Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Is Trayvon inspiring a new crime wave?

The evidence from the Zimmerman trial conclusively proved that Trayvon looped back and confronted Zimmerman; if Trayvon had just continued on home Zimmerman would have had to fight Trayvon in Trayvon's living room.

We also know like a lot of unemployed teens of the male persuasion Trayvon liked fighting which makes it more likely that Trayvon started any fight especially when one considers that Trayvon was a lot bigger than Zimmerman.

Does that make it ok? Well in a legal sense yes the fact that based on all the evidence Trayvon looped back and attacked Zimmerman makes it ok that Zimmerman shot Trayvon.  But of course we'd all, and Zimmerman first among us, love to be able to go back in time and avoid Trayvon's death.

If we had our magical time machine we could try and convince Trayvon that attacking an adult he doesn't know is a lot different than having a consensual fight with another teen.  Strangers don't know if you're going to stop before they're dead and adults don't expect to be physically attacked by strangers.

And race did play a role in this tragedy. Does anyone think Trayvon would have looped back and attacked a Black man as opposed to a "crazy assed Cracker"?

The question of the day is do all those folks saying they're Trayvon--or wearing shirts to that effect--really mean that if they see a white, or whitish, person on the street behind them they will loop back and try to beat the animal excrement out of the person of , semi-, pallor?

Do white people have reason to be afraid because so many Blacks are now saying that they will start attacking whites, or Latino's, at random?

Of course not.  But the even scarier thing is that so many Blacks, and their media enablers, seem quite comfortable living in a fantasy world where whites are constantly seeking to murder random Blacks.  Hundreds of Trayvons die each year and the vast majority are killed by other Blacks, not by skin head racist whites.

If Black Americans keep avoiding the truth they're going to keep getting killed by their brothers in the hood.  Jesse Jackson pointed out, a long time ago, that if you're walking down a city street at night and you hear someone following you you feel a lot better if when you turn around you see that the person following you is white. The point Jackson was trying to make is that Black culture in America is far too tolerant of criminality; the vast majority of event the poorest Blacks are honest but Blacks are much more likely to be criminals than whites.

This bizarre reaction to the Trayvon case is a sign of the disconnect Blacks have from reality.  A white couple was murdered by a Black gang and a small white child was shot by a Black man recently but whites haven't demanded anything nor have they condemned Blacks as a group for these horrible crimes.  Similarly a Black man left his house to confront some white teens who were acting threatening on his front lawn. He ended up shooting one of the white kids; who died.  This is much worse than the Zimmerman case since the Black man could have stayed in his house, where he and his family were safe, until the cops arrived. But still the Black man wasn't prosecuted; nor should he have been.

The above cases are the reality of America but too many Blacks have been convinced that whites are evil and that it's ok for a Black teen to attack an adult. They seem to think that it's the Hispanics fault that Trayvon looped back and attacked him. Blacks talk as though Trayvon was just walking home and Zimmerman shot him from a distance.

If Blacks don't like being profiled they need to cut down on the Black crime rate. If Blacks really give a darn about Trayvon they need to start working to end the mass murder of young Black men by other young Black men; 3 young Blacks were killed in Chicago just during the Zimmerman trial and Black "leaders" can't name any of them.

Is a Black death bad only if it's caused by a non-Black? Do Blacks have a pass on killing each other? That sure seems to be the case and it also seems to be a might racist policy yet we hear little or nothing from the media or people like Al Sharpton about it.

That may be because when a Black bigot like Sharpton attacks a non-Black liberals will shower him with money and publicity. But those same liberal media elites could care less if some inner city Black kid is killed by a Black gang member.

Sharpton and his ilk make it all about race; the death of a Black teen is only important if it involves a white--without a white being involved Black teens lives are worthless in Sharptons eyes.

It's time we dropped the racists anti-white bigotry of the ruling class and started caring about all those innocent Black kids being killed by other Black kids.  While liberals may be content letting Blacks rot in inner city slums so long as those Blacks keep voting Democrat we as a country need to do better. We need to make sure that teens like Trayvon don't think it's ok to attack people they don't know. We need to make sure that the gangsters who kill so many Trayvons each year go to and stay in jail.

Only Trayvon could have saved Trayvon's life. Let's work to make sure that future Trayvon's don't suffer from a distorted view of the world the way Trayvon did.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

If you want better blog posts to read...

Check out Katrina Trinko at National Review. Not only is she a much better writer than me she's got first hand access to many of the key players in DC.

Her work has been referenced by Powerline, Drudge, and Rush Limbaugh among others.

Hugh Hewitt and Glen Beck have had her on their shows.

She's a regular editorial contributor to USA Today.

So if you want cutting edge conservative stories check out the link above and I'm willing to bet you'll be glad you did!

You can also follow her on twitter to get the latest and greatest goings on in American politics.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Why liberals root for the Bad Guys; like Trayvon

The Zimmerman case is the latest, and one of the more blatant, examples of how liberals in America always root for the bad guys.

Anyone who grew up in the 1960’s, and no dinosaurs did not roam the earth at that time, remembers how popular entertainment turned from extolling heroes, like those played by John Wayne, and began extolling anti-heroes, men who were basically evil or extraordinarily flawed and not seeking redemption.

That change was a reflection of the changes in the way liberals looked at criminals in general.  The liberal activists in the Warren court started with a good idea, stop the police from coercing confessions from potentially innocent people, and ended up creating a maze of loopholes that rich and unscrupulous defense lawyers could use to exclude critical evidence from trials.

It’s gotten worse over time so that now the “heroes” extolled by the entertainment mafia are drug dealing killers, Breaking Bad, and serial killers, Dexter. No businessman is ever honest and people of faith are regularly mocked while drug using promiscuous people are extolled. Rejecting real heroes and embracing the bad guys is clearly a very slippery slope.

In the Zimmerman case liberals have continued to support the bad guy.

The one thing we’ve never heard from liberals is the one thing that’s obvious:

Trayvon was the bad guy.

We know, but the Jury wasn’t told, that Trayvon was a drug user who liked to fight, and was disappointed when the people he fought weren’t sufficiently hurt, and quite possibly a petty thief.

That doesn’t make him the bad guy but it does show that he had the makings of a bad guy in him. What makes Trayvon the bad guy was the fact that he initiated the confrontation with George.

It’s a matter of fact that from the time that Trayvon complained about being followed to when he was shot was four minutes.  If Trayvon had just walked right home, a mere 100 yards away, any fight would have occurred in his living room.  The evidence is unambiguous; Trayvon went back to confront Zimmerman.

By liberal reasoning Zimmerman is guilty because he followed Trayvon.  Using that same logic then Trayvon must be guilty because Trayvon went back to confront Zimmerman.  If Trayvon was afraid of Zimmerman then he, according to the liberal logic, should have done what liberals say Zimmerman should have done; head home and call the cops. 

Instead of walking home and calling 911 about the “creepy assed cracker” who was following him Trayvon turned around and accosted George.  Trayvon did exactly what liberals condemn Zimmerman for doing but which the evidence shows Zimmerman did not do.

Even if George was a skin head. Black hating. Westboro Baptist, gun toting, Tea Party member if Trayvon had just walked home Trayvon would be alive today; assuming he didn’t get killed in one of his frequent fights.

Even if Zimmerman is a total liar and he initiated the conflict with the larger Trayvon the simple fact is that unless Trayvon did what liberals condemn Zimmerman for supposedly doing, confronting a suspicious person rather than calling the cops, Zimmerman couldn’t have started a fight.

If it’s wrong to follow a suspicious person because that’s an unfair aggravation of that person, which is what liberals are arguing, then it was wrong of Trayvon to turn around and accost Zimmerman.  Hence even using liberal reasoning:

Trayvon was the bad guy.

While it’s a tragedy that someone so young died because of their stupidity that doesn’t change one simple fact; it was Trayvons deliberate actions that led to his death.  Just as it’s not the fault of the cop who shoots a sadly young gang member in selfdefense.

Has a single liberal asked the question what would have happened if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun?  The physical evidence and the eyewitness testimony is unambiguous; Trayvon was on top and beating the crud out of Zimmerman.  If Zimmerman hadn’t had a gun would he have ended up like Reginald Denny—who was beaten by a mob as part of the Rodney King riots in LA? Would liberals have defended Trayvon, assuming he was even charged, as they defended the men who beat Denny?  Would they have even cared?

Based on precedent we can say with a fairly good degree of certainty that liberals would not have cared a bit about a viciously beaten Zimmerman.

If liberals cared about victims they wouldn’t support laws that keep relevant evidence from the jury because the police, or a judge, was determined to have made a slight procedural error—an error that it took the Supreme Court months to determine was an error.

But in addition to the general support liberals give to the bad guys there are numerous cases where liberals support individuals who are clearly guilty while those same liberals ignore, or even worse besmirch, the victims.

Troy Davis murdered a police officer in cold blood, Mark MacPhail—the murdered officer—was on the ground when Troy shot him, in front of 34 witnesses but liberals were demanding Troy not be executed.

You can find many more examples of liberals advocating for obviously guilty criminals in Ann Coulters book “Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their assault on America”

Liberals enthusiasm for the bad guys are not limited to murders however.

Millions of honest foreigners are waiting years to legally enter the US yet liberals are hell bent on rewarding the dishonest people who illegally sneak into America.

Liberals consistently defend Muslim extremists and lump peaceful pro-life activists in with suicide bombers.  We’re told by liberals that it’s America’s fault that Muslims hate us and that that Muslim terrorists should get the same constitutional rights as US citizens; if the glove doesn’t fit you can’t convict.  We’re even told that a soldier extolling Allah while shooting defenseless Americans is not a terrorist but just an example of workplace violence.

Liberals condemn Israel, an imperfect country but one where you can legally go to a Catholic Church without being in fear of your life, while extolling Arab nations that consistently oppress and often murder Christians.

Liberals have no problem with welfare cheats; instead liberals save their ire for “selfish” working people who feel they pay too much in taxes.

Why do liberals feel such an affinity for the bad guys? While the reasons will vary, since liberals are no more clones than are conservatives, it’s not unreasonable to see if basic liberal beliefs are linked to liberals apparent love of those who do evil.

At the core of modern American liberalism are a number of very racists beliefs including:

1) Unlike other minorities who succeeded on their own in America, say Japanese Americans, Blacks are incapable of success without the help of liberals. Because of this paternalistic view towards Blacks liberals tend to not hold Blacks responsible for their actions.

2) Unenlightened Whites, ie anyone who isn’t a liberal, are mean evil nasty racist selfish aggressive folk.  As a result liberals assume all Whites who don’t hold degree’s from Harvard are racist, misogynistic, Neanderthals eager to oppress Blacks in any way possible.

As a result liberals tend to support Blacks whenever a crime involves Whites—or now apparently Hispanics—and Blacks. When it’s Black on Black crime liberals seem to not care; if they did they’d be doing something to end the horrendous death of Blacks in the cities controlled by Democrat Mayors--three Blacks, as young or younger than Trayvon, were killed in Chicago just during the Zimmerman trail but liberals, including Al Sharpton, have remained quiet.

In the liberal mind a violent drug crazed Rodney King is the good guy simply because he’s black.  If he’d been white and the police had been Black liberals would have looked the other way; as they have in so many other cases.

Similarly liberals believe that in America honest people can’t succeed and therefore that people are only on welfare because the system is forcing them to be poor. Hence the person who’s on welfare because they dropped out of high school to do drugs is the one liberals like., not the hardworking business owner.

It’s time that we get low information voters to realize that no matter what the issue liberal’s side with the bad guys and that that is bad for America.

If you want to keep up with tom's rants 
follow him on Twitter

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Does Obama justify Snowden?

See the article at American Thinker

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Thanks be to God justice is done!

No rational person could see the evidence in the Zimmerman case and conclude anything other than that Trayvon's act of violence resulted in his tragic death.

Physical evidence and the best eyewitness put Trayvon on top

Trayvon was only bruised on his fists while Zimmerman was bruised all over his body and the back of his head.

Trayvon had 4 minutes to walk to his house if he were afraid of Zimmerman but the fight occurred by Zimmerman's car which means Trayvon approached Zimmerman.

This was a race based sham trial forced by race baiting Black "leaders", the same ones that brought us Tawana Brawley and the Duke "rape" case.

While Zimmerman has finally been cleared it's time that bigoted haters like Al Sharpton be forced to pay, via the legal system, for their continual lying.  It's wrong that people like Sharpton can get a police chief thrown out and a special prosecutor appointed to harass an innocent man.

People like Sharpton exploit tragedies like Trayvons for personal gain without any concern for the real victims, such as George Zimmerman.

And now those bigots are calling on the Federal government to prosecute Zimmerman for violating the "civil rights" of Trayvon--didn't know that beating the crud out of strangers was a civil right for Blacks.

Ignoring that Whites can never use civil rights violations even when assaulted by gangs of Blacks shouting racial epithets the evidence in this case is so clear that the only possible motivation is racial hatred of Zimmerman, a Hispanic, or a desire to get publicity and make money by persecuting an innocent man.

We need to reestablish single justice system in America and end this persecution of innocent people.

Friday, July 12, 2013

Is Obama a cookie? Meditations on our first Black "White" President


Sunday, July 7, 2013

Conservative vs Liberal 5

Sadly someone on Facebook I knew in high school keeps posting liberal nonsense on my wall. I ask him to stop but he refuses.  I could block him but he provides great material for what liberals are all about.

He is truly a major player in liberal circles. His wife went to the Democrat convention and sat near Michelle Obama. She even got to talk to Michelle.

In a private message he told me about an evil Republican plan to defund veterans health care.

First he said that the disabled veterans were due to Republicans.  I pointed out that the Democrats supported the wars in Iraqi and Afghanistan and that more soldiers have been hurt or killed in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush.

It turns out that the article he linked to was quoting a CBO study one option of which was defunding certain types of medical care for conditions not recognized by the medical community.

Given that the CBO is non-partisan and given that there was no indication that any Republican supported "option 35" one would think that the liberal would say gee sorry and be embarrassed; that's what a conservative would do. We feel bad when we get our facts wrong and it embarrasses us.

But since the guy is a liberal he just ignored the whole thing and went on to ask me how I felt about being wrong about my prognostications on the financial state of California.  He then went on to say how bad Walker is doing in Wisconsin.

He is apparently unaware that Californian unemployment hit a 5 year low, 8.6%, while unemployment in Wisconsin is at 7.1%.

The lesson from this is that liberals don't care about facts and are very much into the Big Lie theory of political discourse; if you lie enough and long enough enough people will believe you so that you can get political power which is all liberals care about.

Friday, July 5, 2013

Obama admits to the politicization of the IRS

Obamacare was found to be legal because the penalties levied if a company does not provide health care were defined by the Supreme Court to be a tax--even though Obamacare supporters when passing Obamacare clearly and repeatedly said they were penalties not a tax.

But now the Obama administration has said that they won't collect that tax until 1/1/2014, 1 year later than the law requires them to.

The first question to ask is how can the Obama administration tell the supposedly independent IRS which taxes it should and shouldn't collect?

The second question to ask is by what authority can the administration decide which taxes it will and won't collect?  Taxes are passed by Congress and historically the administration was required to follow the law--note that back in the 60's, 70's and 80's Congress did not follow many laws but that was because the Democrats who ran the show made sure that the laws specifically stated that they didn't apply to Congress--but apparently liberals have decided that liberal politicians can view any law they don't like as a suggestion as we've seen with Obama's non-enforcement of DOMA and Jerry Browns refusal to defend the votes of 7,000,000 Californians on Prop 8.

The third question is why is Obama doing this?  While the administration claims this is the result of secret non-public meetings with companies who say they can't conform to the law in time the reality is that the most likely cause is that Obama knows that the impact of the business mandates will be significant, and very negative, for millions of Americans. By delaying that pain until after the next election Obama is using the IRS to help improve the Democrats chance of winning the House and retaining their Senate majority.

The simple reality is that this decision to unilaterally and illegally not collect taxes passed by Congress is a crass political move to help shield Democrats from the consequences of their actions.  It is a clear use of the IRS for political purposes.

By doing this publicly Obama is essentially admitting that the IRS is an acceptable political instrument to be used by the President to protect his friends and persecute his enemies.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Liberals think Obama is king

The Obamacare law says that major portions of it have to go into effect on 1/1/2013. Among these are the individual and business mandates.

Yet Obama has declared that the business mandate will be delayed till just after the 2014 elections.

Why isn't anyone suing?  This is the latest in a long string of Democrat decisons to not enforce laws they don't like--DOMA--, not defend votes they don't like--Prop 8 in California--, or implement laws that didn't pass Congress through bureaucratic fiat--the Dream Act.

If we accept the idea that elected officials can decide what laws they want to enforce then we no longer have a representative democracy because in a free society politicians have the power to change the law not to ignore it.

Can you imagine if some racist President decided to not enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Yet the same people who would be rightfully indignant over that have no problem with Jerry Brown not defending the votes of 7,000,000 Californians for Prop 8.

Obama is not alone when he says he wishes he didn't have to deal with Congress; that he could just rule by declaration.  Liberals want an imperial government where backwards voters can't stand in the way of what Democrats believe is progress--which usually involves either supporting hedonism or transferring money from the pockets of middle class Americans to whomever will sell their votes to the Democrat party.

Conservatives need to use lawfare against those Democrats who refuse to uphold the law of the land lest we find ourselves living in a tyranny.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

BART; why government unions are bad

In the Obama economy with unemployment running at record levels and millions of people forced to take part time jobs or so disheartened they give up looking for work the BART unions want a 23% pay increase over the next 4 years.

Already very well paid the government unions realize that unlike all other businesses their bosses can just arbitrarily raise prices on their customers through higher taxes and higher fares.  Additionally eco-nazism in California makes it hard to drive a car so there's really no viable competition to keep BART prices down.

The unions bribe the politicians, who never pay with their own money, by providing support, support not limited by the laws that limit contributions by other groups.

The only people who suffer are the taxpayers. Which the unions and the liberals have no problem with.

Glowing jellyfish Monterey Bay Aquarium

Tuesday, July 2, 2013


Monterey Bay Aquarium

Liberals vs Conservatives 4

Liberals don't believe in the rule of law; instead they believe in the rule of men. That's why when Bill Clinton committed perjury Democrats said so what but when Nixon covered up a break in they howled for blood.

Similarly liberals have no problems with the Supreme Court making up laws so long as liberals like the laws the Supreme Court makes up.

Additionally liberals have no problems with elected officials not enforcing laws they don't like. They're fine with Obama not enforcing DOMA before the Supreme Court ruling and they're fine with Jerry Brown not defending the votes of 7 million Californians on Prop 8. But imagine the uproar if Nixon had decided to not enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Conservatives believe the law should apply to everyone which is why they abandoned Nixon when it was clear he had committed a crime. Similarly Conservatives believe that elected officials have to enforce laws even if they personally don't like them. Finally conservatives believe judges should interpret laws based on what the people who passed the law intended.

Liberals believe in a two class system; liberals to whom the laws don't apply and conservatives to whom the laws do apply.

Conservatives believe all people are equally subject to the law.