The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “George Zimmerman”

It’s Getting So You Have To Let The Man Molest Your Daughter Right Before Your Eyes

By now we’ve all heard about the case in Texas where a father who witnessed his daughter being molested by an unidentified perpetrator attacked, and then killed him.  We also know he has not been charged with any crime, yet.  What you may not have known is that there is actually a civil rights group in Texas that is seriously questioning the actions of the father, and is somewhat perplexed and appalled that he has not been charged with a crime for killing the man whom he witnessed molesting his daughter.

Speaking with in a Tuesday report, James Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project in Austin, said the father had every right to defend his daughter, but had summarily crossed the line.  “Assuming it’s true that this guy was molesting the daughter, and we don’t know what exactly happened at this point, he would then have the right to defend [her], and hit him enough to have him stop. But you cannot summarily execute him, even though I can understand the anger he would have,” Harrington said.

Now, Harrington ought to know that Texas, of all places, is not where you want to fight to take away freedom and independence, and the right to defend yourself and your family.  To even suggest that in Texas is fighting words.  However, liberals don’t like the idea of anyone defending themselves.  Their motto is:  It’s better to die a victim than to live and know you are a killer.  One might ask the logical question, why didn’t the father have a gun nearby?  Good question!

Americans have a Constitutional right to defend themselves, their property and their family from harm.  Sometimes that means taking a life.  But it’s important to remember that the life being taken, in self-defense, has a free will of its own.  That life did not need to cross paths with anyone in order to solicit malicious, mischievous, immoral and evil tidings.  In other words – you reap what you sow.  If it is a matter of either saving your family from harm, or bowing to the “civil rights” of the offender while they are in the act of committing harm, isn’t it logical that for most people, the “civil rights” of the offender would not even enter their mind until sometime afterwards, if at all?  And then, after they got through defending themselves or their family, after the shock wore off and they had regained their faculties, wouldn’t they be more inclined to just say the hell with civil rights?

A man made a conscious decision to molest a child.  Another man, the child’s father, made a conscious decision to defend his daughter.  In the process the father killed the molester.  Should the father have merely pushed the offender off his daughter and hope the offender would run away?  Is that how it works in real life?  Should the father, by law, have to give the offender a chance to redeem himself, to give himself up and await the arrival of the police to come and pick him up and take him to jail?  Is that how it works in real life?  Should the father have to, by law, allow the offender to defend himself?

Should the father, by law, be forced not to second guess what the offender might do next, should he be given a second chance to do something next?  And why should the offender, by law, be granted the time to do something next?  And what happens if that “something next” is to pull out a weapon, a gun or knife, perhaps, and use it on the father and on the daughter?  There is your argument for allowing the offender to molest your daughter before your eyes while you stand aside and watch.  She gets raped, but nobody gets killed.  Isn’t that, to liberals, the lesser of the two evils?

Liberals are more than happy to have the offender finish his or her job, but dare anyone try to defend themselves, their families, neighbors or even perfect strangers from being harmed, and liberal so-called civil rights groups come down hardest on the defender rather than the offender.  Liberal courts are no better.  especially if the offender is a minority and the defender is white, or even white Hispanic.  (That was a deliberate tie in to the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman case.)

By all means, gather all the facts in this child molestation case.  But for goodness sakes, show some common sense.  Virtually no one who witnesses their child being molested by someone is going to call 911 first and then try to go and save their child.  That doesn’t happen in the real world.  But if we don’t stand up to phony civil rights groups and liberals who hate the idea of anyone practicing self-defense, that will happen, it will be real and will be a part of our real world.  How does that grab you?

There Are Cuts On George Zimmerman’s Head, But – Who Put Them There?

How did these cuts find their way atop George Zimmerman’s head?

Real? Fake? From Trayvon? Or from Zimmerman himself?

This photo of cut marks on top of George Zimmerman’s head was initially, and intentionally, kept from the public by the liberal MSM who, in its biased and slanted journalism wanted Zimmerman to be absolutely guilty, without question, of killing Trayvon Martin.  Now that this photo has been published, and millions of Americans have seen it, what conclusions can we draw?

Either Trayvon did this to Zimmerman, or Zimmerman did this to himself.  On the other hand, even if Trayvon did do this to Zimmerman, did Trayvon do it as the aggressor, or was he actually defending himself against Zimmerman?  In other words, was Trayvon attacked by Zimmerman, because Zimmerman sincerely thought Trayvon was threatening him and Zimmerman feared for his life?  This may very well be an example where both Trayvon and Zimmerman were acting in self-defense, or where they both perceived they were acting in self-defense because neither really knew the other person’s intentions.

Due to a complete misunderstanding, there may not have actually been an aggressor, if both Trayvon and Zimmerman thought they were defending themselves from being verbally and physically threatened and attacked.  What that would mean is that neither Trayvon nor Zimmerman is legally guilty of committing a crime, because, from a serious misunderstanding, each person thought they were being, or going to be, attacked and physically harmed, and rather than second guessing the other person’s motives, each one went on the defense.

What ramifications could that possibly have here in America, if neither Zimmerman or Trayvon is guilty?

Of Course Liberals Will Welcome Any Call For Reparations For Trayvon Martin (As Long As There’s Lots Of Money In It)

An “ambulance chasing” civil rights group in Florida is overjoyed and elated to hear that at least one member of the United Nations, Navi Pillay, is calling for reparations for Trayvon Martin.  It is presumed that the “reparations” is monetary in nature, and that it would go to Martin’s family.  How much actual money it would amount to, or from whom (George Zimmerman?) it would come was not stipulated.  This is wise because it gives people enough time to look into Zimmerman’s finances and make certain he has enough money to be a worthwhile target for reparations.  After-all, it is only important that Zimmerman be a chump, not his change.

Of course, reparations could come from the state of Florida.  But, if from the state of Florida, where oh where does Florida (this is a tough one) get the, ahem, money it needs to, ahem, cough up to the, ahem, “victims”?  Ahem!  Yes, there certainly is a lot of sticky, gooey phlegm built up in this United Nations-civil rights partnership.  It’s awful sick, at any rate.  We all ought to wash our hands of it, with lots of anti-bacterial disinfectant.  But, you know –  once you get the United Nations on your hands, it’s almost impossible to get off of your hands.  (You thought Pontious Pilate had a tough time washing his hands.)  In fact it is almost as hard getting the United Nations off of your hands as it is in getting the United Nations off of American soil.  Yes, the United Nations is one of those stubborn stains on world history, and on American soil, that will not so easily disappear.  Or, to put it another way, the United Nations is a lot like mother-in laws.  (It’s just too bad this isn’t the 1970’s – that statement would have  been so much more relevant /or funny).

Said Pillay:  (Who, by the way, you will be happy to know has made her remarks about reparations for Trayvon Martin while on “a visit” to Barbados.  Oh?  That doesn’t make you happy to know that?  Well, forget about it, then.  Pretend she instead made her remarks from a cold, dank prison cell where we hope all United Nations members will ultimately be interred.  But, still – Barbados?  What do we have to do to get a trip to Barbados?  Oh, right – be in the United Nations.)

“Justice must be done for the victim.  It’s not just this individual case, it calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this.  In this particular case it was the family itself, their distress that became known to the general public – once again people pressure that has drawn attention to this case.  It shouldn’t be so.  The law should operate equally in respect of all violations.  So, like every other situation such as this, we will be urging an investigation, and prosecution and trial – and of course reparation for the victims concerned.”

“And of course reparation for the victims”?  This is the United Nations.  These people have their heads up their asses – and they still can’t find their asses.  (At least now we know what we have to do to get a trip to Barbados – walk around with our head up our ass, if you couldn’t figure out where that was leading.)

By what right, what authority, has the United Nations in butting into American law like it butts into its own, well, never mind…

Barack Obama?  Their ego may be as inflated as Obama’s, and it is a wonder with all that helium filling Obama’s and the United Nations empty skulls why neither have not floated off into space.  For Obama, could it be the weight of the national debt that is keeping him grounded?  He ought to be grounded for all the trouble he has caused America, American business, American taxpayers, American citizens and especially American Idol.  The United Nations ought to be grounded too.  In fact, it ought to be underground – deep underground, like in China!

In the meantime, J. Willie David, President of the Florida Civil Rights Association (that’s the “ambulance chasing” civil right group aforementioned ) issued a statement:

“We believe that the United Nations involvement can help prevent another Trayvon Martin situation in other counties across the world.  The shooting death of Trayvon Martin and Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law have created a worldwide movement that calls into question how justice is delivered to victims of color.”

Has there ever been a time when the United Nations butted into anything where that interference actually helped?  Where is the United nations in Egypt?  In Iran?  In Syria?  In North Korea?  In Afghanistan?  In Obama’s campaign for reelection?   Or, perhaps they are already there, and that is the reason for all the upheaval, chaos, panic, disorganization and name calling.  (The upheaval, chaos, panic, disorganization and name calling was more for Obama’s campaign than it was for the countries listed.)  If David thinks having the United Nations in his corner is a benefit, he ought to take a look at what the United Nations has done to all the other corners.  Like this corner, for example.

If the United Nations really wanted to help out somewhere, and do some good, it ought to butt into the one place in all the world that truly needs all the help it can get – namely the United Nations itself.  And since we know where the United Nations is not in, we rightfully ask where the United Nations is in.  But that just brings us back to the United Nations having its head up its ass, and we already covered that.

Yes, by all means, just throw money at the Trayvon Martin incident and see how many “victims of color” do not become “victims”, as if one life will be saved by this.  And since the United Nations thinks it has jurisdiction over the United States, and American citizens, and since thinking is all the United Nations does (it is not very good at it, by the way), the Florida Civil Rights Association (the “ambulance-chasers”) can at least be comforted knowing the United Nations is thinking about justice for “victims of color”.  Because there will be no actual reparations.  That is as much a scam as is the United Nations itself.

And while the United Nations, and the Florida Civil Rights Association think about reparations for Trayvon Martin, how much actual thought is being put into preventing another Trayvon Martin incident from happening?  How many murders have there been of  “victims of color” in the past few minutes?  Does that answer that question?

Michelle Williams, New Black Panthers Chief, Apologizes For Racist Anti-White Rant – Is It Enough?

New Black Panther Party Chief, Michelle Williams, went on an anti-white racist rant on a radio show two days ago, calling for the capture of George Zimmerman – dead or alive.  “Honkeys, Cracker” and “pigs” were words she used to describe Zimmerman and whites.  Although Zimmerman is white, he is also Hispanic.  Listen for yourself.  Is her apology enough?  Would it be enough if she were white and used the “n” word, or any other racist pejorative?

If Michelle Williams has any common decency she will resign forthwith her post as the New Black Panther Chief. Isn’t that what blacks Hispanics, Latinos, and every other minority group would demand if a white person went on a racist rant as did Williams?

George Zimmerman Found Innocent; Trayvon Martin Shooting Justified…

How is America going to react to that news if/when we wake up to see that headline splashed across our newspapers and television screens?

Will We…

And will we…

Or will we…

Or will we just…It will be interesting to see.  Riots happen for all sorts of reasons.  Is there any doubt a George Zimmerman acquittal would not cause riots across America?  But what happens if George Zimmerman is found guilty?  Who is going to riot if that occurs?  And will we prepare ourselves for riots ahead of time?

Why is it the side that wants to see George Zimmerman found guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin is the same side that is more prone to riot if Zimmerman is found innocent of murdering Trayvon, and the shooting found to be justified?

Could it be that the side which has not yet convicted George Zimmerman is also the same side that is more reserved, more law-abiding, more respectful of, and for, the rule of law?

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan (all race-baiters) have incited violence as an appropriate action against the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident.  They, along with everyone else in their camp have found Zimmerman to be guilty.  Would they have done the same if it was Trayvon Martin who had killed George Zimmerman?

Which would you do?

Controversial Trayvon Martin Shooting Cartoon – Notice Something Peculiar?

Does anyone notice how strange this cartoon is?

The controversy aside, why is the Zimmerman character still holding onto the gun in the presence of the police?  Granted, it’s only a cartoon, but, really?  Holding the gun, over the dead body, while you are being interviewed by the police?

Why The MSM Desperately Needs George Zimmerman To Be Guilty, Trayvon Martin To Be Innocent

Until George Zimmerman turns himself in, it will be difficult to have and to find the answers to all the many questions swirling around this bizarre and baffling murder-mystery.  Until that happens, wild, rampant (and very violent) speculation will continue.  Of course, if you were George Zimmerman, and you had a one million dollar bounty on your head, placed there by a hate group – the New Black Panthers – would you be eager to turn yourself in, risking an all out assault by an angry mob looking for “street justice”?

At The Daily Beast, they are calling how some in the media are portraying Trayvon Martin as slander.  Nowhere in the article, by the way, is there any reference to slander being waged against Zimmerman, whom the MSM still regards as either a white Hispanic, or simply white.  If his name was Jorge and not George, what then might the reaction from the MSM be?

How can we explain the startling ferocity of the efforts to portray Trayvon Martin as a thug?

In attempting to piece together the “why” part of the Trayvon Martin story, and without having access to Martin (because he is dead) or Zimmerman (because he is in hiding, for fear of his life) it is only natural for reporters and investigators to search Trayvon’s past for clues as to what might have led to this unfortunate circumstance.  Why does anyone feel uncomfortable that Trayvon’s life is being researched and scrutinized?  If he was white, nobody would care.  It’s only the MSM and liberals who are up in arms.  But what can’t be overlooked or denied is the fact that Trayvon did have a criminal past, however small a role that played in his life.

We don’t yet know who the real aggressor was.  We don’t yet know who attacked who first.  We don’t yet know who was following who, or why.  We don’t yet know who the guilty party is.  However, that the MSM is outraged with some people who have allegedly jumped to conclusions and have accepted Trayvon is the guilty party, because he is black, is in itself slander and racist.  And that the MSM would ignore any evidence, any facts, anything at all that might point the finger at Trayvon, because he is black, is gross negligence and bias.

Wearing a hoodie does not make one a thug any more than “walking while black” does, or being black.  It is the American Left, liberals and the MSM that have jumped all over this story, and jumped the gun on this story, because Trayvon is black.  It’s all about sensationalism to the MSM, because Trayvon is black.  Isn’t that racist?  The MSM blames conservatives for Trayvon’s death.  Isn’t that biased?

Any comment on the Martin case must be prefaced, of course, by the acknowledgment that we’re still operating with a real deficit of information here. Other than the video and audio recordings we’ve seen and heard, everything else is rampant speculation. But the rumors themselves are still worth examining because of what they can tell us about how the human mind works during a major news event.

But still go ahead and play the “slander” game anyway?  The MSM has no qualms with painting Zimmerman as the guilty party, and blaming conservatives squarely for Trayvon’s death, despite this “real deficit of information here”.  The MSM will not even acknowledge there is a bounty placed on Zimmerman by the New Black Panthers.  But if a white person or group put a bounty on Obama, on Spike Lee (for his erroneous Zimmerman home address tweet), on any black American, what would be the end result of that?  No one from the New Black Panthers has been arrested.  Spike Lee was not arrested for endangering the lives of the occupants living at the address he tweeted.  Not even Al Sharpton has been arrested for inciting violence and encouraging mob action.

Black Americans, especially those who are outwardly and outspokenly, liberal have been accorded a free pass by the MSM, who are scared to death that by criticizing them they might inadvertently offend them.  Black Americans do commit crimes, for reasons other than revolving around America’s “racist” past.

But while race is undeniably a factor in the power of the rumors, it’s not the only one, and the connection between race-related feelings and rumor-mongering is more complicated than it appears at first glance. If we’re actually going to understand why the Martin rumors exploded, we’re going to need some more-nuanced explanations.

The “rumors” exploded thanks large in part to the MSM itself, which jumped on the “George Zimmerman is guilty, Trayvon Martin is innocent because he is black” bandwagon.  It is not inconceivable that when the MSM learned the name of Trayvon’s shooter, which by all accounts is a white, Anglo-Saxon sounding name, the MSM saw an opportunity – rare, by the way – to expound and pounce upon, and take advantage of, a ratings boom.  “White man murders black teen“.  That is all the MSM initially saw.  Of course, once it was learned that Zimmerman was, at least in part, Hispanic, by then there was no going back for the MSM.  This is why they have no choice but to continue digging themselves into a deeper hole, hoping to break daylight at some point, or at least stir up the black community in large enough numbers, hoping that will justify their own continued use of “slander” and bias against Zimmerman, and hoping that race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jacskon, Spike Lee, Louis Farrakhan and the New Black Panther Party will divert attention onto themselves and away from the shoddy, yellow journalism and horrendous coverage by them, the MSM.

Psychology is our friend here.

And what a friend it could be to the MSM, which desperately needs to have its own head examined for the way in which it has covered Trayvon Martin.  Slander?  It’s ironic the MSM uses that word.  Ironic because while they engage in slander all the time against conservatives, they have no idea the real definition of the word.  They just know it, and throwing the word out there, is controversial and a ratings winner for them.  The MSM desperately needs George Zimmerman to be guilty (not necessarily found guilty by a court) and for Trayvon to be innocent to save its own face from embarrassment and humiliation for blindly jumping into this story before it read the details.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is – liberals want George Zimmerman (a perceived white man) to be found guilty of killing, and murdering, Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, and to have “street justice” done to him.  Conservatives want the guilty person, whoever that may be, to be found out, and have justice, as defined by American law, to be done to him.  See the difference?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: