Wednesday, July 31, 2013

The gay lobby won…

Who is the Pope to judge!

A reporter asked the Pope about a trusted monsignor who reportedly once had a gay lover.  That question was in the context of the well-known homosexual lobbying effort inside the Vatican to officially accept homosexuals as priests and other leadership positions in the Church hierarchy.

The Pope responded:

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

Homosexuals around the world are rejoincing. 

Catholics praise and defend the Pope’s remarks saying he really didn’t mean what the great majority of media is reporting.  They defend the Pope by saying he is simply being open minded, tolerant and forgiving – that He is being “Catholic.”

I suggest he is ignoring evil at the gates.  And he is the overseer of the gates.

The fact that homosexuals around the world are encouraged to the point of nearly dancing in the streets as a result of his comments speaks volumes.  That says more than Catholic apologists merely suggesting the media misrepresented his comments.  Speaking of homosexuals dancing in the streets, have you ever witnessed a Gay Pride parade?  With your kids?

Those who care about Biblical morality are shocked and saddened to hear a Church leader of the Pope’s stature in the world choosing not to judge sinful tendencies and predispositions in leaders of the Church.

The Pope’s comments revealed a great chasm in the Church:  Those who vigorously defend anything and everything that comes out of the mouths of Catholic leaders, right or wrong, good or evil.  And those who care about the liberal, destructive direction the Church is heading, led by leaders who throw up their hands and proclaim “who am I to judge.”

In sum, the Pope’s comments were at best ambiguous, provoking controversy and dissension, and at worst, to put it kindly,  "progressing" toward liberalizing the Church.  To put it more bluntly:  Leading the Church into the pits of damnation.

When a Pope proclaims "who am I to judge", that is a mouthful.  If the Pope says HE shouldn't judge, then it follows no Catholic should judge. That is a clear declaration and mandate to throw out the moral teachings of the Church - and of the Bible. If the sin of practicing homosexuality, one of the most prominent moral teachings in Scripture and tradition, can't be judged, what can? What is the teaching? That no one should judge anyone's behaviors?  No one should claim anyone else is sinning?   No one should even admit what a sin is or isn't because that would be "judging?"

The Pope is advocating moral relativism - or perhaps more accurately, amorality. There is no longer any human behavior worthy of judging. A sin is only something that an individual declares it to be, whether he even ever knows what sin is even if he saw it. But then how could anyone ever identify sin to know what it is if we are not to judge, just like the Pope?

Granted, the Pope was parsing the distinction between a priest having homosexual tendencies, preferences, or predisposition as distinct from a priest actually practicing and promoting homosexuality.  Unfortunately, practicing and harboring are really close bedfellows, so to speak. And those who harbor have the same predispositions toward related immoral acts as the practitioners - thus the Priest-driven child molestation scandal and Bishop/Vatican coverup/indifference, and “failure to judge.”  How can these people be so blind?  Is it ignorance?  Or is it complicity?  Unless one believes that “do not judge” is the highest ever Biblical value, which it certainly is not.

If the media’s interpretation is so different than what the Pope really said as claimed by Papal apologists, then he is a really poor communicator. Apologists for the Church will read their own "he didn't really mean that" into what he really said.  The homosexual community confirms the media reports.  Why else would they be so enthusiastic?

The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. And he is not to judge? Hasn't that been a problem with the Catholic Church hierarchy for decades now - not judging? Catholic leaders are not to judge homosexuals, they are not to judge child predators. What else might they not be the ones to judge?  Perhaps they are not to judge female priests, they are not to judge abortionists, they are not to judge Muslims who burn churches and kill priests.  They don’t judge, they just forgive.  No wonder the Italian Mafia have been practicing Catholics.

The great Papal divider has come down on the side of the radical “look the other way, who am I to judge, anything goes” Catholics.  The traditionalists, those who the “who am I to judge” Catholics ridicule and marginalize as being right wing extremist Catholics, are left sucking wind.

Apologists for the Pope and the Church have said that the Pope is not actually in the business of personally judging anyone.   OK.   Is he in a position to judge categories of behaviors and morality? Is he able to pronounce what is sin anymore? Apparently not that either. "Who am I to judge" indeed.

The Church is beginning to be good for not much except promoting forcible redistribution and "forgiving" everyone's bad behavior.   No wonder Catholic Church attendance is plummeting.  Redistribution and forgiving bad behavior can be done without the Church.  Just join a street gang – or the Democrat Party. 

Unfortunately this is what the Catholic Church feels it needs to do to stay in business.  Instead of being the counter-cultural salt of the earth, providing a reason to strive to be moral agents of God, they are merely going along to get along – running with the tide of a corrupt and declining culture.  Do you believe this is what Christ intended?

In answer to the reporters question:  There is little doubt left about the status of Gay Mafia in the Vatican.  They have prevailed.  The Church Leader has abrogated his moral authority and has thrown his influence behind “I don’t care – do what you want to do.  Who am I to judge.”

Saturday, July 27, 2013

EEO and Diversity from the pits of hell…

I was perusing a previous public employer’s web site (in this case Prince William County, Virginia’s) and some distressing memories came to mind.  Namely, their diversity policy and mandated diversity training regimen.

Looking back, I could not tolerate that inane BS anymore.

Here is the agency’s Mission Statement, Goal, and EEO Policy Statement…

Mission Statement 
To guide, direct, assist and monitor the administration of equality for all applicants and employees and promote diversity at all occupational levels of the County's workforce. 
To support the County's Values in doing the right thing every time by respecting diversity, accepting and celebrating individual differences and valuing all employees. 
EEO Policy Statement
This policy is promulgated to prohibit conduct that could constitute a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended and other state or federal employment laws prohibiting race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, genetics, retaliation and veteran status.

Some parts sound just fine like “equality for all applicants”.  Really?  Are all applicants equal?  Even treating all applicants equally is an ignorant mission.   Treat all kindly, yes.  Apply the Golden Rule, you bet.  But there is not an employer in all of governmentdom that applies the same interview regimen for Department Director as for a clerk position. As hard as some might try, applicants are NOT equal.   And their treatment is not equal, nor should it be.  That is an unachievable mission statement.  It will never be achieved unless the agency perpetually deceives and lies to itself, which it apparently does.

And “promote diversity at all occupational levels of the County’s workforce.”  So they want an African, a transgender, a Muslim and a Chicano as County Executive?  I would guess that at least one race, religious affiliation, or gender preference would be excluded.   They want Mensa members as janitors? How will that work out? 

Ahh, I get it, they want folks like Anthony Weiner as school crossing guards and school counselors.  Oh, and how about an Islamist like Nadal Hasan as County Liaison to the military at Quantico?

I love their goal of “doing the right thing every time by respecting diversity, accepting and celebrating individual differences and valuing all employees.”  Over my dead discriminating ass.

No way in hell would I respect and celebrate an Anthony Weiner, or a homosexual pervert, or a severely underperforming Jamaican I had to fire.  That would be the definition of insanity!  Why would I “respect and celebrate” a Muslim when I knew his “religion” wants to eradicate my culture and transform my nation into a fascist Islamic state?  Why would I respect and celebrate a woman who promotes “women’s rights” over those of men as she promotes abortions of convenience?  I would have to be insane to do that, as many employees must be.  If not insane then at least lying.

In essence, government is forcing us to lie to demonstrate our superficial “respect and celebration.”

And what drives this insanity?  The EEO policy statement.  The severely overreaching Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which mandates that the Federal Government meddle in every aspect of personal life, behavior and thought.

And I realize it may be a misprint but the last phrase is rather amusing:

…prohibiting race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, genetics, retaliation and veteran status.

Does this mean we can’t have race, color, religion, or sex anymore?

Given the idiocy of the other statements, maybe its not a misprint.

Yes, I understand that totally free speech has its consequences.  Perhaps I have been mistaken all along about what “freedom of speech” meant in this country.

Friday, July 26, 2013

Expat to Chile…

Or a dozen other places…

I just finished a fascinating book, “The Warning” by John Price, a former Indianapolis, Indian, attorney.

What does this book have to do with US citizens moving to Chile?  I knew one.  And I can only guess her reasons for moving, aside from the fact she lived there as a child and had fond memories.

But here are other reasons:

“The Warning” is a “semi”-fictional book about Biblical reasons for leaving the United States.    By “semi”-fictional, what I mean is this book is a made up story line of possible, or maybe even likely future events, juxtaposed against plausible Biblical prophecy and admonitions.  The Biblical prophecy and admonitions deal with what constitutes the latter day Babylon the Great, and what Christians should do to remain faithful to God should they agree that they are living in Babylon’s midst.

The US is identified as the “Daughter of Babylon” based on the following “identity clues” found a number of verses of the Bible (see verse references, below):

Is the daughter…

  1. The Same as the Mother? (the “mother” Babylon was known as being “anti-God” and was destroyed);
  2. The Hammer of the whole earth?
  3. A latter day nation?
  4. A nation of wealth and luxury?
  5. A multi-nation melting pot of a nation?
  6. A nation living on many waters?
  7. A center of world commerce
  8. The great voice
  9. Mad upon their idols?
  10. A nation that mounts up to the heavens?
  11. A place where nations gather?
  12. Proud against the Lord?
  13. A place with a large Jewish population?
  14. A deep water port nation?
  15. A nation that the Kings of the Medes won’t destroy themselves?
  16. A land of entertainment?
  17. A nation other than the historical Babylon that is gone and won’t be back?
  18. A nation that sits on (has bases in) the seven continents of the Earth?
  19. A nation sworn to defend Israel.? 

The book makes the case that the US is the “Daughter of Babylon.”  It further summarizes the evils of the United States that are worthy of God’s wrath:

  • Over 56 million aborted births since Roe v Wade (1973); the great majority are killings of convenience and not to save the life of the mother, a result of rape or birth defect.
  • A government that is striving to use taxpayer funding to pay for all abortions.
  • A culture that is pro-homosexuality and a government that is enforcing that desire.
  • A culture that denigrates the marriage tradition via mandating that the sacred institution be available to homosexuals.
  • A place where “Christian” churches have become places of entertainment and pride-building rather than places for teaching morality and worship of God.
  • A nation obsessed with entertainment, with productivity and worship of God far down the list of priorities
  • The world’s greatest exporter of degenerate culture and entertainment
  • A nation living off of borrowed money, incapable of paying off principle
  • A culture that desires government to take over more and more personal and local responsibilities, enabling big government to usurp the place of personal responsibility and reliance on God for our help after all we can do.

With these two sets of data, 1) the prophecies of Scripture, and 2) the realities of our nation, the book makes a case in answering the question:  What business do Christians have remaining in a country like this?  The book’s answer:  None.  They should leave.  The book also integrates objections to this drastic action into its script.   For example:  But shouldn’t Christians remain to make things better?  To build the Church? 

The answer:  The trend is irreversible.  The writing is on the wall; the die is cast.  A sense of urgency in leaving is declared.  In fact, the author of the book, John Price, already left.  He and his wife live in Central America.

Here is John Price’s website:

New York City is said by some to be ground zero of Babylon the Great in our age – Babylon sit right next to New York Harbor.  And the next Mayor of New York may very well be…yet another pervert..

Verse references:

    • Psalm 137:8
    • Isaiah 13; 21:1-10; 47 and 48
    • Jeremiah 50 and 51
    • Zechariah 2:7
    • Revelation 17 and 18.

But why Chile?  One reason is its economic and social freedoms are greater than in the US, according to the CATO Institute.

Other reasons may include a greater general sense of community and neighborliness, a stronger sense of morality, a more faithful Christianity, an overall better sense of wellbeing and a feeling of the way the US felt in the 50’s.

Or maybe loving friends and relatives are there.  Are we escaping an unpleasantness in the US or are we attracted to a better time and place.  Perhaps both.

Someday I will have to ask my old friend who grew up in Chile, lived in the US most of her life, and recently returned to Chile what her reasons are.

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Dear Huma:


“I love him, I have forgiven him, I believe in him,” and the sexting matter is “between us,” she said

With that said, here is my reply to Huma:

Dear Huma:

With regard to your defense of your husband I have this to say to you.

Just because you are Muslim, why do you think the American people shouldn’t want honesty and morality in an elected official?  I understand that Muslim women accept all kinds of infidelity and abuse from their husbands.  That is part of your Islamic culture.  I suppose your Muslim influence and mission are so overwhelmingly significant that you find it prudent to ignore all semblance of common sense and human decency.

It is so weird, but in another way it makes sense, that you are pals with Hillary; her right hand Muslim.  You two have so much in common:  You both have big dicks for husbands. 

Is Anthony just your pimp boy?  Your lifeline to riches?  Your front man so you can do your behind the scenes thing of subverting our government with your Islamic conquest syndrome?  Do you have an arranged marriage to facilitate your Islamic sedition against the non-Muslims of New York?  Ahh, yes.  You would be the “First Lady” of New York City.  A Muslim first lady.  How fitting for a Muslim to be the First Lady of what many refer to New York City, in a religious sense, as the Daughter of Babylon the Great – the Great Harlot.

I understand that in the Islamic “faith” you are required to be subservient to “your man.”  But lady, you have no “man” there.  You have a pervert.  And your creepy defense of him based on your even more creepy “religion” makes you as much of a pervert as he is.

Huma, you need psychiatric help as badly as your warped husband.  Go for it.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Consequences of unbridled Union greed…

Detroit, land of the greed…

Detroit has reaped the consequences of unbridled Union greed, and is now the victim of greed’s consequences.  Detroit has become the poster child of declining American industry and the human behaviors that killed it.  See more HERE.

The Unions?  Yes. The Unions.  How can the Unions associated with big business kill a city? Here’s how:   By the democratic votes of Union members voting for themselves wages and benefits that ultimately wrecked the competitive edge of the US auto industry headquartered in Detroit.  This phrase is eerily similar to this familiar quote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.

The “largess” voted by the Unions wasn’t out of the public treasury, but out of corporate profitability and competitiveness.  Weak management or greedy Union bullying, the results are the same.  The big corporations of Detroit were declining faster than the City could contract.  The tax base shriveled while the welfare roles mushroomed – an unmanageable scenario for any city.

And now, the recipients of that greed-enabled Union largess are retired fat and happy, grinning like pigs in slop – actually quite ignorant and oblivious pigs in slop.  Most of these same recipients and lovers of Union greed remain the lovers of Union greed.  And the Democrat party and its Redistributionist in Chief are their industry-killing gods. 

These 1970’s and ‘80’s Union whiners are the same folks who are today STILL promoting politicians and their policies that are bankrupting not just a corporation, not just a city, but our Nation.  How?  By supporting a party and a president who promotes higher taxes, bigger government, and more regulations that are wrecking the profitability and competitiveness of businesses across the nation – Detroit then, the entire nation today. 

Unions/Democrats/Progressives are doing the same thing to our nation today that they did to Detroit 30 years ago.  The old retired Union farts who killed Detroit have not changed.  They still support greed; they still want to kill a nation in the same way they killed Detroit.

Here is a great video summary of the reasons for Detroit’s demise:

Why did dead Detroit happen?

Friday, July 19, 2013

The message behind Obama’s continuing race-baiting…

I can only say that the President is misinformed or is purposely misrepresenting the Zimmerman case to inflame the nation.

Mark Alexander, the Executive Editor and Publisher of The Patriot Post web site, goes further with his comments.  He does a great job with his point by point rebuttal of Obama’s impromptu race-baiting speech of July 19, 2013. 


Alexander Rebuts Obama on Zimmerman/Martin                     By Mark Alexander · July 19, 2013

"It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him." --Thomas Jefferson (1785)

Barack Hussein Obama walked into a White House press briefing Friday afternoon, unannounced. He used the briefing to deliver his political assessment of the Zimmerman/Martin case. I have published two comprehensive critiques of this case, "Race Hustlers and Double Standards" last week, and "What Democrats Won't Say About Race" this week. Those columns challenge the Left's promotion and intentional distortion of the case as race bait, to maintain the unyielding sycophantic support of 95 percent of black voters. Without that low-information voter constituency, Democrats would win few congressional elections, and Obama would not be president. Below, I rebut the key points of Obama's latest effort to politicize the Zimmerman/Martin case.

 O: I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday, but watching the debate over the course of the last week I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

A: In other words, there is more political capital to be squeezed out of Martin's death.


O: I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle's, to the family of Trayvon Martin.

A: How about Obama offering thoughts and prayers to George Zimmerman and his family, whose lives Obama, et al., turned upside down by politicizing this case 16 months ago. Otherwise, there never would have been a trial as there was no basis for the charges -- and the jury and virtually every legal expert agree.


O: There are very few African-American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. ... There are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. ... There are very few African-Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.

A: Obama is referencing an unfortunate stereotype, unfortunate because that stereotype is well earned. Black males between the ages of 16 and 35 commit a grossly disproportionate share of crime across our nation. Until that changes, the stereotype profile will not change, nor should it. Most people of all races have decent instincts about threats to their person or property, and they respond accordingly. The problem is not that a particular demographic of our society is subject to increased scrutiny, the problem is that demographic has earned that scrutiny.


O: The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

A: The racial disparity in arrests and convictions of blacks is commensurate with the racial disparity of crimes committed by blacks. To suggest otherwise is flatly disingenuous.


O: Now, this isn't to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they are disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It's not to make excuses for that fact, although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.

A: They are not "disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system," they are disproportionately involved in crime. In Obama's hometown of Chicago, in the seventeen months since Trayvon Martin's death, more than 700 black men, women and children have been murdered, mostly by black men, and Obama has said not a single word about a single one of those murders. Apparently black-on-black murders do not fit the Left's race agenda. Obama then, in the same sentence he suggests "it's not to make excuses," he asserts "historical context" as an excuse.


O: We understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

A: Actually NOT. The "violence, poverty and dysfunction" can be traced to decades of liberal social policy, which created the urban poverty plantations upon which generations of poor blacks have been enslaved, and which have become breeding grounds for an unprecedented culture of violence besetting our whole nation.


O: Now, the question for me at least, and I think, for a lot of folks is, where do we take this?

A: Apparently, to the political bank.


O: I think it's important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government -- the criminal code. And law enforcement has traditionally done it at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.

A: Then why did Obama federalize the case in the first place? Obviously he thought they would win this case. Now, he is attempting to punt the blame back to "the state and local levels."


O: Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it'd be productive for the Justice Department, governors [and] mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

A: But Obama and his NeoCom cadres fomented the distrust in this case, as they do with every political opening -- and to suggest now that he will step in with training to correct the situation is arrogant and ludicrous. We already know that Obama thinks police "act stupidly."


O: I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.

A: Florida's "stand your ground" law, as well as those of 22 other states, do not encourage tragedies, they prevent them.


O: I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?

A: No. Zimmerman did not attack Martin. Martin attacked Zimmerman, case closed. And for the record, more blacks, as a percentage of the population in Florida, have invoked the "stand your ground" defense than whites or Hispanics -- or even "white Hispanics."


O: "If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

A: Yes, it would have been very different because "white hispanic" on white does not play with Obama's political agenda. Thus, nobody would ever have heard about it. Likewise, there have been seven clear cases of black-on-white hate crimes assaults and murders in the last week alone, but not a word from Obama on those.


O: We need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys? There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?

A: The best place to start would be to reverse the liberal social policies that created the problem. O: Finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. A: Start with your own soul, Obama, if you haven't completely sold it out.


O: You know, there has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have.

A: Obama launched the Zimmerman/Martin "conversation on race" so on this point, he is correct.


O: Finally, ask yourself ... am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can; am I judging people, as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

A: This from the titular head of the Democrat Party, which has turned Martin Luther King's challenge about color and character upside down. Indeed, for Obama and the Left, color trumps character. Obama did feign disdain for protest, saying, "If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin." Fact is, Obama's remarks dishonor what happened to Martin. P.S.: Oh, and despite all the spin Obama is generating around this case, we won't get distracted from all his other scandals and policy fails!


From the Patriot Post websiteimage

Mark Alexander is executive editor and publisher of The Patriot Post the Web's "Voice of Essential Liberty". His strong academic vitae in constitutional government and policy combined with his real-world occupational experience ensure his contributions as an essayist and analyst reflect the grassroots conservatism of the heartland revitalized by Ronald Reagan, rather than ubiquitous Beltway news and opinion.

Saint Trayvon of Miami…

St. Francis of Assissi has nothing on Saint Trayvon of Miami.  Neither does Muhammad.

This brings to mind how a child molesting, drug using, hallucinating, short-tempered killer like Muhammad of Medina could become the leader of the world’s major religion among the worlds illiterate.  His death brought life to his checkered cause.

In like fashion the nation’s illiterate are making little Saint Trayvon into something he never was.  The historic facts didn’t matter among the Muslim followers of  the 6th century symbol of Islam, Muhammad.  And the facts don’t matter among Muslims today.  Neither do the historical facts, as recent as they are, matter to the followers of the newly minted symbol of Black racism, Trayvon.

The nation’s present day defense of a short-fused man whose use of drugs created a paranoid fighting temperament  brings a stark, creepy reality to how cults and movements are created and energized.  Most often, they have nothing to do with fact.  They have to do with emotion, bias, wishful thinking, group psychosis, and lust for power.  Like Muhammad’s fact-challenged cult following, Trayvon’s following is also devoid of facts.  His following is based on emotion, bias, wishful thinking, group psychosis, and lust for power.  Are you hearing this, Mr. President?

Some things never change.  Do we have a new Muhammad waiting in the wings? 

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Pop culture (and Trayvon Martin) love to mimic evil…

Sure, there are decent kids, decent people who wear hoodies.  There are decent people who cover their bodies with tattoos head to toe.  There are decent people who dress and make-up “Goth.”  There are decent people who wear nose rings, and tongue rings and bones in their cheeks.   There are “decent people” who smoke pot and do heroin (so believe some).  There are “decent people” who love violent and pornographic rap (or so believe those who share their tastes.)  There are decent people who wear their drawers half way down their ass – well this last one may be a stretch.  And there are the “decent kids” who wear their long black trenchcoats mimicking the gangsta garb to school.

Who and what people choose to mimic does indicate their tastes and, to a degree their state of mind.

What do most of these jackass followers have in common?  They are mimicking evil.  They are all following pop culture – “the crowd.”  Pop culture loves to mimic evil.  Before these modes of dress and drug use became popular, they were all part of the underground culture of evil –disrespected by the mainstream.  The hoodie gained its popularity from use by street thugs – its great for concealment.  Wearing the hoodie is not evil, but it mimics the style of evil.  Our drug culture has its roots in evil, but millions are in it and legislators want to legitimize it.  For some inexplicable dumb ass reason, people with little direction and even fewer sound values love to mimic evil.

Trayvon Martin is one of those mimicking evil, with his drug use and “hoodie.”  Trayvon was a misdirected ass waiting for trouble.  No wonder he was paranoid and picked the wrong fight at the wrong place.  Viva la George Zimmerman who exercised his God-given senses and appropriately defended himself.  I am hopeful that any moron like Bob Beckel or Whoopie Suckerpunch Goldberg who thinks that Zimmerman was a “sissy” for shooting the evil drug dealer wannabe that they one day soon find themselves in Zimmerman’s position.  That could not happen to more deserving people.  That would be justice.

Martin mimicked just about every up to no good stereotype that existed:  The hoodie, the appearance of sneaking around in the dark and the rain, the quick temper, the psychotic behavior, the drug use, the school suspensions, the stealing, the dealing.  Its all there.  Any one of these by themselves may not draw suspicion, but all together there is nothing worthy of praise.   Nothing worthy of protecting or memorializing.  Yet there are millions who are blind to evil and who are memorializing all of it.  Because of race.

I love Coulter’s latest rant:  To Avoid Looking Like a Criminal, Don’t Commit a Crime.  I would also suggest to avoid being perceived as a criminal don’t act and dress like one.

Take a look at this link to discover the likely extent of Martin’s drug involvement:


Monday, July 15, 2013

ABC’s ‘The View’ Stoking the Flames…

Anyone watching The View today (July 15, 2013) may have noticed the show’s agenda-driven ignorance – perhaps feigned ignorance to incite viewers to increase ratings and enhance their ad revenues.

Most obvious was the 10 foot high photo of “little Trayvon” when he was 10 or 12 years old projected behind the panelists.

Of course they wouldn’t show any of these…

…because it wouldn’t fit their agenda.

But that was the least of the incitement.

It appeared that neither Whoopi Golberg nor Joy Behar knew any facts of the case because they displayed their ignorance so starkly when they misrepresented the facts.  They merely repeated the liberal media narrative.  They insisted that Zimmerman got out of his car in violation of the order of the police not to do so when in fact he got out of his car searching for a street sign in response to a request from the dispatcher to identify the name of the street he was on.  He was requested not to follow only after he reached the far extent of his street sign search roughly 200’ from his vehicle.   Immediately upon receiving the dispatcher’s request not to search he began his walk back to his vehicle.  That is when he was confronted by the angry Martin.

Goldberg then questioned why Zimmerman didn’t “sucker punch” Martin while Martin was on top of him instead of shooting him.  Again she displayed gross ignorance of the facts of the case and of common sense.  When an out of shape individual (Zimmerman – or Goldberg) is on the bottom mounted by an angry dude who is much more physically fit (Martin) pounding his (or her) head into concrete “mixed marshall arts” style (the “ladies” of The View were ignorant of the initials “MMA” again revealing their ignorance of what has been in the news for weeks) the one on the bottom has few if any options.  If any options existed he had no opportunity or capacity to think them through.  Goldberg ought to personally try that scenario out herself.

It is difficult for me to understand how millionaire TV hosts can be either

1) This ignorant, or

2) This greedy for ratings at the price of willful misrepresentation of facts…

…either of which is likely to incite further violence among the ignorant masses across the country.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Unarmed “Community Watch” is a suicide mission

Famed Attorney Alan Dershowitz and Front Page Magazine Journalist David Horowitz both believe that official “Community Watch” folks should not be armed.

One is a liberal; the other is supposedly a reformed liberal.  But both want to put one more nail in the coffin of the 2nd amendment.

Who in his right mind would want to patrol his community unarmed?  If George Zimmerman agreed to that he would have been killed.  Looking for the name of the street where “little” Trayvon skittled off to, as requested by the police dispatcher, and then trying to return to his truck UPON being advised “not to follow”, George was jumped and beaten by “little” Trayvon.  If George was not armed, he would be dead or beaten into a vegetable.

The George Zimmerman case is being used by liberals and wanna-be conservatives as an excuse to disarm an important segment of our responsible citizenry.

If attacked by a displaced ghetto kid with knee jerk, street fighter reactions or by a punk on drugs, an unarmed community watch guy has little chance of survival.

If your local community requires their Community Watch folks to be unarmed, consider that to be a voluntary suicide mission.  If you want to watch your community, do it informally and do it armed.  Avoid the insanity of the Community Watch bureaucracy and  its extra-legal constraints on your right to bear arms, and most importantly, your right to adequately defend yourself from punks.


Saturday, July 13, 2013

Clash of cultures…

Samuel P. Huntington wrote a groundbreaking book titled “Clash of Civilizations.”  He demonstrated how the faith and dogma of nations shape their actions and attitudes toward other nations.  Great differences between their belief systems, morality, and actions often lead to international conflict.

The same can be said of the great differences between the faith and dogma of different cultures that characterize different neighborhoods.

Trayvon Martin was raised in a black Miami neighborhood where pockets of less than upstanding civic values persisted.  In his life experience it was considered normal and maybe by some, acceptable, to be occasionally involved in fights, buy, sell, and use drugs, and engage in vulgar language.  In his culture, a short temper and aggressive attitude often served him well in a relatively animalistic environment.  He chose to be a part of that micro-culture and allowed it to shape his life and actions.

Bring those life experiences, attitude, and actions to a small town Sanford, Florida, apartment complex and see what happens.

In Sanford, most of the population is more accustomed to helping their neighbor, not hyper-sensitive to perceived slights, more tolerant, and more likely to move on than what would typically be the case in a black Miami ghetto-like environment.  In Sanford, if the typical resident felt they were being followed, they are more likely to say “can I help you find find the apartment you’re looking for” or “it sure has been rainy.”  The transplanted civically-challenged individual (I’m trying to be kind) is more likely to punch the follower in the nose, knock him to the ground and pummel him MMA style.

George Zimmerman did not expect a Miami ghetto reaction to his walking the sidewalks of his home community.  But he got it.  He was not prepared for it, but he got it.  He was not a fighter.  He was not fit.  He used the only tool at his disposal, out of fear for his life, to avoid debilitating or fatal injury.

This was a clash of cultures.  An individual with lifelong exposure to a violent culture confronting someone with lifelong exposure to law-abiding culture doing his best to keep it that way in a manner he thought would be most helpful. 

With this being said, the elephant in the room of the Zimmerman trial was this: 

A judge who disallowed the backgrounds, the cultures, the past actions, and the records of these two individuals to be considered by the jury.

These facts are extremely relevant.  They shaped who these individuals are.  They are key to what motivated the individuals to take the actions they took.  Martins’ background and previous behavior coincides exactly with his knee-jerk attack on Zimmerman that Zimmerman described.  But this evidence was kept from the jury.  If Zimmerman was convicted, this denial of essential evidence would have been a sound basis for appeal.

The media, the President, and the prosecution demean the civic pride of defendant Zimmerman by labeling him a  “wannabe cop.”  Only a couple of decades ago, a young man aspiring to be a police officer was considered a good thing – worthy of praise, not slander.

The media, the President, and the prosecution, on the other hand, portrayed the drug using, violent, expelled punk as a persecuted victim – an ideal model citizen.  Check out what the media and courts covered up about Trayvon HERE.  And HERE is a lot of evidence of the “racism for profit” scheme implemented by the anti-Zimmerman team.

Zimmerman continues to be accused of being a racist, even though the verdict and facts confirm he is anything but.  John Donnelly, a friend and defense witness provided this insight:

Donnelly told Reuters that Zimmerman was hurt very deeply by prosecutors' portrayals of him as a racist vigilante who targeted and pursued Martin simply because he was black.

"The person they are talking about is somebody completely different," Donnelly quoted Zimmerman as telling him recently. "Sometimes I have to go look at a mirror. They are talking about a totally different human being. They are talking about a racist. I'm not a racist."

He said Zimmerman was anything but.

"He's been mentoring young black kids for years, he launched a campaign to help a homeless black man who was beaten up by a white kid, and he still just can't believe all the things that have been said about him in the media."

Other friends of Zimmerman who spoke exclusively to Reuters remain angry at what he has endured since the shooting.

"I knew the man was innocent the whole time,'' said Jorge Rodriguez. "He called me yesterday to thank me ... for believing in him. He was just so relieved."

This leads me to the conclusion that the media, the President, the prosecution and other race-baiters are full of crap – not worthy of any respect, and a menace to society.

The clash of civilizations is inside our gates and at our door.


Thank God, as I just completed writing this post this evening I learned that George Zimmerman has been declared NOT GUILTY.

While the evidence and the law demand acquittal…

Clearly, the evidence and the law in the George Zimmerman case demand acquittal.

Sadly, those who are more unthinkingly emotional and those who unthinkingly feel persecuted won’t care about the evidence and the law.  They will demand unthinking, emotional mob “justice” and revenge.

What would a conviction mean in this case?

A conviction turns our ability to defend ourselves on its head.  It means that punks can attack with no or minimal provocation, and we have little right to effective self-defense.

In the midst of being attacked, most of us are incapable of measuring the severity of defense we resist with.  We won’t know the capability of our attacker.  We would be lucky to avoid serious injury and remain alive.  Most of us aren’t capable of modulating the effectiveness of our defense.  We react to the degree we understand at the moment that our survival is in jeopardy.  We don’t know if the next threat or the next blow will knock us out or kill us or cause us to bleed out.  So we will defend ourselves to the maximum extent of our ability.  If we have a gun as part of our “ability” we can, we should, we must use it.

If confronted, and fleeing is NOT an option, we have no other option.

But if Zimmerman is convicted, even this option will be taken from us.  Our right to legitimate self defense will be dealt a fatal blow.