A prominent Columbia architecture professor punched a female university employee in the face at a Harlem bar during a heated argument about race relations, cops said yesterday.
Police busted Lionel McIntyre, 59, for assault yesterday after his bruised victim, Camille Davis, filed charges.
McIntyre and Davis, who works as a production manager in the school’s theater department, are both regulars at Toast, a popular university bar on Broadway and 125th Street, sources said.
The professor, who is black, had been engaged in a fiery discussion about “white privilege” with Davis, who is white, and another male regular, who is also white, Friday night at 10:30 when fists started flying, patrons said.
One witness described it as “a real sucker punch.”
When this Black Panther wannabe was asked about the altercation (after his release with NO BAIL!), he said …
“It was a very unfortunate event,” he said afterwards. “I didn’t mean for it to explode the way it did.”
Three million Americans are being forced to answer intrusive questions about their private lives under threat of home visits and fines by the government in the guise of The American Community Survey.
The survey, which is sent to 3 million random homes each year, is in addition to the census but demands far more invasive information from citizens, such as how many times they have been married, if they have a toilet that flushes, and how much is left outstanding on their mortgage.
According to one North Texas resident, “The questionnaire also wants answers about where she works, how much money she makes, and what time she leaves for work each day – the hour and minute! “I thought it was intrusive. I don’t have a high regard for the federal government collecting this information anyway,” the woman told CBS 11 News. “You don’t know what they’re going to do with it.”
“Why do they need to know this? They don’t, in my opinion,” the woman said, before further stating that she thinks the personal questions are un-American. “Do they really need to know if we have a mortgage and whether this house is free and clear? That’s intrusive.”
The U.S. Census Bureau claims the survey helps them “determine where to locate services and allocate resources.”
If the person refuses to respond to the the survey or merely skips one question, then the Census Bureau promises that they will be fined and harassed until they do, a process that includes telephone calls and home visits.
However, it’s all hot air as no one has ever been charged with a crime for refusing to answer the ACS survey, and indeed several members of Congress have denounced the invasive questions as a violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act.
It is a blatant violation of the 5th Amendment, but the government won’t ever let a little, insignificant thing like the US Constitution get in the way of data mining.
Here’s how common sense works: a company should not be able to dictate how a state governs itself. Even libs get that one.
Here’s how the US Constitution works: states have the right to enact their own laws.
Here’s the gray area: while Delaware is legally able to allow sports betting … they are trying to allow betting they didn’t used to allow before federal law trampled upon state’s rights.
So, the NFL is suing the state to prevent the state from allowing sports betting.
The NFL joined the three other major pro sports leagues and the NCAA in suing Delaware on Friday, seeking to block the state from implementing sports betting.
Delaware’s sports betting plan “would irreparably harm professional and amateur sports by fostering suspicion and skepticism that individual plays and final scores of games may have been influenced by factors other than honest athletic competition,” the leagues and the NCAA say in a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Delaware.
Congress banned sports betting in 1992 but grandfathered four states — Delaware, Nevada, Montana and Oregon — that already had offered it. But the lawsuit argues that Delaware’s plan to allow single-game betting would violate the legislation because the state has never previously offered single-game betting.
Under the ’92 law, the leagues and the NCAA said, a state like Delaware may only reintroduce sports betting if it had been conducted between 1976 and 1990.
The NFL, Major League Baseball, NBA, NHL and NCAA also argue that Delaware’s plan is illegal because it allows betting on all sports, going beyond the professional football betting program that constituted the state’s brief failed experiment in 1976.
Today we had a great ruling by the US Supreme Court in favor of 1 hispanic and 19 white firefighters. The were denied promotion because they were white, or at least … they weren’t black.
In the simplest terms possible that is what happened. They scored well on their promotion exam while the black firefighters scored poorly. Therefore, it would be wrong to promote them because they did so much better than the black firefighters. So the test results were thrown out. Nice huh?
While we could focus on numerous issues with this case, and I might in future posts, I want to pay special attention to the term used to describe this case by the MSM. That term is ‘reverse racism.’
What is reverse racism?
Try to find the definition in the dictionary (the real one), and it isn’t there. The term has been manufactured by our society in an effort to belittle white people … period, end of story.
Reverse racism is what they call it when white people are discriminated against based on race. Racism is when white people discriminate based on race. This leads to so many idiots perpetuating the pathetic myth that only white people can be racist. In the twisted new age definition of racism I suppose that would be true. However, the true definition of racism is pretty clear.
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Notice the dictionary makes no distinction who can, and can not, be racist? That would be the same dictionary that has no definition of reverse racist … just so know.
This brings me to my point. I utterly reject the term ‘reverse racism.’ It implies that only whites can be racist on a regular basis, and anytime they are discriminated against is so rare that a new term must be created. It’s all garbage, and any mature person knows that.
There is no such thing as reverse racism … it does not exist. There is only racism. Either you are the victim of it, or you aren’t.
Can someone … anyone … explain how it is possible for a woman who is breast-feeding while intoxicated to be arrested while a pregnant woman who drinks goes free?
I am fed up with society’s hypocrisy when it comes to children, babies, or fetuses. There is no logical argument for there being a difference between a 7, 8, 9 month pregnant woman drinking, and a woman breast-feeding while drunk.
This constant struggle to simply try and figure out what is/is not a baby and what is/is not abuse and neglect will have to come to a head sooner or later.
Abortion is legal … unless you do it yourself. A pregnant woman can kill her 18 week old fetus, but someone else can’t? Have you ever even seen like during the time where a partial-birth abortion is performed?
A Grand Forks mother who police say was “extremely intoxicated” while breast-feeding her 6-week-old pleaded guilty to child neglect Tuesday.
Officers responded to an unrelated call at a Grand Forks residence in the early morning of Feb. 13 and saw 26-year-old Stacey Anvarinia slurring her speech and breastfeeding, prosecutor Meredith Larson told the judge.
Citing a police report, Larson said officers were concerned about the infant’s welfare, so they called Altru Hospital and were told that breast-feeding while intoxicated was not good for the child.
The joy is overwhelming even after all day to absorb it. I didn’t think Bush would pull the trigger, but he did the right thing. They will still be felons, but at least they are free.
Outside of conservative talk radio, Lou Dobbs and Fox News, the media has given little coverage to the crimes committed by two Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. So they’ve scrambled to get the details on the story today, as President Bush commuted their sentences. Rep. Roy Blunt issued a statement “on the pardon” of the two — but a pardon it was not. The White House gave lip service to the idea that the two ought to have been punished; the sentence apparently was not commensurate with the crime. It’s a common complaint, so why did President Bush weigh in here? Enormous pressure from conservatives ensured that the file would end up on his desk, although it’s not clear whether the Justice Department had made a recommendation.
The Atlantic got everything else about the case wrong. They didn’t point out that the Army surgeon who testified at the trial said that the dealer was shot while in a “bladed position.” Which means that he was facing back at the officers in a manner consistent with pointing a gun at them. Nor did they address that one of the agents was thrown to the ground by the dealer before he fled, or all the illegal activity by the prosecutor and judge in the case. I could go on and on about how ballistics never matched the bullet to the agent’s gun, or that there was no cover up because supervisors and other agents were all there.
There is one source who had all of that though. Make sure you read WND’s reaction to the commutation.
I hate writing this post. I really do. The idea that I have to write about the disgraceful actions of the relatives of the Flight 93 victims is stomach turning.
Most of the remains from the tragedy on Sept. 11, 2001, were never recovered, making the bowl-shaped crash site in the western Pennsylvania countryside an unofficial cemetery and, for surviving relatives, sacred ground.
But efforts to buy property for a national Flight 93 memorial have bogged down in federal red tape and a protracted land dispute, angering family members and risking plans to hold a dedication ceremony on the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. The delays have prompted an advocacy group, Families of Flight 93, to ask President Bush to personally intervene during his final weeks in office to allow the federal government to seize the land needed for the memorial and to allocate part of the money for the project.
Excuse me, I threw up a little in my mouth.
I think everyone would love to see a memorial for the victims of Flight 93. Undoubtedly, we’d prefer the memorial on the site of the tragedy. Is memorializing the victims of one tragedy worth creating another tragedy?
This land is privately owned by a company who is willing to sell it for a fare market value, but they haven’t been offered that yet. Frankly, it shouldn’t matter if they never wanted to sell the land … it’s theirs! For the relatives of Flight 93 victims to demand that the federal government steal land from a private land owner is a travesty, and it dishonors the memories of their loved ones.
The passengers of Flight 93 didn’t just fight back to save their own lives. They fought back against the terrorists to uphold American ideals. Ideals like freedom, liberty, and private property. How would Todd Beamer react to this group asking the government to use eminent domain to seize privately owned land in order to build him a memorial? Somehow, I doubt Mr. Beamer would be in favor of such treachery.
The Flight 93 group, and the federal government need to cease their selfish, grandiose land grab. There is no honor in what they are doing. Only dishonor for the flight that fought back.
Notice: I am not advocating any position for either pro-life or pro-choice in this post. My point is that the legal code of the United States is blatantly hypocritical when it comes to what is alive, and what is property.
There is a horrible case here in Vegas in which an 18 week old fetus was shot and killed during a murder. Our District Attorney, David Roger, has found a loophole in which he can charge the murderer with manslaughter as well because of the 18 week old fetus.
The man who authorities allege used a chain saw and assault rifle to shoot into his estranged wife’s apartment, killing her boyfriend and the woman’s unborn child, will be charged in the slaying of the 18-week-old fetus, the Clark County district attorney said today.
District Attorney David Roger said lawyers in his office reviewed the case and determined they will pursue an additional charge of “manslaughter, killing of an unborn quick child,” against 25-year-old William John Keck.
A “quick child” is a child that has moved in the mother’s womb. The DA wasn’t originally going to be able to charge Keck with the death of the fetus.
Police said Monday that they did not expect to charge William Keck in connection with the slaying of the fetus because it had not reached 25 weeks gestation, which Nevada law requires for a homicide charge. But Roger said a different state law that carries a possible sentence of one to 10 years would apply in this case.
“We did some research of the definition of an unborn quick child,” Roger said. “It is any movement of a fetus in a mother’s womb.”
Naturally, some people are mortified that you can’t charge someone with murder for the death of a fetus, but in the US legal code a fetus is property … not life. A mother’s body is her property, and she may do as she wishes with it. That is how the courts determine that a mother has the right to abort a pregnancy. The mother would not have that right without a fetus being designated ‘property’ by the courts.
That’s the hypocrisy. How can you charge someone with murder (as some states do), or manslaughter in the death of a fetus if the fetus is ‘legally’ considered property? The answer is, you can’t. At least you shouldn’t be allowed to, but the courts are so convoluted when it comes to life that these loopholes exist. What makes the matter worse is how utterly stupid the pro-lifers and pro-choicers are in their dealing with this issue. The pro-lifers never use logical arguments backed up by the law, and science, to make their case. The pro-choicers are so retarded that they actually think the choice of the mother is the only thing that creates a distinction between life and property.
Read some of the comments from the newspaper’s website about these charges:
Erin wrote on November 06, 2008 12:42 PM:
I don’t know how anyone can classify this as an abortion issue. An abortion is any SURGICAL method of removing a fetus to end a pregnancy. I don’t know what article you are reading, but no where did I read anything about a surgical act, just a poor soon-to-be-mother who was brutally attacked and lost 2 very important people in her life! Neighbors or no neighbors, how many of you are going to try and stop someone who has a chainsaw and a gun? Hopefully you would call 911, but by the time anyone got there, this horrible crime would have already been finished. So everyone needs to get off their politcal soapboxes and pray, send good vibes, or whatever it is you do, for Angel for a full recovery! My goodness, where is the heart and compassion for humankind!
mercy me wrote on November 06, 2008 03:46 PM:
Hey Pro lifers! How incompetent of you. When women have an Abortion it is their choice to do so. whether you disagree or not it is still a LEGAL procedure. When a psychopath shoots you and kills your baby against your will, that is called MURDER. Why don’t you go Protest in front of an abortion clinic where you could possibly change someones mind and do some good, as opposed to throwing your useless beliefs in a conversation that isn’t even about abortion
Both of these people, and their respective supporters on the thread, are flat-out idiots. This case IS an abortion issue because the only reason a pregnant woman has the right to abort is because the fetus is considered her property. Since, legally speaking, an 18 week old fetus is only considered property … how can this guy be charged with manslaughter? It flies in the face of our current legal code as it pertains to the legal standing of a fetus. Furthermore, the notion that a fetus ceases to be a woman’s property because another party killed it is extremely uneducated and juvenile. Either the fetus is someone’s property, or it is not … which is it?
The truth is … we don’t know. I’m, of course, only referring to the legal code. Not your personal beliefs. If a fetus is property, as it is in the law, then you can not charge anyone with the death of a fetus. Period … end of story. If you are going to charge someone with the death of a fetus, then it is not property and must be considered a living being. Period … end of story. If we go the route of a fetus being property then we can only charge this Keck guy with malicious destruction of property, and nothing else. If the fetus is considered a living being we must also charge the mother with ending a life. Our legal code is meant to be applied uniformly, but it currently isn’t meeting that requirement when it comes to a fetus. Nor is it meeting that requirement when it comes to animals as well.
If the fetus is property then the mother has the right to do as she wishes with her property. That same standard is not applied to her pets though. This is intriguing, and enraging to me at the same time. Your pet is considered your property under the law. That is, until you harm your pet. Then the pet ceases to be property, and becomes a living creature. What the hell is that about? Either the pet is property, and I can do as I wish to it. Or the pet is a living creature, and I must treat it as such. Pets actually have more protection under the law than a fetus. Did you know that?
In both of these examples of hypocrisy in our legal code we must decide whether or not a fetus, or pet, is alive. Or if the two are considered property. This latest case is serving as an additional example of how convoluted our laws have become as a result of activist judges passing legislation they constitutionally aren’t allowed to pass. That’s all Roe v. Wade was. An illegal ruling by the court that is expressly forbidden by the US Constitution … regardless of your stance on life.
Legally speaking, this guy is being over charged for his crime. Howver, I applaud David Roger for his ingenuity in finding a life-based charge in the Nevada legal code. Non of this takes away from the fact that we have to make a final decision, at some point, on what is property and what is life.
So what do you think? Is a fetus life, or property?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
Needs of the Many 