Friday, September 4, 2009

Hungry for Change—Obama and His Mollycoddled Brown Shirt Thugs & Crooks

By now most of you have probably seen or heard on the news about 65 year old William Rice of Newbury Park, California whose finger was bitten off by an apparent ObamaCare supporter. Rice was with a small group of counter-protesters against a Wednesday night demonstration in favor of ObamaCare that was apparently coordinated by Moveon.org. Rice had gotten involved in a heated discussion with a member of the anti-war group Code Pink, according to Capt. Ross Bonfiglio; the Sheriff’s department spokes mouth. (And you thought that Code Pink only cared about the Iraq War. But hey, protest work is still work and one has to eat. This is especially true when you have no real marketable jobs skills other than being a part of a rent-a-thug cabal.)

After the argument, Rice returned to where his group was standing. A less than coherent witness to the ensuing mayhem was interviewed on September 4th edition of the Chip Franklin morning drive time radio talk show in San Diego. Franklin's assessment of the erstwhile bystander's shaky demeanor and incident description is mostly spot-on. But according to the newspaper account of the story, the fact still remains than an unidentified man walked from Moveon.org’s area toward the ObamaCare opponents and verbally confronted Rice, allegedly calling him names and acting aggressively. (No big deal. That’s just the typical irrational Liberal debating behavior and rhetorical style.) But when the Liberal Fascist head case and thug probably couldn’t make a rational argument in favor of ObamaCare, he bit Rice’s finger off. The above-mentioned witness found the bitten-off finger or rather, as Franklin would put it, "got the finger."

Most any lawyer with little or no legal research would tell you that even if Rice’s assailant asserts the legal justification of self-defense he still probably overreacted to any provocation by Rice. The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him. Absent a showing of aggressive or deadly force being employed by the 65 year old Rice, the perpetrator was the overbiting aggressor.

Bonfiglio said Doctors were unable to reattach Rice’s finger. One of Franklin's staff quipped, "I guess he [the perpetrator] was hungry for change." Funny line, but seriously folks the police are still looking for the perpetrator. According to above-cited the news story, the authorities do not consider the man a criminal suspect and were not looking to arrest him! According to the Sheriff's spokes mouth, “We want him to come forward so we can talk to him. We want to hear his side...” Well now, that's political ecumenity and a very understanding law enforcement protocol.

Meanwhile Black Conservative Kenneth Gladney, who was the victim of an assault by Pro ObamaCare SEIU thugs outside a health care town hall meeting in St. Louis on August 6 is all but forgotten by the Lame Stream Media. So where’s the media outrage for a crime against a Conservative Black man? Little or none so far. But the arrest for disorderly conduct of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates received huge media coverage including the old standby spin of possible racial profiling by a big bad white cop. (One almost expected Kanye West to proclaim that, "Crowley hates Black people!")

Despite the fact Professor Gates was treated with great civility and superhuman restraint by the arresting officer, Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley, the media raved on about racial injustice and profiling. This stagey, vile attempt at playing the race card was contrasted by the exemplary conduct of Sgt. Crowley in the aftermath. But the criminal charges against the noisy, rude, and disrespectful Professor Gates were naturally dropped. Without the privilege of being a celebrity Black Professor many of the rest of us probably would have quietly pleaded guilty and paid our fine.

But really folks, who besides a Liberal in trouble with the law ever gets such kid glove treatment? In some cases it may be a matter of professional courtesy among political crooks. For example, tax cheat of the month and House Ways and Means Committee Chair, Charlie "Tax 'em More" Rangel has escaped all IRS penalties and interest after failing to pay federal taxes on income from Caribbean resort rentals over a 10 year period. For the time being, Rangel need not give up his chairmanship or resign by the edict of House Speaker Pelosi. By the way, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who also is ultimately responsible for IRS is himself a tax cheat.

The "teachable moment" here in ObamaSpeak seems to be that anyone that commits violence or any crime in the furtherence of the Liberal agenda will be entitled to a generous benefit of the doubt. In other words there are two standards of justice in the Amerika of Obama--a lenient one for Liberals and a harsh one for anyone to the right of the revered Hubert H. Humphrey (perhaps the last really good and decent Liberal).


Looking at the Kenneth Gladney and William Rice cases, it is becoming increasingly clear that Liberal thugs may have an implied license to brutalize dissenters without regard to their First Amendment rights. Gitmo detainees were never treated this badly.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

A Rose by any other name...

Remember the old arguments made about the differing punishments accorded black vs. white cocaine offenders in the 1990s? It was argued by some that because whites were busted for snorting pricey coke powder that they were given lighter jail sentences. Their black counterparts that were busted for using the more pedestrian “crack cocaine” were allegedly given harsher sentences. To many it was clearly a case of economic discrimination and racism that was being practiced by the criminal justice system.

There is much to consider while observing the current Michael Vick redemption tour a.k.a., the NFL Pre-season. Vick, as you may recall was convicted of running an illegal dog fighting and gambling ring. The details of the cruelty committed on the losing dogs is a stomach turner. Vick was released after serving 18 months of a 23-month sentence for his involvement in the crime. Still, sports talk radio debated whether or not Vick should be reinstated to the NFL. Many sports talking heads concluded that Vick has a right to make a living as a professional football player. Fans seemed to be split between a permanent ban and a return to the NFL by Vick. The Philadelphia Eagles signed Vick after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell gave Vick a conditional reinstatement. Vick was also sponsored by former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy, a model citizen beyond reproach.

What many football fans and sports talkers forget is that as well as visiting cruelty upon helpless animals, Vick was bankrolling an illegal dogfighting gambling ring. So you might ask why Pete Rose is still banned for life—as well as he should be—from Major League Baseball (MLB) for gambling in pedestrian betting parlors. Gambling is Gambling—right? That ain't necessarily so. Green Bay Packer legend Paul "Golden Boy" Hornung and Detroit Lions star defensive lineman Alex Karras were suspended and reinstated a year later into the NFL after being caught betting on various sporting events--including NFL games--in 1963. In 1987, NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle did prevent Art Schlichter, the quarterback from resigning with an NFL team but only because he was arrested for his involvement in a multimillion-dollar sports betting operation. According to the Wikipedia article on him, Schlichter estimated that over his lifetime he had committed 20 felonies and stolen $1.5 million. What Rose did pales in comparison.

Yet, Rose is still out of MLB and Vick is back in the NFL. In Rose's case he hasn't helped himself much over the years by allegedly being seen in gambling parlors; thus suggesting that he still has a gambling problem. It would be very easy to claim reverse racial discrimination against Rose, but the real answer lies elsewhere. What it comes down to is money. The NFL is big business. Vick is an exciting player to watch and he puts "butts in the seats" and attracts TV viewers. As an aside, the 1960s are widely regarded to have been the "Golden Age" of professional football. Thus, Paul Hornung was reinstated after a year because he was a valuable commodity to the NFL and a huge fan favorite. Hornung was left relatively unscathed by the gambling scandal.

Rose on the other hand has been out of baseball for over 20 years. With his playing days long behind him, there is little or no incentive to bring him back into baseball as either a coach or a manager. Major League Baseball has always tried to maintain a patina of being a "holier than thou" institution over the years. This image has been tarnished somewhat by the use of performance enhancing drugs by several of MLB's current and past megastars in the last 15 years. Still, most any taint of moral turpitude is not tolerated by MLB. That especially applies to allegations of gambling--legal or illegal. In contrast, Steve Howe was suspended seven times by MLB for alcohol and drug abuse and reinstated six times. But Howe didn't gamble on baseball as Rose or Shoeless Joe Jackson of Black Sox infamy did and therein lies the rub of moral relativism.

There are apparently some very serious cultural differences between the two "professional" sports that go beyond racism, which might explain the moral schizophrenia of tolerating illegal activity plus depraved cruelty vs. non-tolerance of an illegal activity. Americans traditionally view baseball and dogs as sacred, i.e., no one messes with baseball or dogs. Or perhaps football is perceived by the sports fans as a violent culture full of thugs; and therefore, expectations are much lower for football players. In his debut last week, Vick was by most accounts warmly received by the fans, some of whom are probably dog lovers. Unless you follow the money, this would appear to be a puzzling moral paradox.