STORY UPDATED MARCH 29 (GO TO BOTTOM)
So, the media and various rabblerousers (including, not surprisingly, Al Sharpton) are out in full force, basically demanded the arrest and execution of neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman, who shot and killed an unarmed Florida teen, Trayvon Martin earlier this year. In fact, the black panther party has literally put a $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman’s head.
The media has, as they often do, behaved disgustingly with this story. The president has, unfortunately, but not shockingly, weighed in, doing his best to add a racial element into the mix by stating:
My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son he would look like Trayvon and, you know, I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened
This isn’t the first time Obama weighed in on local matters in order to inject race into the mix. Recall he scolded the Cambridge, Massachusetts police saying they had “acted stupidly” when they arrested Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates, for breaking into his own home (reports state that a black neighbor called the police to alert them of the break in.) The charges were, of course, dropped, but this is what Obama said at the time:
“I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that [Gates case]. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”[emphasis mine]
So, without knowing the facts, the president of the United States decides it’s a good idea to inject himself into a local issue that had nothing at all to do with race (no one came forth with a shred of evidence that race ever came into play, and in fact one of the arresting officers was black). President Obama feeds the racial element when no evidence exists to suggest race ever had anything to do with this case. In fact, Zimmerman is of hispanic origin, so to make the case that this is somehow a white man oppressing a poor black is silly.
Let’s take a look at some of the facts here.
According to police reports and Zimmerman’s 911 call made just prior to the shooting, Zimmerman was patrolling his neighborhood as a watchman (reports aren’t clear whether or not he belonged to a community group or was a “self-appointed” watchman) and saw a young black male wearing a hoody looking around at the houses in what Zimmerman thought was a suspicious manner. So, he followed the young man. Now, it’s important to note how the media has misreported so many facts in this case and just refused to report other facts that might distort their preconceived notions on this case. During the 911 call (full transcript and audio here), we have the following exchange:
Are you following him? [2:24]
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
Now, the media is reporting (in most stories I have read and watched on TV) that the 911 dispatcher ordered Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Nothing could be further from the truth, as you can clearly see from the transcript. There is no order given, it’s merely a suggestion that following Martin wasn’t necessary. To claim the operator ordered him not to follow Martin is a blatant mistruth and it’s offensive, because any rational person can read the transcript and see for himself it’s not true. The media, I suspect, is set on portraying Zimmerman as a cold-blooded killer who not only shot a teen but disobeyed direct orders from 911 dispatch in the process.
Only at this point of the 911 call (2:30 into the call) did Zimmerman seem to start to pursue Martin. Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that he’s standing there and that the male whom he thinks might be black (from the transcript) is looking at him weird. He looks shady. Notice how Zimmerman tells dispatcher that he’s got something in his waistband and that Martin is coming toward him. So, this media narrative that Martin was simply walking with his tea and skittles and Zimmerman had no motive to think he was suspicious doesn’t add up. Why not simply note that Martin was, according to Zimmerman’s call, approaching Zimmerman and acting weird?
At some point, Zimmerman started to follow Martin, a scuffle ensued and Zimmerman fatally shot Martin.
Now, to make a few more notes- one of the 911 calls apparently has a male in the background screaming, “help!” before the shot is heard. The media and pundits (as well as those rallying for Zimmerman’s arrest)
claim the voice is that of Trayvon Martin. However, the only witness on record [report here] to have seen the fight says that Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was atop of him punching him in the face, as opposed to the story sold to the media by the various race-obsessed pundits (Al Sharpton,cough). It’s been reported that Zimmerman was covered in grass stains on his back, that his head was lacerated, and that his nose was broken.
So, as you can clearly see, a rush to judgement without having all the facts, injecting race into this whole thing when no evidence exists to suggest race was a factor in this matter at all.
Some have argued, based on the 911 call, that Zimmerman used the racial slur “coons” in telling the operator “fucking coons.” Now, logic demand that we make conclusions based on the best evidence we have that makes the most sense. Is it rational to think Zimmerman would call 911, know he’s being recorded, then use racial slurs in the process? Even if we had any evidence to suggest that the hispanic Zimmerman was racist, doesn’t it stretch logic to think he would use a slur on the phone? Here’s a much more likely scenario that matches logic, common sense, and the evidence- Zimmerman said “fucking goons.” Unfortunately, most media outlets are happy to report the conspiracy theory of Zimmerman using a slur, but very few have bothered to report the more likely scenario of Zimmerman saying “goons.” Point is- everyone is trying their best to inject race into this in any manner they possibly can.
One of Zimmerman’s friends (and legal adviser) was on ABC News to declare his friend said the word “goons,” and that from what his high school-aged daughter told him, the kids these days use goon as a term of endearment. Normal response from an older man not in touch with the current lingo of the youth, but of course the pundits on the blogosphere and in the media are pouncing on it, trying to claim that Zimmerman used “goons” as a term of endearment, when he did no such thing. He merely talked about the word in context and used his daughter’s information to explain the term. He never tried to claim Zimmerman used it as a term of endearment, and this is another instance of the media poorly and dishonestly reporting the story.
Now, onto the way Martin and Zimmerman are described in the media. This is the photo most news organizations have been using to show Trayvon Martin:
To note- Martin was 17 year old when shot. This is apparently a photo of him from age 12. You have to ask yourself, why is this the picture they use to show a 17 year old, when we know he had a facebook page, we can assume, is filled with recent photos of him? The media is clearly trying to sway public opinion. Show Martin was a smiling, bright eyed kid. Now, this is the photo I have rarely seen used to show Martin:
Now, the only point I’m trying to make here is – why not be honest in the portrayal? He’s not the bright eyed, bushy-tailed 12 year old, he was closer to the kid below.
In fact, some media have gone so far as to turn this into a national tragedy. Huffington Post has removed their regular masthead on their website to display this below. Notice, they also use the 5 yr old picture of Martin, in what we can assume is a ploy to gain sympathy and paint Zimmerman as a child killer.
And this is important, because this is how nearly every media outlet shows Zimmerman:
So, instead of using another photo of him, they use the mugshot of him with a scowl. He was arrested in 2005 for resisting arrest, apparently after an incident at a bar. Charges against Zimmerman were dropped.
Why doesn’t the media use this photo of Zimmerman?
Why use this smiling photo when they can convict him much more easily in the court of public opinion by using the scowling mugshot photo?
So, Zimmerman is portrayed as a lunatic with a previous brush with the law and Martin an innocent teen who never did a thing in his life. Few media outlets seem to mention the fact that apparently Trayvon Martin was in Sanford visiting his father because he was on a 10 day suspension from school. No one will state why Martin was suspended for two weeks, but some reports have suggested it was assault on a school bus driver. I’m unable to find any concrete evidence as to a reason for the suspension, but it does seem fishy most media is leaving that element out of the story. Point being- it gives credence to the idea that Martin may have, in fact, attacked Zimmerman, causing him to act in self defense, which is what he claims to Sanford. Zimmerman, it should be noted, has never denied shooting Martin, but said that he did so in self defense after Martin attacked him.
Many have made issue of this hoody that Martin was wearing. Let me just take a second to say that hoodies have a bad man, and let’s be honest- for good reason. If someone is walking through a neighborhood at night looking around, just walking around looking into houses in the rain (which is what Zimmerman told police Martin was doing), if that person is wearing a suit, you’re obviously going to think it less suspicious than someone wearing a hoody. That’s not racist, it’s not offensive, it’s simply a fact of life. We all make judgements about the things and people around us based on all sorts of factors, and style of dress is one of them. My guess is that the frequent break ins that were taking place in the neighborhood the weeks prior to the shooting, the guys who did it were probably more likely to be in hoodies than in suits or oxford shirts. Those are simply facts, and try as some might, facts are never racist or bigoted. We probably SHOULD urge kids to stay away from this sort of dress.
Now, that said, it doesn’t mean that the hoody caused it as some have said, but I can see where one might be more suspicious of some kid walking around at night in a hoodie.
Here is a likely scenario, one that matches the evidence we have, and it also matches logic and common sense. Zimmerman was an average citizen who wanted to give back to his community. He was tired of the crime that plague so many of these neighborhoods, so he became a neighborhood watch captain. He either joined a group in the community, or he “patrolled” the area by himself. He took a legally held gun with him in case he ran into major trouble, but almost surely never thought he’d have to use it. He saw Martin in his dark hoody, thought the kid in the rain peeking into houses looked suspicious, called police to inform them, but decided that the police always take too long and these type of characters tend to get away, so he followed Martin. Martin became scared and attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman had already suspected Martin had a gun (he mentions to 911 dispatcher that he seems to have something in his waistband). He’s being beaten by Martin, yells for help to the sole witness who runs upstairs to call 911. Zimmerman doesn’t want to use his gun and never thinks he will have to use it, but fearing that Martin DOES have the gun he suspected, he fires off a round to save his own life.
That’s a quite reasonable scenario and explanation of the events. Never does it stay from the known evidence, nor does it stray from what Zimmerman told 911 dispatch or the police after the shooting. It fits also with the stains on Zimmerman’s clothing and the broken nose his attorney says he had and the lacerations and bruises Sanford police say he had.
But, why stop there when we can claim racism? That is offensive beyond belief, because we shouldn’t need to make up wild scenarios for what is clearly a tragedy. Martin was, indeed, unarmed, and it’s sad that he lost his life. Zimmerman was probably overzealous in his watchman duties, but who among us hasn’t lived in or seen neighborhoods plagued with crime, knowing we want to do something about it but not knowing how to go about it? Zimmerman, from all accounts, is a decent family man with a job and a home. No one has offered a shred of evidence to even remotely suggest Zimmerman is a racist, and we have no reason to believe he is the cold-blooded killer that the pundits, the race hustlers, and the media make him out to be.
Did Zimmerman overreact? Perhaps. Should he had not followed Martin at all? Probably would have been a good idea just to call police and let them handle it. Was he attacked? Evidence suggests he was, in fact, attacked. Was it self defense only? Again, no evidence suggests it wasn’t. and all the evidence we do have suggest that to be the case. It was a tragic accident. To inject race into it is deplorable, and these folks doing so should be ashamed of themselves. So too should the media for misreporting so many aspects of this story while creating fanciful stories about cold blooded murder, while also refusing to report alternative, more rational explanations.
I can see no evidence to suggest Sanford police are incompetent or covering up for Zimmerman. He stated he acted in self-defense, and they have more evidence than we do. Why jump to convict Zimmerman? Race is the main issue here, in that if Martin was white, you can bet that this would have never made national attention, and these silly rallies would have never taken place. We have millions of people calling for Zimmerman’s head on a platter, to hell with the facts. That fact is scary as hell. That so many Americans will willingly toss aside facts to convict a man of being a cold blooded racist murderer is terrible, and we should all speak out against it.
Look folks, we might never know with 100% proof what happened that night. New reports give a clearer picture of what evidence police used to let Zimmerman go. ABC News reports the following:
George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch crime captain who shot dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, originally told police in a written statement that Martin knocked him down with a punch to the nose, repeatedly slammed his head on the ground and tried to take his gun, a police source told ABC News.
Zimmerman had claimed he had called police about Martin, whom he found suspicious, then went back to his car when Martin attacked him, punching him.
If accurate, this means that Zimmerman may have followed Martin for a short time, then retreated to his car, and at the point Martin attacked him, causing Zimmerman to fear he would lose his gun and be shot, so he shot first. That changes everything. Even if the attack did not occur as Zimmerman was retreating, there’s no evidence here to suggest intent to murder. There’s nothing here to suggest anything but self defense. Sure, you can argue Zimmerman should have just stayed in his car, but if that’s always the argument 100% of the time, we have a neighborhood watch at all?
In the end, we might never fully know precisely what happened, but the evidence backs the claim of self defense. Those going crazy over this seem to, for the most part, be people obsessed with making this a national issue of race. These people are at best just slimy and at worst working to destroy the country itself, because the last thing we need is an imaginary racist killer going out and murdering young black males. The media and various pundits have played into this, and the fact that so many are speaking out without having access to the evidence is simply disgusting, and it’s something that should not be taken lightly.
UPDATE (March 26, 2011 3:03PM):
I was curious as to why Trayvon was suspended. As I mentioned, many have indicated it was because he punched a school bus driver, and a ten day suspension seems like it might fit that sort of crime, but his family first insisted it had nothing to do with violence, but that Trayvon was on an area of school property he wasn’t supposed to be on. That seems odd tho- two full weeks suspension for that? His family now says that he was suspended for having, what they claim was a baggy with marijuana residue in it. Their story changed, and they seem to be the ones hyping the racism angle, so I honestly find it hard to trust they’re giving the real reason he was suspended.
I found this blogger here who looked into it, and it seems that Martin was almost surely dealing drugs and almost definitely punched a bus driver. This lends support to the theory that Martin was beating Zimmerman and that Zimmerman did have good reason to see Martin and think he looked suspicious (notice in the pics on the link Martin has gold teeth and is covered in large tattoos…add the hoody to that, and let’s be honest folks, if you’re a neighborhood watchman, if that doesn’t tip you off, you’re not doing your job.
The point here is that the media isn’t portraying Martin accurately, and if you see an unfamiliar face in your neighborhood (Martin was visiting his father and was unknown to Zimmerman), and especially a guy who has a bunch of tattoos and gold teeth and a hoody, it might make you wonder more than if it was a clean cut guy with a button down shirt on and no tattoos. Fair or not, tattoos carry with them a certain stereotype, and that’s the stereotype of a thug. And whether we like it or not, stereotypes usually persist for a reason- they’re rooted in a foundation of truth. Who can blame Zimmerman for seeing this character and thinking he looks sketchy?
UPDATE 2 MARCH 29, 2012: Looks as if the media has also screwed up the reporting by claiming that Zimmerman was a “Self appointed” neighborhood watch captain. A fellow watch captain has come forward to give his thoughts on the story, and he says that Zimmerman was APPOINTED captain by the community organization.
When are the scumbags in the media ever going to get their facts straight before smearing everyone in sight?!
EVEN WORSE, it seems as if NBC News is misreporting Zimmerman’s words in the 911 call. The NBC story linked above to the watch captain’s thoughts as well as most of the other NBC stories I can find on the story show the following text, as reportedly what Zimmerman told 911 dispatch:
Except, that is NOT AT ALL what he said! THIS is what was actually said:
ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
911 DISPATCHER: Okay, is this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?
ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.
Notice how NBC tries their best to distort Zimmerman’s quote to make him look racist, when in fact Zimmerman never mentioned the young man’s race until 911 dispatch ASKED HIM what his skin color was!!
In order to smear Zimmerman as a racist, the lowlife “journalists” at NBC have decided it’d be best to completely report lies. This is the state of the media today, folks, and it’s scary as hell. How can we trust ANYTHING these people tell us?! Insanity.
UPDATE (Trayvon Martin’s Twitter feed):
The Daily Caller has collected together all of Trayvon Martin’s tweets from his twitter feed. Not saying anyone is perfect, but this just goes to the character of Martin. It goes to the question as to whether a reasonable average person would see a person like Martin, his clothing, his tattoos, his demeanor, his attitude, does he seem likely to be the kind of person to attack someone he suspects of following him, etc. These ARE factors, though so many people want to ignore them. Like I told others, if you see someone in your neighborhood wearing a tuxedo and is clean cut, you’re probably going to trust him more than a young black male sporting tattoos, gold teeth, and a hoodie. There’s no denying that outside appearance often speaks volumes about a person- it’s the reason why we dress up to go to job interviews, and it’s the reason why managers aren’t going to offer a job to the guy who comes in in baggy jeans and chains.
Obama thinks you’re stupid. He said that John McCain would give tax cuts to the rich, but that he wouldn’t give a single dime to 100, 000 Americans.
This is a trick. The 100, 000 Americans Barack is talking about paid ZERO income taxes. You cannot give these people a tax cut, because they pay no income tax at all to begin with.
Obama claimed that McCain didn’t know anything about the average American worker. And how could he when he said that he personally thought middle class was defined as someone who makes under $5 million.
This is completely dishonest. McCain was making a joke and trying to make a point when he made the comment in question. McCain even remarked that Obama would distort this comment. Funny, not only is Obama distorting the comment, he’s actually doing it in his acceptance speech at the convention! This is the actual comment in conext:
WARREN: Everybody talks about, you know, taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point, give me a number, give me a specific number. Where do you move from middle class to rich? […]
MCCAIN: How about $5 million? No, but seriously, I don’t think you can, I don’t think seriously that the point is I’m trying to make, seriously, and I’m sure that comment will be distorted but the point is…that we want to keep people’s taxes low, and increase revenues. … So, it doesn’t matter really what my definition of rich is because I don’t want to raise anybody’s taxes. I really don’t.
Change and hope, huh? How about more of the same?
Robert Novak was diagnosed with a brain tumor. He and his family are in my prayers. Wish him all the best. Same thing for Ted Kennedy who was also recently diagnosed with a brain tumor. Hopefully they will both recover.
The good (ha) folks over at Democratic Underground (I see it as a sort of kkk-lite, all the hate without the emphasis on race) are attacking Novak, wishing him ill, claiming he’s concocting this story for sympathy. Basically, they’re just being the scum they’ve always been.
These people are evil. Truly evil. No doubt. If you think you’ve done something horrible, and you think you’ll go to Hell when you die- take a look at these heartless zombies, because you;ll almost surely be sharing a bunk with them in Hades…
Odd thing. In the US, the hate sites on the right (they’re much harder to find for the most part) are marginalized and not given any respect. On the left, however, the Kos site as one example is part of the “mainstream”. The hate-filled scumbag who runs that site got a spot at Newsweek didn’t he? There’s definitely a double standard, and frankly it’s disgusting.
How about we marginalize all the haters?
Frank Rich. The not-so-loveable nutjob liberal at the NY Times is at it again. He’s claiming a double standard on the whole Rev Wright issue…why? Well McCain was endored by Pastor John Hagee. McCain never attended Hagee’s church, he wasn’t married by Hagee, and he had no children baptised by Hagee. He never had Hagee on his campaign staff, and he’s never claim Hagee as a mentor or advisor in any capacity.
Rich tries to rebuff that argument by saying that the McCain campaign actively went out to get Hagee’s endorsement. I don’t know if that’s true, and knowing Rich’s track record with the truth and his outright hatred of anything right of far left, I have a hard time believeing it. Either way- apples and oranges, even if Rich wants to claim it’s not.
The worst part? Rich turns the Wright thing into a racial issue, claiming that white candidates are given special treatment over black candidates. He writes that if we’re to judge black preachers and the associations with black candidates, we should do the same with white candidates and preachers. Okay? There is absolutely NO comparison here.
McCain may have spent a half hour with Hagee- and he never endorsed any controversial statements. He never defended any statements made by Hagee, and he never approved of Hagee’s belief in the sense that he sat in his church for 20 years week after week with no problem. Obama, on the other hand, did ALL of these things and more. He initially defended Wright, until the political pressure became too great and he had no choice but to distance himself from the man. Even after knowing the terrible things Wright said, Obama proclaimed he could no more disown the man than he could his white grandmother or black Americans as a whole!
Rich’s arguments then turn downright insane:
There is not just a double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of the news media and political establishment, but there is also a glaring double standard for our political parties. The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks.
A near half-century after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, this is quite an achievement. Yet the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits on the right passing shrill moral judgment over every Democratic racial skirmish are almost never asked to confront or even acknowledge the racial dysfunction in their own house. In our mainstream political culture, this de facto apartheid is simply accepted as an intractable given, unworthy of notice, and just too embarrassing to mention aloud in polite Beltway company. Those who dare are instantly accused of “political correctness” or “reverse racism.”
An all-white Congressional delegation doesn’t happen by accident. It’s the legacy of race cards that have been dealt since the birth of the Southern strategy in the Nixon era. No one knows this better than Mr. McCain, whose own adopted daughter of color was the subject of a vicious smear in his party’s South Carolina primary of 2000.
The Republicans are guilty of de facto apartheid?!?! Frank, buddy, seriously? Are you off your meds again? There are no black senators? Why is this Frank? Is it GOP racism? Is it apartheid from this dastardly Republicans? Or is it maybe what Clarence Thomas once said about blacks and the Democratic party:
But I know that the vote of 9 out of 10 black Americans for the Democratic Party or for leftist kinds of policies just is not reflective of their opinions.
It’s common knowledge that blacks have become wed to the Democratic party, and often times at their peril. Is it the strategy of the GOP to keep blacks out somehow, as Rich implies…or are blacks, as Thomas seems to think- voting for Democrats because they wrongly feel that’s the party that has their interest at heart? Rich calls McCains trips to the 9th ward in New Orleans “about the self-interested politics of distancing himself from Mr. Bush than the recalibration of policy”. Funny- he doesn’t seem to think that Obama’s initial defense and subsequent attacks on his pastor of 20 years wasn’t self-interested politics. Odd, that double standard that Rich claims in this lame article.
He ends by bringing up hispanics and saying that it’s understandable that they’re not clinging to the Republican party- another fact that most surely has less to do with their self interests and more with the media climate that can often portray one side as good for a particular group and the other as a bad idea for that particular subset of the populace.
And of course- it’s all hypocrisy for Rich. Sitting in the pew for 20 years, embracing the man as your spiritual mentor, and all the rest…that’s somehow equal to McCain being endorsed by a man he probably doesn’t even know. And to top it all of- Obama has received kid glove coverage from the media thus far. After his speech on Wright the other day, many in the media proclaimed, despite his sudden flip-flop (first defending Wright then attacking him), wasn’t self-interested political gesturing, but rather a closure on the subject, a brilliant coup de grace on the part of Obama…ending the Wright matter altogether. Off limits from this point on, some demanded.
Nonsense. The issue is still there, as it should be. He still hasn’t answered as to how he supposedly never heard any of the crazy stuff from a man he spent 20 years with, or how Wright’s core values of racism and anti-Americanism somehow mysteriously went unnoticed to the Obamas for two whole decades.
Rich has an agenda to keep. Far left politics from top to bottom…common sense and logical comparisons be damned.
Senator Ted Stevens (R- Alaska) is a jerk if you ask me. This pork-loving, big spender should be in a jail cell for fleecing the American taxpayers for so many years. Not sure of all the details of the investigation, but it’s related to bribery (will read more in a bit), but it seems his home (a very large home, from the looks of it) was raided by the FBI today.
Isn’t it about time we bring back some ethics to politics? Was it ever there to begin with?
Speaking to experts on the middle east (despite the fact that Ajami kept mentioning the nation “palestine” that has never existed), Alan Colmes gasped when former PLO terrorist, Walid Shoebat, said that Abbas is a terrorist himself.
I just had to sigh at Colmes’ sheer ignorance. The leader of fatah (a TERRORIST organization- the word “terrorist” is a big hint) is called a terrorist, and somehow that shocks Alan Colmes? I guess he doesn’t consider Abbas a terrorist…in that case, you have to wonder when he hit his head and when he’ll be back in the real world with the rest of us.
The lesser of 2 evils one of the men said…the lesser of two terrorist groups we’re choosing. It’s a shame, when we could go in and route out these thugs and take control over these areas once and for all. Israel hasn’t done a very good job with all of this either- they constantly capitulate to absurd international demands in the name of this imaginary state known as “palestine” that wants to take control of the land mass that was given to the Jewish people in 1948 (before the UN, ignorantly, tore it in half and offered only part of it to the Jewish people and part of it to the arabs who already have large nations on all sides of Israel. Israel pulls settlers out- what happens? Rocket attacks from hamas and others…they give a little bit more this time and a bit more next, what do they get? Terrorist explosions killing innocent Israelis.
I’d say we’re all pretty much cowards when it comes to this issue. The world, if it would band together to fight islamic radicalism (I personally think all islam is radical, as the founder of the religion was a mass murderer- you don’t get much more radical than that!), we could go it much more effectively. Unfortunately, very few people have the will to fight this global war, and it’s unfortunate…the unwillingness to fight will eventually lead to the destruction of all of us.
Oh dear. We are all in a heap of trouble now. Is it possible the UN (bastion of hatred for the US and Israel/ waste of time and money) is even more out in left field than ever?
I was watching HDNews and the banner at the bottom said that the new UN secretary general says that global climate change is responsible for the crisis in Darfur. I have posted the link above from Free Republic (in google, it was the first result)- I will read it in a bit, but for now, let me just say I hope this isn’t the insanity I think it is.
For the record- I’m a Christian who thinks man is above all other living things. We are given a place to take care of the planet, and we should do so…that said, I find it hard to believe that suddenly the world is in peril due to our actions. If disasters can strike over billions of years- disasters that take out entire species, then what we do to the planet doesn’t even register. Unless you think man is more powerful than nature. I don’t think so- unless you can cause as much destruction on a personal level than a hurricane. I doubt you can.
The insane hype over global warming (which we can all agree is real- the reason it’s warming, or if it’s warming that much, or if it’s out of the ordinary can be debated…and it is, by people across the globe) is over the top. You’d think we only have a few years left before the planet melts down and we all die a sudden painful death as it all goes down in flames around us. The constant hysteria, I think, makes most people ignore the issue to some extent. When anyone goes insane over an issue, it’s almost a guarantee that they’re either wrong, halfway wrong, or overstating their case by a factor of 10 million.
Blogged with Flock
MORE: Ugh. I see the new secretary general is no more of a bright bulb than the old! Somehow this guy is saying that because there was less rainfall in a certain time range, that is was clearly global warming and clearly caused by man (how he gets this is anyones’ guess!)…and when there was more water for the farmers for their land, they shared it and things were all peace and love. He neglects the main component to the issue- the muslim connection! Global warming is the cause. It has nothing to do with religion. End of story because the UN says so. I guess we shan’t expect any changes in the UN anytime soon. Still a hopeless, helpless, disaster for the world.
You don’t get much clearer evidnece than this.
Amnesty International has a poll on their website. Here’s the text from their website:
Who’s got the worst human rights record?
Worst Human Rights Record
Vote for Darth Vader
Torture, enslavement of Wookiees, decimation of the Alderaanian civilization.
Vote for Hobgoblin
Attacks on Spiderman, gassing civilian populations, using innocents as human shields.
Vote for Dick Cheney
Torture, black sites, “disappearances,” kangaroo courts, indefinite detention, and more!
Sickening. This is all the proof you need of their insanity. Read their 2007 report to get more of the insanity. Yes- they have a backwards view of the world, and it’s downright frightening, but is anyone surprised by now? This is par for the course for this group.
Amnesty International hates the United States. The group also hates Israel. How else do you explain the obsession with attacking these two countries, trying to bolster the bogus claim that the US and Israel are the world’s biggest troublemakers somehow…that we’re somehow evil or close to evil…that Israel is somehow the bad guy in the issue with terrorist-loving “palestinians.”
Too bad people across the world take this group seriously. Too much of the world has the same backwards view of the world. Somehow seemingly sane people can opine that the US is somehow part of an axis of evil. Opinions from a world full of backwards fools. That’s all we need in this global age of muslim terrorism.
The left in this country is filled with hatred. Liberals, who claim to be compassionate people who love the poor, the downtrodden, the sick, the elderly, and on and on…they’re full of hate.
Proof? Check DailyKos for the sick and twisted comments attacking Jerry Falwell, who died today. These people are out of their minds insane.
More proof? Air America radio host, Rachel Maddox, when talking about Falwell said ‘he’s dead, dead, dead as a doornail, dead.’ She also said ‘welcome to day 1 post-Falwell.’ Why make these statements? Why gleeful over someones death? Do you people have no soul?
I’m sure Maddox is currently making even worse statements- I had to turn it off, because it was just sickening. If you think homosexuality is a sin and immoral- you’re evil in Maddox’s eyes. Makes absolutely no sense, as that means most Americans would be considered evil!
The left is showing its true colors today…just take a quick look around many liberal blogs, and you’ll see their hatred on full display.
UPDATE: Amanda Marcotte, the hate-filled woman who ever-clueless John Edwards hired for his blog, has a post titled “The gates of hell swing open and Satan welcomes his beloved son”
In the comments, someone makes the good point that if Jimmy Carter died, she doesn’t think conservatives would act like this, because conservatives have more class (historically true)…Marcotte’s response?
May 15th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Nice thing about being a non-believer, Tib, is it springs you from having to be idiotically literal.
That, of course, won’t happen; conservatives simply have more class.
Tell that to the over 600,000 Iraqis we’ve managed to kill. But with class.
Shocker? Only to fools like John Edwards. I do love the bogus 600, 000 number that has been refuted time and time again. Liberals, I guess, love to parrot bogus numbers. That and the fact that she’s implying US soldiers murdered these people somehow…no mention of the 1million+ people Saddam was responsible for killing…I guess it doesn’t matter when a brutal dictator kills people. Better let the people suffer under that brutal dictator. Finally- her comments makes little sense as an attack on conservatives, considering most democrats ALSO voted in support of the war that she claims has killed “600, 000″ people.
PDATE: Why did CNN have the hateful Christopher Hitchens on to attack Falwell on the night the poor guy died?
Media Research Centers covers Hitchen’s idiotic rants about Falwell on Anderson Cooper’s show.
If there’s one thing that’s quite obvious about Hitchens- he is one of the most miserable people on this planet. I wonder if he’s married and if his wife has ever tried to take her life. I say that only half kidding- can you imagine being around someone that is so angry and so filled with hate all day long? Heck- you need only look at the picture of him from the show to see he’s completely miserable and hates everyone and everything. Just because you think you’re a cosmic accident with no purpose but to waste oxygen for your DNA, that’s no reason to look so angry all the time.
I previously wrote about the case of Victor Harris, a man in Georgia who fleed police after police tried to pull him over. One officer used a PIT move to disable his car…Harris’ car left the road due to this and crashed into a ditch. Harris was paralyzed in the process.
Harris sued Officer Tim Scott for damages, claiming Scott violated his 4th Amendment right protecting him against unreasonable searches and seizures. Today SCOTUS ruled 8-1 that police cannot be sued if someone is involved in an accident like this. Police don’t have to stop a chase even if there’s a chance someone could get hurt. I haven’t read the ruling, and I probably won’t, as the legal jargon probably won’t make much sense, but it’s being reported by various news agencies. I heard the story just now on Fox News.
Glad to hear that the justices used common sense in this case. Or so it seems. It’s just completely unreasonable, in my view, to force police into corners- making it impossible for them to stop fleeing suspects, due to fear that they might get sued if the suspect gets hurt. Harris got what he deserves. No one will convince me he doesn’t deserve to be in a wheel chair, because he does. We all must deal with the results of our actions…and Harris selfishly put lives in risk. The result from his own choices was a wheelchair. Good for Officer Scott as well. He was being threatened with a major financial blow from this lawsuit possibly going forward. As far as I can tell from what’s been reported and testified to- he did absolutely nothing wrong, and he shouldn’t have to pay any price for simply doing his job to protect the people in Georgia.
Now if someone can tell me why on earth Justice John Paul Stevens was thinking as the lone dissenter.