Wednesday, March 28, 2012


It's funny, you know, that I get so many angry emails in response to my blogs, but nobody wants to become a member of this blog or engage me publicly.  It's because they know I'll take them apart and make them look like the fools they are in a very public fashion.

And let's just be frank here... Most people think what I say is inflammatory and politically incorrect.  They're AFRAID to join because they might be associated with a guy accused of hate-speech!

O0o0o..... HATE.  SPEECH.

They also know that by contacting me via other channels, they can preserve their anonymity.  But I'm not going to betray anyone's privacy, okay?

Seriously, here's a question from a guy citing my very staunch stand on the Second Amendment.  It's no secret that my position can be summed up thusly: An armed society is a polite society.  This guy poses:
"I would like a question answered: In a free society what is the proper role of a police force? Should there even be one? Your arguments appear to advocate anarchy."
In a free state, the ultimate security and continued freedom of that state is up to the free citizens, who are granted the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for that express purpose.

No, it is not up to the Executive branch to protect us individually — the job of the Executive branch is to protect the NATION against all enemies foreign and domestic. However, the Second Amendment clearly calls upon Citizen Militias to ensure the security of a Free State.

This entails the armed citizenry protecting itself not only from local crime, but also from an increasingly corrupt and oppressive central government when necessary, just as the Founders intended.

No, a well-regulated Militia is NOT another arm of the Executive branch of government. No, police forces and the National Guard DO NOT constitute Citizen's Militias under the Constitution. A Citizen's Militia must, of necessity, NOT be regulated by the central government.

A Citizen's Militia is well-regulated by the CITIZENRY, not the government.

I, for one, do not believe that turning over our individual protection to the government is wise or healthy for our continued freedom. If the MILLIONS of police officers in this nation serve any purpose, it is as a RESPONSE force serving the citizenry.

However, when a corrupt or oppressive central government is calling the shots, WHO do you think the police, or the FBI, or the BATF, or the National Guard will serve? The government? Or the citizenry?

We already have ample evidence to answer THAT question.

Only seldom do the police and other law enforcement agencies actually PROTECT the citizenry. More crimes are prevented by armed citizens than by police forces, and any LEO can confirm that.

Frankly, I would feel safer if my neighbors WERE monitoring my property and DID call me rather than the police. In fact, my neighbors have called to alert me to prowlers, and I have done the same for them. 

That's the way things SHOULD BE DONE in this country, rather than citizens cowering in their homes, awaiting an official response force that may not arrive for 45 minutes or more.

Trust me, the "bad guys" in this town know I am armed and that I have no qualms about publicly exhibiting my firearms. I think that most of the citizens in this town are similarly armed and similarly defiant in the face of fear and suspicion.

Accordingly, the crime rate here is LOW compared to the rest of the country. An openly armed society is, indeed, a POLITE society.

But there is no place in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution where it says citizens may keep and bear arms TO FIGHT COMMON CRIME. It doesn't mention crime at all. Neither does it mention hunting.

Specifically, the Second Amendment says that the citizens may keep and bear arms to ENSURE a FREE STATE. That means taking up arms against other human beings who are attempting to REMOVE your freedoms.

It means taking up arms and fighting your own government when necessary, just as the Founders fought their (British) government. Because an oppressive government does not want the citizens armed.

It's the FIRST order of business for a tyrannical government to DISARM the citizens.

It's not your "duty" as citizens to mindlessly obey the 23,000 federal and local gun-control laws that exist to REMOVE your rights. It is your duty as American citizens to FIGHT these laws — through the ballot — and likewise vote out the politicians who are STEALING your rights, day-by-day.

Having posted at several gun-related Websites, I know that such sites are heavily infiltrated by anti-gun activists posing as concerned gun owners, who are disseminating thinly-veiled Socialist propaganda about SECURITY being more important than LIBERTY.

When I hear "gun owners" preaching suspicion and reporting their neighbors and outright, unreasoning FEAR, I know I'm not dealing with REAL, Liberty-loving Americans, okay?

No, I don't agree with the Law in many cases. I think the Law is WRONG in most cases. And I think MOST AMERICANS would agree that the anti-gun mentality is going to lead to the COMPLETE LOSS of our Liberties in America. The more you COMPLY with the insidious erosion of our RIGHTS, the more YOU are responsible for the death of our American Liberties.

I speak out against suspicion and reporting your neighbors and readily complying with the tens of thousands of laws issued to undermine the Second Amendment, okay?

Does that upset you?  Does that frighten you when I say the Law is WRONG and that people should stand up and FIGHT the Law?  Do you think I'm an OUTLAW advocating ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES?

Put it back in your pants, Joe Stalin.

I'm talking about pursuing every legal course to overturn and repeal unjust and unconstitutional laws in America. We have a DUTY, as Americans, to keep this land FREE, and not knuckle-under to fear and political correctness and suspicion and reporting our neighbors.

You know where the government encourages the citizens to report their neighbors and family members? They do that in COMMUNIST countries.

Monday, March 26, 2012


Well, this is a natural segue from the Trayvon Martin discussion.

See, George Zimmerman claims he defended himself with deadly force because he was in fear for his life.

Let's take a look at the case, and let's even SPECULATE a bit, shall we?

Let's say that George Zimmerman INSTIGATED an altercation.  That means he deliberately chose to antagonize Trayvon Martin.  This is the basis of the entire "Justice for Trayvon" controversy.

Is the act of following somebody enough to instigate a physical altercation?  Sure, I admit that if somebody was following me, I would confront that person and inquire as to WHY he was following me.  That's how I am, I'm confrontational and I'm not afraid of God, okay?

Somebody else might not react in that manner.  Somebody else might run away in fear.

Somebody else might turn around and attack.

Teenagers don't make good decisions, and that's a widely acknowledged FACT.  After the many epiphanies of puberty, kids think they have it all and know it all, but they have NO IDEA of the true scope of worldly affairs.  They're idiots, basically, who are still driven more by hormones than by intelligent thought.

Teens go out and make their mistakes (hopefully small ones) and we adults are supposed to say "SEE, I TOLD YOU," and the teens thus make the important associations that mold their perception of REALITY, as well as their character.  A teen has his Ah-Ha! moment, and hopefully he uses that learning experience as a template for future learning experiences.

You notice I said "hopefully" twice.

The fact is that teens leap before they look.  They speak and act before they think.  Yeah, they resort to physical violence BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID AND ANGRY.

That's what teens do.

You wanna dispute that?  Go to YouTube and lookup the MILLIONS of videos of after-school fistfights between teenagers who don't even know WHY they're fighting.  They're fighting because this one over here is dating that one over there, and they can't express themselves in a coherent and articulate fashion, and they just wanna beat down the adversary.

That's perfectly natural competition, and the mandatory free education system has no contingency for dealing with it.  They throw euphemisms such as "bullying" at the problem, but this isn't about bullying.

This is a NATURAL PHASE of Human growth.  Humans are VIOLENT creatures.

No, we're not a little fat-faced Cabbage-Patch species devoid of any thoughts of violence.  Humans ARE violent.

Can I say that again?  We ARE a VIOLENT SPECIES.

If you say you don't enjoy violence, I'll call you a liar and dump about 16 tons of VIOLENT DVDs in your front yard, free of charge.  Violence is what we ARE, it's what we DO, it's the ENGINE of our civilization.

As this applies to the Trayvon Martin case, I think the 17-year-old BLACK TEENAGER got his panties in a wad because a 27-year-old HISPANIC DUDE started following him and MAY have asked him what he was doing in this neighborhood.

I think Trayvon copped a teenage attitude and turned on the Hispanic guy and started beating him down, because teenagers DO that.  Like, "Stop follin' me, man!  I beat yo ass!"

Who knows what really transpired?  I don't know.  Do you think YOU know?

Do you think a 27-year-old man who has gone through concealed-carry training and who studied criminal justice is going to KNOWINGLY instigate an altercation that could potentially result in a gunshot death?

I don't think so.   If you think so, I suggest you go take a concealed handgun course and educate yourself in the subject very deeply, and then come back with a different perspective.  People who educate themselves in gun law and violent crime law are LESS LIKELY to pull a gun and kill somebody, okay?

We THINK about the law before we make that last, fateful decision.

Ask any policeman.

You know why?  Because the laws are SO NEBULOUS when it comes to violent crime.  When you start to realize how the law CHANGES in mid-stream, depending on the circumstances, how the instigator can suddenly become the victim, THEN you are zeroing-in on the TRUTH in such a way as to exact JUSTICE.

Hey, I've pursued a suspicious character on foot.

Back in 2001, my wife and I walked up on a supermarket robbery, the robber busted through the sliding doors right in front of us, and everybody in the store was paralyzed in fear.  Seriously.  Nobody was taking action, they just let this guy do his thing and fill up a handbasket with about $4000 in prescription drugs and run out the front door.

Big, strong store employees just standing there, eyes wide and mouths agape, immobilized.

Hey, I gave chase.  I don't know why.  I was impelled to pursue the criminal.

The robber glanced over his shoulder, saw me in pursuit, and that was his mistake.  Sonny boy, I ran track in high school, and I know you NEVER look back, okay, because it destroys your focus.

His focus was destroyed, he dropped the handbasket of pharmaceuticals, and he escaped under full power of adrenalin, like a rat fleeing from a burning tugboat.

I bet I scared five years growth out of that kid.  Heh heh.

Strangely, as the employees gathered up the $4000 worth of pharmaceuticals in the parking lot, not one person said "Thank You," nobody patted me on the back, and they didn't give us a complimentary discount on our purchase when we checked out.

WTF is that about, I ask you?  How weird is that?  It was like I was the bad guy because I chased him?

Ah.  How similar is the mentality in the Zimmerman/Martin case, yes?

You see the similarities,  don't you?  Foremost: The guy who pursues is perceived as the bad guy.

The guy who is proactive, who acts independently, and most importantly who has a NOBLE SENSE OF PURPOSE is the BAD GUY.

This isn't about racism.  This is about cutting the balls off of America's heroes.  It's about cutting out our HEART and giving it away.  All of this racial rhetoric is a grand DISTRACTION from a much larger and more sinister movement to  convert the United States into a HIVE of castrated, defenseless and passive drones.

Sunday, March 25, 2012


Well, since I posted my last few blogs regarding the Trayvon Martin case in Florida, I've started receiving some rather hot-headed replies via FaceBook messaging and email.  Predictably, the angriest replies are from young, uneducated, socially-indoctrinated WHITE people.

Here's one from a self-identified white guy who I'm guessing is a teenager, based on his use of juvenile "kiddie script" (that's the brain-damaged language you always see online, with nonexistent punctuation and shit-for-brains spelling, whereby the word "you" is rendered as "u," the word "for" is rendered as "4," and so on and so forth).

The hate-filled fool (whose name I withhold) writes:
"Its like u dont understand how much racist shit u put into that comment. Its not self defense even if he fought the teen. He was told not to follow him and did. Thats harassment!"
It's easy to see you don't understand the situation (or the law) at all, sonny boy.

While it's true that a CIVILIAN dispatcher advised Zimmerman not to follow the hooded stranger that night, the fact remains that Zimmerman DID call the police FIRST to report suspicious activity, then followed Trayvon Martin.  Zimmerman admits to this.  It's not at all clear, however, that Zimmerman's choice to follow this kid contributed to the altercation that ensued.

That's a leap of pure conjecture.

Zimmerman stated that he had abandoned the pursuit and was returning to his car when Martin attacked him from behind.  The only witness to the assault said that Trayvon Martin DID, in fact, attack Zimmerman — Zimmerman was on his back in the grass, and Trayvon Martin was on top, beating Zimmerman in the face.

Zimmerman managed to draw his handgun and shot Martin in the chest at close range, possibly killing the teen immediately — well, depending on the caliber of the firearm and the ammunition used, anyway.  A small-caliber handgun (such as a .22 revolver) with target rounds is less likely to have killed Martin instantly.  A large caliber handgun (such as a .45 automatic) with hollowpoint rounds would have dropped a grown man in his tracks, probably dead before he hit the ground.

In Zimmerman's case, he was carrying a 9mm handgun, which is known for its high-power penetrating characteristics.

A 9mm handgun is NOT known as a "man-stopper" at close range, as is a .45 automatic, because the 9mm round typically does NOT expend all of its kinetic energy on impact at close range — in point of fact, the 9mm semi-auto handgun was designed as a military field weapon, specifically created by John Browning in 1922 to kill an enemy combatant at a distance of about 50 yards (150 feet).

Allow me to elucidate: In 1922, the French military contracted famed gun designer John Browning (creator of the unsurpassed .45 automatic known as the 1911) to design a combat handgun to custom specifications: Specifically, the new handgun had to weigh under 2.5 lbs, it had to be easily field-servicable, it had to carry a nine-round magazine, and it had to kill a human being at a range of 150 feet.

The 9mm is NOT known as a close-quarter combat firearm, because the 9mm bullet passes right through a human body at close range, like an icepick, and keeps going.  I mean, in many cases, you can walk away from a 9mm gunshot wound at close range.  Not always, but you can survive a 9mm gunshot much more frequently than a .45 gunshot at close range.

Look at the case of Congresswoman Gabrielle "Gabby" Giffords, who was shot through the left side of her brain, from back to front, with a 9mm round in early 2011.  The 9mm bullet passed cleanly through her head, like a pencil, and she survived the assault.

A much larger and slower .45 round typically expends all of its kinetic energy and thus pulverizes bodily organs (e.g. heart, lungs, brain) at close range, resulting in mortal wounds, if not immediate death.  Gabby Giffords WOULD NOT have survived a .45 slug — it would have exploded her head like a melon.

So much for the ballistics lesson.

In any event, when police arrived at the scene of the Trayvon Martin shooting, they found Martin dead of a chest wound, Zimmerman disheveled as from a struggle and bleeding from the head and face, and a WITNESS to the altercation who substantiated Zimmerman's account.

THAT'S why Zimmerman wasn't arrested.  THOSE are the facts as recorded in the Sanford police report, and THAT is the evidence now in possession of the Florida State Attorney (and the FBI, and every other agency that has unnecessarily involved itself in Florida's Justice system).  You take that evidence to court, and Zimmerman is going to be found innocent, he's going to walk, mark my words.

There's no hard evidence of racial harassment nor any other sort of harassment in the Zimmerman/Martin case.  There IS evidence (an eyewitness statement) that Trayvon Martin ASSAULTED George Zimmerman and that Zimmerman defended himself with deadly force, as permitted under Florida law.

I'll tell YOU who's racist here: It's the people who consistently cite racism to build their POLITICAL AGENDA — just like the white guy quoted above, accusing me of "racist shit."

There's NO evidence in the Zimmerman/Martin case of racial bias on the part of George Zimmerman.  There IS a WITNESS who says Trayvon Martin beat down George Zimmerman, just as Zimmerman claims.

That's all you need to get this case kicked out of a court of law.

Under Florida LAW, a citizen who is carrying a concealed weapon with a permit (as was George Zimmerman) CAN, in fact, use DEADLY FORCE to defend himself when he believes his life is in danger.  For that matter, a homeowner can defend himself with deadly force on his own property WITHOUT a concealed weapons permit.

That's the LAW, which the racist moron above utterly fails to grasp. As for the "racist shit" he says I put into my comment, I suggest that he's not qualified to discern the difference between "racism" and the TRUTH.

A less belligerent but no less loaded response to my blog came from a guy who identified himself as an adult black male.  He asked me:
"Why do you think Martin attacked Zimmerman?"
Well, you may as well ask me why George Zimmerman started following Trayvon in the first place.  How am I supposed to answer that?  Nobody can answer the question of WHY Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman except Trayvon Martin, and he's not talking.

But I know what you WANT to hear... You want to hear the same thing that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan and the enraged blacks of Sanford, Florida want to hear.  You want to hear that George Zimmerman chased Trayvon Martin, yelled, "What're you doin' in my neighborhood, NIGGER?!!" and that Trayvon was thus JUSTIFIED in beating Zimmerman down.

Justifying violence with racial entitlement is simply more RACIST reasoning.

Of course, you have NO IDEA of what happened that night, and you are WRONG to assume that a verbal attack justifies a physical attack.  Look it up in the law books.  Calling a black person a "nigger" does NOT justify a physical assault by that black person.

That's RACIST thinking.

I know our Liberal Mainstream Media has conditioned blacks AND whites alike to just accept black entitlement to beating down anyone who utters the word "nigger," but it AINT LEGAL, my friend.

Under the law, I don't give a damn WHAT somebody calls you, you just keep walking.  You're NOT entitled to assault somebody under any circumstance, okay?  You can TRY assaulting somebody because your feelings are sensitive, but you're the one committing the greater crime, nonetheless.

You might even get your ass shot if you decide to assault somebody.

Think of that.

Anybody who presumes to discount the Sanford police report and an eyewitness statement and LEAP to his OWN CONCLUSION of what transpired on the night of February 26th is a fool who isn't interested in Justice of any kind.  That goes DOUBLE for the locals in Sanford, Florida, because it is THEY who are calling for "justice" while simultaneously insisting "Zimmerman is a MURDERER" and making death threats to the police chief in that town.

It is THEY who are threatening to commit acts of domestic terrorism based on their IGNORANCE of what actually happened that night.  They don't want JUSTICE, they want VENGEANCE.

Ultimately, it doesn't MATTER what you or I think about Trayvon Martin's motives in attacking George Zimmerman.

Fortunately, in America, Grand Juries and criminal courts do not take into consideration the opinions of the general public who are NOT INVOLVED IN ANY WAY with the case.

When Al Sharpton inserted himself into Sanford, Florida, last week, local blacks were carrying protest signs saying "Zimmerman is a MURDERER!" There is, however, no EVIDENCE that Zimmerman murdered anyone, and the opinions of the public DO NOT MATTER.

In America, George Zimmerman is INNOCENT until proven guilty. THAT is called Justice in America. The Sanford locals making unsubstantiated claims that Zimmerman is a MURDERER and making DEATH THREATS against the police chief and circulating "WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE" flyers for George Zimmerman are thus demonstrating their lack of respect for and lack of interest in true Justice.

Saturday, March 24, 2012


Well, well, well... It seems that there WAS a witness to the Trayvon Martin shooting on February 26th of this year, a "secret witness" who insists on anonymity because, no doubt, he's in fear for his life in Sanford, Florida.

The witness is cooperating with Sanford police, as I understand it; but it AINT the "justice" for which the black community and opportunistic race-baiting black leaders had hoped.

See, the witness is backing up George Zimmerman 100%, he says he SAW Trayvon Martin attacking Zimmerman, had laid out Zimmerman on his back and Trayvon was on top, punching him.

"Secret Witness" to Trayvon Martin Shooting Confirms Zimmerman's Self-Defense Claim
ORLANDO - A witness we haven't heard from before paints a much different picture than we've seen so far of what happened the night 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.
The night of that shooting, police say there was a witness who saw it all.
"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.
"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," says the witness.
Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting. 
Okay, so now TWO people say it was self-defense. That's enough to get Zimmerman no-billed by a Grand Jury, don't you think?

But noooooooo... Do you seriously think that the rabid black lynchmob in Sanford, Florida is interested in TRUTH or JUSTICE?

Hell no, they aren't.

They're going to FORCE this thing to an indictment, and they're not going to quit until they see Zimmerman in prison for life, right?

Because this is about REVENGE for the death of an innocent black teen who could do no wrong in the world.

Well, aside from attacking and beating George Zimmerman until he was bloody in the face.

What was Reverend Al Sharpton saying yesterday?  It wasn't us being violent, it couldn't POSSIBLY be a violent black teenager who brought about his own death, could it?

I mean, a violent black teenager?!  Pshaw!  Never heard of such a thing!

That's so far beyond the realm of possibility that we can't even for a moment STOP to THINK THIS THROUGH RATIONALLY.  We KNOW 17-year-old black males are just harmless little lambs out there, so misunderstood and so passive they wouldn't harm a fly.

Well, except for when they're beating people down with baseball bats or poppin' a cap in somebody ass.

Yeah, there MUST be another explanation!  That guy with the bloody face MUST be a RACIST and a MURDERER!

So, please, please, please, to all the angry, race-driven hate mongers who are sending me their venom-filled remarks, spare me your veritable HAIL of ignorance, bigotry and hatred.  I've heard it all before and I'm sure I'll hear it again.

Thursday, March 22, 2012


At the risk of appearing "racist," here's my take on the Trayvon Martin killing in Florida.  But first, a little propaganda from the Leftist news media...

They are joining the Trayvon Martin crusade by the hour now.

It feels like an echo from another era — when there was racial injustice in the headlines, when federal troops were dispatched to comb Southern swamps to look for blacks who had vanished.

And when lawyers for the NAACP slid into town with briefcases and addresses of safe houses.

It feels like the not-so-long-ago ’60s, back when getting federal authorities to move quickly was often difficult. But this is a different era, however tragically similar the outcome.

The Trayvon Martin story has multiple layers: a black victim, a Hispanic man who did the shooting in Sanford, Fla. In Washington, the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, Thomas E. Perez, is Hispanic. The attorney general of the United States, Eric H. Holder Jr., is a black man. The man who occupies the Oval Office, Barack Obama, is an African American. 
First, I'd like to point out that Barack Hussein Obama is about as "African American" as I am. The guy had a Kenyan black father and a white American mother, he was born overseas of questionable nationality, his upbringing was Indonesian Muslim, and he has NO involvement in the American Black Experience.

When American Blacks endorse Obama unquestioningly, they expose their racism, which is becoming more apparent by the day.

What's absurd is that the contributing writers to this preposterous Washington Post article even REMEMBER the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.  Few militant black activists today have any acquaintance with REAL racism, either.  The most outspoken proponents of "racial justice" have to GOOGLE the Civil Rights movement these days, just to keep their stories straight.

The premise and content of this Washington Post story are RACIST on the face of it, attempting to stir up something that isn't there.

What sort of "justice" is the black community seeking?

American Justice? I don't think so.

When Rev. Al Sharpton made his predictable visit to Florida, black protestors were carrying posters announcing "Zimmerman is a MURDERER"... Pardon, but under the American JUSTICE system, we're all innocent until PROVEN guilty.

What does America's celebrated racial extortionist, "Reverend" Jesse Jackson, have to say about the powderkeg in Sanford, Florida?  Well, unfortunately, Jackson was in Europe this week, so he wasn't on hand in Florida to incite the black community; but he did release his month-late observations to the international press:
"As long as [George Zimmerman] is outside of the court system, the protests will intensify and spill over into other dimensions.  His lack of appearance in the court system is a source of embarrassment and humiliation. He needs to face the court."
On what charge, Mr. Jackson?  On a murder charge?  Where is your evidence, where are the videos, where are your witnesses to testify that Trayvon Martin DID NOT turn and attack George Zimmerman?  Are you suggesting that, if Zimmerman merely faces the court, that's all it will take to avert a racial meltdown in Sanford?

Well, that's preposterous.

You know perfectly well that what the black community wants is vengeance, not justice.  If Zimmerman faces the court (in another venue of his PEERS, which will be an Hispanic jury in another city), he's going to be found innocent of murder — a verdict that will incite RIOTS in black communities across the nation.

That's how black justice works in America: Give us what we want in the quantity we demand, or we're going to go on a terrorist rampage.

No, Zimmerman is NOT a murderer; yet, the righteously indignant black community is seeking "justice" based on a preconceived verdict. Hey, if you want Third World "justice" — which means execution without trial — then pack your bags and go to the Third World.

And where is Barack Obama on this issue?

I mean, when police "harassed" a black professor up in New England three years ago, President Obama was JOHNNY ON THE SPOT to intercede, publicly sitting down for a BEER with the professor in question and the police officer accused of "harassment"... That was a comparatively MINOR offense, was it not?

So, why isn't Barack stepping in to defend the American JUSTICE system in Florida? Yes, the Chief Executive is ultimately IN CHARGE of the civilian community watch program, so where is the Chief Executive in THIS instance?

Oh, that's right.  He's on the campaign trail, making more hollow promises to the liberal imbeciles who elected him last time.

But the president did, finally, weigh in on the Trayvon Martin killing, a month after the fact, with leaders in the Black Community insisting that Obama say something meaningful on the issue:
"My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.  All of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves."
Say what?

Perhaps Americans need to take this seriously, but all Obama can say is that the victim would look like his son, IF he had a son?  

Let me tell you something, Barack Hussein Obama, American Blacks seriously see this case as another opportunity to riot and assault and vandalize property and commit domestic terrorism with impunity, which IS going to happen, according to our belligerent friend Louis Farrakhan, leader of the racist Black organization Nation of Islam.

Calypso Louie (Farrakhan's professional name when he was singing sexually explicit songs in the 1950s and 60s) commented on the Trayvon Martin situation yesterday via his Tweet account, saying:
"Where there is no justice, there will be no peace.  Soon the law of retaliation may very well be applied."
Oh, well, nobody takes Farrakhan seriously, right?  He's not a REAL spokesman for the Black Community, is he?

Funny, that's my same opinion of Barack Hussein Obama — he's not a REAL spokesman for America.

But here I've rambled on for 10 minutes about Barack Obama, and I haven't actually addressed the Trayvon Martin case itself.

It goes like this:  On the evening of February 26th of this year (2012) in Sanford, Florida, a neighborhood watch captain, one George Zimmerman, called in a report to the police dispatch describing a hooded black male who was "acting suspiciously" in Zimmerman's neighborhood.  Apparently, Zimmerman tried to approach the hooded stranger, who then apparently ran, and the neighborhood watch captain gave chase on foot.

When the police arrived on the scene, they found a 17-year-old black male, one Trayvon Martin, dead of a gunshot wound to the chest.  George Zimmerman — who is Hispanic and who owns a concealed weapons permit, actually — claimed that Martin turned on him and attacked him, and Zimmerman "defended himself" with gunfire.  Zimmerman's head and face were bloody, and the back of his shirt was wet and smeared with grass stains.

Police thus recorded that a physical altercation had transpired, with Zimmerman struggling on the ground, on his back.

Incidentally, Florida law permits citizens to defend themselves with firearms.

See, now, the story up to this point is well known and documented; and, strangely, the KILLING is not the primary source of the controversy.

The source of controversy is that George Zimmerman was not arrested for this shooting, as the black community of Sanford believes he should be arrested.  Local police claim that there wasn't enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman, and they basically only had Zimmerman's statement upon which to base their understanding of the situation.

There were no other witnesses, I guess.

So, over the course of the month that followed, tension and frustration in the almost all-black population of Sanford was stoked to a bonfire of hatred with anti-white rhetoric, calls for "justice" in the killing of Trayvon Martin, and threats of retaliatory violence.

As I mentioned earlier, the black population of this small Florida town considers George Zimmerman a "MURDERER"... So there's no chance in Hell that anybody is going to find "justice" in Sanford.  The black community wants to LYNCH George Zimmerman; and, if he isn't immediately arrested and convicted of murder, the black community is threatening violence.

Oh, you seriously maintain that the black community wouldn't threaten violence?

Well, the Sanford police chief just stepped down at the height of the controversy and hasn't been available to comment for several days; because, face it, he's had death threats and he's packing his bags and getting the fuck out of town, okay?  He doesn't want to be in charge when a race war breaks out.

The Black Panther Party also printed up and issued "wanted dead or alive" flyers for George Zimmerman.

Of course, the Reverend Al Sharpton quickly involved himself in this ridiculous situation (like other black "leaders," a month after the fact).  Yeah, Rev. Sharpton has always resolved these cases to everyone's satisfaction, hasn't he?  What a bumbling, self-absorbed racist asshole.

According to Sharpton:
"Some people said to me in the media... ‘Reverend, it seems like there’s a lot of people who are angry — are you afraid of violence?’  I said, ‘No. I’m afraid of the violence you already had.’  Violence is killing Tray Martin.  Don’t act like we are the ones violent. We didn’t shoot nobody.”
Pardon me, Reverend, when you say "we didn't shoot nobody," you mean that in this isolated incident with Trayvon Martin, a black man didn't pull the trigger, right?

Because, I've got news for you, Al.  If there is a black man who has been shot to death in America, the majority of the time it's another black man who pulled the trigger.

You're just living in a racist LIE, Reverend Sharpton, and the black population of Sanford, Florida, is obviously ITCHING for mindless violence.

Now, Al and Jesse and Barack need to get their asses in there and start preaching the TRUTH about American Justice, start preaching that George Zimmerman is INNOCENT until proven guilty.

I mean, as you know, I'm no champion of Hispanics.  I'm from Texas, where my 13-year-old sister was raped and psychologically scarred for life by a fucking Mexican illegal alien, okay?

So, I'm a little biased, shall we say, against Hispanics.

But I'm definitely not voicing my opinion in defense of George Zimmerman on racial grounds.  I'm voicing my opinion in defense of George Zimmerman because I believe in American Justice — not in lynching and making death threats against the police and threatening to riot out of pure hate-driven vengeance.

I mean, seriously, look at the FACTS in the Trayvon Martin shooting case... I'm talking about the information and evidence that WILL be presented in a court of law, should this go to court.

We have a neighborhood watch captain, who is also a law student, who ALSO has a legal permit to carry a concealed weapon, charged with MURDER by accusers who can't provide ANY evidence of what actually transpired on February 26th, 2012.

There are no witnesses, no videos, no evidence to support the murder charge whatsoever.

What we have is an adult who is better acquainted with the law than most of the general public, who was legally carrying a firearm, who claims he was assaulted by a 17-year-old stranger in his neighborhood, and who defended himself with a firearm (which is protected under Florida's "stand and fight" law).

You can't say George Zimmerman is a "radical" or a "racist," because he has black family members and friends, okay?  So, when it comes to the "reasonable doubt" part of the defense argument, this case has DOUBT written all over it.

The case will be dismissed, George Zimmerman will walk... Of course, he'll have to leave town, relocate to another state, because his life is in danger in Sanford, Florida, because the incensed black community there wants his head.

In truth, what the black community wants is VENGEANCE, they want blood — and that isn't the American way, folks.