Stats Prove Black Lives Matter Movement is a Lie

black lives matter1.jpg

All reasonable and informed people know that the  “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” refrain Is best described as one of the creation myths of the Black Lives Matter movement. What about the argument that has grown the movement to the point at which seemingly every Democrat supports it? Are African Americans being gunned down by police is vastly disproportionate numbers and is the explanation for this white racism? Statistics prove the answer  is no.

The Washington Post maintains an online database of people in America who have been shot and killed by police in 2016. As of the morning on September 23, 2016, 173 of 707 total deaths have been African American. This means that 24% of those who lost their lives are black. African Americans constitute 13% of the U.S. population. The 24% figure therefore cannot be considered vastly disproportionate.

How can we account for the 11% differential. Is white racism to blame? FBI crime statistics prove that African Americans commit well 50% of serious crime in the nation. (Here we have a true vastly disproportionate number.) Since blacks represent only 13% of the populace, it means there is a great deal of per capita criminality in the African American community. Since people who commit crimes have more encounters with police, and therefore a greater chance of being shot by the police, the 24% figure actually seems lower than what one would expect.

Law enforcement is, of course, well aware that crime is rampant in many African American dominated neighborhoods. It is as a consequence that police presence in such neighborhoods is much higher than in many areas in which blacks are in the minority. A large number of police patrolling African American neighborhoods means more interactions between blacks and police and is another reason for there to be an increased chance of blacks being shot by the police. This is another fact that moves one to see the 24% number as surprisingly small.

Another explanation for the 11% is cultural. Even a cursory examination of video evidence available on the Web uncovers the fact that a significant percentage of black Americans do not seem to realize that it is against the law to disobey a lawful order from a police officer. To few African Americans appear to understand that they must comply with any directive issued by a police officer as along as doing so does not force them to break the law and the failure to do so immediately makes them guilty of disorderly conduct and subject to lawful arrest. Rather than comply with police officers instructions, blacks many times adopt a combative attitude in encounters with law enforcement officers. If one goes looking for a fight with a policeman or policewoman she or he is likely to find it. Serious conflicts can easily turn violent and any violent confrontation with law enforcement has the potential to turn into a deadly shooting.

In both total number killed and percentage of the whole, the numbers for African Americans of those shot and killed by police so far this year represents an improvement over last year. Yet Black Lives Matter activists continue to tell  us that blacks are being “hunted down” by police and are justifiably afraid to walk down the street. Rhetoric like that spouted by the Black Lives Matter movement, which reflects the belief erroneous that most police are racists and out to get them, only serves to fuel the hostility African Americans feel and express toward law enforcement and therefore puts blacks at a greater risk of being shot by police. If the members of the Black Lives Matter movement truly cared about black lives, they would be concentrating their efforts on reforming the African American community in such a way as to make it more law abiding, raise public awareness within the community about the legal obligation to comply with the directives of police officers and combat the fallacious narrative that police are the enemies of African Americans.

If you found this post interesting you will also want to read: “A White American’s Response to Actor Jesse Williams’ Racist and Nonsensical Speech About Race at the BET Awards.”

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.



Matt Lauer’s Bias Shown in Ryan Lochte Interview and the Actions of the Brazilian Security Guards were Worse Crimes than Lochte’s Drunken Vandalism and His Less than Truthful Account of What Happened to Him

There is no excuse for a thirty-two-year-old man who is not an alcoholic getting drunk, committing vandalism and making false reports to the police and media about the incident. The same came be said for the bias Matt Lauer demonstrated in his interview of Lochte and the conduct of the security guard who pulled a gun on the four US swimmers. (Security camera footage proves that the guard did pull and point his gun at the athletes even though he did not place it against Lochte’s head.) However, while Lochte acted like a man and admitted what he did was wrong, Lauer will never publicly declare his own misdeeds and the security guard has not and will not be arrested.

It was obvious from viewing Lauer’s interview with Lochte that Lauer relished the chance to embarrass an American. That Lochte was a white male was just icing on the cake. It is also a certainly that it is because of Lauer’s Liberal bias that he whitewashed the conduct of a Brazilin security guard and Brazilian authorities in the affair. It is yet another example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.


Lauer told Lochte that the Brazilian security guard who pulled a gun on the four Americans was ”negotiating” with Lochte and not robbing him. Does Lauer believe pulling a gun on someone is an acceptable negotiating tactic? How would Lauer feel if the next time he is negotiating his contract with NBC, an NBC executive brandishes a firearm? Would he be fine with it on the grounds that it was a negotiating tactic?

If what happen in Rio had happened in the U.S. the security guard would now be in far more serious legal trouble than Lochte. The guard would be charged with illegally brandishing a fire arm because he pulled it in a non-life-threatening situation. He would also be charged with illegal detention since he told Lochte at the point of a gun that he could not leave the scene without handing over money. Since he took money from Lochte he would also be charged with armed robbery. If the gun were illegal there would be an additional charged for that as well.

Liberals like Lauer wet their pants over the mere thought of a gun but he did not condemn the Brazilian security guard for pulling a gun on four Americans nor Brazilian authorities for not arresting the security guard. The reason is that Brazil is a third world country with a majority minority population. If fact, contrary to what Lauer would have us believe, what happen to Lochte actually reinforces the narrative that Rio is a dangerous and almost lawless city. The same can be said for the fact that in the days after the Lochte incident a British Olympic athlete was robbed in Rio. Lauer and other Liberals in the media have been very quiet about this other robbery because it does not fit the Liberal narrative the media wants us to accept.

Lauer made a point of mentioning in the interview that Lochte could lose millions in endorsement deals over what happen. If Liberals like Lauer covered the story honestly, Lochte might not take such a big financial hit. More importantly, the media never makes an issue of the fact that African Americans with criminal records get endorsement deals with frequency. Perhaps the best example is Cordozar Calvin Broadus, Jr., who is better known as Snoop Dogg. Broadus was a member of the Crips, was charged with murder, and is an open advocate for the heavy use of illegal drugs. Yet Broadus has also enjoyed several lucrative endorsement deals over the course of his life. Can you say “double standard”?

In the final analysis, in his accounts Lochte left out some important details, embellished others and told a few lies. Yet his central claim, that he was robbed at gunpoint, is demonstrably true despite what Lauer would have us believe. Does Lauer understand that not even a police officer in the U.S. is legally allowed to point a gun at someone and demand the contents of his or her wallet?

Lochte deserves credit for not trying to escape the consequences of his actions by pulling the “I’m going to rehab” card. He has accepted full responsibility for his conduct. He therefore comes out looking better in this situation than the Lauer, the security guard and the Brazilian authorities.


At two points in the security camera footage, you can see the Americans raise their arms in the universally understood “don’t shoot me with the gun you are pointing at me” gesture. Although the security guards are out of frame in both cases, it is obvious that a gun[s] is being pointed at the swimmers at the time. There is no other reasonable explanation. 

There are three minutes “mysteriously” missing from the security camera footage. All people who are not naive realize that these three minutes were erased because they are incriminating to someone who is not an American.

According to one source, Lochte was confused by the uniforms the security guards were wearing and so mistook them for people impersonating police.

Both Gunnar Bentz and Jack Conger, two of the other three swimmers involved, have released written statements. Conger described a gun being pointed at them by a security guard. Bentz related that two security guards pointed firearms at the group. Both statements support the notion that the guns were pulled before the translator/witness came on the scene.

Bentz and Jack Conger agree that the only vandalism that occurred at the gas station was that a poster was pulled off a wall. Both deny that any damage was done to the restroom or the restroom door.

Betnz maintained: “Videos of this situation have been emerging the last several days. However, I am confident that some video angles have not been shown that would further substantiate my account. I also believe some scenes have been skipped over.”

The security camera footage that has been released fails to show any evidence of the restroom or its door being damaged by the swimmers. Video taken at the gas station  a few days after the incident proves that neither the door, or anything in restroom has been repaired or replaced.


Brazilian legal experts have weighed in on what happened. A Rio judge did not rule out the possibility that the conduct of the guards could be considered a “robbery.” A veteran lawyer remarked that none of the Americans have made statements that could get them convicted of filing a false police report.

None of the swimmers went anywhere near the bathroom at the gas station. The claims by police that the athletes vandalized the restroom were false.

The only act of vandalism that took place was Lochte’s pulling what has been described as an “advertising sign off the wall” that was said to be just “loosely attached” to the wall.


The witnesses/translator, who was at first reported to have said he did not see guns being pulled but did see one of the guards place his hand on his gun, now confirms that the security guards did thereafter pull guns on the Americans.

The guards were either off-duty Rio police or off-duty corrections officers. At least one displayed his badge during the encounter and they may have been working what is defined by local law as an illegal private security detail.

The money taken by the security guards was 60% more than what was required to cover the damage to the sign.


The latest report describes what Lochte tore down as an “advertising poster with a metallic frame.”

It has been established that the security guards also work as prison guards.

Since at least one security guard flashed his prison guard badge and the guards were wearing their prison guard uniforms it means that the guards were impersonating police officers just as Lochte claimed.


Jimmy Feigen, the only one of the four athletes who had not given a statement to the media, released a statement. It is in agreement with the accounts provided by the other swimmers.

At first prosecutors told Feigen that he would have to pay $31,500 U.S. to make the fabricated charge of making false police report go away and for him to be allowed to leave the country. When he refused the amount was increased to $46,875. In the end he handed over about $11,000 U.S. so that he could go home.

After the cab pulled into the gas station the four Americans entered a store attached to the gas station to search for a restroom. They found none and so began to search outside the gas station for a bathroom. They tried, but did not damage, a door outside. None could read Portuguese and so they could not have known that the locked door they tried to open was a restroom door. They thereafter urinated in a grassy area behind the gas station.

The poster Lochte pulled down after the men finished going to the bathroom was made of canvas and so I doubt he could have damaged it when he tore it off the wall. It appears that it was only the metal frame that held the poster that was damaged.

More evidence has emerged which points to how corruptly the Rio police and local prosecutor’s office handled the affair. It is too much to summarize here. Anyone interested should read the USA Today coverage for the details. USA Today should win journalism awards for how well they have covered this story.


The Brazilian authorities handling of the incident has been so corrupt we need to call it #Riogate.


Lochte has been indicted for making a false police report.

Days ago the Rio police made an official public statement claiming that the swimmers vandalized the restroom at the gas station even though they knew this was false. The Rio authorities are corrupt and no one should trust anything they say or do.

Who is going to indict the Rio police for making a knowingly false report that the swimmers damaged the restroom?


Lochte claimed the Americans were pulled over on the road by armed men impersonating police. They were actually forced out of their cab at the gas station by armed men impersonating police officers which is really not much different. The only distinction is that the cab was not in motion but parked at the gas station. I think it is safe to assume that the reason why Lochte lied about being pulled over was that he did not want to admit that he yanked the poster off the wall.

It would not surprise me if the swimmers suspected that the witness/translator was in on the con and working with the fake police to rob the Americans. Cons like this are run on foreigners in third world countries all the time.

Lochte should fire his agent and attorney because they are not being more vocal in their support of him.


I should have made clear that when I wrote in this post and on Twitter that the security guards were wearing their prison guard uniforms I was making an assumption based upon the press report that Lochte claimed he was thrown by the fact that the guards wore official looking uniforms. What matters is that it was both the uniforms and the flashing of a badge were what was behind Lochte’s assertion that the men who robbed him were impersonating police officers.

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.


#Olympics2016 #Rio2016 #tcot @ #RyanLochte @MLauer #MattLauer #Matt_Lauer #Ryan_Lochte #Riogate

A White American’s Response to Actor Jesse Williams’ Racist and Nonsensical Speech About Race at the BET Awards


In 2016 Americans have become so cowardly that we now largely allow racist and nonsensical comments such as those uttered by Jesse Williams at the 2016 Bet Awards to stand without a response. I am not afraid to call out Williams on his racism and nonsense.

Below is found selected excerpts from his speech in quotes and italics. My comments follow each quoted passage.

“Peace peace. Thank you, Debra. Thank you, BET.”

The Black Entertainment Network is a cable television network created for black people which caters specifically to black people and one assumes it is staffed almost solely by black people. BET was founded and operates on a racist and segregationist premise. The BET awards is a racist and segregationist awards show because only black people are eligible for its awards and it is presumably only black people who vote on the awards. The night he gave his speech, Williams accepted a racist and segregationist award. It was fitting that, as will be shown below, in a number of respects his acceptance speech was racist and segregationist as well. I cannot leave the topic of BET without mentioning that it stands as a prime example of the type of double standard that permeates most every aspect of the view of racism and race held by the typical African American. We can all imagine the reaction of black America to a WET.

“A thank you Nate Parker, Harry ohm and Debbie Allen a for participating in that. Ohm before we get into it, I just want to say you know I brought my parents out tonight. I just want to thank them a for being here, for teaching me ohm to focus on comprehension over career, that they a make sure I learn what the schools were afraid to teach us.”

Mere seconds into his speech, Williams proved that he does not deserve to be looked at as the leader and role model of his people that he obviously desires to be as a consequence of his bad command of the English language.

More important is Williams’ contention that the educational system is apparently involved in some vast right-wing conspiracy to hide the truth from African Americans out of a fear of something or other. It is probably safe to assume that eighty percent of educators in the U.S. are on the Left politically. Therefore for Williams’ to believe that educators are doing anything other than bending over backwards to accommodate African Americans curriculum wise means at least one of two things must be true. He may just be unintelligent. If this is the case he would be far from the first himbo actor who looks like a male model and has acting chops but little brains. Perhaps he is so blinded by his own racialized worldview that he cannot see the truth when it comes to issues connected to race. Maybe both are true.

“Now, this award – this is not for me. This is for the real organizers all over the country – the activists, the civil rights attorneys, the struggling parents, the families, the teachers, the students that are realizing that a system built to divide and impoverish and destroy us cannot stand if we do. Alright.”

Was Williams referring to the same “teachers” who work in schools that do not teach the “truth” to African Americans? The system Williams’ refers to as being set up to “keep down” African Americans allowed him, a person of color, to become one of the most beloved and rich actors in the entertainment industry. A majority white nation made him a television star and allows him to live a luxurious lifestyle. It is astonishing that a person could have so little self-awareness that he cannot see that his own life disproves the concept of a system designed to make black people unsuccessful in the U.S.

Could it be possible that when making his speech Williams forgot who has occupied the Oval Office for the last almost eight years? Does he not understand that a majority white electorate gave Barack Obama two election victories not despite but because of his race? The fact that Obama became president itself shows that Williams’ view of the “system” is laughable.

One does not have to look hard to find additional evidence. From the moment an African American child in need is born, she or he benefits from federal, state and local government assistance. An African American child who graduates from high school with just an average grade point average will be handed a full scholarship to most any college or university she or he wishes to attend for no other reason then race. An African American college graduate who completed her or his degree with just an average grade point average will be offered a full scholarship to almost any graduate school one might chose simply do to her or his race.

Once an African American begins her or his working career, she or he will usually find it easy sledding. This is because every entity of a good size that employs people has affirmative action quotas and is desperate to fill them. African Americans will be often hired over more qualified whites because diversity policies demand it.

Once an African American gets her or his foot in the door, she or he will usually quickly become acquainted with two realities. One is that it is almost impossible for an African American to get fired unless she or he does something along the lines of committing a felony or stops showing up to work. Employers are often so terrified of being accused of racism and being sued that African Americans who cannot do their work are many times allowed to continue to collect a pay check and the responsibility for their work falls to others.

An African American who performs as well as the average worker will be many times be quickly promoted even if it means being pushed ahead of more qualified whites. Affirmative action policies are in place for every wrung of the workplace ladder.

It is safe to assume that although educational and workplace affirmative action meets the dictionary definition of racism, Williams supports both because they benefit people of color.

“Now, this is also in particular for the black women in particular who have spent their lifetimes dedicated to nurturing everyone before themselves. We can and will do better for you.”

This was one of the few parts of Williams’s remarks that deserves praise. Peer reviewed research has long shown that children who are born to married parents and grow up with a mother and a father in the household are many times more likely to grow up to be productive members of society. Unfortunately, around seventy-five percent of African American children are born out of wedlock. The percentage of African American boys who grow up with no positive male role model in the house is about the same. Although Williams apparently recognizes illegitimacy as a problem in the African American community, what he fails to understand is that it, and not whites or a corrupt racist system, is the most significant problem facing African Americans.

“Now, what we’ve been doing is looking at the data and we know that police somehow manage to deescalate, disarm and not kill white people every day.”

The reason why police officers find it easier “to deescalate, disarm and not kill white people” is because the black community seems to assume that all cops are racists and out to get them. It is no wonder that even a cursory examination of video evidence uncovers the fact that African Americans often adopt a combative attitude in encounters with law enforcement officers. If one goes looking for a fight with a policeman she or he is likely to find it.

Another problem is that a large number of African Americans do not seem to realize that it is against the law to disobey a lawful order from a police officer. To few African Americans appear to understand that they must comply with any directive issued by a police officer as along as doing so does not force them to break the law and the failure to do so immediately makes them guilty of disorderly conduct and subject to lawful arrest.

Rhetoric like that used by Williams in the speech only serves to fuel the problems between African Americans and law enforcement. Williams is a part of the problem.

“So what’s gonna happen is we are going to have equal rights and justice in our own country or we will restructure their function and ours.”

I would respond to this if I could figure out what the heck he is talking about.

“Now… I got more y’all…”

By reinforcing the notion that speaking in “black English” is acceptable, Williams is setting back the African American community.

“Yesterday would have been young Tamir Rice’s 14th birthday so I don’t wanna hear anymore about how far we’ve come when paid public servants can pull a drive-by on 12 year old playing alone in the park in broad daylight, killing him on television and then going home to make a sandwich.”

Tamir Rice’s shooting is explained not by race but by the fact that at the time he was shot he was holding a toy gun that was indistinguishable from the real thing. How did he get hold of such an object?  How is it that he was never taught not to wave such a thing around on a city street. Were Rice’s parents married when he was born? Were they married when he was shot?

“Tell Rekia Boyd how it’s so much better than it is to live in 2012 than it is to live in 1612 or 1712. Tell that to Eric Garner. Tell that to Sandra Bland. Tell that to Dorian Hunt.”

The Rekia Boyd killing was what is referred to as a “bad shooting” by law enforcement officers. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it had anything to do with race. The fact that Williams thinks otherwise for no reason besides the cop was white and the victim black proves that Williams is a racist.

If Williams really believes that someone stole into Sandra Bland’s cell to murder her and her death was not a suicide by hanging then he truly is a himbo. The Hunt shooting just happened. Williams should reserve judgment until all the facts come out.

The Eric Garner situation deserves in depth comment. It is true if a choke hold had not been placed on Eric Gardner he likely would not have died at the hands of the police that day. However, people like Williams conveniently fail to mention several other facts surrounding the case when speaking on Gardner. If Gardner had not violently resisted arrest after informing the law enforcement officers on the scene that he planned to do so he would still be alive. If he had not been in terrible health he would likely not have lost his life even if a choke hold had been utilized to subdue him. If Gardner had not been illegally selling cigarettes in public, something which had been habitually guilty of, he would not have died while being taken into custody.

This last point brings to mind what is the second biggest problem facing the African American community. This is the penchant for breaking the law. Africans American’s make up about thirteen percent of the population in the U.S. but commit about 50 percent of the serious crimes in the nation. Rather than work to reform the African American community from within and work to make African Americans more law-abiding, people like Williams blame black crime on whites and argue that convicted African Americans should receive less jail time.

Were Boyd, Garner, Bland and Hunt born to parents who were married and remained married until each grew to adulthood?

“Now the thing is, though, all of us in here gettin’ money – that alone isn’t gonna stop this. Alright, now dedicating our lives, dedicating our lives to gettin’ money just to give it right back for someone’s brand on our body when we spent centuries praying with brands on our bodies, and now we pray to get paid for brands on our bodies.”

Might he have been drunk when he gave his speech?

“There has been no war that we have not fought and died on the front lines of. There has been no job we haven’t done. There is no tax they haven’t leveed against us – and we’ve paid all of them. But freedom is somehow always conditional here. “You’re free,” they keep telling us. But she she would have been alive if she hadn’t acted so… free.”


What conditions did Williams have to meet to become beloved, rich and famous that a white entertainer does not have to meet? What conditions did Barack Obama have to meet before he could become president that a white candidate does not have to meet?

Who is “she”? Did he think someone was standing on the stage next to him? Did Williams have a drink in his hand when he accepted his award?

 “Now, freedom is always coming in the hereafter, but you know what, though, the hereafter is a hustle. We want it now.”

Churches have made more of a positive contribution to the  lives of African Americans than any other institution. Here Williams runs them down. This is most unfortunate for those African American criminals I wrote of earlier because it would do them well to have religion in their lives.

“And let’s get, let’s get a couple things straight, just a little side note – the burden of the brutalized is not to comfort the bystander. That’s not our job, alright – stop with all that. If you have a critique for the resistance, for our resistance, then you better have an established record of critique of our oppression. If you have no interest, if you have no interest in equal rights for black people then do not make suggestions to those who do. Sit down.”


Does Williams find himself brutalized when living in his mansion, riding in limos and eating in the finest restaurants?

He is commanding people like me to shut up. This is yet another example of the Left trying to win politically by silencing all those who disagree with them.


“We’ve been floating this country on credit for centuries, yo,…”

A majority white America has given Williams a lifestyle of the rich and famous. He is not owed anything.

“We’re done watching and waiting while this invention called whiteness uses and abuses us, burying black people out of sight and out of mind while extracting our culture, our dollars, our entertainment like oil – black gold, ghettoizing and demeaning our creations then stealing them, gentrifying our genius and then trying us on like costumes before discarding our bodies like rinds of strange fruit.”

Does Williams believe, as does the Nation of Islam, that white people were created in a lab and engineered to be evil?

The last part of this passage touches upon the infuriating concept of cultural appropriation. I have two questions I would love to have answered. Is Williams guilty of cultural appropriation when he wears a business suit or communicates using the English language? Are black people who play classical music, tennis or golf committing cultural appropriation?

“The thing is though… the thing is that just because we’re magic doesn’t mean we’re not real. Thank you.”

I grateful to Williams for disabusing me of the notion that black people were figments of my imagination.

By referring to African Americans as “magic,” Williams is implying that people of other races are non-magical. In other words, he means that by nature of their biology, black people are racially superior to other people.

The victimhood narrative pedaled by Williams is a cancer upon African Americans. Rather than be given a Humanitarian Award, Williams should be viewed as a person who is harming is own race.

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.

“Mattress Girl’s” Rape Allegation is Homophobic in the American Left’s Definition of the Word


For the sake of those who may have forgotten, Emma “mattress girl” Sulkowicz was the Columbia University student who accused fellow student Paul Nungesser of rape several years ago. What seems to have been lost on all commentators is her rape allegation is homophobic in the American Left’s definition of the word. Confused? Read on and you will understand my argument.

“Mattress Girl’s” Claims

Sulkowicz claimed that while having consensual sex with her, Nungesser withdrew his penis from her vagina and inserted it into her anus.  She maintained that since he did not request permission before doing so, his action constituted rape.

“Mattress Girl” and Homophobia

“Mattress girl” has never disputed that she consented to get naked with Nungesser, climb into bed with him and engage in vaginal intercourse. Her position is that the consent she did provide to Nungesser did not include consent to be anally penetrated, and that he required additional consent for anal sex. It is not enough to say that “mattress girl” therefore considers anal sex to be outside of what is implied when a woman consents to a sexual encounter with a man. Implied in Sulkowicz’s rape claim is that anal sex, which has been traditionally been associated manly with homosexual sex, is so abnormal and outside the realm of heterosexual behavior that it is indefensible for any man to assume that any woman who wishes to have sex with him would want to have anal sex with him unless she explicitly states she does. The American Left has long told us that homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality, that homosexual sex is no different than heterosexual sex and that to believe any differently is homophobic.  By this definition then, “mattress girl’s” rape allegation is indisputably homophobic. Since it is presumably safe to assume that Sulkowicz, like the good Liberal she is, claims to be a champion when it comes to showing tolerance of homosexuals, she is just the latest of a long line of hypocrites on the American Left.

Paul Nungesser

In my opinion, if Nungesser did do what Sulkowicz said he did, without first asking if she would object, he was in the wrong. Again, by the American Left’s definition of the term that makes me homophobic as well.

The writer, entertainer and talk show host Gavin McIness described what Nungesser is said to have done as “bad sportsmanship.” It was a hilarious line. It also did not go far enough. I believe what Nungesser did, if he did in fact do it, might be better described as “bad form.” The truth is, however, that I do not now what to call it. What I do know for certain is that Nungesser did not commit any crime. The authorities agree since despite the best efforts of “mattress girl,” Nungesser has never been in any legal trouble. (He was also not punished by Columbia.) However, Sulkowicz’s decision to carry a mattress all around campus destroyed the reputation of Nungesser and branded him with the scarlet “R” for rapist. This makes her the only one of the two guilty of a crime.

“Mattress girl” and her legions of supporters are just one example of the type of double standards the American Left upholds on a daily basis. I hope to write on more of them soon so please check back with my blog in the near future.


As a postscript, I first want to add that during the time that proceeded the sexual encounter between Sulkowicz and Nungesser, “mattress girl” sent Nungesser a series of very flirtatious messages including one in which she expressed her desire to have anal sex with him again.

Several months ago “mattress girl” released a reenactment of the rape which was actually a pornographic video. It appears she was so traumatized by Nungesser that she had to relive the events of her encounter with him before a camera and release it to the world on the Web.

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.


Commentary on Marcus Owens’ Claims About Being the Victim of a Hate Crime Being Proven to be Lies


On Monday, news broke that University of Iowa student, Marcus Owens, who earlier this month claimed he was the victim of an anti-African American hate crime, has admitted his assertions were untrue. I blogged about Owens back on May 8 and posted why I was suspicious of his claim to victimhood. (See: This new development in the Owens’ story is worthy of a new blog post.

Why I Cannot Forgive Marcus Owens

Owens did not reverse himself because he realized it was the ethical course of action. He only acknowledged the truth only after being confronted by the Iowa City Police with the evidence of what really happened to him on April 30 and May 1.

I wish I could write that I was young and stupid once and so forgive Owens. I cannot do so as a consequence of how he has handled the situation since being shown to be a liar.

What Really Happened to Marcus Owens

Owens did not, as he had maintained, step outside of Eden Lounge at around 10:45 PM on April 30 and thereafter suffer a beating at the hands of three white men who singled him out because he was black. Security camera footage and eye-witness statements tell a different story.

Owens first stepped through the door of the Eden Lounge at 11:45 PM. At 1: 35 AM his blood-alcohol level was about.175, or over twice the legal limit. It was also at 1:35 AM that Owens was a participant in a large bar fight that had nothing to do with race. As a consequence of his role in this conflict, he was kicked out of the bar. Next he tried to reenter. (We all know the type of person who gets drunk in a bar, gets into a violent encounter, is ejected from the premises and then tries to force his way back in.)

At 1:41 AM Owens was out on the street near the bar and throwing punches in yet another fight. At 1:44 AM he was punching in a third fight. According to one media source: “All the [security camera] footage [from both the Eden Lounge and the public street] show Owens acting aggressively, shoving and pushing and yelling.” Iowa City police Capt. Troy Kelsay stated: “Marcus was not the victim of an assault. Marcus was an active participant, and even an instigator, in three separate physical confrontations or assaults that occurred at [or near the time of the] bar[‘s] close.”

All three conflicts arose from disputes between members of the Pi Kappa Alpha and Kappa Sigma fraternities. Race had nothing to do with anything that occurred during those early morning hours.

The Truth Comes Out

Before going public with the findings of their investigation, the police reported what had been learned to Owens’ lawyer, Leon Spies. (I am sure the fact that Owens hired a lawyer right after having made his false hate crime report was a red flag to law enforcement.)

Owens had made public statements to numerous media outlets in support of his tale of having suffered a racially motivated attack. Once his statements had been shown to be untrue, he should have been man enough to make a public admission of his untrue remarks and made public apologies to the Iowa City Police, the people of Iowa City, the F.B.I. (which became involved in the case) and University of Iowa. Instead his lawyer issued a statement on behalf of the Owens family.

Statement from the Owens Family

It read: “Marcus Owens and the entire Owens family would like to issue their deepest apologies to Marcus’s friends, the Iowa City community, the University of Iowa, and the Iowa City Police Department [the F.B.I. should have been mentioned but was not] for the misunderstandings and anxiety stemming from Marcus’s involvement in a violent incident [the reader will recall that there were actually three incidents] in downtown Iowa City on May 1.” To refer to Owens’ dishonest claims as a “misunderstanding” is outrageous.

The statement continued: “Upon learning more details of the case, and while racial slurs served to fuel the violence, Marcus now knows that his account of events was inconsistent with police findings, in part due to alcohol being involved, his embarrassment at his behavior, as well as the injuries he sustained.” According to Iowa City police, a single racial slur was uttered during one of the three fights in which Owens “was an active participant, and even an instigator….” This means that one of the white people that Owens was trying to beat up while in an intoxicated rage became angry at him and used an ugly word. By claiming that this ugly word “served to fuel the violence” the Owens family is blaming one of Marcus’ victims in this case. In referring to “alcohol being involved” the family is seeking to partially absolve Owens by saying he was drunk. This is complete nonsense. It is not uncommon for a person who is very intoxicated to forget something that happen to them. However, I do not believe there has ever been a case of a person getting drunk and incorrectly recalling they had been the victim of a hate crime. The phrase “his embarrassment at his behavior” begs for an explanation. According to one news report: “Multiple witnesses told police Owens was worried about how he would explain his injuries to his family.” I can only assume that the “injuries he sustained” passage is meant to suggest that Owens’ memory might have become fogged about what occurred on May 1 as a result of them. To this I say b.s.!

The statement continued: “In light of this, it was concluded that this incident was not a hate crime as originally believed, but rather a case of excessive underage drinking and extremely poor judgment on the part of many people, Marcus included.” The implication here appears to be that Marcus himself legitimately believed that he had been the victim of a hate crime until the police told him this was not the case. This is a cowardly and sickening remark. The reference to “excessive underage drinking and extremely poor judgment on the part of many people” represents a further attempt to blame Marcus’ victims for what he is responsible for doing.

The last part of the statement read: “Again, we would like to apologize and thank the University (especially President Bruce Harreld and his staff) and the Iowa City Police Department [the F.B.I. is again left out] for their attention, sensitivity, diligence in investigating this matter, and in thoroughly addressing our many concerns. Just as we have learned many life-changing lessons, we hope too that the community will continue to examine the many issues raised by this unfortunate incident. – Marcus Owens and The Owens Family” I do not know what “issues [have been] raised by this unfortunate incident” other than to reinforce the notion making false claims about hate crimes has become commonplace.

Black Privilege and the “Blond, Blue-Eyed White Female”

Iowa City authorities and the Iowa City police have stated that Owens will not be prosecuted for filing a false police report, underage drinking, public intoxication, disorderly conduct, being the aggressor in the fights and, in the words of the police, “beating the snot out of” another person. He will likewise not be pursued in civil court to recoup expenses incurred during the investigation of his false claims. (Did Marcus lie to the F.B.I.?) I chalk this up to Black Privilege.

When speaking to the media during the first week in May, Marcus’ uncle, Darrell Owens, complained about the fact that when Marcus contacted the University of Iowa police to file his false report he was referred to the Iowa City police who had legal jurisdiction over the area in which Marcus claimed he was assaulted. Darrell argued that if a “blond, blue-eyed white female [had] come in after being assaulted, I think there would be zero chance that they would have given the same response.” If a “blond, blue-eyed white female” had committed all of the misdeeds Marcus has you can be sure she would now be facing criminal prosecution and be forced to repay Iowa City for all costs incurred investigating her spurious claims.

The Moral of the Story Is…

The next time you read a story about a member of a minority group claiming to be a victim of a hate crime remember that they only very rarely happen in today’s United States. Remember, also, Marcus Owens, Tawana Brawley, the University of Albany bus case, the anti-gay cake hoax…

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.

Why I Suspect the Recent Iowa “Hate Crime” Might be a Hoax


It cannot be disputed that making false claims about hate crimes has become an accepted tactic of Social Justice Warriors and the American Left. It is for this reason that as soon as I read the headlines of the stories of an alleged hate crime that was said to have taken place on April 30 in Iowa I was skeptical. After I read the stories themselves I became even more suspicious. Read on for why I believe that University of Iowa freshman Marcus Owens might not be telling the complete truth about the incident.

Initial News Reports

According to the initial news reports the nineteen-year-old was at an off-campus bar with two friends before leaving and separating from them between ten and eleven at night. (Could he have been drinking illegally and been drunk at the time?) Next Owens took a stroll down an alley that was presumably deserted since there seems to be no witnesses besides Owens himself to what happen next. One assumes it was also dark since most such alleys in U.S. downtown areas are so at that time of night. If he had not jeopardized his safety enough he started to type out a text message while walking. Could Owens really have been so stupid as to walk down a dark, deserted alley alone in an American downtown area between ten and eleven at night while looking down at his phone? I would never do such a thing.

According to a local television station Owens claimed that while he was presumably in mid-text: “I see this guy coming towards me aggressively, and I step back and say, ‘Hey man, what’s up? I don’t want any problems.” Under these circumstances, one would think that Owens would have gotten a pretty good look at least one of the three white men whom he claims thereafter began first hitting and kicking him and then yelled racial slurs.

According to the same local television station: “The victim described the suspects as three white men, of average height, between the ages of 19 and 22.” Was this the best he could do? This description fits 90% of the male student body at University of Iowa.  Should every one of them be arrested on the suspicion of committing a hate crime?

If Owens was able to discern the facial characteristics and skin color of all three of his alleged attackers well enough to make a declaration about their race, why have none of the accounts of what happen included any information about the color or style of the hair or clothes of any of the three men or their eye color?  According to one report, Owens “believes [one of his attackers] may have been a [University of Iowa] student….” Considering the fact that he seems to have only managed a cursory look at his assailants based upon the vague description of them he reportedly gave to police, why does he suspect one of them is a fellow university student? If his suspicion was based only upon their age, would he not have stated that he thought all three might have been students?

Why were the three men waiting in the alley at all? Owens has apparently not made any claim that he thinks the men wanted to rob him. Were these three men waiting in the alley in the hope that one of the five African Americans living in Iowa would randomly decide to walk down the alley so that they could beat them? 

My Personal Experience

When I was in high school I, along with two friends, were jumped by twelve African American strangers who objected to the color of our skin. Even these many years later I can provide a much more detailed description of our attackers than that Owens gave of the three he maintains beat him up. His having given such a vague description makes me wonder about his story.

More News Reports

It was again the same television station that reported Owens stated: “Someone yelled at the attackers, who ran away.” Based upon the reports I have read the identity of this “someone” appears to be a mystery to both Owens and police. If I had been this mysterious “someone” I would have, at the very least, offered to render Owens assistance and given him my name so that at a later time I could tell the police what I saw of the tail end of the violent encounter.

Contact with Police

According to what I read online, Owens made no attempt to report his attack to the police until 11:00 P.M., two days after the attack. If he believed that a gang of white men might be randomly attacking African Americans in Iowa, would he risk putting the safety of others at risk by waiting so long to report the attack? When he did contact police it was University of Iowa police that he spoke with first and not the local police. Why would he do such a thing when the alleged attack did not happen on campus? The University of Iowa police understandably referred him to the local police who have stated that they are investigating the incident as a possible “hate crime.” However, at this point in the investigation, and in today’s climate, they would have no choice but to do so regardless of what they suspect may or may not have happen to Owens.

Owens Injuries

It has been confirmed that Owens received treatment at a hospital for his injuries and photographs prove they were fairly serious. What needs to be determined is who (or what) injured him and under what circumstances did he suffer his injuries.


After I read of Owens story back on May 4, I suspected that his injuries might have resulted from something other than a racially motivated attack. Several questions sprang to mind: Could he have been beat as a result of a drug deal gone bad? Could an intoxicated person suffer such injuries from some sort of accident? Did he inflict his injuries upon himself so that he could fake a hate crime? (This is unlikely but not impossible.) Could a fellow Social Justice Warrior or one of his fiends injured him so that they could assist him in an effort to pull off a hoax? (This is likewise unlikely but not impossible.)

Owens’ Newspaper Interview


On May 5, Owens gave an interview to The Daily Iowan. He made statements about the attack he claims to have suffered that as far as I can tell have not been reported in online media sources as having been made to any police force. The paper reported that “he said he stepped out of Eden Lounge, 217 Iowa Ave., to make a phone call… While making the phone call, he heard someone yell racial slurs. [The reader will note that in this account he maintains that he first heard racial slurs before and not after being struck for the first time.] He said he looked around but did not see anyone. He then heard a racial slur a second time and then saw a ‘man aggressively approaching’ him. The man took a swing at Owens, which he dodged. Owens said he was defending himself when he heard a second person say ‘Don’t touch my brother’ before being punched and brought down.” No mention of any text message is made. Have the police checked his phone to see if he was using it around the time he said he was?

Later in the piece we read: “Despite rumors, Owens said there was no fight prior to his attack and that he does not believe the attack was fraternity-related. ‘Greek life had no part in this in my opinion,’ he said. ‘I think it was just individuals making a bad decision.’” Might Owens have received his injuries in a fight that was fraternity and not race-related? The “Don’t touch my brother” comment would make sense in the context of a  fraternity-related fight.

There is one last passage from the article worth quoting: “When asked if Owens knew what his attackers looked like and if there were any descriptions, he only said the police are conducting an investigation.” Why would he not have taken advantage of the opportunity the newspaper gave him to tell the public every detail he could of the appearances of those he claims attacked him? Would not he want the public to be on the lookout for the men?

I wish to conclude by stating that everything in this piece is based upon reports I found online. It could be that some, or even all, of this information is inaccurate and therefore any part of this piece may be wrong. I therefore wish to state, unequivocally, that I am not calling Owens a liar. What I am saying is that it would not surprise me if in the near future we learn that not all of what Owens said took place on April 30 happen just as he said it did (or at least as he has been reported to have claimed it did). On May 4 Owens stated: “This is 2016 you shouldn’t expect this to happen.” In 2016 these things happen only very rarely and this incident may have not happen at all.


EDIT: Since I wrote the above I have done additional research and found on the Web more accounts of what was supposed to have happen to Owens. Since he seems to have been the only witness to what he claims occurred, I assume all of these accounts derive, either directly or indirectly, from him. Some of the accounts have even included recorded TV interviews with him. Why are some of the details in the accounts contradictory? Was he “on his way back to his dorm” at the time of the attack or had “he [just] stepped out [of the bar] to make a phone call….” Did the confrontation happen “in” the alley ,“near” the alley or just “outside the bar”? Was he sending a text message or making a phone call just before the assault? If he was making a call or sending a text why did he have to make it in an alley? Could he not have made it in front of the bar?

One report stated that after the attack, some person “escorted [him] back to his dorm.” What happened to this mystery person? Did he or she vanish like the person who yelled out and by doing so stopped the attack?

Did Owens first contact the University of Iowa police at 10:45 or 11:00 on Monday, May 2?

Why did Owens wait until Sunday to seek medical treatment for his injuries? How come one news report stated he “walked to a hospital” on the night of the attack?

After the UVA rape story was shown to be a fraud, Social Justice Warriors told us: “The facts don’t matter.” Do the facts matter in this case?


I have given more thought to this story and have some more comments and questions.

So far the only connection between what happen to Owens and the University of Iowa that can be said for certain is that Owens is a student. Why is the University of Iowa bending itself into a pretzel over his claims at this point in the investigation?

Owens’ family has stated they are not happy with the “sense of urgency” shown by the police in the investigation. Could what the family perceives as a lack of urgency be explained by the fact that the police have some information about the case that has not been released to the public?

The crime was said to have happened ten days ago but there have been no new developments in the case. Why?

It seems as if today almost every inch of public space is covered by security cameras. By now all the local businesses have checked their security camera footage and yet we have seen no video released of the suspects or even of Owens himself from that night. Why?

Cases such as this usually get a good deal of national news coverage. This story seems to have gotten very little attention from media outside of Iowa. Could it be that journalists know more about this case than has been published?

I still have no idea what happen. I likewise remain skeptical.


Today marks two weeks since Marcus Owens claimed to have been the victim of a racially motivated attack. Since there still have been no new developments in the case during this time, besides his having given numerous conflicting accounts to the media, I think it is safe to assume that none will be coming in the future. For this reason I wish to take this opportunity to make some final remarks related to Owens and his assertions.

Darrell Owens, Marcus Owens’ uncle, has told the media that the family is upset over the way the University of Iowa Police handled Marcus’ effort to make a report about the alleged incident to them. Darrell Owens stated: “Here you have a victim who goes to the campus police and who has been assaulted — he’s a bloody mess — and they say, ‘We don’t want you to repeat it again, so you need to go talk to someone else’?” That’s a problem for me. Had that been a blond, blue-eyed white female coming in after being assaulted, I think there would be zero chance that they would have given the same response.”

Darrell Owens appears to be so focused on race that he cannot see that the University of Iowa Police acted properly with regard to his nephew. They have no legal jurisdiction when it comes to an event that happened off campus and there has never been any proof that whatever happen had any connection to the university besides the fact that Marcus is a student at the school.

Furthermore, the reader will recall that Marcus reported his assault came on Saturday, April 30, that he went for medical treatment on Sunday, May 1 and he did not contact University of Iowa police until late on the night of Monday, May 2. Marcus was not a “bloody mess” when he communicated with university police on the night of May 2.

Darrell Owens’ wearing of racial blinders, as well as his having brought a hypothetical “blue-eyed white female” into the discussion, makes me suspect that racial issues may have been a preoccupation with the Owens family long before Marcus made the news earlier this month. It would not surprise me at all if this were true for Marcus is from Naperville, Illinois. Naperville is a suburb of Chicago, the city known for being an epicenter of extreme Leftwing activism. Perhaps in such a preoccupation can be found the key to understanding what happened to Marcus Owens.


EDIT: On May 16, the story broke that Owens admitted he had lied about being beaten in a racially motivated attack. He did so only after being confronted by police with evidence about what really happen to him on April 30 and May 1. See: “Commentary on Marcus Owens’ Claims About Being the Victim of a Hate Crime Being Shown to be Untrue

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.


Why We Must Fight Efforts to Overturn Laws Regulating Bathroom Use By Biological Gender


A popular cause célèbre of the American Left is the fight to overturn laws that make it illegal for men to use women’s bathrooms, changing rooms and locker rooms. As the Left typically does, it has been misrepresenting the position of people like me who want such laws to remain in place. In this post I will set the record straight.

 I am Not Suggesting all LGBT People are Sexual Predators

I am a person who stands in opposition to laws allowing men to use women’s bathrooms, changing rooms and locker rooms. I am not suggesting all LGBT people are sexual predators and I do not personally know of anyone who holds the same position on this bathroom issue who does.


We have probably had laws on the books making it illegal for men to use women’s bathrooms, changing rooms and locker rooms for as long as there have been public bathrooms, changing rooms and locker rooms. The reason has been simple and it has nothing to do with transgender individuals or people who claim a mental gender that is different from their biological gender. We want women to be able to use public bathrooms, changing rooms and locker rooms without having their privacy violated or being at risk of being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by perverts.

Women are at No Less Risk from Perverts in 2016 Than in the Past

Such laws protecting women have been around long before the word “transgender” became a part of the English language. Women are at no less risk from perverts in 2016 as they were when these common sense laws were passed.

Nonetheless, some now argue that these laws should be done away with because transgender individuals and people who claim a mental gender that is different from their biological gender are insulted by them. These same people argue that the incidences of men victimizing women in public bathrooms, changing rooms and locker rooms are small.

I Want Laws that Protect MY child and Wife to Remain in Place

I have a wife and a young daughter. I do not care how infrequently men (whether they be LGBT or not) victimize women in bathrooms, changing rooms and locker rooms. I want laws that protect my child and wife to remain in place.

Those who disagree with me believe that the wishes of the .1% [?] of people who are transgender individuals or people who claim a mental gender that is different from their biological gender is more important than protecting the almost 51% of the population that is female. This is an expression of one of the many unfortunate legacies of the 1960s. Before the 1960s we Americans believed that what was best for the majority of us was typically our guide for handling all things. From the 1960s onward we have become more and more focused on the individual and so have changed society in ways that are detrimental to the American people in general.

We Members of the Silent Majority Can No Longer Remain Silent

We members of the silent majority can no longer remain silent. We must not be intimated by the terrorist tactic of falsely labeling us “transphobic” or “homophobic.” We must fight efforts to overturn laws that make it illegal for men to use women’s bathrooms, changing rooms and locker rooms. We owe it to our wives and daughters. I look forward to vacationing with them in North Carolina this summer. See you there!

If you enjoyed this piece you will want to read: “A Quick Take on Trans Bathroom Access: An Example of How Liberals Put Our Safety in Danger.”

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

 I also have a channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.