The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Butt-Hurt Jeb Bush Blames the Pope?

Posted on | July 12, 2016 | 18 Comments

Moaning on MSNBC about his defeat in the GOP primaries — his campaign spent $34 million for nothing — Jeb Bush needed a big scapegoat:

Asked about his final days on the campaign trail, Bush reflected on the South Carolina primary during which he was in a three-way tie behind Trump with Sens. Marco Rubio (FL) and Ted Cruz (TX). Recalling South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s endorsement then of Rubio, Bush said “it clearly hurt.”
In addition to Haley’s endorsement of Rubio, for whom Bush was once a mentor, Bush also went on to blame the Catholic Church, saying, “the Pope intervening in American politics didn’t help.”
“[The Pope] was talking about basically open borders at a time when the whole Trump phenomenon was to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. [The Pope] literally goes to the border for a massive mass,” Bush said. “I don’t think he should be intervening… I don’t think he understood he was intervening in our political affairs.”

Where does blaming the Pope fit in the Kübler-Ross “five stages of grief”?

 

Category: No More Bushes, Republicans

In The Mailbox: 07.11.16

Posted on | July 11, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 07.11.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Ninety Miles From Tyranny: News From The Future – The Failure Of Hillary’s Great Leap Forward, 2017-2020
EBL: Should The NRA Be Championing The Cause Of Philando Castile?
Twitchy: Man Who SWATted NRA Head Sentenced To Two Years


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: How Many People Have To Die Because Of #BlackLivesMatter?
American Thinker: The Law Is Dying Because Morality Is Dying
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Ghosts Of War by Brad Taylor
Da Tech Guy: John Ruberry – If All Black Lives Matter, Then Why No Protests In Crime-Ridden Areas?
Don Surber: Keep Calm And Remain Adult
Jammie Wearing Fools: Pathetic Clinton Blames “Negativity”, Not Her Criminal Behavior, For Low Approval Ratings
Joe For America: America Now Entering The Stone Age?
JustOneMinute: Sunday Morning
Pamela Geller: Head Of DIA Fired For Calling Our Enemies Radical Jihadis
Shark Tank: Prominent Democrats Want Debbie Wasserman Schultz Out
Shot In The Dark: Obama’s Dumbest Idea Yet
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Facebook Safe And Welcoming To Everyone
The Lonely Conservative: Condolences And Prayers For A Dear Friend
The Political Hat: The Perfect Confluence Of Political Correctness And Jihad
This Ain’t Hell: That “Decorated Veteran” With An “Assault Rifle” In Dallas
Weasel Zippers: Minneapolis Cops Working Lynx Game Walk Out Over Player Comments, #BLM Warmup Jerseys


Amazon Prime Day – Fire Tablet Lowest Price Ever, Just $33.33
Amazon Prime Day – Kindle Paperwhite $30 Off

Category: Linkagery

Man-Hater @AlannaBennett Promotes #Ghostbusters as Feminist Revenge

Posted on | July 11, 2016 | 67 Comments

 

Alanna Bennett is the kind of selfish feminist who attends elite Oberlin College (annual tuition $50,586) and then spends the rest of her life angry because nobody gives her as much pity as she feels she deserves.

“As a professional writer, my life now is stuffed with privileges I’ve longed for since I found out they existed. . . . And yet: The money I make barely covers a life in New York and my student loans.”
— Alanna Bennett

Yeah, it’s terrible that somebody put a gun to your head and forced you to attend Oberlin, because obviously Oregon State (annual tuition $10,107) wasn’t good enough for a Special Snowflake™ like yourself.

Feminism is motivated by anti-male revenge fantasies, providing selfish women a chance to bask in applause for their deliberate acts of cruelty. Feminists consider it “courageous” to inflict harm on males, which is why Alanna Bennett knew she would be praised for urging women to cause “male tears” by supporting the feminist Ghostbusters remake:

 

The new Ghostbusters remake is hate propaganda, promoting the fundamental feminist belief that males are useless, stupid and/or evil.

Like all feminists, Alanna Bennett hates men, and it is therefore not surprising she hates movies with heterosexual themes.

 

Was anyone surprised that Alanna Bennett tweeted out images of kissing her girlfriend (a “non-binary” “queer” feminist) during BuzzFeed’s LGBT Pride celebration? (Are there any heterosexuals employed at BuzzFeed? If so, are they afraid to admit they’re heterosexual?)

Rather than being honest about her man-hating motives for supporting the feminist remake of Ghostbusters, however, Alanna Bennett insisted that it was critics of this project who were motivated by “hatred.”

 

In other words, if you don’t like seeing old movies hijacked by feminists and turned into anti-male propaganda, you’re a hater. As I’ve explained, the whole project is just a feminist political statement:

The message of the all-female cast is simple: Males are useless, because girl power saves the day!
Sometimes I’ve called this “Lesbian Ghostbusters” because it was predictable, from the moment the project was announced, that this new movie would emphasize a familiar “Third Wave” feminist theme of males as either (a) incompetent idiots or (b) evil oppressors. Like so many recent feminist movie projects, the new Ghostbusters aims to pass the “Bechdel Test,” which originated with lesbians who did not want to see either male heroes or heterosexual romance in movies.

Keep in mind that I wrote that without knowing anything more about the new Ghostbusters than could be learned by reading a couple of reviews. However, if you understand what “Third Wave” feminism is about (Feminism Is Queer), the implicit premise was obvious enough. And, as Matt Zion’s “rage review” shows, my prediction was right:

“They make Chris Hemsworth . . . he’s an idiot. They make him an idiot. Then they have the guy who delivers the Chinese food to them — it’s a running gag throughout the movie — he’s terrible at his job and he’s an idiot. And then the villain is not an idiot, he certainly is very intelligent, but he’s creepy, weird and he’s just antisocial. . . . Every man is portrayed like a complete a–hole. The mayor is an a–hole. . . . They go to like a rock concert or something, and the guy who is in charge of that . . . he’s an a–hole. Every man in this movie is an a–hole. . . . Basically, it was a man-bashing film.”

Twenty-first century feminism is about demonizing and silencing males, teaching young women to despise men as either irrelevant or dangerous.

Alanna Bennett‘s mind is completely warped by her vicious hatred of men. Because feminists are psychologically incapable of relating to males in a normal way — they are “without natural affection” (Romans 1:31) — they consider it “hate” for any man to defend himself against the relentless slander of feminism’s anti-male rhetoric. This means that any man who disagrees with feminist ideology is a sexist. This is a “Kafkatrapping” tactic, where denying the accusation is cited as proof of your guilt.

Because she is a feminist, and therefore views males as inherently inferior, Alanna Bennett considers all male opinions invalid. So the fact that men don’t like the new Ghostbusters is as irrelevant to her as any other male preference or belief, except insofar as her anti-male belief system means that this wretched movie is good because men don’t like it.

Anything men hate is good, and anything men like is bad — this is a fair summary of the basic feminist worldview, the anti-male political ideology around which Alanna Bennett has organized her life. Therefore, no matter how awful the new Ghostbusters actually is, it must be praised!

 

You see that Alanna Bennett is emotionally invested in this anti-male propaganda film. Feminists demand the new Ghostbusters be praised, in the same way Goebbels demanded praise for Triumph of the Will.

“If you look at the argument of a lot of these reviews [of the new ‘Ghostbusters] that have come out, there are so many of them that are like, it’s not good or it’s average, but it’s going to do so much for women. Go see it.”
— Matt Zion, “Ghostbusters 2016: How Every Man Is An Idiot Or An A–hole”

This bizarre attitude — requiring that a mediocre movie must be praised, because it is politically incorrect not to like it — reminds me of Lysenoism under Stalin in the Soviet Union. Facts don’t matter to an ideologue like Alanna Bennett, whose commitment to feminism is an all-encompassing loyalty. The feminist is a True Believer, fanatically devoted to the movement, and ferociously hostile to the male enemy.

 

What is sad about such women is how their anti-male beliefs function as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because feminists like Alanna Bennett are so profoundly prejudiced against men, smart men avoid them. There are 3.5 billion women on this planet, and most women actually like men. Therefore, no intelligent guy with any sense of self-respect would waste his time hanging around an ax-grinding man-hater like Alanna Bennett. Because the only men who ever hang around feminists are stupid (or perhaps, desperate), it is easy for women like Alanna Bennett to believe there are no intelligent or virtuous men in the world. Feminism acts as a sort of force-field of hatred that drives good men away.

 

It’s a good thing she likes her cat. At least she won’t be lonely.

“The fanboys rallied against the project and it turns out . . . those f–kers were right.”
— Ed Whitfield




 

 


Category: Movies, Sex Trouble

FLOP! New Feminist ‘Ghostbusters’ Toys Already on Clearance Before Movie Opens

Posted on | July 11, 2016 | 65 Comments

 

 

The question about the feminist remake of Ghostbusters now seems to be not whether the movie will fail, but how bad its failure will be:

Toys for the new movie are already on clearance shelves in stores across the country.
While Sony and many media outlets would have you believe that the early criticism of the new movie is coming from a small minority of mouth-breathing woman haters, in reality the majority of the fandom is extremely put off by the reboot. . . .
To give the toys the benefit of the doubt, part of the poor sales could be in part due to young boys not wanting to play with female action figures and girls just not playing with action figures much at all. But whatever the reason for the clearance, it certainly is strange that toys for a yet-to-be released film are already getting shooed off the shelves.

Is it “sexism” to admit that boys and girls are different? Are we now so intimidated by political correctness that people are afraid to say that sexual role-reversals usually produce unhappiness and failure? Is it misogyny to say that feminist “gender neutral” ideology is simply wrong?

If the new Ghostbusters proves to be “a disaster of biblical proportions,” what should we expect Hillary Clinton’s presidency to be? How long before feminism ruins America and we end up on the clearance rack?




 

 

Category: Movies, Sex Trouble

Why Does CNN Hate Police?

Posted on | July 11, 2016 | 12 Comments

 

CNN’s role in creating the Black Lives Matter movement cannot be ignored. Back in 2012, it was CNN that turned the Trayvon Martin case into such a national media carnival, and after George Zimmerman was acquitted, the network went scouting around for other “social justice” sagas to exploit for ratings. This led eventually to CNN’s 24/7 saturation coverage of the Michael Brown shooting. Focusing the media spotlight on Ferguson caused riots there, and then CNN covered the riots.

Civil disorder is good for CNN’s ratings, apparently, so network executives are trying to cause as much civil disorder as possible.

People get shot all the time in America, but CNN only pays attention to shootings that fit a certain narrative. The endless carnage of black-on-black violent crime? Not newsworthy, according to CNN. More than 300 people have been shot to death in Chicago so far this year, and more than 250 of the victims were black, but CNN ignores that bloodshed, because it can’t be exploited by “social justice” activists blaming racist cops.

“So what I think is very important for you to understand just like there are rogue cops who shoot black people for sport.”
— Angela Rye, CNN, July 8

“Turn off your TV!” I want to shout at people who let themselves get worked into a frenzy over this stuff. “Cable news is making you crazy!”

No one ever seems to question the basic editorial decisions behind this kind of coverage. More than 100 people were shot last week in Chicago, but that’s just another average week in Chicago. Because this happens routinely, it is not news, and nobody cares:

Chicago, for all intents and purposes, is a “gun-free zone.”
But all the state and city regulations associated with firearms in Chicago have failed to produce a safe city, and these are the policies that President Obama and Secretary Clinton wish to extend to the rest of the country.

The streets of Chicago are covered in blood:

Weekend gun violence in Chicago pushed the number of people shot in the city this year to around 2,100, about 700 more than this time last year.
A total of 43 people were shot in the city over the weekend, four of them fatally. Nineteen of those were shot during an 11-hour stretch Friday night into Saturday morning, including two men wounded on a crowded sidewalk outside a taco restaurant in Wicker Park, according to police.
Late Saturday, a 21-year-old man was killed and a 15-year-old boy was wounded as they played basketball in Ogden Park in Englewood on the South Side, police said.
Between Friday into Saturday morning, two men died and at least 17 others were wounded; another man was killed and 15 people were hurt from Saturday morning to early Sunday; a fourth man was killed and seven were wounded in shootings Sunday afternoon and evening.

While the death toll in Chicago is strictly local news, CNN continues exploiting “social justice” for ratings and also, partisan politics:

Hillary Clinton wasted little time in assigning responsibility for Thursday’s shooting in Dallas that left five police officers dead — blame whitey!
“I’m going to be talking to white people, we’re the ones who have to start listening to the legitimate cries coming from our African-American fellow citizens,” Mrs. Clinton told CNN Friday. “Clearly, there seems to be a terrible disconnect between many police departments and officers and the people they have sworn to protect.”
Exactly what “legitimate grievances” motivated cop-hating gunman Micah Xavier Johnson were not specified by the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee. Nor did Mrs. Clinton explain why reports of wrongful police actions in Louisiana and Minnesota should have led to bloodshed in Dallas, where the police chief is a black man and law enforcement officials have striven to build trust in the community. Yet the former Secretary of State’s misplaced concerns were not disputed by the interviewer Wolf Blitzer, whose network’s bias is so blatant that Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders in this year’s primary campaign revived the longstanding Republican claim that CNN is an acronym for “Clinton News Network.”
Being pro-Clinton requires CNN and other establishment media outlets to conform their coverage to fit whatever narrative serves the “permanent campaign” mode that Democrats have maintained since Bill Clinton was inaugurated more than 20 years ago, after he received a mere 43 percent of the vote in the three-way election of 1992. Liberal journalists have never ceased singing along with the Fleetwood Mac tune that was the Clinton campaign theme song, “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow,” expressing their shared hope that the future would bring eternal Democratic control of the federal government. . . .

Read the whole thing at The American Spectator.




 

PREVIOUSLY:

 


Category: CNN, Crime, Hillary Clinton, Racism

Rule 5 Sunday: This UFC Thing

Posted on | July 10, 2016 | 14 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

I’m going to admit that I don’t get the appeal of the whole UFC mixed martial arts thing when it comes to women. Granted, we’re blessed by an excess of attractive women here in the United States, but is that any reason for them to be beating each other to a pulp? Anyhow, UFC 200 was held last night in Las Vegas, screwing up traffic for blocks around the T-Mobile Center (more so than normal for a Saturday night on the Strip) and apparently the reigning female champ, Miesha Tate, got choked out by the contender Amanda Nunes. Since Miss Nunes is one of the handful of Brazilian women who is uglier than the south end of a northbound bulldog, we’ll use this pic of the former champion as our appetizer this week. [Insert standard disclaimer here.]

Miesha Tate about to hit the pool.

Ninety Miles from Tyranny leads off this week with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress July 4th Edition, and Girls With Guns July 4th Edition, followed by Goodstuff with Jeri Ryan (one of the few good things about Star Trek: Voyager), Animal Magnetism with Rule 5 “Rule of Law?” Friday and  the Saturday Gingermageddon, The Last Tradition with Adriana Sklenarikova and Brooklyn Decker, and First Street Journal with Norwegians.

EBL’s thundering herd this week includes Olivia de Havilland, Independence Day pinups, Laci Green, Women Eating Fried Chicken, Ivanka Trump, Baristas, and Grace Kelly in High Noon.

A View from the Beach presents Alexandra Daddario, Mean Girls, Nope, Not Yet, Five in One Wednesday Eye Opener, A Year and a Day Late, Happy Fourth of July!, and Smithsonian Supports Solutrean Hypothesis.

Soylent Siberia returns with some sweetness for your coffee creamer, Monday Motivationer Blonde Fury, Tuesday Titillation Sensation, Humpday Hawtness Hose, Faptasmic Fursday, Corset Friday Fantasm Plasm, T-GIF Friday Eggs, and Wanton Weekender.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Brittny Ward, his Vintage Babe is Luana Patten, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Gotcha.

Unfortunately, there’s nothing in the mailbox from Chaz at Dustbury, because he’s recovering from surgery for spinal stenosis, so I snooped a bit and grabbed this post on Bai Ling. Also, one of his friends has set up a GoFundMe. Throw a few bucks at the guy, why don’t you?

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery, especially to those of you who contributed links to the FMJRA to make Rule 5 Sunday (once again) the most linked post last week at The Other McCain. Deadline for submitting links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox is midnight on Saturday, July 16; deadline to submit links to the Wombat-socho for the FMJRA is noon on Saturday.


Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Will the New SJW ‘Ghostbusters’ Be a ‘Disaster of Biblical Proportions’?

Posted on | July 10, 2016 | 64 Comments

“While the new ‘Ghostbusters’ successfully empowers female movie stars, that’s not the movie’s selling point. However, it’s the only justification for its existence. . . .
“At the end of the day, no amount of culturally enlightened intentions can rescue another undercooked studio product.”
— Eric Kohn, IndieWire

The early reviews of the new SJW feminist Ghostbusters remake are trying to say as politely as possible that this movie sucks. Because the producers have spent a lot of money hyping this turkey, and because everyone in the liberal media wants to believe that a comedy can pass the “Bechdel Test” and be a commercial success, it is too early to say that this wretched piece of feminist propaganda will be a box-office flop. Like all movie remakes based on decades-old franchises — The Flintstones (1994), Scooby Doo (2002), etc. — the idea is that parents will pay money for their kids to see something that the parents enjoyed 30 years ago.

Every such movie ever made has sucked, so far as I know. And let me confess a prejudice: I never much liked the original Ghostbusters, either.

Like so many other movies spawned from Saturday Night Live‘s original cast, the 1984 Ghostbusters was just about cashing in on the popularity of a TV comedy phenomenon. Nobody under age 50 today remembers the movies Chevy Chase made with Goldie Hawn (Foul Play in 1978 and Seems Like Old Times in 1980), but instead remember Chase for the National Lampoon’s Vacation franchise that began in 1983, and also for Caddyshack (1980) in which Chase was upstaged by Rodney Dangerfield and by fellow SNL alumnus Bill Murray. If we had to rank the best all-time movies starring 1970s-era SNL cast members, none could match Animal House (1978) with John Belushi, and perhaps Caddyshack is a distant second, or maybe third behind the Belushi-Dan Akroyd project The Blues Brothers (1980). Depending on how you rank Chevy Chase’s film output, Ghostbusters might rank fourth or fifth among SNL-spawned movies, but it definitely wasn’t nearly as good as Animal House or Caddyshack.

My prejudice against Ghostbusters is in large part a function of my bias against the gimmicky SNL cash-in genre of which it was a part, but I also have a strong bias against movies with supernatural themes. Anything with magic, witches, wizards, vampires — no, I don’t like that stuff, and except for the original Friday the 13th (1980), can’t recall very many horror movies that I ever actually liked. The Exorcist (1973) was not nearly as good a movie as the novel on which it was based, which was one of the scariest books I ever read in my life. Because I believe that supernatural evil is quite real, I dislike the recent trend in which some kinds of “magic” are portrayed as benevolent. Any movie in which wizards and vampires are depicted as heroes I consider to be simply satanic.

Also, I don’t believe in ghosts. The dead are dead, and will remain so until the Resurrection and Judgment Day. As goofy as Ghostbusters was, I remember being uncomfortable in 1984 with how the movie played with the idea of paranormal activity as comedy fodder. The best scene in the whole movie — “a disaster of biblical proportions” — treated as laughable the idea of Old Testament “wrath of God type stuff,” which I do not consider a joke. The fact that Ghostbusters came out just about the time the scope of the AIDs epidemic was becoming apparent added a dark subtext to this apocalyptic humor: “Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! . . . Human sacrifice! . . . Mass hysteria!”

Indeed, weird things were going on in 1984 and maybe Ghostbusters was a metaphor for things nobody was supposed to joke about, but finding any kind of politics in that silly movie is a stretch, although every libertarian laughs at Dan Aykroyd’s famous line: “Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything! You’ve never been out of college! You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results!”

Which brings us back to the idea of the new Ghostbusters remake, a deliberate feminist political statement. The message of the all-female cast is simple: Males are useless, because girl power saves the day!

 

Sometimes I’ve called this “Lesbian Ghostbusters” because it was predictable, from the moment the project was announced, that this new movie would emphasize a familiar “Third Wave” feminist theme of males as either (a) incompetent idiots or (b) evil oppressors. Like so many recent feminist movie projects, the new Ghostbusters aims to pass the “Bechdel Test,” which originated with lesbians who did not want to see either male heroes or heterosexual romance in movies.

Imagine a world in which males are never competent, honorable or courageous. Therefore no man can ever be a hero, nor deserve a woman’s love. This is the worldview that Hollywood must reflect to placate feminists, who demand female characters so “empowered” that males exist as ancillary characters to serve the narrative of female heroism.

Variety critic Peter Debruge very much wants to like the new Ghostbusters, but its problems are too obvious to ignore. The movie “suffers from a disappointingly strong case of déjà vu,” Debruge writes. One element of the film’s deliberate feminist role-reversal features beefcake actor Chris Hemsworth as “an assistant too dumb to realize he’s being objectified.” Hemsworth represents the male as incompetent idiot theme of feminist cinema, and what about the male as evil oppressor? Debruge explains that the new Ghostbusters plot hinges on “a disgruntled white guy (Neil Casey), [who] has been inviting noxious visitors from the spirit world to cross over for his own nefarious purposes”:

Once the ladies manage to track this sad sack down, the movie grinds to a halt as the heavily armed group of scientists (whose arsenal has gotten a major upgrade since the earlier film) try to talk him out of destroying the world. That’s pretty much the point where “Ghostbusters” stops being funny enough to sway the haters who’ve become such a vocal presence online — a phenomenon the film actually goes out of its way to acknowledge, as McCarthy dismisses such sexist comments as, “Ain’t no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts,” that appear beneath the group’s YouTube videos.

Get it? Hahahaha.

Not content with the “disgruntled white guy” as villain and the pretty boy Hemsworth as dimwit male eye candy, the new Ghostbusters also had to take a self-referential jab at the naysayers who predicted that this movie would be one of the most unwatchable flops since Ishtar.

While the movie doesn’t open until Thursday, so we won’t know for a couple of weeks whether prophecies of its commercial failure were accurate, the new Ghostbusters nevertheless seems to conform to what the naysayers predicted it would be. Maybe the pre-sold audience will be large enough to rescue the movie from being a catastrophic box-office failure. Perhaps media hype in the pro-feminist climate of an election year where Hillary Clinton is running for president will form enough of a wave to lift this chick-flick comedy to success. However, the new Ghostbusters is apparently not a movie intended to make money, but rather to preach a feminist sermon, and Debruge predicts that the producers are likely to take a “write-down” and lose money.

Well, a mid-July release date isn’t exactly a gesture of confidence from the studio. If they thought the new Ghostbusters was a winner, Sony would have released it in May or perhaps waited for September. My fear is not so much that this feminist project will succeed, but rather that it won’t fail hard enough to discourage similar projects in the future.

 


Category: Movies, Sex Trouble

KILLER WAS ‘PERVERT’: Dallas Shooter Sexually Harassed Woman in Army

Posted on | July 10, 2016 | 13 Comments

Micah Johnson (left) reportedly harassed Sgt. Anna Ma.

More details have emerged about Micah Xavier Johnson, the racial terrorist who murdered five Dallas police officers Thursday. Johnson received an honorable discharge from the Army Reserves in 2014 despite being charged with sexual harassment during his deployment:

The Dallas sniper had been sent home from Afghanistan after being accused of sexually harassing a female . . .
For six years starting in 2009, Johnson served in the Army Reserve as a private first class with a specialty in carpentry and masonry, the military said.
In May 2014, six months into his Afghanistan tour, he was accused of sexual harassment by a female soldier. The Army sent him stateside, recommending an “other than honorable discharge,” said Bradford Glendening, the military lawyer who represented him.
That recommendation was “highly unusual,” Bradford said, since counseling is usually ordered before more drastic steps are taken.
“In his case, it was apparently so egregious, it was not just the act itself,” Glendening told The Associated Press. “I’m sure that this guy was the black sheep of his unit.”
According to a court filing Glendening read over the phone Friday, the victim said she wanted Johnson to “receive mental help,” while also seeking a protective order to keep him away from her and her family, wherever they went. Johnson was ordered to avoid all contact with her.
Glendening said Johnson was set to be removed from the Army in September 2014 because of the incident, but instead got an honorable discharge months later — for reasons he can’t understand.

On his now-deleted Facebook page, Micah Johnson was a supporter of several black separatist and Afrocentric causes, including the African American Defense League (AADL). Before he returned to civilian life, however, Johnson was known to soldiers who served with him in Afghanistan as a “pervert” with a habit of “stealing girls’ panties”:

Johnson, a private in the American Army, was deployed to Afghanistan in November 2013 with the 420th Engineer Brigade.
While he was there, his colleague Anna Ma, 25, accused him of sexual harassment, according to a military lawyer who represented Johnson when he returned home in May 2014.
Dallas-based Bradford Glendening said: ‘He made unwanted sexual advances towards her.
‘It was all verbal. He was bothering and harassing her.’
According to legal documents, Anna begged for a ‘protective order against Johnson pertaining to myself, my family home and any other place of residence I may reside at’.
Wells Newsome, who served alongside Johnson in Afghanistan, wrote on Facebook: ‘We all knew he was a pervert cuz [sic] he got caught stealing girls’ panties, but murdering cops is a different story.’
Johnson waived his right to a military court hearing in the wake of the allegations. Despite the claims, he left the Army in April 2015 with an honourable discharge. Glendening said: ‘Someone really screwed up — but to my client’s benefit.’

In the immediate aftermath of Thursday’s anti-police terrorist attack in Dallas, a Facebook page celebrating Micah Johnson as a hero got hundreds of “likes” from supporters of the “Black Lives Matter” movement. A photo on Johnson’s now-deleted Facebook page showed him shaking hands with “Professor Griff” of the rap group Public Enemy.

Public Enemy was known for its “black power” stance. However, the rapper (real name Richard Griffin) distanced himself from the violence committed by the group’s fan, claiming he had no idea where he met Micah Johnson. “I do not know the shooter,” Profesor Griff said on Twitter Friday. “I will not sit back and let these people assassinate my character and tie me to the Dallas shootings. . . . The police and FBI have been watching me and tapping my phone. They know who I talk to. I do not advocate killing cops. I do not train snipers to kill cops.”





 

PREVIOUSLY:

 


Category: Crime, Racism
« go back — keep looking »