John McCain the “Kumbaya” Senator


Jon McCain, the voice of deteriorating American values from Arizona, apparently agrees with President Obama that self defense (stand your ground) is far too ‘rude’ of a tactic, especially when used in a racially charged situation.

Before “stand your ground” the law basically required that you run away from trouble; you had a legal “duty to retreat” unless you had no way to avoid the confrontation. The exception to that was the “Castle Doctrine” that provided that everyone has the right to defend their person and property, including the reasonable use of deadly force, in their own home.

In states where Stand Your Ground Laws are in effect, everyone now has the legal right to use “reasonable’ force to defend themselves and they are not required to evade or retreat from dangerous situations. This law has nothing to do with guns, except the obvious; if you are carrying a weapon you must be in legal possession of the gun and in a place where you are legally allowed to have it in your possession and not committing a crime.

It is also very important to note and remember that, while Florida does have a stand your ground law, it was never used as a legal defense of George Zimmerman’s actions — it did not apply since Zimmerman was attacked and pinned to the ground and could not retreat even if he had wanted to. Also note that race was not a factor in the trial; in that situation the race of the combatants did not matter. Zimmerman’s initial call to the police did not mention the race of the suspect — it’s doubtful, considering the time of day, the poor visibility in the rain and the fact that Trayvon had his hood up that Zimmerman knew Trayvon was black. The race hustlers however, want you to believe that the only reason Trayvon is dead is because he is black. Of course these are the same people who insist that Trayvon was the innocent party; their only “proof” of that is that he’s black and Zimmerman is not!

Even though the Stand Your Ground law was not a bone of contention during the trial, that law is still part of Florida law and the Zimmerman jury found, in the words of the law, that a person in Zimmerman’s situation on that rainy February night has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.”

Rather that agreeing with the liars and race hustlers, John McCain should be confronting them, starting with President Obama, who has, time after time, disgracefully, put himself forward as a “black” president rather than an American president. McCain needs to point out to them and to every American that “stand your ground” was a basic American value in EVERY community in America long before it was codified in some states. Generally, American’s not backing down in the face of danger has been an American principle since before George Washington was made president.

One regrets whatever happened to John McCain to make him a compromiser rather than a man with principles that will not be compromised. It’s not too much of a surprise however; John McCain, like many other Legislators, are reluctant to confront the Al Sharptons’, Jessie Jacksons’ and the other race hustlers. They are afraid to be called a racist for standing up for principles rather than playing their race games. The result is, they are compromising commonsense principles for votes. Sticks, stones and thugs like Trayvon Martin may brake your bones guys (and girls) but the name racist, coming from professional racists like Sharpton, Jackson and the NAACP will never hurt you.

I’ll never criticize an individual for choosing to avoid violent confrontations and the pain that may come with them but I certainly can’t agree with the “duty to retreat” laws that, if Stand Your Ground was not there, would make it a criminal offense to use necessary force if you choose to defend yourself rather that “retreat.”


NBC Politics: McCain joins Obama in calling for review of ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws

CNN Opinion: How ‘duty to retreat’ became ‘stand your ground’

Wikipedia: Stand-your-ground law

Race Hustlers Unite!


Today, one week after the end of the Zimmerman trial, in almost every major city, the race hustlers of the NAACP, Urban League and other organizations will rally to keep their lies alive. The lies: that the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin altercation last year was a case of racial profiling and that Trayvon is dead only because he was black will be trotted out as facts by the most erudite racists in the country. After all, if the lies die, many of the race baitors are left with the sad facts that George Zimmerman had a right to suspect that Trayvon Martin was ‘up to no good’ on that rainy, February night and that Trayvon died because he acted stupidly: attacking a man with a gun — a man who had every right to defend himself.

Today’s rallys are the brainchild of one of the country’s premier race hustlers, Rev. Al Sharpton. It seems that Rev. Sharpton’s only purpose in life for the past many years has been stirring up racial discontent by perpetuating the myth that every non-black who has the audacity to defend him of herself against a black person only does that because he or she is a black-hating racist.

Apparently Rev. Sharpton believes what he is ‘preaching’ and he is obviously very convincing to the many thousands of people who have the need to feel that they are victims or potential victims of “hate crimes.”

Victimhood is the tool the NAACP and the Race Hustlers use to keep the black community under control. The following excerpts from a study published by the Gatestone Institute titled The Politics of Race: “Perpetual Victimhood” exposes this tool for what it is and provides facts that bust the race hustler’s myths:

“African Americans are urgently in need of helpful solutions rather than having their leaders exploiting their plight for votes. So to keep the black vote, the party [Democrat] and its supporters use racism as a tool to portray Republicans and other opponents of Democrats, such as the tea-party movement, as racists. This is not what the civil rights movement was about.”

“Al Sharpton et al ignore a tragic reality among African Americans who are in urgent need of helpful solutions rather than having their leaders exploiting their plight for American votes. This reality was revealed in a 2007 special report by the Bureau of Justice statistics. It showed that between eight and nine thousand African Americans are murdered every year in America — and not by whites and not due to racism. 93% of these murders were perpetrated by other African Americans.”

Racism has become a Western populist conflagration, propelled by the political left. An article, “Why the Left Needs Racism”, published in the Wall Street Journal, points out that although the political left claims to love racial diversity, it is really a disingenuous cover to play politics. According to statistics, blacks, since 1964, have overwhelmingly voted Democratic. In 2008, when Obama won the presidency, thanks to the black vote, the voter endorsement for Democrats showed the best presidential year since 1964; so to keep the black vote, the party and its supporters use racism as a tool to portray Republicans and opponents of Democrats, such as the tea-party movement, as racists.

The unemotional facts show that Trayvon Martin acted like a thug on that rainy night and the calls for “Justice for Trayvon” are unnecessary because Trayvon received the ‘color-blind’ justice that every thug, regardless of race, deserves.

The Zimmerman Case


NAACP Race Card
Q: Why was this case “Racially Charged”?

A: Five Letters: NAACP

There were two problems in Seminole County Florida: First, the district attorney who was worried more about publicity than justice and secondly, the DA was more concerned about appeasing the NAACP and the black community than about proper practice of the law. I can think of no other reason for the DA to bring 2nd degree murder charges in a case where they seem to be, according to published interviews with dozens of legal experts, totally inappropriate.

The legal experts, according to a jury, were apparently correct.

That second problem, appeasing the NAACP as a tactic to either score political “points” with them or because of the fear of ‘increased racial tension’ (code phrase for fear of race riots) seems to me to be a much more serious problem than a DA misjudging the evidence. We’ve seen it over and over again: where the legal system is held hostage to a political agenda; and that is especially serious when the agenda in question belongs to an organization that acts as if the only criterion for right and wrong is the color of your skin. That’s what I call a racist organization. Appearances matter and racist is exactly what the NAACP appears to be.

If the DA’s office had been doing it’s job instead of reacting to the guilt trip that Liberals and the NAACP are so adept at laying on government officials, George Zimmerman would probably be in jail today, after being found guilty of the ‘appropriate degree’ of manslaughter.

Zimmerman DID act inappropriately and those actions DID contribute to the death of Travon Martin and he WAS carrying a firearm while doing it. That’s a textbook case of manslaughter.

Had the DA’s office done it’s job, these headlines that appeared on the day following the verdict would not have been necessary:

“Outraged NAACP Wants Feds to Prosecute George Zimmerman.

“The NAACP was “outraged” over the not-guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial and called on the Department of Justice to pursue Civil Rights charges.”

“NAACP Is ‘Outraged And Heartbroken,’ And Will Pursue ‘Civil Rights charges.” (“Heartbroken?” Really?)

“Civil rights leaders seek new charges against Zimmerman.”

“NAACP president: We want a civil rights case!”

I guess it’s easy to understand the ‘rage’ generated by this case in the black community and the outrage as a result of the “innocent of all charges” verdict. It should NOT, however, be easy to understand! Organizations like the NAACP should have been working in the black community to enforce the fact that they are not African-Americans as much as they are just Americans. Americans like their white and brown counterparts; Americans who are many ugly years removed from the days when blacks were underprivileged by design and discriminated against by law. But instead the NAACP stirs up discntent and liberally uses it’s primary weapon: fear!

The Zimmerman case is over, it will NOT go on to a Federal court — not after the FBI publicly exonerated George Zimmerman of any racial motives or past behaviors; but that will not stop the race-baters on the Left until they either get at least one bloody race riot out of this case or get George Zimmerman killed by an angry mob.

I am here to say that I am also a hater! I hate racists; the white ones, the black ones and the brown ones. I hate the fact that there is an UNJUST Federal “Hate crimes” law which was created and passed into law just to appease minorities and soothe the consciences of white Liberals. This is a nation of laws, not an Orwellian society wher “improper” thoughts should land you in jail.

George Zimmerman might be an intelligent man (I don’t know) but he acted stupidly and recklessly on that rainy February night last year when he saw a kid in a “hoodie” walking not on the sidewalk but behind the homes. He was right to be suspicious but the job of the Community Watch is to report and not confront or threaten. The 911 operator reminded him of that, but he ignored it and apparently got into Travon’s comfort zone. Travon Martin may have been a brilliant student and a wonderful person (I don’t know) but he acted just as stupidly by getting into a physical confrontation with this “weird guy” who he knew was armed and following him. Two wrongs, we all know, never make a right; nor can two competing rash, thoughtless actions bring about anything but a bad ending.


Wikipedia: The Trial of George Zimmerman (a good wrap-up of the facts): All Da King’s Men

The Social Conservative Mindset


Arthur Brooks[Author’s Note: This is my 350th post on this blog — a milestone of sorts — and the topic of this 350th post is appropriate because it touches on and delivers thoughts that were important enough to me to set the tone for many (perhaps most) of those posts.]

Early Tuesday evening I had a chance to tune in briefly to the Michael MedVed (spelled with a V as in Victory, as he loves to say) Show on Dallas radio station 660 AM.

Let me say right off that Michael Medved, along with Dennis Praeger, Mark Davis and J.D. Wells, are my favorite talk show hosts because ‘most of the time’ they present logical, reasoned, intelligent arguments for (or against) the policies or propositions that are topics on the show. I stress “most of the time” because there are certain topics that cause the three of them to get off track — into their Social Conservative mode — and when they, you or I are in Social Conservative mode logic and rational thought go out the window in favor of religiosity (they call it “morality)”. In this mode they are not only supporting THEIR religious beliefs (which they should always do) but they are are implying and often mandating that other views are wrong or “un-American” or “morally bankrupt”; they go into an “I’m right because my religious training taught me that I’m right and therefore those who don’t agree with me are wrong” mode.

I can certainly understand that, I kinda feel the same way on most issues but what separates us is the fact that they are arguing for THEIR religious principles above everyone else’s principles/beliefs while I argue for freedom from other people’s religious principles. To me religion is a PERSONAL belief system that guides our PERSONAL actions and it is not something to be used as an ‘iron debate gavel’ against those who have different but still logical and rational principles.

I often refer to myself as a Libertarian because I share the Libertarian’s core belief in the principle that free people should be able to do whatever they feel like doing . . . as long as no laws are broken and one is injured (physically or economically) by their actions. Most Libertarians actually BELIEVE that this is a free country.

Is there any possible way for Social Conservatism to allow free people to ACT like free people? Some say yes!

A “must read” article at Wikipedia titled “Libertarian Conservatism”, explains that:

“Libertarian conservatism,” also known as conservative libertarianism, includes political ideologies that meld libertarian politics and conservative values. Libertarian conservatives’ first value, like libertarians, is liberty but they would use negative liberty — freedom from interference by other people, to achieve socially and culturally conservative ends.”

It is an interesting proposition but the underlying naivety makes a possible compromise unrealistic. Libertarianism is, by it’s very nature “flexible”, at least up to a point, and religion is, by it’s nature inflexible. That, if my analysis is correct, does not sound like a recipe for compromise.

Back to today’s Michael Medved show, where I began: One of today’s guests was Arthur C. Brooks, author, professor and current president of the American Enterprise Institute. Michael Medved began the core dialog by posing the question ‘how can we get the opposition to agree with us that gay marriage is a bad thing?’ That was not exactly how the question was presented but that is basically what Mr. Medved asked Mr. Brooks.

There are so many major problems and items of political disagreement in the United States and the American Enterprise Institute has such a wide range of expertise, the choice of this question gives you a good perspective into the mind of Michael Medved. The problem is, like most Social Conservatives, he cannot really separate what is important to the People of the United States and to the United States itself from what is important to the cause of Social Conservatism.

I’m sure Mr. Medved would argue that without Social Conservatism to keep all of America “on the same moral page” the country would collapse. Think about that, I have and forcefully disagree. When Social Conservatism becomes law (as the Social Conservatives are striving to make happen) and not just a political/religious position among hundreds of others, we will have returned to the theocracy and the iron fist that our forefathers risked their lives to escape.

The answer that Mr. Brooks gave to the ‘gay marriage’ question indicates a typically inflexible mindset (he is also a Social Conservative and an opponent of gay marriage). He could have pointed out that the institution of marriage itself is not a blessing but a ‘burden’ on the married (or to-be married) couple. Marriage partners (whatever their gender) need to make significant lifestyle changes, they need to take the trouble to actually understand the wants and needs of their partner, they need to “bend”, they need to BELIEVE that they can trust their partner, they need to give up the notion that they still ‘pilot their own ship,” and they need to understand that entering into a marriage is entering into a legal contract. But instead of taking that tact, he simply, boldly (and unthinkingly) stated that gay marriage hurts the children.

I’ve heard that before and I wish someone could come up with a rational argument to support that position. Does gay marriage have ANY effect on the children of a married couple or a single parent? NO! Of course not! If a same sex couple decides to adopt a child that is otherwise unwanted, isn’t that a very good thing for the child; giving him or her a stable, loving home environment? Any harm to the child of a gay couple will be caused by Social Conservatives, bigots and homophobes. Responsible, mature parents (straight or gay) will be able to help a child understand that there is evil in the world and a lot of that evil is a result of the actions of unthinking people who hate because they they are afraid and because they don’t understand how anyone could be or think differently than they do. And, the most evil thing is, they pass that hate and blissful ignorance along to their children.