The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “Trayvon Martin”

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?

Is Martin Luther King’s Dream Dead?

When are we going to actually start judging people by “the content of their character” in America and not by the “color of their skin”?  The recent attacks of blacks against whites, the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident, and the whole “justice for Trayvon” mentality washing over America right now is good indication that we still have a long way to go.  Of course, it does not help “race” matters to have race baiters and hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton egging people on.  Nor does it help “race” matters to have the New Black Panther Party openly put a bounty on the head of George Zimmerman and be allowed a free pass from the federal government.  Nor does it help “race” matters to have Louis Farrakhan and the so-called Rev. Jeremiah Wright spouting their anti-white rhetoric.  All of this has culminated into creating an angry black mob attack against a white man whom people in authority are saying has absolutely nothing to do with race, racism, or Trayvon Martin.  Are we, black and white, really that stupid to believe that?

(From Society Bytes)

Mobile, Alabama Mob Attack Against Owens Was Racial, And “Justice For Trayvon Martin” Was A Motivating Factor

An arrest has been made in the Matthew Owens mob attack that left him in critical condition.  A man by the name of Terry Rawls has been arrested.  According to witnesses, the attack was really only between Owens and Rawls, who have had a verbal war, or sorts, going on for three years.  On the day of the attack, apparently some kids were out in the street playing basketball and Owens confronted them.  The kids went back and told their parents, and they all gathered together and went to see about Matthew Owens.  Now the scene is set.  We have our mob of 20 black attackers going to confront Owens because he “fussed” about some kids playing basketball in the street.  (Is that the best and most appropriate place to play basketball or anything else?)  Allegedly racial slurs were slung – but the article does not say who slung them.  In any event tensions escalated to the point were this mob of 20 blacks stopped their verbal assault and began to physically assault Owens with “paint cans, pipes and chairs”.  Also, witnesses claim a women screamed from her car as she was leaving, “That’s justice for Trayvon”.  Now, here we have an instance where there are witnesses, but they are being dismissed.  Yet, there are no witnesses to the Trayvon Martin killing (expect George Zimmerman, who admits killing him, but in self-defense), and yet conclusions have already been drawn about Zimmerman’s guilt.  Let’s assume, for a moment, that the witnesses who made that claim were mistaken.  What was the motivation for 20 blacks to beat up one white person?  Because he told some kids not to play basketball in the street?  Yikes!  How many times do any of us see kids doing something they ought not to be doing because it is dangerous to them and could damage someone’s property?  Wasn’t there a time when we could tell kids to get off the street without worrying about being killed, or near to it,  and they did get off the street?  And their parents scolded the kids for being out in the street, not the person who told them to get off the street?  Or does that only happen on “Leave it to Beaver”, or a television program from the wholesome 1950’s?  And why, if there had been tensions between Owens and Rawls for three years, did it take a mob of 20 blacks to bring it to a climax?  Neighbors do have words with one another over issues. And apparently he and Rawls had had physical altercations before, and police were called, but charges never filed.  What was it about that particular day, that was different from any other day in the previous three years this has been going on?  In other words – had the Trayvon Martin incident never occurred, would a mob of 20 blacks really have gotten together and beat the hell out of a white man because he told their kids not to play basketball in the street?  But Mobile Mayor, Sam Jones, rejects the notion that this crime was in any way racially motivated, or even a hate crime, or spurred on by the Trayvon Martin incident.  So too does Corporal Chris Levy, who is with the Mobile Police Department.  He said, “I can tell you without a doubt 100 percent that the Trayvon Martin case was not the motivating factor.  That 100 percent, it is an ongoing incident between people who have been fighting for a few years now.”  Really?  Let that be a lesson to any of you to think twice when you confront kids out in the street playing basketball, or any game, and doing things they ought not to be doing out in the street because it is dangerous and they could get hurt, and/or damage the cars out there.  First check and make sure they are the same color as you.  (You might still get beaten up, but at least race cannot be claimed as a factor)  And second, make sure there hasn’t been another Trayvon Martin incident in the news for a while that the kids’ parents can use as an excuse and as “justice” when they come to beat you up.  When the day comes when it is a mob of twenty whites beating the hell out of a black, and where one of them is “allegedly” shouting “that’s justice for Zimmerman”, can we expect a mayor, a police officer, anyone of authority, to insist “100 percent” that race and racism was not a motivation or a factor?  And if they did, couldn’t we expect to see that mob grow just a little bit overnight?

What the hell do we have to do in America to revive King’s “Dream”?

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?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: