NFL Bad Boys and the Company They Keep

Boys behaving badly. I mean very badly. That’s the image of the National Football League today and its Commissioner Roger Goodell is looking more like a joke, and a staunch defender of the locker room culture rather than the disciplinarian he pledged to be in 2007.

There’s been a parade of NFL players who have been suspended and or arrested for everything from brutalizing their women to abusing their children under the guise of “spanking.” All in a days work for these guys I guess. Hitting each other on the field for sport and hitting women and children for extracurricular fun. It’s sickening.

Baltimore Ravens Ray Rice was caught on video knocking out cold his then fiancé Janay Palmer. Vikings Adrian Peterson “spanked” his 4-year old son with a switch, “cutting his arms, legs and genitals.” San Franciso 49ers Ray McDonald was arrested for hitting his pregnant fiancée. Carolina Panthers Greg Hardy thought it was fun to throw his girlfriend on a bed full of 10 semi-automatic weapons and beat her up, for which he was convicted.

But Cardinals player Jonathan Dwyer head butting his wife, breaking her nose because she refused to have sex with him takes the cake for the most despicable NFL player. Dwyer didn’t stop there. Still angry the next morning, Dwyer punched his wife in the face for emphasis.

These guys look like a line up for America’s Most Wanted. Not only has these players’ behavior stained the NFL’s reputation; it also has given black men a bad name because the players mentioned are all black. Men remind me that 70% of the NFL players are black. So, that’s supposed to be an excuse for them to act like barbaric animals?

Evidently, the National Football League (NFL) didn’t get the memo that women and children aren’t property of men to be abused. Perhaps the players also missed Beyoncé’s song “Girls Run the World” not that girls should be run over or trampled upon like football opponents.

Goodell’s response to this avalanche of domestic brutality exhibited by NFL players has been an unconvincing press conference and hiring three women to advise him how to deal with this fiasco. Hey Roger, here’s a litmus test. Would you beat your wife and kids? Do you think that’s manly or acceptable behavior?

Goodell shouldn’t have to hire women to tell him football players acting like thugs is NOT acceptable and these players need to go. Period. But the billions of dollars the NFL is worth matters more to Goodell and companies who advertise or have sponsorship deals with the organization than doing the right thing.

Proctor & Gamble cancelled a breast cancer awareness promotion with the NFL but other companies haven’t followed suit. Anheuser-Busch InBev NV, and PepsiCo issued statements denouncing the horrific behavior displayed by these players. While the beer giant noted “We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code,” it’s not morally repugnant enough for AB InBev to pull its $1.2 billion deal for Bud Light to be the official beer of the NFL. But AB InBev isn’t alone.

A longtime sponsor of NFL, PepsiCo quenches the thirst of players during games with Gatorade and has “NFL marketing rights for several other brands.” PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi said in a statement that as “a mother, a wife, and a passionate football fan” she was “deeply disturbed” by “the repugnant behavior of a few players and the NFL’s acknowledged mishandling of these issues.”

But Nooyi wasn’t disturbed enough to end PepsiCo’s ties with the NFL until they clean up their act. Nooyi added she stood by her man Goodell and thought he was “a man of integrity” and urged him and the NFL “to seize the moment” and do the right thing. Mrs. Nooyi should heed her own words, show zero tolerance for domestic violence and pull Pepsi’s lucrative deal with the NFL. But that requires taking a real stand not just talking about one.

Many companies pulled ads from Rush Limbaugh’s show for his “opinions” about Sandra Fluke’s campaign for free birth control pills. The NFL situation is exponentially worse and companies are sitting on the sidelines telling women and children who are victims of players’ domestic violence they don’t care. It’s just how the game is played.


Women and NFL Stand by Wife Beater Ray Rice

I don’t know what’s worse, Ravens football player Ray Rice knocking his then fiancée, now wife, unconscious in an elevator, the NFL protecting him, or women defending Rice for punching “an unarmed woman.” All of the above are equally repugnant. But a woman, saying Rice’s wife Janay Palmer deserved it, is disturbing.

“She hit him first and any woman who hits a man deserves to be hit,” described a woman interviewed by NBC News. The woman was describing the video of Rice knocking out Janay in response to her slapping his body in an elevator of the Revel Hotel in Atlantic City. So, it was okay for Rice to respond by whacking Janay in the head unconscious and then drag her by her feet like a slaughtered animal out of the elevator?

“Why is it that the victimizer becomes the victim? Why is it that we want to protect these men? What is it about our society? What is it about us, as women, that we feel a need to protect them?” Robin Givens explained on the Today Show about her abusive marriage with professional boxer Mike Tyson.

An unarmed woman never, ever “deserves” to be punched or beaten by a man. Absolutely never! As a young woman, my parents taught me it’s not normal for a man to hit a woman and if a man ever as much as threatened me, he wasn’t a real man and I needed to run as fast as I could.

Yet society at large, as Givens elaborated, usually blames women who are victimized by men. In fact, it is very difficult for women in abusive relationships to get restraining orders to keep abusive boyfriends or husbands away from them. And even when women are successful, abusers often violate their restraining orders because law enforcement isn’t effective in enforcing them. In many cases, the result is women, who are victims of domestic violence, end up being seriously harmed or killed by their abusers.

With that said, why would any woman defend an abusive tyrant like Ray Rice? Because society tells women every second of each day that we’re nothing in life without being someone’s wife or girlfriend.

In fact, I would posit society holds married women with children at a higher regard than married women without children. A few weeks ago, when I was guest hosting WMAL’s Mornings on the Mall radio program with co-host Larry O’Connor, one of the topics was the media’s obsession with whether or not Jennifer Aniston is going to have a child. Many males phoned in and said they view married women with children as better than single women or even married women without children.

Through movies, fairy tales, the prom, and some parents, girls are socialized at a very young age that they must find prince charming and that even settling for an abusive man is better than no man at all. There’s no place for the single woman at dinner parties or galas. This is part of the reason why abused women stay in relationships with their abusers. Because society frown’s on single women.

By not pursuing an aggressive investigation against Rice, the NFL was telling women like Janay to “get over it, you’ll lucky to married to a rich, albeit a wife beater, football player.” But if an investigation confirms news reports the NFL saw the video of Rice punching his wife and Rice admitted to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in June that he did hit Janay, the message of professional football is clear. The NFL promotes and protects players knocking each other around on the field and battering their women off the field.

Arrogance: the Downfall of Governor McDonnell


Guilty over greed, that’s what a jury of their peers found former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and his wife Maureen. McDonnell, the 71st governor of Virginia, now has the distinguished honor of being the first governor convicted of a felony in the state’s history.

There were tears from the accused and shock from many Richmonders, including myself when the verdicts were handed down. I thought McDonnell and his wife would elude charges of corruption. But perhaps Virginians have had enough of politicians like McDonnell abusing their power for financial gain.

“I’m the governor of Virginia. I can have it all, live beyond my means. In fact I’m owed it all because I’m a very important person.” This seems to be what Bob McDonnell thought when as governor he accepted nearly $200,000 in money and gifts from Johnnie Williams, Sr., who was then CEO of Star Scientific. But when federal prosecutors indicted McDonnell and his wife on corruption charges, suddenly McDonnell played dumb. His defense was he didn’t think he had to pay Williams back for those gifts and loans nor did he believe he should give Williams anything in return, like promoting his Anatabloc product. Yeah, right.

And his wife’s defense was their broken marriage. Maureen claimed she was infatuated with Williams and didn’t believe accepting a Rolex from him and a $20,000 New York City shopping spree was wrong. Lawyers for McDonnell too used the bad marriage defense, arguing that because of their crumbling marriage, he didn’t know about the gifts Maureen received from Williams or the Star Scientific stock she purchased.

What man throws his wife under the bus like that? There was a picture of McDonnell wearing the engraved Rolex watch his wife got from Williams so it’s hard to believe he never asked Maureen how she acquired it?

Apparently, the jurors didn’t buy this or the couple’s “he said, she said” defense of a bad marriage backed up by the charade of the two living apart during the trial. To think this indictment against the McDonnells began as a result of the firing of the executive chef for the governor’s mansion Todd Schneider over stealing food from the mansion pantry. Schneider steadfastly has claimed he didn’t steal any food but took it as part of a bartering deal approved by Maureen.

When the FBI began its investigation of Schneider, he gave the FBI evidence proving Williams wrote a $15,000 check to pay for McDonnell’s daughter’s wedding reception. This uncorked the federal investigation into McDonnell’s other money dealings with Williams and the governor’s indictment. I bet McDonnell wishes he hadn’t fired Schneider or more importantly gotten caught for taking gifts and money Williams.

A few people tweeted McDonnell wasn’t the first or last politician to act unethically. One person tweeted it was a “corrupt and angry revenge seeking U.S Attorney General” Eric Holder who brought charges against a Republican Governor. Governor McDonnell’s arrogance and greed was his enemy not Eric Holder or President Barack Obama because McDonnell never thought he would get caught.

Even when prosecutors offered him a deal with no prison time in exchange for pleading guilty to one count of felony fraud and no charges brought against his wife, McDonnell rejected it. If McDonnell had been an average Joe robbing a bank, he would have been convicted and everyone would have said justice was served. There isn’t one set of rules for politicians and another for everyone else.

McDonnell thought being a governor meant he was immune to the laws of the land but jurors reminded him he needed to be held accountable for his actions just like any other American. I wonder if the McDonnells think their lust for things (a Rolex, clothes, multiple homes) and a lifestyle they couldn’t afford was worth going to prison and becoming convicted felons.

Death of Black Teen Michael Brown Incites Another Race War

“Unarmed” doesn’t mean doing “no harm.” A man can rape and assault a woman without being armed. A man can overpower an armed policeman and injure or kill him without being armed.

When a police officer or a white person kills an “unarmed black teen,” it doesn’t automatically mean that a police officer or a white person committed a hate crime. Yet ever since the race baiting mob led by Al Sharpton, rushed to judgment in Trayvon Martin’s death, even before charges or a trial ensued, it’s become de rigueur for the mainstream media to use the phrase “unarmed black teen” when black teens are killed by whites or police officers.

The word “unarmed” inherently suggests that a black teen bears no culpability in his or her tragic demise. But during the George Zimmerman murder trial of Trayvon Martin, evidence and testimony showed Martin fought with Zimmerman. Here we are again with the same narrative and cast of characters being played out in the tragic death of Missouri teen Michael Brown before the facts are in.

Benjamin Crump, the same lawyer who represented Martin’s parents, is representing the Brown family. No investigation or autopsy has been completed. And Al Sharpton, who never met a race war he didn’t like, headlined a protest in Ferguson.

These familiar faces injecting themselves into the situation makes one wonder are they in it for “justice” or money. Michael Brown was a high school graduate, preparing to start his freshman year of college, something his grieving mother reminded us is rare for black men these days. Michael’s death is awful.

But the mainstream media, many blacks and self-appointed “civil rights leaders” immediately pulled the race card on Twitter and hit the streets crying, “no justice, no peace,” as conflicting facts continue dribbling in. Some blacks used it as a reason to loot and damage buildings. A black teen dies and blacks respond in kind with violence on “unarmed” people of Ferguson? Isn’t that why blacks were upset in the first place, because a violent act was allegedly committed against an “unarmed black teen”?

And why did President Barack Obama once again weigh in before an investigation was completed on the death of Brown like he did when Martin was shot by “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman?

“The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking, and Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to his family and his community at this very difficult time,” Obama said in a statement.

Vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard, Obama succumbed to pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus and other “black advocates” and spoke publicly about the situation. Without an investigation being completed, Obama, as the nation’s first black president, is further stoking racial unrest in Ferguson and the nation.

If Obama is going to make it a matter of practice to comment on every black teen that is killed in this country daily, he has some catching up to do. Why don’t we see Obama sending condolences to the families of the hundreds of black teens killed in his own hometown of Chicago every year? Is it because the majority of these kids are killed by other blacks and that’s OK?

Is Obama saying the lives of blacks allegedly killed by cops or whites warrant national outrage? Why isn’t the FBI investigating the hundreds of homicides of black teens and adults across the country daily as possible hate crimes, like it is Brown’s death?

Yes, Brown was unarmed but that doesn’t mean he didn’t allegedly attack the police officer. Nor does it mean the police officer shot him simply because he was black. But facts be damned. “Hell”, said blacks from near and far, this is a race crime plain and simple. Only it may not be.

In a press conference, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said the police officer and Brown engaged in a “violent confrontation” before Brown was shot. “The side of his face is swollen,” said Jackson.

After days of pressure from the public, Jackson finally released the officer’s identity as Darren Wilson. During the same news conference, Jackson released new evidence suggesting Brown and his friend Darion Johnson were suspects in stealing a $48.99 box of cigarettes. But Johnson repeatedly insisted the officer ordered them onto the sidewalk, grabbed Brown by the neck and tried to force him onto the sidewalk. Johnson said when Brown ran away, Wilson shot him.

There are a lot of unanswered questions in this case. If Brown was brutalized by a police officer for stealing a package of cigarettes, the officer should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But while the court of public opinion has made up its mind that Wilson is guilty, the reality is, due process of the law hasn’t taken place.

Is it good that  in the town of Ferguson where about 70% of the 21,000 residents are black that of  that only three of the police officers are black? No, not necessarily. But does it mean the non-black officers are racist? No, not necessarily. Could the Ferguson police do a better job of recruiting black officers? Yes, probably.

A black St. Louis, Missouri councilmember, Antonio French, blamed Brown’s death on whites controlling government.

“Ferguson has a white government and a white mayor, but a large black population. This situation has brought out whatever rifts were between that minority community and the Ferguson government,” French said.

The District of Columbia has had black mayors and predominately black city council for nearly the past 30 years and blacks are killed daily most often by other blacks. I wonder if Mr. French considers the “black government in DC to blame” or if the race card is reserved only for blacks, who are allegedly killed by cops or white people?

Black advocates like French, Sharpton and President Obama need to start playing the honesty card for a change and allow true justice be served.



Obama Sounds Bush Lite in his Bomb Iraq Remarks

If I didn’t know any better, I could have sworn President Barack Obama channeled his predecessor President George W. Bush in his statement authorizing air strikes on Iraq. After blaming Bush for his fledging presidency all these years, I guess Obama has Bush on the brain.

Obama used the word “terrorists” six times to describe the Islamic State (ISIS) and to explain to the American people he took military action in Iraq to “save the lives of Americans” and save face with the world. What face America has left.

Why is Obama suddenly ditching the term “Islamic extremists” and calling ISIS terrorists but won’t call Hamas terrorists, even though they are designated such by the State Department? Obama also was loath to call the terrorists who killed our diplomats in Benghazi terrorists from the start.

Could it be because Obama’s foreign policy approval rating approval rating on foreign policy has dropped to an all time low of 36%? What makes the situation in Iraq so dire to compel Obama to take decisive military action when he hasn’t in five years?

Other crises around the world (Ukraine, Gaza, Syria, Arab Spring, Iran) have placed “American citizens at risk” and required America’s leadership “to underwrite the global security and prosperity that our children and our grandchildren will depend upon,” as Obama said but he did nothing.

Yet that’s what he told the Iraqi people. Obama sudden action in Iraq makes his foreign policy look like Jell-O—all over the place with no strategy except “to resist calls to turn time and again to our military.”

I understand ISIS is a super terrorist organization, entrenched in Iraq, killing Christians and religious sect Yezidis by the thousands and determined to create a terrorist state. But for the past two years, Obama sat on the sidelines of inaction in Syria where these same terrorist groups along with others like al-Nursa threaten the world.

President Obama’s remarks justifying “targeted” airstrikes against ISIS strong holds in Iraq sounded like revisionist history of his administration’s foreign policy. Obama displayed a hawkish, cowboy tone more reminiscent of Bush’s post 9/11 foreign policy, when America was the world’s defender of liberty and freedom.

“So let me be clear about why we must act, and act now . . . in this case, a request from the Iraqi government and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye,” declared Obama.

He added: “We can also lead with the power of diplomacy, our economy and our ideals.”

This sounds a lot like Bush’s foreign policy of engagement on all cylinders, which the Obama has routinely condemned and his actions don’t back up his words.

Obama took no action against Iran when elections were rigged in 2009 and dragged his feet on Iran’s nuclear program. Obama took no action during the Arab Spring when countries like Egypt went through regime change and the radical Muslim Brotherhood took root. In fact, Obama reluctantly joined airstrikes against Libya to help oust Gadhafi, only after Britain and France took the lead.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has killed over 100,000 civilians and displaced nearly 6 million Syrian refugees. Obama took no action, kept redrawing red lines in the sand with Assad and outsourced diplomacy to Russian President Vladimir. America’s lack of diplomacy with Ukraine when it was trying to join the European Union further emboldened Putin to invade Crimea, start a war to takeover Ukraine which lead Russian separatists to bomb a commercial airliner.

Finally, the Middle East is in tatters with a war raging between Israel and the Palestinians because Obama will not unequivocally denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization and assure Israel “America is coming to help,” as he told the Iraqis. One reason Obama gave for striking Iraq was he was protecting American lives against terrorists yet he condemns Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for defending Israelis against terrorist attacks from Hamas.

Obama said these airstrikes, about which he consulted with Congress for a change, are needed “to address this humanitarian crisis.” The president can spin this military action however he wants, but I’m sure “innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale” in Gaza, Syria, Ukraine and other conflicts, which Obama has avoided, are thinking America cannot be counted on.

Obama channeled his inner Bush again, stating, “America has made the world a more secure and prosperous place,” but not under Obama’s presidency. In the president’s insistence America take a back seat on the international stage, bad actors have filled the void and the world is in upheaval.

There was a time when “people all over the world looked to the United States to lead.” While the president professed and proclaimed, “We support our allies when they’re in danger,” Obama’s disdain for “upholding international norms” has made the world realize it can’t count on America anymore.

DC Defines Pepper Spray as a Firearm

Just when I thought the District of Columbia government couldn’t stoop to new lows of incompetence and non-sensical behavior, it does. Apparently, self-defense spray is defined as a firearm in DC and must be registered by its owner with the Metropolitan Police Department. I kid you not! You heard me correctly. The DC Police wants to make it even more difficult for people, especially women, in a town where it’s tortuous to purchase a gun to use in self-defense.

Recently, US District Judge Frederick J. Schulling Jr. ruled DC’s ban on people carrying guns in public was unconstitutional. Yet, DC lawmakers and the Police department demonstrate a tenacity for trying to make it onerous for residents to legally defend themselves against maniacs.

How did I stumble upon this little gem of lunacy? My neighbor who lives in DC has an 18-year old daughter who decided it was probably a good idea that she carried some pepper spray to defend herself in the city and when she heads off to college in South Carolina later this month. She explained to me when she went to buy the pepper spray at the Ace Hardware store in the Tenley Town neighborhood of DC, the sales clerk handed her the “The District of Columbia Self-Defense Spray Registration Form” which is part of the Gun Control and Firearms Registration.

To say that she and her mother were perplexed and stunned by the request was an understatement. The law requires a person be a minimum of 18 years old or older to own self-defense sprays because I guess it wouldn’t make any sense to allow teenagers to defend themselves against predators and the like.

The DC law governing this “firearm” specifies only sprays consisting of permissible ingredients may be used in the city.

“However, under D.C. Official Code § 7-2502.12, the only legal types of self-defense sprays are “a mixture of a lacrimator including chloroacetophenone, alphacloracetophenone, phenylchloromethylketone, orthochlorobenazalm-alononitrile or oleoresin capsicum.”

And then the law goes onto note that: “A person may use a self-defense spray only as reasonable force to defend themselves or their property and only if the self-defense spray meets the requirements above.”

When a DC police officer arrives at a crime scene where a woman has defended herself with pepper spray against rape from a male assailant, I wonder if the officer examines the spray to ensure it “meets the requirements”? Fines for the illegal sale or possession of self-defense sprays in DC can be up to $1000 or a year in jail.

Like many liberal run cities such as New York and Chicago, the pervasive wisdom of DC lawmakers believes the bad guys should have the right to bear arms illegally but law abiding citizens should not have the right to legally bear arms, in fact let’s burden them with red-tape! Additionally, liberal DC council members and the DC police department believes they should make it as difficult as possible for law abiding DC residents to defend themselves against attack.

In 2008, after the United States Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that DC’s gun ban was unconstitutional, the District remained determined to make it challenging to own a gun legally. Reporter Emily Miller wrote in her book “Emily Gets Her Gun” about her nightmare journey to becoming a gun-owner in DC.

DC only allows one business, CS Exchange , to sell firearms in the city and only has a little over 30 firearms instructors certified by the Metropolitan Police Department to teach safety classes. Why make it easy to own a gun legally?

Responding to the recent federal judge ruling on the district’s open carry ban, DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier said:

“When Heller came out in 2008, people said ‘Oh, street crime’s going to go down.’ Well Heller only allows you to have a handgun in your home, and guess what happened Burglaries went up. So I don’t know if there’s any valid debate on the crime side.”

According to Police Chief Lanier’s logic, criminals should have unfettered access to firepower but as crime goes up, law abiding DC residents should be forced to go through hoops to buy guns and mere pepper spray to defend themselves. Because anything else makes too much common sense to liberals like Lanier.