Patterico's Pontifications


Cop to Daniele Watts: “I’m Mildly Interested That You Have a Publicist, But I’m Going to Get Your ID”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:07 am

And thus does another narrative of a racist white cop collapse with the emergence of facts. The other day, our law-enforcement-loving friends at Reason were telling us about the latest outrage: an acbtress from Django Unchained arrested for KWB (Kissing While Black).

For the “why relations between the American people and their law officers can be strained” department, even in the hallowed halls of Tinseltown (adjacent) and involving stars of the silver screen, such as Daniele Watts of Django Unchained and the TV show Partners fame, cops are still officious asses, as reported by

African-American actress Danièle Watts claims she was “handcuffed and detained” by police officers from the Studio City Police Department in Los Angeles on Thursday after allegedly being mistaken for a prostitute.

According to accounts by Watts and her husband Brian James Lucas, two police officers mistook the couple for a prostitute and client when they were seen showing affection in public. Watts refused to show her ID to the cops when questioned and was subsequently handcuffed and placed in the back of their car while police attempted to ascertain her identity. The two officers released Watts shortly afterwards.

Oh, the horrible and despicable racisms!!!

And then . . .

And then audio of the incident emerged.

In the audio, the officer explains that someone called saying there were lewd acts in the car. Watts repeatedly refuses to show her ID and complains about black people being stopped by the cops, to which the cop asks why Watts is playing the race card, as he had not brought up race. Watts tells the cop: “I can make a scene about it . . . I have a publicist.” The cop responds: “I’m mildly interested that you have a publicist, but I’m going to get your ID.” Well played, Mr. Cop.

In the CNN clip above, note how Watts complains that the cop asked her husband for her ID, apparently oblivious to the fact that the cop was politely not interrupting her phone conversation with her dad. The sympathetic CNN interviewer explains that the cop had the right to ask for ID, and keeps politely asking the clueless Watts why she didn’t just give up her ID. (Once Watts’s husband gave up her ID, the incident was over.) Watts also says “It’s my right and my pleasure to enjoy myself” by making out with her husband passionately in the car. TMZ says: “we’ve learned witnesses from the nearby Art Directors Guild office building told cops they were watching her and her BF have full-on sex in the passenger seat WITH THE DOOR OPEN!” (I love your passion, TMZ!)

Here’s how Reason describes the audio in their update:

[UPDATE: To vicariously live through and hear exactly why Watts, and other Americans, get so aggravated with police, it's worth listening to some audio of the incident released by celeb gossip website TMZ, in which a Sgt. Parker tells Watts with maddening supercilious arrogance that "I do have more power than you. Yes it's true. I have more power than you" and "I don't work for you" and "When I tell you to do something you have to do it, ma'am. That's the law....We actually have no charges now" when stressing she was not arrested but merely being detained. TMZ also found eyewitnesses who claim that Watts and her husband were having intercourse in the parked car, though nothing in the audio they released corroborates that as the complaint.]

Well, the cop does say someone called about “lewd acts” in the car, so yeah, actually it does corroborate it.

It’s a tough thing to have your narrative destroyed by facts, huh, Reason guys?

So what was initially portrayed in Reason as another Terrible Incident of Racism turns out to be a race-baiting publicity hound being dealt with by a bored, irritated, and decidedly non-racist cop just trying to do his job.

Whaddya know . . .

UPDATE: Husband, not boyfriend. Thanks to Christopher Smith.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali At Yale

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:25 am

[guest post by Dana]

In a followup to last night’s post, Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke before an audience of more than 300 people at Yale. Apparently there were no major interruptions during her speech. She presented her personal history and background of growing up in Somalia before addressing modern Islam and the need for reform:

During her speech, Hirsi Ali reiterated her views on the religion in which she was raised, focusing on her childhood and adolescence in a Muslim community in Somalia. She said she believes her experiences are relevant to the current state of Islam, which she described as violent, intolerant and in need of reform.

Hirsi Ali added that this “indoctrination” is at the source of radical Islam and leads to intolerance and violence. Therefore, she said, in order to fight the symptoms of radical Islam, the “core creed” of Islam — the Qur’an and hadith — must be reformed. Hirsi Ali called on Muslims to listen to their consciences and stand up to Allah, rather than bending to his will.

She also addressed the West’s response to radical groups:

Hirsi Ali repeated many times that the western world acts with “restraint” when dealing with conflicts of Islamic terrorism and radical groups.

“The clash is there, but what we follow up with is restraint. And restraint is what we’ve been showing for the last 30 years,” Hirsi Ali said to the audience.

Although she said she did not blame U.S. President Barack Obama for his reservations in handling situations such as the current rise of ISIS, she also spoke in favor of perceiving her former religion as “one Islam” whose core creed involves complete submission to Allah, the Islamic god that she previously deemed “fire-breathing.”

Turning the tables, she pointedly addressed the Muslim Student Association which had written a letter protesting her appearance:

Hirsi Ali directly addressed the MSA during her speech, asking why the organization took the time and resources to “silence the reformers and dissidents of Islam,” including herself, rather than fighting against the violence, intolerance and indoctrination Hirsi Ali associates with Islam.

“MSA students of Yale, you live at a time when Muslims are at a crossroads,” she said. “The Muslim world is on fire and those fanning the fire are using more creed. With every atrocity [they underscore] your commitment to Allah … Will you submit passively or actively, or will you finally stand up to Allah?”

Hirsi Ali also responded to the MSA’s critique of her lack of academic credentials by saying that even scholars with substantial credentials who have criticized Islam have been “bullied into silence.”

Courage seems to be in awfully short supply on university campuses these days. Hopefully some in the audience found themselves inspired to honestly examine their preconceived notions and views.



Further Shaming Themselves

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:42 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Last week, I posted about the timid little people of the left whose narrow-minded bigotry revealed itself in protests against an invitation extended to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak at Yale.

Well, Hirsi Ali will be speaking at Yale tonight. In a collective outcry, narrow-minded bigots on campus are collectively whining about her appearance – including the pearl-clutching Yale chaplain Sharon Kugler:

“We understand and affirm Yale’s commitment to free expression within an educational context,” Kugler said in the statement. “We are deeply concerned, however, by Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s long record of disparaging, and arguably hateful, comments about Muslims and Islam.”

Kugler wants the Buckley Program to allow speeches by critics of Hirsi Ali, one of the planet’s greatest and bravest campaigners for women’s rights and a very vocal critic of Islam.

“To better represent the whole Yale community and its educational goals, we recommend the organizers consider actions to expand the event, such as allowing concerned students to present their perspectives, or adding a scholarly voice to create a more nuanced conversation,” the chaplain urged.

Can you hear the screams of warning: Plug your ears!!

God help us. It appears that large swaths of the student population at Yale prefer having their intelligence insulted in order to remain safely cocooned in their ignorant infancy. At $44,000 per year in tuition, that’s some very expensive babysitting going on.

Thirty-five student campus groups co-signed a letter of protest from the Yale Muslim Students Association, stating they feel not only highly disrespected by the invitation but also believe that Hirsi Ali lacks the credentials to speak as an authority on Islam. I will refrain from a crude rejoinder here, but suffice it to say, I think there are very few who can actually provide such a uniquely powerful perspective and authoritative look at Islam. Further, if they believe she lacks the necessary authority, then why do they even care what she says? Why be so threatened by an ignorant rube?

But sadly, you know who has insulted and degraded the women on campus most in this? The dull-eyed, uninspired and fear-mongering Yale Women’s Center who co-signed the letter.



Tim Rutten Gets It Right (No, Really!)

Filed under: General — JVW @ 11:09 pm

[guest post by JVW]

Columnist Tim Rutten has deservedly come in for withering criticism at these parts through the years (see here, here, here, and, oh, here and maybe here and here; can’t forget here either). He’s a committed leftist who always seeks to put conservatives in the worst possible light, and a blowhard to boot. However, just as with the old aphorism about the broken clock being accurate twice per day, Rutten once in a great while gets one right. Brace yourselves, friends: this is one of those times.

In today’s column, Rutten addresses the ills of Wahhabism as the antecedent of the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, ISIS, and the rest of the islamofascism that has become so prominent in Muslim countries:

While political Islam’s contemporary ideology is the work of mid-20th century Egyptian thinkers like Sayyid Qutb, the style of Muslim religiosity in which it flourishes is rooted in the Wahhabi creed that is the official religion of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Since the 18th century, when the puritanical religious zealot Muhammad ibn-Wahhab struck an alliance with the tribal leader Muhammad bin Saud, the family that today supplies Saudi Arabia’s royals has allowed the Wahhabi clerical establishment to dominate their people’s religious and social lives in return for political support. Even today, the kingdom’s minister of religious affairs always comes from among Wahhab’s descendants, the al ash-Sheikh family. More importantly, the Saudis have spent tens of billions from their petro-wealth to promote Wahhabism around the world. Today, its prestige is, as a result, unrivaled in the globe’s Muslim communities.

Naturally, because this is after all Tim Rutten we are dealing with, there has to be at least a few silly leftwing delusions:

Contemporary American notions of tolerance put us ill at ease when circumstances require condemnation of other people’s religious practice. . .

Because, you know, American liberals have been so reticent when it comes to condemning the beliefs of Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and other religions who don’t gleefully adopt the modern groupthink on abortion, birth control, or homosexuality. Nevertheless, Rutten steps up to the plate and takes a mighty cut (at an admittedly slow pitch):

. . . but the time has come to deliver exactly that verdict on Saudi salafism. It is intolerant, repressive and obscurantist and has made the world a more dangerous place for us all. It preaches hatred of Jews, Christians, women, gays and even other Muslims. The international community of nations has put up with behavior on the Saudis’ part that would not be countenanced on the part of any other country in the world. No matter how much the Obama administration believes it requires Saudi assistance in the campaign against the Islamic State, it’s kidding itself if it thinks the kleptocratic and deceitful House of Saud is a reliable ally.

Sure, Rutten is unloading on an illiberal religion and that’s easy enough for any leftist to do, but I think we can all take solace in the fact that he did not try to temper his criticism of salafism with a critique of U.S. foreign policy over the past seventy years (especially under Republican Administrations) or some banal recitation of the shopworn idea that Islam is the Religion of Peace and that Wahhabis only comprise a very small subset. Note that he even registers a slight criticism of the Obama Administration’s deference to the House of Saud.

There will be plenty of opportunities to criticize Tim Rutten’s future musings, but for tonight let’s welcome him as an ally on this particular issue.


President Obama Advising ISIS

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:29 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Whoa! How to make the enemy quake with fear:

If he had been “an adviser to ISIS,” Mr. Obama added, he would not have killed the hostages but released them and pinned notes on their chests saying, “Stay out of here; this is none of your business.” Such a move, he speculated, might have undercut support for military intervention.



Pelosi Unwilling To Concede Stupidity Contest – Late Charge

Filed under: General — JD @ 4:23 pm

[guest post by JD]

In what had become a leftist stampede to the finish line in the last couple days, SanFranNan Pelosi attempted to beat her rivals with a flurry of hyperbole and outright ignorance, challenging the racist bra, Harf, Psaki, Kerry, and Earnest’s commanding lead.

On Bill Maher, Rep Botox informs us that nothing short of the collapse of civilization as we know it is at stake in the Dems retaining the Senate. Click the link.

Seemingly unaware of the migration of people and businesses out of California, Rep One Expression asserts that people can’t move to lower their tax burdens.

Sadly, this is a routine day for SanFranNan, who serves as an object lessons as to the dangers of Botox.


Refusing To Believe There Is Such A Thing As Evil

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:47 am

[guest post by Dana]

Earlier this week, I put up a post wherein Thomas Friedman opined that the terror group ISIS feels shame at what it is doing. I found myself simultaneously unsurprised and yet incredulous that he would ascribe a functioning moral code to a group like ISIS. Because really?

MDinPhilly commented:

Some people just refuse to believe there is such a thing as evil, and such a thing as good.
Maybe they have a deep down and intense desire to refuse to deal with the implications of such moral and spiritual realities.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/9/2014 @ 7:18 am

I agree with this and as such, have been thinking about the reluctance or inability of some to assign a reality of evil in this world. Of course, the reluctance to believe it exists in human form is nothing new. More than sixty years ago, a smart man understood that in order to convince the world of a very real manifestation of pure evil and to prevent any attempts at erasure or denial, it would be necessary to record and visually preserve what had taken place. However, as this new face of evil becomes increasingly defined and personified in its brazenly brutal demonstrated reality, can a tipping point ever be reached that would actually compel the Friedmans of the world to, and without hesitation, acknowledge and agree that there is evil? A shameless, nonredeemable evil that seeks to destroy all who get in its way, an evil from which there is no coming back, no rehabilitation possible, and no want of it either for it does not value life and the currency preferred is death? Perhaps those who soft-pedal evil simply cannot wrap their minds around the breadth and depth of brutality – in spite of visual evidence and confirmation. However, I tend to believe that it’s that their own personal fear that demands any possible declaration of evil be kept at bay, lest it shatter core foundational beliefs that all people are inherently good. And if a dismantling of that core belief happens, what is one left with?

Consider the Catholic, Washington-based Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns and 53 national religious groups trying to persuade the president that military efforts are not the answer to stem the onslaught of ISIS:

“U.S. military action is not the answer. We believe that the way to address the crisis is through long-term investments in supporting inclusive governance and diplomacy, nonviolent resistance, sustainable development, and community-level peace and reconciliation processes.”

Further, presenting bullet points of advisement in the name of Jesus, they claim they want to protect all people, but there are “better, more effective, more healthy and more humanizing ways” to accomplish this:

*Stop U.S. bombing in Iraq “to prevent bloodshed, instability and the accumulation of grievances.”
*Provide “robust humanitarian assistance” to refugees fleeing the violence, “in coordination with the United Nations.”
*Engage with the UN, all Iraqi political and religious leaders, and others in the international community on diplomatic efforts.
*Support community-based nonviolent resistance strategies to transform the conflict and meet the deeper need and grievances of all parties.
*Strengthen financial sanctions against armed actors in the region by working through the UN Security Council.
*Bring in professionally trained unarmed civilian protection organizations.
*An arms embargo on all parties to the conflict.
*Support Iraqi civil society efforts to build peace, reconciliation, and accountability at the community level.

With what I consider a mind-boggling view of human nature, I question if that elusive tipping point would come even if these Friedmans of the world most horribly found themselves with their own necks under the murderous blade of ISIS.



Josh Earnest and Sec. Kerry Make Their Case For Stupidest People of The Week

Filed under: General — JD @ 12:58 pm

[guest post by JD]

They do not even listen to each other.

Yesterday Sec. Kerry assured us we are NOT at war with ISIL.

Today Spokesliar Earnest informs us we are at war with ISIL.

Spokesliar Harf could not be reached for comment.

Spokesliar Psaki is busy creating a new slogan for the #WarOnHashtags.


Racist Bra – Updated

Filed under: General — JD @ 12:16 pm

[guest post by JD]

Here is the link to the racist bra story. My bad.

This article, beyond a shadow of a doubt, will be the stupidest thing you read today. . Unless Josh Earnest, Jen Psaki, and Marie Harf penned an article somewhere.

Nude colored bras are racist. On the heels of racism causing people to be overweight as a collective, this is sublime in its stupidity. Apparently, the precious little snowflake that wrote this drivel has never gone to a store that sold brown or black bras, or make-up in the 5000 different shades and palates available.

The author’s ignorance, in general, and of the use of “nude” to not refer to skin color but a tone that does not show through lighter colored shirts, is a perfect distillation I the absence of thought in modern claims of RACISM, micro-aggression, and other PC nonsense.

I don’t know how people this stupid make it through a day without significant assistance.

I denounce, and condemn, myself.


NYT: Obama “Now” Embracing “Unjustifiable Interpretations of the Executive Branch’s Authority”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:51 am

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” — Candidate Barack Obama, 2007

It’s rare that I agree with the chuckleheads at the New York Times editorial board, but I do here:

As the Pentagon gears up to expand its fight against ISIS, a fundamentalist Sunni militant group that controls large areas of Iraq and Syria, Congress appears perfectly willing to abdicate one of its most consequential powers: the authority to declare war.

The cowardice in Congress, never to be underestimated, is outrageous. Some lawmakers have made it known that they would rather not face a war authorization vote shortly before midterm elections, saying they’d rather sit on the fence for a while to see whether an expanded military campaign starts looking like a success story or a debacle. By avoiding responsibility, they allow President Obama free rein to set a dangerous precedent that will last well past this particular military campaign.

But then they (predictably) go off the rails.

Mr. Obama, who has spent much of his presidency seeking to wean the United States off a perpetual state of war, is now putting forward unjustifiable interpretations of the executive branch’s authority to use military force without explicit approval from Congress.



There was this little thing called Libya, where our Dictator in Chief bombed a foreign country without any authorization from Congress. Oddly, the editorial board does get around to mentioning this:

The administration has been situational when it comes to asking Congress for the approval to use military force. When Mr. Obama authorized an air campaign in Libya in 2011 to help embattled rebels overthrow Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, he chose not to get permission from Congress. That decision was remarkable because the president overruled the top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department, who argued that under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, any military action that lasted more than 60 days required formal authorization from Congress.

Last year, when Mr. Obama came close to launching cruise missiles in response to a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government, he argued that it was imperative to seek a congressional vote. When it became clear that lawmakers and the public wouldn’t support an attack, the administration backed down and was lucky to find a diplomatic alternative.

Wow. So . . . Obama shares some blame here, you say? And he’s done it before — claiming that the term “hostilities” does not include “bombing”?


It’s almost as if he has not spent his presidency trying to wean us off a state of war. It’s almost as if saying that he “now” is putting forth “unjustifiable interpretations of the executive branch’s authority” whitewashes the fact that this isn’t the first time.

Overall, I suppose the piece is OK in describing the sorry state of affairs that we have come to. But the gutless editorial writers fail to answer one very important question.

Let’s say the Congress were to bring this bombing campaign up for a vote. And voted it down.

And Obama said he was going to do it anyway.

What should Congress do in that situation, editorial writers?

Is there a reason you do not want to put your answer in writing?

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2249 secs.