» Crime

PJM Lifestyle

Here’s Why Blacks Aren’t Voting Republican

Thursday, April 16th, 2015 - by Walter Hudson

Black Americans vote for Democrats 95% of the time. Republicans frequently argue that blacks should recognize the historic role which the Republican Party played in ending slavery, defeating Jim Crow, and fighting for civil rights.

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly demonstrates in the above clip why that narrative doesn’t connect with blacks. People care more about their present than their past. Ignoring the disproportionate impact that the drug war has had on blacks presents tone deafness to the black community.

O’Reilly claims there is no organized effort among law enforcement to hunt down black people. Fair enough. However, when blacks are four times as likey to be arrested for drug-related crimes despite using drugs at the same rate as whites, there’s clearly some degree of injustice inherent to the system.

That injustice emerges from the nature of drug laws, which prove inherently subjective in their enforcement. When a person is victimized, they call the police and solicit a response. No one calls the police when they produce, distribute, or use a drug. As a result, law enforcement pursue drug suspects informed by bias rather than complaint. That explains the racial disparity, not an explicit policy of “hunting,” but a vulnerability which enables biased enforcement.

Read bullet | 216 Comments »

Rich Woman Sentenced to 20 Years for Cheap Abortion

Friday, April 3rd, 2015 - by Rhonda Robinson


Pervi Patel, an Indiana woman, was sentenced Monday to 20 years in prison for not having a proper abortion.

According to the Chicago Tribune Patel opted for the convenience of abortifacient drugs from China, rather than seeking the assistance of a doctor. When the infant was born premature and still alive, the new mother left him on the floor to die, and then threw the baby in a trash can.

Judge Elizabeth Hurley took a moment to scold Patel for her actions at sentencing.

“You, Miss Patel, are an educated woman of considerable means. If you wished to terminate your pregnancy safely and legally, you could have done so,” Hurley said. “You planned a course of action and took matters into your hands and chose not to go to a doctor.”

Apparently, Miss Patel will be serving time in prison, not for killing her baby–but for doing it on the cheap.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock, Gunter Nezhoda

Read bullet | 14 Comments »

Are You Smarter Than the Average Psychopath?

Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 - by Audie Cockings

Screen Shot 2015-02-26 at 6.54.10 AM

The psychopath is the most fascinating of killers, inordinate individuals free from penitence, heedless to consequence: Jeffrey Dahmer and his English equivalent Dennis Nilson, Ted Bundy, the “Green River Killer,” the “Acid Bath Murderer,”… Barbosa… and of course Pedro Alonso Lopez, having the highest body count of the bunch, 300.

As a young girl, I vividly remember the 1984 murder of Stephanie Roper, a university student on break who was abducted, repeatedly raped, tortured, then killed and mutilated, just fifteen minutes from our home. Her murderers were at large then later apprehended after bragging about what they had done to the young woman.

At that time, families of violent crimes were kept from trials and disallowed a victim impact statement.  Consequently, Roper’s mother, Roberta Roper became a victims’ rights advocate and a key player in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004.

Psychopaths command more press then their less cunning, weaker-stomached cohorts. But are they brainy, calculating sordid executioners or simply unapologetic criminals with brain abnormalities previously mistaken for genius?

Last Saturday, I spent the day getting to know Rico, Frank J. Fleming’s main character in his recently released novel, Superego. I read it straight through.

Then I spent much of Sunday hyperanalyzing my reasons for finding Rico likable despite his selfish disdain for others, pitiless killing, and lack of compunction in his role as a hit man. I was laughing out loud, entirely occupied with Rico’s inner monologue. But me liking Rico, an obvious psychopath, was exceedingly worrisome.

Rico’s prodigious body count and austere appetite for combative prey vs. duck-in-a-barrel style killing was disturbing yet engrossing. And his lines, deployed with quick wit and a dry jocularity appealed to this self-professed Anglophile. But my own snickering prompted simultaneous guilt for finding tallied murder so entertaining. I was unabashedly rooting for Rico, a grouchy egotistical thirty-something loner and prideful intergalactic death machine. Does that make me a psychopath too?






a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.

A more simplistic definition of psychopath: One who may or may not know right from wrong, but either way doesn’t care.

Brain scans illustrate physical abnormalities and therefore differing thought processes for clinically diagnosed psychopaths. One psychiatrist describes symptoms as “having no brakes” when presented with an opportunity to get a brutality fix. Like a drunk to hooch.

But drunk drivers are held responsible for poor choices and accidental killing of an innocent unlike the psychopath who is deliberately cruel and kills for sport, the high achieved through inflicting slow death upon another.

Movies impart the truly disturbed as infinitely clever and conveniently charged with superhuman strength or Houdiniesque evasions. Hannibal Lector for instance, could not be contained, constrained, or stopped from “having a friend for lunch.”

Worse yet is the psycho villain that just won’t die. A bloody tub sequence comes to mind here—The Glenn Close “Alex” character thoroughly drowned by Michael Douglas who magically resurfaces just to die again via gunshot wound in Fatal Attraction (post bunny boil).

But unlike the fictional psychopath superpowers beget by Hollywood, I assumed that nonfiction psychopaths are genuinely above average intelligence as portrayed on screen, a widespread assertion based on Hervey Cleckley’s 1941 benchmark study and subsequently published results entitled “The Mask of Sanity.

But in recent years the assumed relation between high I.Q. and psychopaths has been countered with evidence suggesting otherwise. According to the Journal of Personality Disorder (August 2005), a Swedish study well disputes Cleckley’s findings after thorough analysis of institutionalized clinical psychopath and non-psychopath males. This new data concluded that high intelligence in psychopaths simply predicted an earlier start in offenses and enhanced destructive potential but that intellectual acumen and psychopathology are not necessarily correlated. In other words, intellectual psychopaths indulge their dark side earlier and are more deviant than average psychopaths, who are just, well, average.

But being the dull knife in a drawer full of psychopaths may prove advantageous.  Perhaps one of the few situations when ignorance trumps intelligence because if you are a violent criminal, being short on wits could save your life. Psychopaths with significantly lower than average intelligence are by law, not considered for the death penalty. So, intellectual aptitude can be a hindrance if you violently murder someone and get caught. That is, unless you are smart enough to fake being an “empath.”

An “empath” is someone with psychotic tendencies who chooses not to act on them or at the very least feels remorse after a violent offense. They are as it sounds, “empathetic” to victims.  Empaths get brownie points in court for feeling remorse for actions committed. And the term “empath” offered me some relief because the fact that I felt guilty for liking Rico (the psychopath) means that I am absolutely not a psychopath myself. 

A quick sketch of an empath might go like this:

You have a burning desire to mow down every Jihadist in Syria. So you do it, all the while smiling, then somehow manage to escape and get home. Yes, you murdered a ridiculous amount of people but that does not make you a psychopath. You are more likely an empath and here’s why—Because after you disposed of the Jihadists, Al Jazeera America posts a photo of a weeping child orphaned by your offense. You see the photo and feel remorse. That remorse makes you an empath, not the psychopath who would feel nothing for the crying child. You were in fact a crazed killer but felt remorse for leaving a child without a parent, albeit a lousy one.

So there you go. If you are intellectually above average then you are indeed smarter than a standard psychopath.  Better yet, if you possess a strong strain of crazy but can feel remorse then you are not a psychopath, you are simply an empath. Which compared to Rico and his 700+ kills, really isn’t so bad.


Check out this series of four excerpts from Superego recently serialized weekly at PJ Lifestyle:

What is the Future of Assassination? Meet Rico, A Genetically-Enhanced Hitman

Will The Future of Religion Mean More Pointless Murder?

‘I Shot Off His Gun Hand. He Fell To The Ground Screaming, Clutching His Stump, and Holding Back the Flow of Orange Blood’

‘You Are Now Wanted For Murder On 762 Planets… I Conclude That You Are Evil. Is This Correct?’

Read bullet | 8 Comments »

7 Lessons Learned Watching People Ahead of Me in Court

Monday, March 23rd, 2015 - by Michael T. Hamilton


I contested a speeding ticket last week, and I’m at least 40 percent sure I won.

In an effort to drive up that estimate, I have been taking inventory of the countless intangibles I gained from the experience—wisdom gleaned, insights uncovered, dark arts of the law illumined—and am proud to pronounce myself the undisputed envy of anyone who hasn’t been to court lately. To mollify your jealousy, and maybe to toss a rope to my fellow accused (you could be next!), here are seven lessons I plundered from my (alleged) blunder.

1. The Opposition Is an Expert (and a Person).

When the genuinely kind prosecutor cringes at your declining her plea offer, you have chosen poorly. Consider the incident of the optimistic young lady sitting behind me. Like me, she had arrived early (though not as early) and had vicariously watched the pre-session dramaturgy unfold around our compatriots.

First, Madame Prosecutor, separated by a varnished oaken bar, quietly approaches the accused. In hushed tones, with a cadence faintly rising, as though half-declaring, half questioning, she relays a charge. The accused meekly nods. Then the prosecutor’s eyes reach into Everyman’s—your—file and, softened by the mercy found there, return to your pitiful face to offer you less than you want, but more than you deserve, in exchange for your guilty plea. Suddenly the tedious argument you’ve been saving for this moment turns to sand, like your courage. You accept what the gods have meted, and you begin persuading yourself that resistance was folly, what a great deal you got, and that it’s really so much better this way. . . .

I lived the same sequence five times before starring in it. The young lady after me, though, must have thought me spineless (or else a real criminal). When the prosecutor offered to toss one of three charges against her, she doubled down on her case of he-said/she-said. The prosecutor, thrown off-kilter by her effrontery, revised her offer, promising to drop two of the charges. Take it! Take it! we in the gallery silently screamed.

But it was not to be. I admired the youth’s pluck in throwing this, too, to the dogs—the way I admire Hector for answering Achilles’ bellicose taunts, right before he is slaughtered. As the accused returned to her seat, genuine pity swept over the prosecutor’s face, the last mercy the girl would receive.

2. The Gideon Rule Exists for a Reason.

As I studied Madame’s visage, I was transported to the scene of a favorite U.S. Supreme Court case I used to teach: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Convicted of petty larceny after poorly representing himself, Clarence Earl Gideon, who could afford no lawyer, petitioned SCOTUS on the grounds that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated. In the Court’s opinion, Justice Hugo Black argued that the government’s hiring of prosecutors is the strongest indication that “lawyers in criminal court cases are necessities, not luxuries.” Hence, “if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.” Gideon prevailed at his retrial.

What this means for folks like me, who freely choose to represent themselves, is that even educated laymen are probably fairly ignorant of how to leverage the law in open court against an expert opponent. My case rested on four reasons to doubt the accuracy of my speeding ticket. Nevertheless, thanks to Justice Black, I little trusted myself to beat the rap as a layman. After all, the Gideon Rule exists for a reason.

3. Lawyers > Suits > Lunch.

One thing more about defendants with lawyers: they are served first. If you can’t afford a lawyer, buy a suit. If you can’t afford a suit, cancel the day’s appointments and bring K-rations to share, because you’ll be there all day. When one timid defendant asked counsel why he was still standing up, I overheard him whisper that as long as he stood fidgeting near the bar, the court would think him in a hurry and frontload his case.

Shrewd, Mr. Mason, very shrewd.

Wearing a suit myself, I was initially mistaken by the bailiff for a lawyer, then was queued first in line behind lawyered-up defendants. (The distinction loses glitz when read in print.)

4. To Whom It May Concern: Hydrate.

If you, like a pair sitting to my right, enter the courthouse to self-administer a drug test, drink (water) before you pass through security. All will “go” faster for you than it did for the fair-haired innocents who asked for a water bottle and were politely refused. Next subject, please.

5. Ask for the Red-and-Blue Light Special.

Have yourself a bit of a financial situation? Mention it for her Honor’s consideration. In the first 45 minutes of court, I witnessed forgiveness of fines in the aggregate of $3,000 and jail-time suspensions of more than two years. These concessions almost always followed the judge’s query about the accused’s state of employment.

(In one Walter Mitty-esque moment, I imagined her ordering me to the bench to tell her more about my editing company. After marveling at my fancy business card, she called a recess and summoned the prosecutor and me to chambers, where we sipped Johnny Walker Blue and joked at the bailiff’s expense.)

6. Prepare for a Pyrrhic Victory.

“If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.” – General Pyrrhus of Epirus

If you took a deal, then you practically won. Now pay up. For anyone hoping to follow my upright example of (allegedly) speeding and then arguing about it, wait until I explain my twisted calculus. Had I simply written a check when I was cited, the cost of driving 54 mph in a 40 mph zone would have been $145. But I contested this, hoping for an outright dismissal at no charge (which I’ve enjoyed once before). When no dismissal came, I spliced hands with the prosecutor. The judge blessed the swap of my 54/40 “point violation,” and my dignity, for a 44/40 “no-point violation,” slashing my fine to $50. To this she added $120 in court fees and $10 for the prosecutor’s lunch, bringing my total to $180—a full $35 more than the uncontested ticket.

But even that was good news. Statistics say that had the point violation stuck, my insurance premiums would have increased 16 to 20 percent and stayed there for one to six years. By contesting, I “saved” between $120 and $990.

7. Do What You Know You Should.

Victory is mine. May I never see another like it.

As my wife gently reminds me whenever I brag of my spoils, I would have saved a chunk of change (and time) by getting my head out of the clouds and slowing the heck down. That, I’m afraid, is the unspinnable truth. And although my saying it plays right into the court’s hands: lesson learned. At least, until next time.


image illustration via shutterstock / 

Read bullet | 42 Comments »

Why Civilization Is a Gift to Bullies

Thursday, March 12th, 2015 - by Aaron C. Smith

See Frank J. Fleming opening the discussion: “ And Mark Ellis: “The Future of Civilized Society: One World

Most people use the word “civilization” as a sign of progress, something to which we should aspire. We’ve slowly worked our way out of the muck, pulling ourselves towards enlightenment. Someday, we will all be shiny and happy. History will end.

That’s bunk.

The dirty little secret that people don’t want to admit is that hard men and women built our society. The soft could not conquer the New World or rise in the industrial revolution. The great conflicts of the twentieth century – two hot wars and a half-century of cold war – required men and women with steel in their bones and ice in their blood to fight.


We’ve tried to polish off those sharp edges and call it improvement.

And in doing so, we allow bullies to flourish.

Cruel prey upon the weak.

We act civilized. We pass rules, tell kids to talk to adults. I got bullied as a kid. And let me tell you something. Adults are useless. Rules are crap. The most well-meaning adults trying to enforce rules can’t be everywhere.

And when you fight back, zero-tolerance policies punish prey the same as predator. And it goes on. More rules get passed. “Civilization” isn’t the answer.

Violently making sure everyone on the playground knows you will not be a victim is the answer. Celebrating your son or daughter when they come home with a bloody nose and split lip is the answer.

Think back a couple centuries ago. People used to duel over slights to their honor.

Has “civilization” and departing from this tradition changed anything? Are our kids any safer with “zero-tolerance” rules that treat the predator and prey the same?

Can we honestly call that civilization?

We know it’s wrong. Our television shows, the windows into our cultural subconscious, prove that we hate how rules bind the good and empower the vicious.

My parents grew up in a “less civilized age,” when society possessed less formal rules but ran on unwritten consensus and understanding. They understood the system and watched Dragnet and The FBI, stories about hardworking men in gray suits working within the system to enforce the law.

Today, with all of our rules and regulations, we cheer for the anti-heroes.

I just watched Bosch this weekend. Aside from being a great adaptation of Michael Connelly’s series, LAPD detective Harry Bosch gives us a great example of a good man trying to find justice in a civilized world.

Read bullet | 17 Comments »

How the Western Intelligentsia Denies Islam’s History of War and Crime

Saturday, February 28th, 2015 - by Robert Spencer

The Western intelligentsia is very, very anxious to make sure that you have a positive view of Islam. Thus we see a steady stream of articles in the mainstream media assuring you that the Qur’an is benign, the U.S. Constitution is Sharia-compliant, and the Islamic State is not Islamic. These articles come in a steady stream, and they have to, because they are asking non-Muslims to disregard what they see every day — Muslims committing violence against non-Muslims and justifying it by referring to Islamic texts — and instead embrace a fictional construct: Islam the religion of peace and tolerance.

This takes a relentless barrage of propaganda, because with every new jihad atrocity, reality threatens to break through. It wasn’t accidental that Hitler’s Reich had an entire Ministry of Propaganda: lying to the public is a full-time job, as the cleverest of propaganda constructs is always threatened by the simple facts. This propaganda comes not just from the Left (the Huffington Post, Salon, etc.), but also from the Right, or at least the Right-leaning media (Forbes); it seems as if whatever divides Americans politically, they’re all united on one point: Islam is just great, and only bigoted, racist “Islamophobes” think otherwise.

Yet the pains that must be taken to establish this betray the futility of the enterprise. A sampling: establishment academic Juan Cole, a board member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has been established in court as a front group lobbying for the Islamic regime in Iran, pointed out last Tuesday in The Nation that Rudy Giuliani and Paul Wolfowitz had taken issue with Barack Obama over whether Islamic terrorism was really Islamic, and asserted that this question was “actually about what philosophers call ‘essentialism,’ and, as Giuliani’s and Wolfowitz’s own interventions make clear, it is about absolving the United States for its own role in producing the violent so-called ‘Caliphate’ of Ibrahim al-Baghdadi.”

Oh, really? Yet I readily agree with Cole that Bush’s removal of Saddam Hussein and naive trust that a stable Western-style republic would take its place was ill-considered, as I argued back in March 2003. And the Islamic State filled the vacuum thus created. But this is an entirely separate question from that of whether the Islamic State has anything to do with Islam or not. Whatever Paul Wolfowitz or Rudy Giuliani said or did is simply irrelevant to the question Cole claims to be investigating: if Giuliani and Wolfowitz are right that Islamic jihadis have something to do with Islam, that does nothing whatsoever to absolve the U.S. “for its own role in producing the violent so-called ‘Caliphate’ of Ibrahim al-Baghdadi.”

As for “essentialism,” Cole added:

Essentialism when applied to human groups is always an error and always a form of bigotry. Zionists bombed the King David Hotel in British Mandate Palestine in 1948, killing dozens of civilians and some British intelligence officials. If a British official had responded then by arguing that ‘everyone knows that Judaism has something to do with what we’re fighting,’ it would be fairly clear what that official thought about Jews in general.

“Essentialism when applied to human groups” may be “always an error and always a form of bigotry,” but when applied to belief systems it is not. Cole is, perhaps deliberately, conflating Islam and Muslims, and claiming that to speak of what Islam is and is not, which is established by reference to Islamic texts and teachings, is to make a bigoted judgment against all Muslims. Islam in all its forms teaches certain things. Its teachings are knowable. To speak about Muslims acting upon them, when they themselves explain and justify their actions by referring to those actions, is not bigotry, despite the endless charges to the contrary from leftists and Islamic supremacists. It is simply to notice reality.

Cole then embarks upon a labored argument to establish that the Salafi jihadis are a “sect” and a “destructive cult,” charging anyone who disagrees with him with the cardinal sin of “Orientalism,” claiming that “it is now typically forgotten that in the early twentieth century the Ku Klux Klan was a Protestant religious organization or that it came to power in the state of Indiana in the 1920s and comprised 30 percent of native-born white men there. It was a large social movement, with elements of the destructive cult, in the heart of North America. More recent groups such as Jim Jones’s People’s Temple and David Koresh’s Branch Davidians may have begun as high-tension sects, but at a certain point they became destructive cults. The refusal to see ISIL in these terms is just a form of Orientalism, a way of othering the Middle East and marking its culture as inherently threatening.”

Read bullet | 33 Comments »

What is the Future of Assassination? Meet Rico, A Genetically-Enhanced Hitman

Thursday, February 26th, 2015 - by Liberty Island

Screen Shot 2015-02-26 at 6.54.10 AM

Killing is ugly. A living body is designed to survive; killing opposes its entire purpose. Nothing dies in an artful manner — a body is just damaged until it fails to sustain itself anymore. Put enough holes in something, and it will eventually stop moving, stop functioning. And often a living creature’s last moments are spent in a pointless struggle, twisting and writhing in a vain attempt to continue its existence. I’ve seen it many times. I’ve known it myself.

But that’s just an aesthetic quibble. The ugliness of death aside, I always enjoyed the challenge of being a hitman.

The receptionist was ignoring me. She (I wasn’t familiar with the species — purplish with tentacley things on her head — but she appeared to be the childbearing variety) was talking on the phone in a clearly non-work-related manner while I waited. We were in a spacious lobby with walls and floors of glass and ivory. Everything was curved, not many hard angles where surfaces met. Several bunches of flowers and other potted plants decorated the walls and otherwise empty floor space. I noted one exit to my right and a hallway leading further into the building to my left — so I only had two directions to be wary of.

I knocked on the hard white top of her desk. She finished her call and looked at me with gray eyes. “I’m sorry for the wait, but I don’t think this resort is able to accommodate your species.”

“That’s okay. I’m actually here on business. My name is Rico, and I am here to see Chal Naus.”

“He didn’t say he was expecting anyone, and he doesn’t see anyone without an appointment. And business hours ended half an hour ago.”

“No, he is not expecting me, but I do need to see him personally. And I specifically came after business hours because I wanted to be polite and not interrupt whatever it is he does here.”

Her face tensed. I had no idea what that meant — and didn’t care. “I can’t help you. I think you need to leave.” Her tenor had changed — I think she was threatening me. She wasn’t very good at it. Perhaps I could teach her something.

The job of a hitman is always changing, always invigorating, and it often requires that I perform at my best. Plus, it makes me get out and interact with people — which is good, since I’m basically anti-social. I have trouble seeing that as my fault, though; I rarely encounter an individual worth talking to. Everyone seems so pointless, coasting through drab, rote lives. They have nothing useful to say, nothing useful to do. They just are.

I partly blame civilization for that. It allows people to get through life with so little effort. Take this receptionist. Most animals exist in a daily life-and-death struggle, and if they don’t give it everything they’ve got, they end up with that messy death I just described. The receptionist, on other hand, just had to sit at a desk and smile… and she couldn’t even be bothered to put much effort into that. I can’t imagine why someone would waste her life going to a job she doesn’t care to do. I can’t imagine such a person would have anything to say that might be worth listening to. So I’m anti-social.

But I’m working on it.

Sure, I find pretty much all sentients boring in their normal lives, but that doesn’t mean they lack the potential to be interesting. It’s just a matter of focus. No matter how lazy or unmotivated a person is, if he feels his life is on the line, he will devote every available resource to not being killed. Civilization goes out the door, and pure survival kicks in. When people are that awake and that focused, they intrigue me. So you can say I have a job that brings out the best in people.

“Are you familiar with the Nystrom syndicate? I am here on their behalf, so one way or another I will speak to your boss. In person.”

Her eyes grew wider. I could have guessed at the meaning of that but, again, I didn’t care. “Is he aware you are coming?”

I thought I’d covered that. Sometimes — due to my lack of social skills — I’m not as clear as I think I am. So I tried again. “I’ll make this simple: You tell Chal Naus that I am going to speak to him personally and that I will kill anyone who stands in my way, starting with you.” I didn’t think she was actually going to get in my way, but as I said, people can be quite focused when they feel their lives are on the line. “I’m going to go sit down while I wait for a response.” I smiled politely, wondering what color her species bled; you can never tell by skin color.

I sat down in one of the odd circular chairs across from the desk. The purple, tentacle-headed receptionist was back on the phone, talking much more frantically than she had before. Soon six other creatures entered the lobby: larger tentacle-headed things I assumed were male. I think they were supposed to intimidate me, and the tense faces they wore were probably their angry expressions.

I remained seated and relaxed, arms folded. There is little in body language that is universal between species, but ignoring someone is a good way to assert dominance; it communicates that I do not find an individual or group to be threatening or even worth my time.

A screen appeared on one of the walls. On the screen was the image of another creature of the same species, and admittedly able to judge by only a small sample, he seemed obese. That wasn’t necessarily a weakness — it could be a cultural thing.

“That is Chal Naus,” Dip, my “partner,” chimed in my ear.


Join us again next week for another excerpt from SuperEgo and more provocative essays from Frank J. Fleming and the Liberty Island team.


Read bullet | Comments »

The 5 Weirdest Crime Stories of the Week

Saturday, February 21st, 2015 - by Alex Shelby

5. Albino Toddler Kidnapped by Witches (Tanzania) 

On Saturday the 14th an 18-month-old albino toddler was kidnapped from a home in Northern Tanzania. According to the father, who was nearby during the attack, two bandits armed with machetes stormed the house, slashed the mother to death, and kidnapped their baby son. Their motive: to use the child’s body parts as part of a witchcraft ritual. Sound fishy? It’s not. Since the year 2000 at least 74 albinos have been murdered in East Africa because, due to the rarity of albinos, their severed limbs are believed to have spiritual powers. Their body parts sell for $600 and an entire albino corpse sells for $75,000. There’s a Tanzanian election in October of this year and political hopefuls often turn to sorcery to give their campaign an edge.

4. Woman Stabs Herself on Valentine’s Day (South Carolina)

On Saturday the 14th 29-year-old Heather Freeman likely realized how lonely she was on Valentine’s Day morning, and devised a plan to draw some attention to herself. She called police with a report of being attacked and sexually assaulted by a Hispanic male who fled the scene. She had stab wounds on her neck, face, and near her vagina to prove it. At the hospital she changed her story and reported the assailant to be her black friend named Phil. The investigating officers’ suspicions were eventually confirmed when Freeman later admitted to making the entire story up and stabbing herself. She’s been charged with filing a false police report.

Read bullet | Comments »

The 13 Most Shocking Insanity Pleas: Does Chris Kyle’s Killer Qualify?

Saturday, February 14th, 2015 - by Alex Shelby

#Honor #ChrisKyle and #ChadLittlefield

A photo posted by Andrew (@andrewdecker593) on

Since the release of the movie American Sniper a collective interest has surrounded the trial of Eddie Ray Routh, the killer of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield. Now that Routh’s trial is officially underway, his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity provokes a sense of, shall we say, injustice.

Less than 1% of defendants charged with homicide attempt the insanity plea, and about 25% of them are actually successful. This comes out to about 25 murderers annually in the United States who end up in a mental hospital rather than a prison. Nearly half of the residents in mental hospitals are there as a result of a crime conviction, misdemeanors and felonies alike.

So where does Routh fit in to this mix? How does his case compare to some of the most notorious insanity pleas and, based on what we currently know, will he be able to avoid prison?

1. Andrew Goldstein (1999)

Exhibiting behavior consistent with schizophrenia, Andrew Goldstein shoved a woman into the path of an oncoming N train in New York. Prior to this murder he voluntarily attempted to check himself into a mental hospital 13 times, but was put on a waiting list due to overcrowding.

Verdict: Guilty – 25 years to life (he eventually admitted to being consciously aware of his actions)

Read bullet | 9 Comments »

911 to 13-Year-Old Girl of Dying Father: ‘Stop Whining’

Monday, February 9th, 2015 - by Stephen Green


Good lord:

The 911 call came in Sunday after a car hit Rick Warrick, 38, of Washington, D.C., and his fiancee as they changed a tire on a highway about halfway between Washington and Baltimore. The driver of the car that hit the couple fled. No arrests have been made, and police say they have no description of the car.

Warrick was killed. His fiancee, Julia Pearce, 28, was seriously injured but was in fair condition at Baltimore’s Shock Trauma Center on Thursday.

Warrick’s 13-year-old daughter was in the back seat with her younger brother, and called 911.

During the five-minute call, the dispatcher asks the teen for more details about her location and about what happened. The teen answers many of his questions but struggles at times to remain calm.

At one point, the dispatcher interrupts her.

“OK, let’s stop whining. Let’s stop whining, it’s hard to understand you,” he says.

The dispatcher sounds frustrated when the girl asks him to send help quickly. At one point he asks if there’s someone else he can talk to.


Cross-posted from Vodkapundit, image illustration via shutterstock / 

Read bullet | 11 Comments »

A Sick Argument From One of Jeffrey Epstein’s Academic Defenders

Saturday, February 7th, 2015 - by Stephen Green

The Ick Factor on the story behind Jeffrey Epstein’s donations to science goes up to 11:

“His interest is in interesting people and interesting ideas,” Lawrence Krauss, an Arizona State University physicist, told Reuters. Krauss directs a program on the origins of life — a program that Epstein has supported. Krauss said he would feel cowardly if he turned away from Epstein, given that he doesn’t know anything about the accusations.

Another professor who has received funds from Epstein and defended him was Robert Trivers, a Rutgers University biologist who received about $40,000 from Epstein to study the link between knee symmetry and sprinting ability. Trivers questioned how bad the charges are, noting that girls mature earlier than used to be the case. “By the time they’re 14 or 15, they’re like grown women were 60 years ago, so I don’t see these acts as so heinous,” he told Reuters.

I hope Trivers doesn’t serve at Rutgers in any sort of teaching position. If he does, I’m sure the parents of his female students would want to be informed of his feelings about sex with girls as young as 14 and 15.


Cross-posted from Vodkapundit

Read bullet | Comments »

10 Life Lessons From the Dumbest Criminals of All Time

Saturday, February 7th, 2015 - by Alex Shelby

To paraphrase from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, “To defeat your enemy you must know your enemy.” I kept this mantra in mind while compiling this comprehensive list of 10 criminal DO’s and DON’Ts, opening a window into their minds, bringing us one step closer to pinpointing the source of their brilliance.

10. DON’T bother getting a business loan

#buyingahouse #itisreal #loanapplication

A photo posted by Katelyn Kempfer (@kmkempfer) on

Twenty-one-year-old Charles Ray Fuller from Texas had dreams of starting his own record company, but he took to heart what he learned from Roman poet Titus Plautus: “You need to spend money to make money.” Because banks are dumb, and rich people do this all the time, Charles filled out a check in his name for $360 billion (yes, billion) and attempted to cash it at a bank in Fort Worth. Not only was he arrested for forgery, he was also in possession of two ounces of marijuana and a .25 caliber handgun.

9. DON’T factor in your victim’s abilities

When selecting a victim for property theft some choose an easy target, while others may choose a wealthy target. A burglar from Milwaukee, however, understood the futility of these details. While giving a private lesson at his studio, Taekwondo master David Kang heard someone rummaging through his office. He soon discovered a burglar who, apparently, didn’t know what Taekwondo was used for. Kang easily subdued the unarmed bandit and held him hostage until police arrived.

Read bullet | 13 Comments »

Here’s How to Handle a ‘Friend’ Who Hates Men

Friday, February 6th, 2015 - by Helen Smith


I received an email from an academic who was dismayed to learn that a female friend who is a professor believes that all men are rapists. He wrote to ask for my help in how to cope (I have abbreviated and changed some of the wording for privacy) :

Dr. Helen,

I am in an online group of professors and academics and a female professor who I am friends with posted on an internet meme about “Teaching Men Not to Rape.” The gist of this document was something along the lines of :

1. Don’t put drugs in women’s drinks.

2. When you see a woman walking by herself, leave her alone.

3. If you pull over to help a woman whose car has broken down, remember not to rape her.

4. If you are in an elevator and a woman gets in, don’t rape her.

5. When you encounter a woman who is asleep, the safest course of action is to not rape her.

6. Never creep into a woman’s home through an unlocked door or window, or spring out at her from between parked cars, or rape her.

I linked to articles to try and give her information on the rape statistics and how most men are decent guys but her response was that she gets near men in public and feels that they could overcome her physically.

Do you have any advice on how to deal with this kind of stuff for fathers, fathers who are professors, and folks who would like to be able to take this stuff on at work without risking losing their job? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

My response to this reader was:

You are too kind. You are trying to engage in an intellectual discussion where there is none. These ideas are based on what makes women feel good and give the Uncle Tims of the world a chance to strut their stuff by playing along with the game in the hopes of accolades. I think the disconnect here for you is “how can you engage with such a person?” How do you deal with someone who thinks you and your son are rapists while being a “friend” to you. Whether she is a parent or not matters none. Many nasty people who hate men have sons. The goal here is to let “friends” or colleagues know that their prejudices may have consequences. How do you do that?

It sounds like you tried to use logic but you were not satisfied with the results of her response. One way to fight back is by using their own words against them. How about this:

“I can’t believe someone with your open-mindedness would buy into this propaganda. Your open expression of such views as a professor may make male students feel uncomfortable producing a hostile learning environment for male students. I am sure that 50 years ago there were women who were afraid to be in a crowd of African Americans but we didn’t design our society to accommodate their prejudices. You need to think about whether it is fair or legal to stereotype a whole group of people based on gender.”

She will go onto deny profusely that this is not the case and maybe call you a “rape apologist.” Response? Was Atticus Finch a rape apologist?

Anyway, you get the idea. Use their own progressive ideas against them and often that will shut them down by using a bunch of Title IX rhetoric.

Helen Smith

Dear readers, do you have some more tips for our distressed dad on how to deal with a “friend” or colleague who thinks all men are rapists?


Cross-posted from Dr. Helen, image illustration via shutterstock / 

Read bullet | 48 Comments »

Women Who Stalk: A Form of Personal Growth?

Thursday, February 5th, 2015 - by Helen Smith


I read a story at the checkout counter at Earthfare from Psychology Today on women who stalk and thought it might interest readers. Unfortunately, there is only a portion of the story available online:

The lovesick who cannot eat or sleep are legion. Many go so far as to harass and stalk the lover who spurned them. And more often than one might realize, the stalkers are women.

Patricia*, a graphic designer and visual artist, was married and had a 9-year-old son when she began an affair with a man whom she refers to as Wolf. Lone-spirited and rugged, Wolf lived in a converted tack house on a ranch outside of San Francisco and seemed to be everything her corporate husband was not.

The affair lasted over a year. Wolf pressured her to leave her husband, but she refused. Yet when Wolf told Patricia he didn’t want to see her anymore, she wouldn’t accept it. She would go to the marina where his sailboat was docked and wait for him. She wrote fragments of Edna St. Vincent Millay poems in nail polish on the boat’s beautiful wood: I know what my heart is like / Since your love died. She also stole things from the boat, including a sail. “I became a predator,” she says. “I wanted to catch his scent so I could feel near him.”…

Pursuers may tell themselves that their stalking is a form of love or courtship, Sinclair allows, but that’s “just like how we once talked about a rapist as the guy who is overwhelmed with passion.” Today we have a similar myth about stalking. “People think it’s about being so in love, you’re not able to control yourself,” she explains. “But you’re driven by retaliation and obsession rather than love and idealization. Once you’re aggressive, you’re not idealizing, you’re not in love. All that’s left is the obsession.”

Stalking is mostly seen as a crime against women, and for good reason. According to a 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence survey, three times more women than men have been stalked. That still means there are plenty of male stalking victims. In fact, one in 19 men have been stalked, and about half reported that their stalkers were female. The definition of criminal stalking varies from state to state, but the three main criteria for the crime are repeated, unwanted, and intrusive behaviors; implicit or explicit threats; and causing fear. The study surveyed self-identified victims and was based on a definition of stalking as behavior that led them to feel very fearful.

The author of this piece, Lisa Phillips, has a book out called Unrequited: Women and Romantic Obsession in which she describes her own experience as a stalker:

The summer Lisa A. Phillips turned thirty, she fell in love with someone who didn’t return her feelings. She soon became obsessed. She followed him around, called him compulsively, and talked about him endlessly. One desperate morning, after she snuck into his apartment building, he picked up a baseball bat to protect himself and began to dial 911. Her unrequited love had changed her from a sane, conscientious college teacher and radio reporter into someone she barely recognized—someone who was taking her yearning much too far.

In Unrequited, Phillips explores the tremendous force of obsessive love in women’s lives. She argues that it needs to be understood, respected, and channeled for personal growth—….

Really? So when a woman is a predator, her behavior is to be understood, and channeled for personal growth. When a man is a predator, he goes to jail. Even if he is innocent (but suspected) there are often consequences, as the campus rape panic shows all too well. Phillips points out that this stalking behavior in women is quite common. Why is it so acceptable in our society? Why do we allow men to be followed and abused?

Women tend to destroy property when they stalk — what makes this okay? Women destroying men’s property is so popular, there is even a Hardee’s commercial about it. A guy has three girlfriends so they destroy his car, writing “Cheater” on it. Can you imagine a woman dating three guys who vandalize her car and write “Whore” across it? Watch the video and imagine the genders reversed:


Cross-posted from Dr. Helen, image illustration via shutterstock / 

Read bullet | 20 Comments »

VIDEO: Can Freedom and Sharia Coexist?

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 - by PJ Lifestyle Daily Question

Read bullet | Comments »

What You Need to Know About Hate Crime Laws

Saturday, January 31st, 2015 - by Alex Shelby


On January 17, 58-year-old John Frasier, a homeless man, while asleep on a beach in Ventura, California, was doused with gasoline by three young white men and set on fire. If it weren’t for a random civilian who extinguished the flames with sand, Frasier would have likely perished.

Crimes against the homeless increased 24% from 2012 to 2013, and, of the groups currently protected under hate crime laws (HCL), the homeless have the highest rate of persecution. Most of us would feel a lot better knowing that these three men were captured and left in prison to rot. Unfortunately, the homeless are not actually protected under HCL in the state of California.

Therefore, with a good lawyer the suspects could knock down an attempted murder conviction to 10 years, instead of receiving a hate crime “penalty enhancement” (e.g. the maximum penalty for attempted murder: a life sentence). HCL recognize crimes against a specific gender, race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, but, in 46 states, the homeless are not included.

The National Coalition for the Homeless seeks to expand federal hate crime categorization to include the homeless. But the point of this article is not necessarily aimed at raising awareness for crimes against the homeless – it’s to help clarify the rationale behind HCL. In 1999 the University of California at Davis conducted a four-year study of the psychological effects of hate crimes on the LGBT community. These hate crime survivors showed increased signs of psychological distress, consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder, compared to non-bias motivated crime survivors. HCL are not intended to be a form of affirmative action for deterring violence against minorities. They address conduct of a terrorizing nature, like the murder of Arthur Warren in 2000 (a homosexual male who was beaten by two young men, driven outside of town, and run over with a car four times until he died), or, on the lighter side, an incident in 2013 involving 16 Amish individuals who forcibly removed the beards of several other Amish residents.

If a victim is targeted specifically because he or she is a member of a recognized group, this also creates an environment of terror for others who belong to that group. One side-effect of a terrorized environment is its inherent volatility, which increases the likelihood for exaggerated retaliation, like riots.

Some people, like Missouri Congressman Paul Curtman, oppose HCL with the argument that “there is not really such a thing as a hate crime. Crime is crime, right?” In other words, all crimes are motivated by hate, thus HCL give undeserved attention to minority groups. If we subdivided all crime victims into their subsequent group, this argument would appear to hold water. The “bad drivers” group would be singled out for road rage, the “attractive temptress” group would be singled out for rape, the “wealthy business owners” would be singled out for theft, the “sports fanatic” group would be singled out the way Bryan Stow was nearly beaten to death after a Dodger-Giants game in 2011.

But this argument assumes that the mere hint of hate-bias will result in an automatic promotion from “normal crime” to “hate crime.” Whites have the highest probability for committing hate crimes, claiming over 50% of the annual total, yet, of the inter-racial white-on-black violent crimes committed in 2005, less than 3% were deemed to be actual hate crimes.

A thorough examination of the evidence is considered in every case before the label of “hate crime” can be officially attached, especially when it comes to First Amendment privileges. Three Supreme Court cases in particular have established precedence in this arena.

  • In 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio protected a KKK leader’s right to preach vengeance against other races during a rally as long as a time element of “clear and present danger” can be established (e.g. because no action was taken immediately after Brandenburg’s speech, he cannot be held accountable).
  • In 1992, R.A.V v. City of St Paul protected one’s right to express his or her bigotry in a symbolic manner (i.e. placing a burning cross in the yard of a black family), and, as long as no violent conduct occurs immediately afterwards, this would only qualify as vandalism.
  • In 1993, Wisconsin v. Mitchell protected our right to express bigotry, even if one acts on this bigotry in a violent manner, as long as a distinction can be made between the belief and the conduct (e.g. an established bigot can commit inter-racial battery without it necessarily being categorized as a hate crime).

What these cases have in common is that they, either directly or tangentially, deal with a type of speech that our First Amendment does not protect. Along with profanity, obscenities, libelous accusations, and lewdness, so-called “fighting words” are not protected by our Constitution when delivered in a public forum.

Ironically, according to statistics, penalty enhancement is not a significant deterrent. The Hate Crime Sentence Enhancement Act was passed in November of 1993, but these crimes continued to rise for the next two years. Hate crime awareness became a national media campaign in 2000, yet these crimes experienced a major spike in 2001 after the 9-11 attacks. A Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act was reintroduced in Congress in 2005, yet they experienced a swell, and would remain relatively un-phased.

Hate Crime graph

Either the type of person who commits a hate crime is a special type of criminal who is not influenced by harsher consequences, or harsher consequences are not actually a deterrent in general. If the former is true, what’s the point of penalty enhancement?

The point is that hate crime awareness shapes attitudes and values. It’s harder to dehumanize someone with whom you share certain values, and this applies to both the victim and the criminal. Because many of us find it difficult to relate to, or understand, the values of other cultures, other races, those with alternative sexual preferences, or even the homeless, these people are more easily dehumanized. Values aren’t shaped by prisons; they’re shaped by family and peers.

For better or worse, political legislation represents the values of the people we elect into office. If HCL help spread these values beyond the walls of Congress, then maybe these crimes can be avoided altogether by shifting the deterrent into the household, rather than taking our chances with the prison system.


image illustration via shutterstock / 

Read bullet | 12 Comments »

Bill Cosby: Is It True?

Friday, January 30th, 2015 - by Andrew Klavan

We had a good time over at my Facebook page and on my Twitter feed (@andrewklavan) this week, running a caption contest on this picture:

Much hilarity ensued, much of it involving pudding pops and Jeffrey Epstein.

But I have to admit, the whole Cosby business saddens me.

When I was a little boy, Cos was the great hero of my life. I had all his comedy records. I had his picture on my wall. I made plans to become a stand-up comedian and made up routines in his style. I got to see him perform live several times. My father even took me to California and arranged for me to shake my idol’s hand: Cosby was on a break from filming the hopscotch opening to his first television special. That same trip, I got to watch him filming an episode of I Spy. It was my favorite show, of course. I never missed an episode.

YouTube Preview Image

Cosby became my hero again in my adulthood, when he stood up against the race hustlers and thug excusers and called on black Americans to take responsibility for their own children and their own lives. It’s sad that it requires courage for a black man to do that simple, sensible and helpful thing, but it does. The left — which includes the media — has built its power by dividing us, holding up white men especially as the Emmanuel Goldstein of their four-decade-long Two Minute Hate. If blacks — and women — and gays — ever figure out who the friends of their freedom really are, the left is finished. So Cosby was viciously attacked for his honesty.

Did he drug women and rape them while they were unconscious? God, I hope not. I hope the accusations are part of some kind of leftist conspiracy meant to silence him or punish him for speaking the truth. But we’ll see. If he did it, it was a pretty sick thing to do. Hard for a sane man even to see the pleasure in it. But easy enough to see the pathological cruelty. One can only imagine the mental damage it would do to the victim.

I hope it’s all baloney. But if it is true, I won’t make excuses even for my childhood hero, not as the left did for Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. If it is true, there can be no excuse.


Cross-posted from Klavan on the Culture

Read bullet | 35 Comments »

Why Some Cops Are Worried About the Waze App

Friday, January 30th, 2015 - by Stephen Green


Are you familiar with Waze? It’s a smartphone app, which my wife turned me on to a year or two ago, which crowdsources traffic information. There’s not much use for it here in Monument, Colorado (“Teeming city of tens!”), but I keep it installed for shopping & drinking excursions to Denver, or for road trips to anywhere. It’s well designed, it works in realtime, and I’ve avoided some serious snarls with small kids in car — which by itself elevates Waze to “priceless.” Google, which is pretty smart about these kinds of products, bought the company in 2013 — but it’s handy enough that I don’t mind occasionally letting Google data-mine me about my driving habits.

Of course, users can and do crowdsource information about speed traps, and that has some cops up in arms:

Sheriffs are campaigning to pressure Google Inc. to turn off a feature on its Waze traffic software that warns drivers when police are nearby. They say one of the technology industry’s most popular mobile apps could put officers’ lives in danger from would-be police killers who can find where their targets are parked.

Waze, which Google purchased for $966 million in 2013, is a combination of GPS navigation and social networking. Fifty million users in 200 countries turn to the free service for real-time traffic guidance and warnings about nearby congestion, car accidents, speed traps or traffic cameras, construction zones, potholes, stalled vehicles or unsafe weather conditions.

To Sergio Kopelev, a reserve deputy sheriff in Southern California, Waze is also a stalking app for law enforcement.

There are no known connections between any attack on police and Waze, but law enforcers such as Kopelev are concerned it’s only a matter of time.


Cross-posted from Vodkapundit

Read bullet | Comments »

13 Key Ideas You Need For Defeating Marxist Evil

Saturday, January 24th, 2015 - by Ronald R. Cherry


Editor’s Note: This is a much longer-than-usual essay than we normally publish, but it’s a very thorough dissection of Marxist ideology well-worth your time. To make it more accessible we’ve decided to experiment with publishing it “Netflix style,” meaning as the streaming internet TV service has developed the practice of releasing whole seasons of its new shows at once, allowing viewers to consumer at their own pace, we’ll publish this first as one long article before serializing its points daily over the next 2 weeks.

1. In its essence Marxism, the core ideology of modern Socialism, is an irrational, utopian and coercive perversion of human equality.

Marxism seeks equality where equality does not exist, demanding legal enforcement of equal social outcomes, including those related to economics, higher education, athletics, religion and human sexuality. This ideology even extends to international relationships whereby no nation is allowed to excessively prosper or achieve greatness, i.e.: all nations must be “equal.” Never mind that when people are free their human nature leads to inequality of outcomes – some are hard-working and some are lazy – some are more intelligent and some are less intelligent – some are stronger and some are weaker – some are tall and some are short. Unequal results occur naturally without force when people possess rightful liberty. Based on their degree of truly Free Enterprise nations similarly divide themselves unequally into various degrees of prosperity or depravity.

Read bullet | 8 Comments »

What This Racist Murderer Said Before His Sentencing Might Give You Nausea

Friday, January 23rd, 2015 - by Stephen Green


I feel sick after reading this:

A black man who was found guilty of murdering two white teenagers execution-style in a vacant Detroit field defiantly declared “black lives matter” Wednesday before being sentenced to life in prison.

Fredrick Young and Felando Hunter were sentenced Wednesday to life in prison without parole for robbing, torturing and murdering Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla, who had met up with them in July 2012 to buy drugs, a local Fox affiliate reported.

Young shocked the courtroom when he was given the chance to address the victims’ families, but instead apologized to the families of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.

“I’d like to say sorry to the families of Aiyanna Jones, Michael Brown, Eric Garner,” he said. “And I want to apologize to them for not being able to get justice for their loved ones who was murdered in cold blood.

“And in respect for the peaceful protest, I want to say ‘hands up don’t shoot,’” he said, raising his hands in the air. “Black lives matter — that’s it your honor.”

Young’s life mattered — until he chose to become a killer.


cross-posted from Vodkapundit

Read bullet | 12 Comments »

Exposing Feminism’s Patriarchy Myth on Campus

Thursday, January 22nd, 2015 - by Susan L.M. Goldberg

YouTube Preview Image

Arthur Chu wrote a wandering epithet over at Salon on “bitter nerd” Scott Aaronson’s rant against feminism. Aaronson’s complaints as detailed in Chu’s piece are far from new. As a graduate teaching assistant I had many male students (rather nerdy types) walk out of film theory classes declaring they were “horrible people” and “secret rapists” because they were born male. In the wake of the campus rape lies of 2014, who can blame these guys for believing feminism is conducting its own War Against Men:

This is not a debate about gender roles. It is not about economics or the esoterica of hateful radicals in an ivory tower. This is a war, an ideological campaign to smear all men as moral monsters. It is not a war against “patriarchy” or some imagined evil rich guy. This is a war on men as such – of all races and social classes. It is a war against your brothers, sons, fathers, friends and relatives. And right now, the bad guys and girls are winning.

“…[H]ow could [Aaronson] be targeted by books written by second-wave feminists when he was a toddler?” Chu asks incredulously. Camille Paglia answers Chu in her book Vamps and Tramps, and most recently in her Time magazine piece on the overblown campus rape epidemic. Second-wave feminists believe themselves to be superior human beings through a pseudo-science that negates biology, psychology and religion in favor of a sterile view of the world as a grand social order which must be maintained and controlled through Marxist politics. To put it rather simply, the second wave threw out biology and psychology and mocked God, making a target of every man like Scott who reads feminist literature only to walk away convinced that he’s an inherent rapist because he was born male. As Paglia explains:

The horrors and atrocities of history have been edited out of primary and secondary education except where they can be blamed on racism, sexism, and imperialism — toxins embedded in oppressive outside structures that must be smashed and remade. But the real problem resides in human nature, which religion as well as great art sees as eternally torn by a war between the forces of darkness and light.

Paglia details that Marxist feminists “…simplistically project outward onto a mythical ‘patriarchy’ their own inner conflicts and moral ambiguities.” Men have no such external myth on which to blame what Chu calls “internal demons” which is why for men these moral struggles are easily chalked off as “slippery things.” Chu writes

I do know that what could help women… is to find the guys who are doing bad things to her and stop those guys from doing that. That’s why feminism is more focused on women’s issues than men’s, because women’s issues are the things happening out in the world where we can do something about them.

This absurdity is an outgrowth of the second wave’s politicization of male rape. Female rape, highly eroticized in the ’70s, was legitimized by the feminist movement as sexual fantasy only to become an illicit crime when acted out by a male counterpart. Paglia notes, “…the illicit is always highly charged,” which is why the issue of campus rape has become the most highly charged issue of feminism today. This also explains why rape has become the source for such incredible moral ambiguity and why men, the mythical figures onto which the moral ambiguities of the female sex are projected, are increasingly blamed for women’s bad sexual decision-making.

 YouTube Preview Image

The story of Molly Morris and Corey Mock is nothing new to the campus rape scene. Having met on Tinder, a social media app designed to fulfill hook-up scenarios, Mock pursued classmate Morris, who played hard to get until agreeing to a breakfast date. Morris took Mock up on his invitation to a party, but wound up not arriving until 2 a.m., only to find a bunch of male wrestlers with few female faces in the crowd. Partaking in plenty of booze, Morris implies she was drugged and woke up the next day naked in bed with Mock. She decided not to go to the police because “she was not emotionally ready to enter a criminal justice system that would scrutinize her life and choices.”

Her’s is a pathetic excuse that permits the consequences of her bad decision-making to be projected onto the mythical patriarchy represented by Mock and the criminal justice system. When Morris finally did approach their university’s administration Mock was found innocent, then guilty, then granted a stay and finally expelled from the school in what amounted to a politically motivated public relations debacle. Mock’s side of the story is only given by his father via the comment field at the end. He explicitly details his son’s sexual encounter to make it clear that it was, indeed, consensual. After explaining what happened to his son, he concludes, “Morally and ethically I want to say, don’t have sex until you get married. We all know that would be naive.”

Would it? The reality is that abstinence has become the only 100% guaranteed way to avoid being falsely accused of sexual assault. That reality check highlights the long-forgotten intrinsic value of abstinence culture. The moralists who promoted that antiquated agenda understood that the allure of sexuality and the power of sex needed to be contextualized through marriage so societal order could be maintained. When society rejected marriage culture, it implicitly accepted the second-wave feminist alternative. Hence, every man is a rapist and every woman a victim.

Paglia argues that “rape will not be understood until we revive the old concept of the barbaric, the uncivilized.” Likewise, the problem of campus rape – that is, second-wave feminism’s grotesque predilection for falsely accusing male sex partners of assault in an attempt to soothe their own wounded pride and troubled souls – will not cease until moral order, built on a solid biological and psychological understanding of the individual and an acceptance of moral responsibility on the part of both parties, is restored.

Read bullet | 16 Comments »

Chinese Wife Chops Off Cheating Husband’s Manhood… Twice!

Tuesday, January 20th, 2015 - by Stephen Green


I don’t know how to introduce this story, other than with the most profound regret and a woefully insufficient “You know you aren’t supposed to do that, right?” So without further ado:

In a bizarre, but true illustration of that edict, a jealous wife in China, 30-year-old Feng Lung, reported chopped her husband’s penis off with a pair of sharp scissors, not once, but twice, in order to teach him a lesson for his infidelity.

Having found out her husband was cheating on her, the woman sliced off his penis, which was reattached successfully by surgeons in Shangqiu in central China’s Henan province. When she saw her husband had sent a raunchy email to his mistress once again, she severed his member a second time.

Lung is now facing jail after being arrested for causing grievous bodily harm to her husband, 32-year-old, Fan Lung.

The Mirror reports that surgeons were able to reattach the penis, but when the jealous wife found the email on her phone, she reportedly sneaked into his hospital room and cut it off again before throwing it out of a window.

The second cut is the deepest.


Cross-posted from Vodkapundit

Read bullet | 24 Comments »

5 Must-See TV Shows for Skipping the State of the Union

Tuesday, January 20th, 2015 - by James Jay Carafano

Consider the president’s track record. He’s told us that Libya was a triumph, al Qaeda was dead, the war in Iraq was over, the war in Afghanistan was won, relations with Russia have been reset and China is our friend. Given those credentials, it’s fair to conclude that Mr. Obama has about as much to tell us about foreign affairs as the Syfy channel has to say about science.

So where can you find some truly educational television tonight? Here’s some alternative programming that can teach us some important lessons about how to keep America safe.

5. Marco Polo

The Netflix series tells the story of famed adventurer at the court of Kublai Khan. Bloodthirsty, ruthless, cunning barbarian at heart? Yes. Presidential material? No. On the other hand, the great Khan was a strategist who understood the wisdom of China’s greatest military philosopher,

If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer. … If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Compared to a White House that even seems to struggle at parsing friend and foe, this entertainment is refreshing fare.

Read bullet | 26 Comments »

Do Our Laws Protect Criminals?

Monday, January 19th, 2015 - by Alex Shelby

William Mattson

This New Year’s Eve a South Carolina man returned to a party at his parent’s house and overheard a struggle inside the master bedroom. He kicked down the door to discover his girlfriend being raped by his uncle, William Mattson (52). The image above depicts the pounding the nephew unleashed on his uncle as a result. And when Mattson tried to tell police that the sex was consensual, the nephew attacked him again in front of police officers.

Mattson’s nephew wasn’t technically in danger – his girlfriend was – so would Mattson win a lawsuit if he took his nephew to court for attacking him without justification? There are many myths and misconceptions surrounding the notion of “criminal rights.” Perhaps the most famous anecdote involves an intruder burglarizing your house, injuring himself in the process, and then suing you in court. Like most rumors, there is truth and fiction in many of these criminal-rights anecdotes.

Retaliation against a criminal almost always boils down to “self-defense.” According to the law, you are entitled to defend yourself and your property as long as you do not use excessive and/or unreasonable force. In Michigan, in November of 2007, Scott Zielinski sued the store he tried to rob after the owner and some employees chased him out onto the street, caught him, and proceeded to beat him half to death. He was seeking $125,000, but the case was dismissed when the judge required that Zielinski post a $10,000 bond first. He was unable to afford this, otherwise the case might have had credence. However, in England in 2008, a burglar, Daniel McCormick, was actually awarded the equivalent of $250,000 after an angry homeowner scared him off his property and then proceeded to run him down in his BMW and break both of his legs. The rule here is to be weary when self-defense turns into vengeance. Mattson’s nephew’s actions were considered self-defense because he was acting on behalf of the victim, essentially defending her safety.

But the ambiguity doesn’t end at self-defense – there’s still the notion of negligence. An incident in 1982 in California, Bodine vs Enterprise, is likely where this annoying concept of “criminal compensation” originated. Nineteen-year-old Ricky Bodine was on the roof of the Enterprise High School gymnasium, but according to legal documentation it’s unclear what his motive was. Some say he was stealing a flood light, while his friends say he was “redirecting” a light because they were playing basketball — but either way he was trespassing. Bodine took a misstep while on the roof and plunged through a skylight, thus falling to the gymnasium floor and turning himself into a paraplegic. His family tried to sue the school to compensate for the negligent conditions on the roof: the fragile skylight was actually painted black, making it virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the rooftop.


James Alesi

A similar incident occurred in 2011 when New York Senator James Alesi, while house-hunting, entered an unoccupied home that was under construction to get a self-guided tour of the inside. Alesi had to climb a ladder to exit the basement, fell off the ladder, and broke his leg. After filing a personal injury claim against the construction company, word of this case got out and Alesi became a laughingstock. Shortly thereafter a moment of clarity descended upon him and he decided to drop the lawsuit.

There is an apparent contradiction in our laws regarding property protection. In the eyes of the law, defense of yourself and defense of your property are considered the same thing (e.g. you are justified to use force to protect both). But the law also states that life has a greater value than property (e.g. execution is excessive in response to petty theft). Where this contradiction finds its resolution is in a troublesome aspect that few would consider: booby traps.

Booby traps can be dangerous legal territory to tread upon because the homeowner’s imminent safety and the concept of “excessive force” are both in question. A relatively famous case took place back in 1971 in Iowa when Edward Briney set up a trap in the bedroom of an unoccupied farmhouse on his property, which had been looted several times despite the “no trespassing” signs. Five days after the trap was set, Marvin Katko trespassed to “collect” some old bottles and jars that Briney considered antiques, and sprung the trap: a 20-gauge shotgun aimed leg high. The trap worked and Katko had to be hospitalized. He was eventually awarded $30,000 after the court ruled that a shotgun booby trap is excessive force on an unoccupied property.

In 1997, a more recent version of this occurred in Illinois when Larry Harris (37) broke into a tavern where a booby trap awaited him. While climbing through the window, Harris placed his hand on an electrified bar and was electrocuted to death. Harris’ family sued the tavern’s owner over a wrongful-death claim.

Before you dismantle that spring-loaded AK-47 above your porch, let’s establish some perspective on some of these lawsuits. The average wrongful death settlement in America is around $1 million, and Harris’ family received $75,000 (8% of the average). The average personal injury settlement for a paraplegic is around $13 million, and Bodine received $260,000 (5% of the average, scaled against inflation). Criminals appear to receive less than a tenth of the financial sympathy a jury would afford a law-abiding citizen. Another thing to keep in mind is that the financial victories listed in this article represent some of the best examples we have of excessive force and negligence when addressing criminal rights. Most of the lawsuits you hear about involving robbers who sue homeowners because they got shot are laughed out of court.

If our laws do protect criminals, to some degree, are stricter laws the answer if we want to reduce crime in America?

Some countries with very low crimes rates, like Japan and Singapore, boast firm law enforcement procedures. While some countries with higher crime rates, like Cuba and North Korea, also have strict law enforcement practices. And some of the most lenient nations on crime, like Sweden and Canada, actually have some of the lowest crime rates. The statistics may not yield a definitive answer, but in the meantime I hope the reduced compensation (5 -8% of the average settlement) has the attorneys thinking twice before they choose to represent a criminal in civil court.

Read bullet | 13 Comments »