. Men are programmed for sex ladies. Demand lots of dates and rings and lifetime promises. Demand it because you're worth it. Demand it and you'll get it. Drink jungle punch at a frat party looking like a slut and start grinding on testosterone-filled young men on the dance floor and your odds for rape will skyrocket. TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR PERSONAL LIFE and NEVER put yourself in a bad, HIGH-RISK situation. Throwing some guy in jail for rape is TOO LATE; you've already been raped - ignore this dumb-ass poster and take every precaution you can to AVOID any and all situations that could get you sexually assaulted.

What's Next, Kicked Out of Life?

Now the video has surfaced of Ray Rice actually hitting his then fiance, something everyone knew he did...

And he has been:

1) Deleted from a video game
2) Fired from his job
3) Suspended by the league, indefinitely (he cannot get a job in his chosen profession, professional football, within the NFL)

Now bear in mind, that he hit someone OFF the field and has not been even CHARGED with a crime (the victim refused to press charges, and in fact married him shortly thereafter).

Also bear in mind that a man hitting a woman - who has not hit him, threatened him with harm, with a weapon, or anything else - is completely reprehensible. Ole' Ray needs to learn to bear hug if he thinks his fiance/wife is moving toward him in a threatening manner (and really she rather was if you see the video).

But the punishment does not fit the crime. It is NOT the place of society, NOT the place of your employer (even if your employer is the NFL), NOT the place of the police, and NOT the place of public opinion to render judgement on you and throw you out of work in lieu of any criminal CONVICTION of any kind.

Ray Rice, at present, is NOT a criminal. He has not been charged or convicted of anything. I wish his [now] wife DID press charges and ensure he was sent to jail, but then she knew she would lose out on all Ray Ray's money. And she wants Ray's money. That's why she married him. I don't suppose she married him to get beat up. Do you? She and Ray obviously have a dysfunctional relationship and both need a counselor, but again, I don't run their lives and neither do you. With Ray being fired and banned from football, wifey lost twice. She was struck, humiliated in public, and now could be headed to being flat broke because her assailant, her husband, is banned from earning a living at his entire profession. This is the woman we are all "helping." Maybe we better stop.

Its not should be no surprise that this woman is now lashing out and defending her husband, claiming society is punishing him far more than is warranted.

Normally, that would be laughable. This time it is not. The punishments that have been brought to bear on Ray Rice have far exceeded the crime. Slap your wife? Has she slapped you? Screamed at her? Her at you? All of those things are considered Domestic Violence. So you have no problem with your neighbor filming any such incident and showing it to your employer who could then fire you from your job and blackball you from YOUR ENTIRE PROFESSION so that you could never work in your chosen field... Right?

Oh but I'm nuts and this isn't a slippery slope..... Really? People have been convinced to let the law (which is already absurd) be surmounted still and punish individuals who are criminally guilty of.... nothing. You are now letting public opinion govern (and possibly destroy) your life...

***UPDATE*** Looks like I'm not the only one with a brain examining this issue....

Ray Rice: BOTH SIDES, EPIC FAIL

Everyone's screaming that football player Ray Rice, who allegedly knocked out his fiance, cold, and was caught on camera dragging her from an elevator, ought to receive more than a 2 game suspension.

No, he shouldn't.

He should spend a few years in jail, instead. The actual attack was not recorded. But a simple statement by his now, wife, and a medical examination of her face/jaw, would be plenty. And I can do better than that. Ray is an NFL-class athlete and extremely strong. If he hit her hard enough, he could literally kill her. I don't think you could make attempted murder stick, but assault with a deadly weapon would not be a stretch. A year or two in the cooler would change Ray's vision of acceptable violence.

The league, of course, to satisfy the screaming feminazis, instituted new "domestic violence" punishments. This will be an epic disaster.

Why?

If you have a domestic dispute with your wife or husband, does your job give you 6 weeks off without pay!?!?!? NO! It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR EMPLOYER! And you may very well know that YOU are partially responsible for pushing your husband/wife with the exact language you know would set them off, and you don't want to press charges. Because you don't need the police or your job to straighten you out, YOU NEED SOME DAMN COUNSELING AND SO DOES YOUR SPOUSE. The problem can be addressed without anyone losing their jobs or pay or going to jail.

So again, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE NFL DOING INVOLVED IN AN EMPLOYEE'S PERSONAL LIFE? And hey, NFL, if a woman working for a team kicked their spouse in the shin, screamed at him, and stormed off, would she be suspended without pay for weeks even if no legal charges were filed?

You know she wouldn't. I can even argue if the league chose to take action against her, she - or anyone in her place - could sue them for breach of contract, false suspension, etc.. There is a reason employment contracts do not include behavioral clauses about your marriage. WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR EMPLOYER!?!?!?

Its not the league's job to govern your personal life, or events related to it that happen AWAY FROM WORK.

Now, back to Ray Rice. I suspect (but do not know) his wife was breathing down his neck about something or perhaps even getting a bit physical with him and he snapped - Mrs. Rice (who married him 1 month after the incident), please take note of what not to say. With that said, Ray, you are a grown man, tell your fiance, you are furious and walk her back to her room, go get another room for yourself and cool off. Have a few drinks if you need to, turn on the t.v. and tell your fiance she's being given the night off to think about her words. That makes an impact on most people. Most women I've met would find that pretty jarring. Some people need the night off occasionally. Such is life.

Did the police investigate? Did Mrs. Rice refuse to press charges? If she refused to prosecute, there is not a whole lot the police can do.

And another thing MRS. RICE IS A BIG PART OF THIS PROBLEM. Yeah, you bet she is. She married the man that knocked her out?!?!?! IN GOD'S NAME, WHY!??! Press charges, walk away and start your life over. WTF. So when he hits her again, that's all his fault and everyone will demand his head. But who's the idiot who's staying with the man that beats her!?!? And don't give me this shit about a restraining order. She doesn't need one. SHE IS STAYING WITH HIM. She's is refusing to throw him in jail, refusing to leave him. Its not him stalking her and refusing to let her be. They are both hurting each other over and over again.

This woman needs some help. She's picking bad men and if she doesn't quit, she's going to wind up a lot worse than a few minutes in lights out. Ray? Ray's going to wind up in jail. Sooner or later, that's where he's headed if he doesn't get some help, and no one will be in a hurry to parole him back to a life that doesn't include NFL million$.

The NFL? They're not babysitters. And they have no authority to do the job of an individual or the police. They need to butt the fuck out, not find a way to insert themselves into their employee's private life and grant themselves powers and rights THEY DO NOT POSSESS.

Robin Williams: Ground to Dust Paying the Ex's

What the....? (Rape Case)

This is a post about rape according to the author, but honestly I'm not sure what to do with it.

How could anyone?

I take it we're all supposed to feel very hurt for the victim and feel her pain, but like many college to post-college aged girls, she doesn't seem to understand how rape OR CRIME works.

I'm terribly sorry this girl suffered this experience, it sounds like she's very scarred by it.

That said, as if we were jurors in a criminal case, we must put a label on what exactly occurred here. 

Let's get this straight first - this woman had sex that she regrets and she does say the word "no." She states this pretty clearly. Does the man hear her? Does she say it loudly or with any force at all? Does he take "no" to mean "not right now."? Is he just trying to push his luck a little hoping a little more foreplay will work (yes, men do this sometimes). I don't know, but the tone of her article is extremely submissive. She describes how she wanted to push and kick and scream and shove the man away - but she didn't. She asks "why are you doing this?" but I must (in trying to be impartial) ask, does the man know what she means by that? Does he think she's asking "Why are you having sex with me" (as that is the question he answers) when she means "why are you forcing yourself on me?"

Then she makes him breakfast the next day?

Are we to expect this man to know he did something wrong? For Chrissake he was rewarded! And men don't treat women right these days? No kidding!

I don't know why some women (girls, etc) feel as though they have to let the sex occur if they don't want it. That's what this girl did. She said "no" once and that's it. Let me tell you something reader, if someone was trying to have sex with me and I didn't want them to they would hear the word 'no' quite a few times followed by some serious head injuries. Its called self-defense. Furthermore, women are far from helpless little lambs. The female thigh and hip region is INCREDIBLY muscle-dense and powerful. Kicking, kneeing, biting, scratching, etc. These things make most men get the picture pretty quickly - proceed at your own peril. And just about every man out there, driven for sex or not, likes to keep his face intact. He also needs to know if you're being submissive or if you mean to accuse him of rape or not. Whispering "no" ONCE isn't much of a deterrent, and honestly its easily dismissed 15 minutes into foreplay by a turned on man. He's not going to slam on the brakes and ask you how you feel. Do you think he would've kept going if she said "you are raping me right now," and given him a shove that he could feel? Most men have an ego of some kind and practically none of us feel we need to rape anyone in order to have sex. Its an insult and an effective one. If a man takes loud "No's," and repeated physical abuse including scrapes and scratches and bruises and then TOTALLY OVERPOWERS the girl and forcibly penetrates her, THAT IS RAPE. PERIOD.

What I gather is that she wanted him to stop but didn't want to offend him or lose him as a boyfriend or potential boyfriend.

LADIES, IF YOU FEEL YOU ARE BEING RAPED YOU BETTER DAMN WELL RUN THAT RISK.

Rape is a class A felony, the same as murder and arson. It carries a prison sentence that can run 20+ years. If you accuse a man of rape you are likely sending him to jail for 20 years. YOU THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. Whispering "no" and then having sex with the guy is not the same as him pinning your arms down as you scream violently and prying your legs open to violently penetrate you against your will: THAT is full-on rape.

What's described in her post is sex she regrets at best and some grade of sexual misconduct at worst. She doesn't seem to be describing a violent sexual assault (that's what rape is!). When a "rape kit" is run, the victim is examined and physical injuries are discovered - vaginal bruising, tearing, etc.. Rape is a VIOLENT crime. I'm willing to bet this woman suffered NONE of those injuries, ergo no rape was committed. I wish I could've given her some words of encouragement before this happened and built up her self-esteem. That said, some guy wanting to share physical affection with a woman he things likes him very much and not receiving any real push-back, doesn't make me want to string him up in Sing Sing for 20 years.

And ladies, if you do not have enough confidence in yourself or a strong enough sense of self to stand up and tell a man no and knee him in the crotch if you don't want him to proceed, YOU OUGHT NOT TO BE IN A RELATIONSHIP AT ALL. Same for men: if you cannot stop when a woman says 'no' (louder than a mouse whisper, I hope), you should not be dating, period.

I address this posting more to the ladies because men have very strong sexual instincts, lower emotional I.Q.'s, and they typically look to women to tell them when to stop. I don't think girls today are conveying what they really mean; they are too damn scared of losing their boyfriend or potential boyfriend. How do I know women are not conveying their meaning enough? Because if they were, every accused rapist would have damaged testes and a broken nose. You know, SIGNS OF RESISTANCE from the victim. What is going on when the man accused of rape doesn't have a scratch on him? Is every rape victim drugged and tied up before they know what's happening? That sounds very unlikely to me.

What I see are lots of reports of cases of sex women regret. Recall ladies, MEN ARE PROGRAMMED, THROUGH NATURAL INSTINCT, BY MOTHER NATURE, TO INSEMINATE AS MANY WOMEN AS POSSIBLE SO THAT THEIR OFFSPRING HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF LIVING. I don't like this fact, I didn't give men this instinct, its not excuse for any man raping a woman, and I'm not demanding women sleep around to support mens' instincts. I'm saying women need to keep in mind, some men want to be in a long-term relationship with you and some just want to sleep with you. MOTHER NATURE IMBUED WOMEN WITH INTUITION AND SENSITIVE FEELINGS SO THEY COULD BETTER GAUGE WHICH ONE MEN ARE AFTER. Use your instincts ladies; don't sleep with a man just because he wants you to and don't even get in bed with a man who isn't talking very seriously about marriage after many months of dating and if this means you don't get laid until you meet your husband at 28 years of age, SO BE IT. Women who sleep with more than just TWO MEN begin to suffer higher rates of divorce later in life! It is in WOMEN'S best instincts to sleep with as few men as possible before marriage! Do the feminists tell you that? Or are they too busy demanding men reprogram themselves?

Women followed their instincts years ago and kept with only men serious about them and believe me while there were still incidents of misunderstands (and yes, even rapes), they were MUCH, MUCH LOWER than they are now. There was also a MUCH higher marriage rate, a MUCH lower divorce rate and a lot of alpha males who did not sleep around like they do today because most women could sniff out what they were after and TURNED THEM DOWN.

Take a lesson, girls. No girl should have sex she regrets and no girl should think twice before losing a boyfriend or potential boyfriend because he demanded sex she was not ready, willing, and able to give.

Do Not Talk to the Police

So many people WANT to help the local police; they want criminals caught, they want justice done.

But 10,000 Federal laws and arrest quotas are quickly turning us into the Soviet Union.

Listen to this man: