Goodbye Barry - Welcome Home AMERICA!

Thursday, July 18, 2013


But... here's number three (in-a-row). I don't consider myself a racist, but I do consider myself to be informed. I've been following a website called World Net Daily ( for several years now, because they seem to keep us aware of subjects which the mainstream media apparently wants the general public to remain ignorant. Of course for the last 15 months, the BIG continuing news story has been the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

For those of you who may have been off the planet during that time, here's the story in a nutshell -
Martin, a 17 year old black youth, was walking back from a store inside a gated community in Sanford, Florida. The gated community utilizes the "Neighborhood Watch" style of security, as opposed to the services of a professional security company.

A member of the NW, a man named George Zimmerman, was driving around the area when he spotted Martin walking through the community, up close to the houses. Martin was not known to Zimmerman as a resident thereof, so he observed Martin's progress into the community, and called 911 (there had been 8 burglaries there in the preceding 14 months, and Zimmerman thought that Martin's proximity to the houses was "suspicious"). After speaking with a police dispatcher, Zimmerman thought it prudent to exit his vehicle and follow Martin on foot, even though the dispatcher had said, "We don't need you to do that."(Understand that a dispatcher is not a sworn police officer, and  as such has no authority to do anything but advise, suggest, and recommend to people calling in.)

At some point during the "following", there was a physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin, during which Martin was shot and killed. Zimmerman claimed self-defense, the state had weak-to-no facts to support their prosecution for murder or even manslaughter, and he was declared not guilty by "a jury of his peers". Significant portions of the black American community from coast-to-coast and border-to-border were upset by the verdict, and their emotions ran from disappointed to violent, law-breaking outrage (from acts of vandalism, to assaulting "white people", to invading and pillaging a WalMart in Oakland CA). The feeling seemed to be that a black man still can't get "justice" in the southern United States.

Now, back to the subject of  "racial tensions", and how figures into that subject. Recently I have noticed that WND has -  almost daily - reported articles on "The Knockout Game" (where roving gangs of blacks assault random whites for no reason and beat them senseless), other forms of black-on-white violence, black mobs taking over shopping malls, etc. This raised the question in my mind, "Is WND simply reporting that which the mainstream media chooses not to release to the public, or are they actually promoting and surreptitiously supporting and encouraging racial tensions?" The fact that it even raised that question for me, is an indication that WND seems to have an agenda - the problem is determining exactly what that "agenda" is. Is it accurate and honest reportage, or attempting to incite racial separation?

We know that the mainstream media either glosses over - or totally ignores - stories that have a racial undercurrent, using phrases like "Eight Youths Attack Elderly Woman" while ignoring racial identification of the either party. This is (ostensibly) designed to minimize the identification of non-whites and whites, as perpetrator or victim in an attempt to smooth over whatever existing rift may exist between the races. On one hand, that's admirable... but, on the other hand, it is not informing people that one race may have valid reasons for distrusting those of a different race. Regardless of their reasoning, I see such reporting as inarguable media bias. Manipulating the news in order to support a political viewpoint is biased reporting.

The Zimmerman-Martin case is an excellent example of what happens when the people involved are identified by race. A (white) Hispanic man kills a black teenager, is tried in and declared guilty by the media, but found not guilty by the court, and there is rioting. A black man (or group of blacks) kills a white person, and - unless that white person is a member of Congress or among the super rich - it goes on page 8 of the Podunk Times, and is never even considered for national media coverage. Why is this? Could it be because black-on-white crime is so commonplace that it isn't considered newsworthy, or is it someone's idea of supporting improved race relations... by simultaneously violating the people's right to know?

I'd like to get comments from whoever visits this blog regarding their personal take on this situation. Go the the WND website ( ), once or twice a day for several days and follow their race-based reporting, then let me know how you interpret their "style". Do they seem to be even slightly racist... or is it just that they are willing to maintain a higher degree of honesty in their reporting? Somebody please let me know their thoughts, so that perhaps I can consider adjusting my own one way or the other.

Friday, July 12, 2013

Time Magazine Says "It's Racist For Cops to Prepare For Riots After Zimmerman Verdict"

For the benefit of those of you who have been off the planet for the last year or so, the "Zimmerman" is George Zimmerman (a "white-hispanc"), who is being (feebly) prosecuted for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin (a black teen). There have been rumblings - from somewhere - that if Zimmerman is not convicted there will be racial unrest in Sanford, Florida - if not the entire universe.

Although their decision to prepare IS "race-based" it IS NOT "racist". Black Americans have a long history of "playing the race card" based upon their "victim" status. In the past - prior to 1960 - some of it was fully-justified. That deck of "race cards" has long-since been exhausted.

However, preparations in and around Sanford, Florida to quell rioting is not solely race-based - it is also based upon the historically documented reactions of black Americans to any action taken against any member of the "black community". In their eyes, blacks can do no wrong. If they DO commit a crime it is "whitey's fault" for having something they wanted. If Trayvon Martin had killed George Zimmerman, there would be a black mob outside the court, demanding Trayvon's release. He would have been justified in killing Z for having the audacity to question his presence in a gated community of which he was not a resident. What a racist thing for Z to do!

OJ Simpson murdered two people in cold blood, but he was not found INNOCENT. He was found "not guilty". Why? Because LA did not want an re-enactment of the Rodney King incident, or the LA riots of the mid-1960s, it was a political decision rather than a legal one. Black Americans (especially when a high-profile case is being tried in a large metropolitan area) are - perhaps naturally - inclined to side with the black person - whether victim or perpetrator. That inclination may also be based upon the history of blacks with our system of justice, inasmuch as they were not always fairly tried - especially in our southern states.

Regardless of the reasons, black Americans have a HISTORY of violent reactions when things don't go their way. It would be foolish for law enforcement to ignore that fact. It is that history which necessitates the expectation of - and preparations for - race-based violence, if Z IS NOT convicted. Such preparations are based upon history. If the Chinese, Mexican, Arab or Caucasians had such a history, there would be the VARY SAME preparations being made! Are the people at Time Magazine too stupid to understand that? Do they not see the potential for their remarks to FUEL such an incident... or is that their PLAN? Violence in the streets makes GREAT news, and sells lots of magazines!

The good news? I'm not certain that there is any - other than the fact that Sanford FL is NOT a "large metropolitan area", and unless agitators come from outside the community, the chances of rioting by the black population fail to appear realistic to me. Most blacks are as law-abiding as any other racial group - but THEY aren't the one's that get the national publicity! THEY aren't the one's getting arrested and filling our prisons! THEY also aren't the one's that will get involved in a riot of any kind... unless the facts surrounding the riot are "beyond a shadow of a doubt"! That's my 2¢ worth.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Racism - Preserved And Fed By Government And Media For Political Profit!

The "legal" separation of the races that compose the USA, technically ended in 1968. Unfortunately, some folks couldn't reject a concept that their daddies, and their daddies daddies (etc, etc), had held onto as the single social indicator that they themselves were not on the bottom rung of the ladder of success. That personal philosophy justified individual racism... int their minds. However, without "racism" - real or imagined - the minorities in our country would no longer be able to complain about their role as "victim". There has been social discrimination since the beginning of the human race, and it will continue to exist through at least a couple of more generations. It is the humanized version of the old saw - "birds of a feather...". There are weak personalities (and minds), black, white, brown, etc., that cannot let go of their personal prejudices, whether they have any basis in reality or not.

The evil and dreaded "N" word is no longer PC... but NOTHING has been said about the derisive terms "honky, whitey, ofay, cracker, etc." Apparently, racism is a single-edged sword that only cuts one way, and MUST be wielded only by the Caucasians of our country. The Black Panthers and the "Nation of Islam" LOVE whitey... don't they? (<-- p="" sarcasm="">
Blacks are not genetically designed in such a way that they are prejudice free, but they have overworked the "racial victim" role, and they have done so with the full support of our government. OPEN-ENDED WELFARE is our government's design to keep blacks (and "po' white trash") dependent upon the government. If the government can keep people dependent upon them for supplying their basic (and MANY more-than-basic) needs, then the recipients will sacrifice their freedoms to maintain the continuous flow of those freebies. Welfare does NOT give the recipient a "hand up"... it is a foot on the back of the recipients neck - a tool of oppression and compliance. We have 5th and 6th generation welfare families in this country - they have turned welfare into THE FAMILY BUSINESS! Welfare should only be a "bridge" between dependence and independence, between consumption and productivity, and between indolence and industriousness.

I was raised with a work ethic - which, simply stated was, "If you don't work, you don't eat!" I still recall the lesson of Aesop's fable, "The Grasshopper and the Ant", and today Americans are almost 50% GRASSHOPPERS, and unemployment grows daily. What will happen when there are more people living off the labors of others than there are people actively laboring? There are only so many Congressional Seats (seats of PRIVILEGE, who vote their own raises, and can exempt themselves from any law that is deemed detrimental to them - like Obamacare).

My attitude is that "What's fair for one, should be fair for ALL". My attitude DOES NOT entitle our elected officials to vote on their own pay raises, or to exclude themselves from any law that applies to the public at large. Pay raises and benefit packages should be by public referendum, and the laws that effect one MUST have the same effect upon ALL! That's my worth...

Monday, July 1, 2013

THIRD PARTY POLITICS - is it finally TIME? The Government Serves the People...

Some people see the citizen-government relationship as it SHOULD BE (the government is the servant of the people) not as it really is (the government is the servant of big business and big money). And, if the Demoncrap socialists are successful in the 2014 Senatorial mid-terms, and succeed once again in 2016, we are totally effed. We need a conservative voter uprising! No Black Panthers with clubs at the polling places. Politically-balanced voting machine certification, politically balanced vote counters, and NO SEIU INVOLVEMENT, NO UNION POLL WATCHERS, and NO DEAD, COMIC BOOK/CARTOON CHARACTERS, or NON-CITIZEN voters casting ballots.

A VIABLE Third Party is the only way to give voters a real choice, since Demoncraps and Republicants are no longer opposite sides of the same coin - they are both on the edge of the political coin. There has been no distinguishable difference between their platforms in almost three decades. Yet, in order to be viable, a 3P candidate must have a NATIONALLY RECOGNIZABLE name (in a positive sense). There are only a handful who meet that standard. Allen West and Sarah Palin are two names that immediately come to mind, with Utah Senator Mike Lee coming in at a close third. (Senator Lee has shown the courage to vociferously - and publicly - speak out against several of Obama's UN-American - engineered for the continued failure of our country - schemes.)

There will be many who refuse to give up their "straight party ticket", and vote as they have done all their adult lives, without regard for what is best for the continued survival and successful growth of our nation. There will still be the "What's in it for me?" voter, the single-issue voter, and the low-to-no-information (politically unconscious) voter swayed by "pie-in-the-sky" promises. These conditions will be difficult to overcome, and I'm not sure We the People are quite ready for a Third Party... but we damn-well SHOULD BE!