Saturday, April 28, 2012


As I've mentioned before, the so-called Anti-Bully Movement is nothing but a political crusade to set new politically-correct standards for INTOLERANCE... Anti-Bully crusaders characterize themselves as VICTIMS, but they are, in fact, the VERY ASSHOLES who victimize others.

Check out this news story of prominent Anti-Bully speaker Dan Savage (who advocates on behalf of gay teens, usually), who attacked Christian teens to such a degree that the kids got up and walked out of Savage's stupid, bigoted address...

Anti-Bully Speaker Dan Savage Curses and Insults Christian Teens
As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy assed.”
The speaker was Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” project, an anti-bullying campaign that has reached more than 40 million viewers with contributors ranging from President Obama to Hollywood stars. Savage also writes a gay sex advice column called “Savage Love.”
Savage was supposed to be delivering a speech about anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association. But it turned into an episode of Christian-bashing.
Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else.
“I thought this would be about anti-bullying,” said Tuttle. “It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”
Tuttle said the speech was laced with vulgarities and “sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.” At one point, he said Savage told the teenagers about how good his male partner looked in a Speedo.
As the teenagers were walking out, Tuttle said that Savage heckled them and called them pansy-assed.
Dan Savage is a bigoted, intolerant scumbag who is WORSE than the "bullies" he pretends to despise.

This is exactly the sort of thinly-veiled bigotry that I've cited before, no better than the disgusting, racist lynchmob in Sanford, Florida, demanding "justice" for Trayvon Martin, while circulating "WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE" flyers for George Zimmerman and making death threats against Zimmerman.

Yeah, there IS an analogy to be drawn between these "anti-bully" ASSHOLES and the Left-wing lynchmob RACISTS who are given a pass from this sickening Socialist society.

No, you DON'T deserve lynchmob justice, and you DON'T deserve a soapbox from which to spew your hateful, seething, bigoted rhetoric.

You deserve a BOOT in your ASS, if there's enough room in there, Dan Savage.

Saturday, April 21, 2012


As I've said for weeks, the documented evidence in the Zimmerman/Martin case is hard-core going to exonerate George Zimmerman; in fact, the judge may very well dismiss this case before jury selection.

Make no mistake, this is a cut-and-dried self defense case with a MOUNTAIN of corroborating evidence.

The prosecution knew this going in, but Special Prosecutor Angela Corey buckled under public pressure and TRIED to serve this up as Second-Degree Murder, just to satisfy the lynchmob in Sanford, Florida.

The one piece of evidence that is going to bat this thing out of the park is a photo of the back of George Zimmerman's head.  Zimmerman said that Trayvon Martin was pounding his head into the pavement, which is why Zimmerman shot his assailant.

The bloody photo, taken about three minutes after George Zimmerman drilled Trayvon Martin, is solid proof that Zimmerman's life was in danger.  There are two distinct lacerations and a significant contusion on Zimmerman's scalp, distinctly visible in the photo.

Zimmerman's Head Bloody, Bruised & Battered
ABC News has released a new photo of the back of George Zimmerman’s head, taken just “three minutes after he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.” His head is brutally bloodied. As the image above shows, there’s blood all over his head, at least two gashes, and a large bruise forming at the top of his head.
Zimmerman’s contention all along has been that Martin was bashing his head against the pavement, which is why he was forced to shoot him. The media – especially ABC News -- initially attempted to discount that story completely, releasing video of his booking at the Sanford police station that were not well-pixellated, and thus did not show the gashes on the back of his head.

It took several days for ABC News to release an enhanced version of the video that showed that there were gashes on Zimmerman’s head. In the meantime, the media had a field day reporting that Zimmerman had shot Martin essentially in cold blood; Martin’s family claimed that Zimmerman was not injured; members of Congress, without any evidence, attempted to pass a resolution labeling the killing a racially-motivated crime.
ABC News reports that the source of the new photo was a witness to the aftermath of the event, and that Zimmerman asked the source to call his wife for him after the shooting.
Martin’s family attorney, Benjamin Crump, suggested that the photo didn’t mean anything because Zimmerman wasn’t brought to a hospital for stitches. “How bad could it have been if they didn’t take him to the hospital [and] didn’t stitch him up,” he asked. But that statement, of course, if Zimmerman’s head was being bashed against the ground, he had no legal obligation to wait until his injuries required immediate hospital attention.
I like that asinine statement from attorney Benjamin Crump: "How bad could it have been if they didn't take him to the hospital and didn't stitch him up?"

Well, of course, Ben, when somebody is hammering your head into the pavement, you don't WAIT until your brains are spilling out before you defend yourself.  In fact, you defend yourself so that your brains remain inside your skull.

No, Trayvon didn't even need to spill Zimmerman's blood.  When Trayvon first ATTACKED George Zimmerman, he was posing a life-threatening danger — it was Trayvon's INTENT to commit bodily harm.

Under the law, Zimmerman could have drawn and pulled the trigger before Trayvon pounded his head into the pavement.  I mean, when a guy mugs you, the attack begins with the rush.  It's the INTENT of the assailant unleashed, okay?  Trayvon INTENDED to commit bodily harm.  If Zimmerman had seen it coming, he could've legally dropped Trayvon when the kid rushed him.

But he didn't.

You know, they teach you in concealed carry training to maintain a good distance from a potentially threatening subject.  Seven yards, seven big steps, about 21 feet is a good distance.  That's because 21 feet is the distance a motivated human being can traverse in one second.

One second.  A guy with a knife or a screwdriver or a baseball bat or any given weapon can cross 21 feet of space and be ON YOUR ASS in one second.

One second is also how long it takes for an alert individual to draw and present a handgun.  On average.

Your personal space is only as secure as your ability to defend it.  Your personal space, I'm telling you, is about 21 foot radius when you are armed with a handgun.  If somebody rushes you, rushes your personal space, you have one second to defend it.

Now, we know that George Zimmerman attended concealed-carry training because he has a concealed-carry permit.  Additionally, he is studying criminal justice.  So, I'm thinking that Zimmerman HAD to be thinking in terms of LAW when he followed and accosted Trayvon.

He asked Trayvon WTF, right?  What are you doing in this neighborhood?

Trayvon, who is a 17-year-old, 6'2" football player, cops a confrontational teenage attitude and probably told George to go fuck himself.

George Zimmerman retreated to his SUV, probably warning Trayvon that the police were on the way.

Trayvon, who is a 17-year-old teenager, and who IS confrontational by all accounts, lashes out at this little 5'7" neighborhood watch captain.

You know, if you think a 17-year-old male doesn't LOOK for trouble, you're living in a fantasy.  A 17-year-old boy is having these epiphanies on the threshold of adulthood, he THINKS he knows it all, and he IS going to confront people.  Confrontation driven by anger.

Because his wiring is not finished, right?  You KNOW I'm right.

Trayvon Martin's death is a case of Natural Selection, my friends.  Death by Misadventure.

Now, here comes Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who I do not particularly respect because of his slippery and elastic way with the Law, but who SLAM DUNKS the Zimmerman/Martin case...
With ABC News’ release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans’ head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”
After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”
Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."
When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, “We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it …
"I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors,” Dershowitz said, “and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"
Dershowitz added, "I'm not taking sides, but I'm insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules."
That means it's cut-and-dried self-defense.  Zimmerman walks.  Probably no trial.

I hope this experience has provided the seething, screaming jackals of lynchmob Justice in Sanford, Florida with at least a GLIMPSE of how REAL Justice works in America.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012


This is sweet.  Look at this decidedly biased news story about the NRA's recent convention in Washington, DC...

Secret Service Investigating Ted Nugent's Violent Anti-Obama Rant
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Secret Service is reportedly investigating faded '70s rock star Ted Nugent for his recent insistence he'll be "dead or in jail" in a year's time if President Barack Obama is re-elected in November.
At a convention of the National Rifle Association over the weekend, the longtime gun advocate compared Obama and the Democrats to a coyote who should be shot.
"It isn't the enemy that ruined America," he said as he reaffirmed his endorsement of Republican front-runner Mitt Romney.
"It's good people who bent over and let the enemy in. If the coyote's in your living room pissing on your couch, it's not the coyote's fault. It's your fault for not shooting him."
He accused the Obama administration of being "evil" and "America-hating."
"If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year," he said angrily. "We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November."
He then told his audience of proud gun-owners that if they failed to "clean house in this vile, evil, America-hating administration, I don't even know what you're made out of."
The Secret Service says it's aware of the weekend remarks and is looking into them.
"Threatening violence — or whatever it is that Nugent's threatening — is clearly beyond the pale, but Nugent's not the one running for president," said DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Yeah, Debbie, what IS Ted threatening?  You don't even know.  You don't even know if it IS a threat.  You have no idea, and neither does the Obama Administration.

You just know that it scares you in your position of power, anytime the citizenry exercises its Right to Free Speech.

I would say it's not a threat at all.  I think that Ted is saying the EXACT SAME THING that he's said for DECADES about a corrupt Central Government — that we should CUT THE GUTS OUT of the government, by any and all means at our disposal.

Regardless of what you think of Ted Nugent's contributions to Rock & Roll, and regardless of your opinion of his political leaning (which is decidedly conservative), there is no disputing the fact that Nugent has consistently exercised his Right to Free Speech in defense of our American Liberty.

I've known Nugent's political stand since the 1980s, when my brother was taking Ted on guided bow hunts in Southeast Texas.  I can tell you that Nugent was a very serious and responsible hunter...when the cameras weren't rolling.

As soon as the video started to roll, however, Ted would go into performance mode, and the guy knows how to play to an audience, there's no denying it.

He produced a whole series of the most outlandish hunting videos in the 80s, which were more comedy than anything else — it was just another stage for his outgoing personality.

But personally, Ted Nugent had (and has) a deep and abiding respect for America, the country that has smiled on him in abundance.  Ted LOVES this country, he loves American Liberty and the Freedom born of Liberty.

Moreover, Nugent is well educated in Constitutional law.

He knows the essence of the Second Amendment, for example, in a way that transcends all the Leftist attempts to subvert it over the decades.  He knows that the Second Amendment MAKES A HARD DISTINCTION between a Citizen Militia and the Central Government.  He knows that it is the DUTY of American citizens to keep and bear arms to ENSURE the security of our FREE STATE.

Ultimately, that means taking up arms AGAINST our Central Government when that government is corrupted and oppressive.  There's no debate about that.  The Founders knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they drafted the Second Amendment.

The Founders knew that an armed populace is a giant monkey-wrench in the mechanism of a corrupted government.  That's why the Second Amendment specifically states that our right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Yeah.  Our Liberty is so precious that the Founders INTENDED for the American people to DEFEND IT, even if that meant staging ANOTHER Revolution against the Central Government.

If you're an American born and raised in a climate of Freedom unrivaled anywhere else in the world, you may take your Liberty for granted.  Indeed, those Americans who have travelled extensively and lived overseas — e.g. our inestimable military personnel — can tell you, unequivocally, that America is the freest society in the world.

Unfortunately, and thanks to our revisionist education system under an increasingly Socialist Central Government, such a drastic change of geographic and social perspective is often necessary to open our eyes to the wonder of American Liberty.

Before I go any further, let's pause for a moment and explore the difference between Liberty and Freedom.

First of all, Liberty and Freedom ARE NOT synonymous.

Liberty is, by far, the most precious of our RIGHTS — Liberty is the RIGHT to make our own decisions.  Liberty is not granted to us by the Constitution, by the way; it is bestowed upon us by a MUCH HIGHER authority, namely The Creator.  That's what our Founding documents acknowledge.

I don't give a damn if you're an atheist and you don't believe in God or Allah or Christ or Mohammad or Buddha or Shiva and Vishnu — when the Founders said that The Creator granted us certain unalienable [sic] Rights, they were making a DISTINCTION between our HUMAN RIGHTS and the Laws of Man.

They were EMPHASIZING that NO Law of Man should EVER infringe on the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, among others.  They were placing those Rights on such a high shelf that NO MAN and NO GOVERNMENT could reach and displace them, okay?

So even an atheist can enjoy those Rights, free from the fear of an oppressive and intrusive government.

Given the Right to make your own decisions, you can CHOOSE Freedom, or you can CHOOSE enslavement.  But, if you choose enslavement, you've surrendered your Liberty and may never recover it.

Freedom, therefore, is just ONE RESULT of Liberty.  Liberty, ambiguous as it is, is far more important than Freedom.  Liberty MUST BE DEFENDED at all costs, even at the cost of thousands or millions of lives.

The Founders acknowledged this sobering fact on many occasions, as when Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.  It is its natural manure."  That's Jefferson's actual quote, often misquoted.

Liberty is such a rare and precious Right, it has never survived for long in the history of Humanity — until the U.S. Constitution came along, that is.

God knows that the Liberal Leftists in America have NO appreciation for American Liberty, inasmuch as they are constantly striving to undermine the very Constitution that enables them to voice their seething, hate-filled, divisive and decidedly racist rhetoric.

They learn this anti-American shit in the mandatory free education system, of course, wherein the Central Government creates and enforces the curricula, frequently rewriting history texts to demonize the Founders of this country.

Thursday, April 12, 2012


Oh, boy... Here we go with the cinematic version of the Anti-Bully crusade, a film entitled Bully (with the international "NO" symbol very noticeably backwards), that pretends to be a sympathetic exploration of pain and healing and all that other Liberal claptrap, but that is actually just a propaganda flick for a purely political movement intended to create a whole new class of outlaws in the American (and global) population...

Directed by Sundance and Emmy-award winning filmmaker, Lee Hirsch, Bully is a beautifully cinematic, character-driven documentary. At its heart are those with huge stakes in this issue whose stories each represent a different facet of America's bullying crisis. Bully follows five kids and families over the course of a school year. Stories include two families who have lost children to suicide and a mother awaiting the fate of her 14-year-old daughter who has been incarcerated after bringing a gun on her school bus. With an intimate glimpse into homes, classrooms, cafeterias and principals' offices, the film offers insight into the often cruel world of the lives of bullied children.
America's bullying crisis...???  It's a crisis?

Although Bully is described on the movie showcase site Rotten Tomatoes as "hard-hitting and gracefully filmed," and sentimentally depicts kids and families attempting to deal in their own ineffectual ways with human nature, there's no disguising the fact that this is all about LEGISLATING "social change" through new and more draconian Hate Crime Laws, which is absurd on the face of it.

Take a look here at what the Anti-Bully Movement is REALLY all about...

The Anti-Bully Movement: Where Do We Go From Here?
Across the United States and around the world, the anti-bullying movement has become a rallying force. From celebrities telling gay teens that “It Gets Better” to the world-wide attention paid to a bullying incident in Australia captured on video, the problem of bullying in schools has garnered heightened media attention and is being tackled with increasingly stronger laws by communities.
There are anti-bullying laws of varying strength in at least 40 states. Last week (September 1, 2011), New Jersey enacted the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, the nation’s toughest anti-bullying state law yet; it received both cheers and criticism. The law includes a requirement that teachers and administrators report incidents of bullying to the police, and has raised questions about who should be held accountable for protecting students. It has also sparked debate around the potential implications of criminalizing bullying, as well as how schools are going to pay for anti-bullying programs, given already-slashed budgets and overworked teachers.
But schools and communities agree on the critical nature of the problem. Studies have shown that bullying leads to increased incidence of mental health issues later in life and lower achievement levels, especially for minority students.
“We should call bullying what it actually is — social violence,” said Erin Weed, founder of Girls Fight Back, an organization that provides empowerment and self-defense workshops at schools and college campuses around the country.
The need to end peer harassment is clear. But it isn’t clear how much change is actually happening. Are laws that vigilantly punish bullies like the Anti-bullying Bill of Rights exactly what we need — or putting us down the wrong path? Resolving a case of bullying will take more than just a hotline. It will take squadrons of counselors, legal teams, and school administrators. So what are the most effective ways to spend school districts’ already-limited resources?
This is sweet: "The law includes a requirement that teachers and administrators report incidents of bullying to the police, and has raised questions about who should be held accountable for protecting students."

WHO should be accountable for protecting students?

Ummmm... How about the students themselves?  How about students beating the shit out of those who bully them, the way we did when I was in school?  How about students learning how to defend themselves in school, just as they must defend themselves all throughout their lives?

How about students showing some backbone, rather than running to the protective skirts of the Nanny State, eh?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that ALL the victims of bullying are necessarily spineless; but I am saying that spineless parents raise spineless children, almost invariably.

No. You don't stop bullying by MAKING IT ILLEGAL, for Godsake.

You don't OUTLAW human behavior that is millions of years old.

Rather, you TEACH YOUR KIDS TO FIGHT, to DEFEND themselves. It'll make them better people, much better than if they are surrounded by an impenetrable wall of Socialist feel-good-about-yourself LAWS designed to turn OTHER citizens into OUTLAWS.

About 40 years ago, when I was fresh out of grade school, I entered the entirely new and unexpected social environment of junior high school.  I say "entirely new and unexpected" because nobody EVER told me about Physical Education in the higher grade levels, wherein you are introduced to the horrifying experience of stripping naked in front of complete strangers and donning these ridiculously primitive and ill-fitting gym shorts, okay, which is all you wore for the next hour and a half, indoors and out.

This experience was distressing in that we frequently confronted and jogged past the girls' P.E. class out on the ball field; and several guys, predictably, decided to show off in front of the girls.  This showing off usually manifested as bullying the other guys around them.

Well, bullying the guys that COULD be bullied, that is.

I think it was the second week of 7th Grade — when I had finally acclimatized to the routine — that this buck-toothed redneck named Kelly Donaldson decided to try his hand at bullying me.  This was an unfortunate decision for him, I can assure you.

To make a long story somewhat shorter, I took an aluminum baseball bat and smacked the stupid hillbilly bastard in the mouth with it, which knocked out three of his permanent front teeth and left him bleeding and blubbering in the red dust of the baseball field.

I'm sure it changed his life for the better.  Well, except for having to wear false teeth from a very early age.

It never occurred to me until that moment that I would have to defend myself in such a manner on public school property.  However, if Kelly Donaldson had taken the trouble to research the data on his intended victim (always advisable), he would have known that I had a childhood history of seeing red and hammering guys much larger and much older than myself.

That runs in our family, by the way.  I think it's scientifically termed the berserker gene.

Point is, the very first time Kelly tried his Level One Assault on me, I came back on him with a Level 10 Response.  As a result, nobody EVER tried to bully me for the remainder of junior high or high school.

Oh, sure, there were a few scuffles, including one fight in which I stomped two guys simultaneously for stealing my hat; but there were never any other cases of bullying in my public school experience.

It's like going to prison, you know?  Not that I've ever been to prison, but I know people who have done some time.  If you demonstrate from Day One that you're a hard target in prison, the guys in the rest home respect that, and you won't end up as somebody's bitch.

And it's like that all throughout your life, as well.

Lemmy tell you something, if you allow somebody to push you around ONCE, they'll do it again.  More than that, if you allow somebody to push you around in public, the public won't respect you.

Hey, that's human nature, millions of years in the making.

Now, there is NO CASE on record of humankind LEGISLATING barbarism into obsolescence.  Barbarism is here to stay, for as long as we're human beings.  It's what MAKES US human beings, it's what DEFINES our civilization.

I mean, what is civilization except a cumulative response to barbarism?

We're not going to CHANGE human nature in a few generations or even a few centuries through Hate Crime Laws.  All we're going to do is establish a new class of outlaws who will revel in their barbarity, as the victims whine from within the cage of Socialist lawmaking they have wrought.

The only way to answer bullying is with a fearsome self-defense, one that sends the bully reeling.  That's what bullies respect.

Defensive response is common sense, and it's the first thing that springs to mind.

But, then, you may ask, where is the compassion, where is the Christianity and all that turn thy cheek mentality? Look, I know people often cite Christ's eternal patience, his infinite tolerance for abuse with a citation from the New Testament: Luke 6:29, “And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.”

Yeah, just keep poking and prodding me and punching me, and keep stealing my property and I'm okay with all that, right?

NOT.  An examination of the original extended scripture reveals that Jesus was admonishing people to SETTLE OUT OF COURT.

People who try to characterize Jesus as eternally tolerant are sorely mistaken.  Christ had his limits.  I mean, in John 18:23, one of Caiaphas' officers smacked Jesus, who exclaimed “Why smitest thou me?”

Christ said, "Why'd you hit me, man?"  That's NOT turning the other cheek.  That's called confrontation.  We're talking about God in the flesh here, right?  He could've turned Caiaphas and his entourage into frogs at a glance.

Christ walked the walk.  He was all about confrontation.

Christ didn't strike back, but he definitely confronted his assailant.  And THAT is what these victims-in-training SHOULD be doing in the Anti-Bully Movement, rather than pursuing national and global legislation to build a wall around their kids to protect them from LIFE.