Tag Archive for political-correctness

The tragic human cost of political correctness.

Terrorism and political correctness

Terrorism and political correctness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A friend recently sent me this link to a Fox News article with an example of how the media is blurring out images in its reporting of the terrorist attacks in Paris this week.

To avoid offending Muslims!

13 people (or perhaps more by now) dead from Islamist terrorists and the liberals are worried about offending the religion that spawned these murderers.

Disgusting, spineless and immoral.

The deaths of these innocent victims, civilian and police, along with those in recent incidents in Australia, the UK and here in Canada can be directly blamed on successive liberal governments too afraid to institute responsible immigration policies or to enforce compliance with local laws and customs.

Appeasement has never worked.

Equally guilty are those in government and the media that conspired to disarm the law-abiding population and severely punish those that do use their legally owned weapons for protection of themselves, their families or their property.

The final nail in the coffin of freedom is the condemnation of anyone who dares to criticise anyone else who is of a different race, religion or sexual orientation from the established majority.

It is no longer acceptable to be a politically and socially conservative white, Christian or Jewish, heterosexual male or female speaking one of the main-stream European Languages. Conservatives of other races are often even more unacceptable.

The liberal lunatic fringe has hijacked social media to elevate mob-rule and character assassination by “virtual lynching” to an art form.

What happened to the policy of “live and let live”?

Your views on gun ownership might be different to mine and I accept that there are many nut cases who should never be allowed to possess guns. However this attack, the one in Sydney recently, the two in Canada  on military personnel both on and off duty and many of the mass shootings in schools and shopping centres in the US happened partly because the terrorists (and maniacs with a grudge at the schools), knew the victims would be unarmed.

It is one of the shameful consequences of disarming the law-abiding population in Australia, Canada and Europe and restricting the carrying of weapons in schools and cinemas in the USA.

I accept that handguns are not a good match for AK47s, and there may well have been some casualties in these incidents. But I am convinced they would have been far fewer had there been competent gun owners around to provide a defence.

Contrast these incidents with the experience of our terrorist wars in Rhodesia & South Africa when much higher numbers of terrorists did not break into homes and offices to kill the occupants because they knew that most of the people carried guns, knew how to use them effectively and were determined to use them to save lives, protect property and support the police in upholding the law.

The terrorists did cause casualties with bombs and landmines and by attacking the defenceless tribal population. One could argue that they were neither as rabidly brainwashed nor determined as Islamist fanatics or deranged students, but an armed and aware population was a huge deterrent.

The fact that I had guns and would use them, saved my life on more than one occasion without having to fire them.

My 65-year-old father was able to save his and my mother’s life when they were ambushed by 9 terrorists with AK47s because he had a gun and returned fire.

There was a report of an attempted armed robbery at a jewellery store on our local television news last night. It was foiled when an armed guard shot the robber in the leg, leading to his arrest.

The reporter was shocked that a security guard at a jewellery store had been armed. No congratulations that by his action he may have saved the lives of the staff, prevented a robbery and taken an armed criminal off the street.

A police spokesman was quoted as saying that the shooting would be investigated and that the guard may be charged with a firearms offence!

The mind boggles at that sort of attitude, is it any wonder that these terrorists and other nut cases think they can get away with their murderous acts.

Western culture, its Christian and secular values are under attack. We are allowing the enemy to use the advantages of our societies to launch their attacks. We are allowing the liberal fringe to protect the bad guys while emasculating the law-abiding population through political correctness and handicapping  them by taking their guns away.

If our voters and leaders do not wake up soon, we will follow the Roman Empire into oblivion.

An Argument For Guns

Guns stop beheadings

Guns stop beheadings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last week an Islamist terrorist beheaded a woman at a food products factory in Oklahoma. He attempted to behead a second woman but was stopped when he was shot by the owner of the factory.

The liberal media and authorities are falling over themselves to portray the incident as a case of “workplace violence”. Given that the murderer was a recent convert to Islam and chose the ISIS terrorist group’s method of choice for the execution, that is a hugely implausible attempt at political correctness. Absolute nonsense, but that is a separate debate.

It’s just one more example of how guns in the hands of good guys save lives.

On another continent, guns saved my parents’ lives in a terrorist ambush. The knowledge that I had guns and would use them prevented our farm-house being overrun and my wife and I being severely assaulted or murdered in the Zimbabwe farm invasions.

If that beheading incident had taken place in Canada, the second victim would have had no chance. Gun laws here would have prevented the owner carrying a weapon or having one close to hand in a workplace.

In the unlikely event that the owner did manage to get his gun out of a locked gun safe, remove the trigger lock, get ammunition from a separate secure place and load the magazine in time to shoot the murderer, he would almost certainly have been charged with a number of firearm offences.

The West’s tolerance of demands for special treatment by immigrant minorities and tolerance of their disregard for local customs and laws is going to have serious consequences. I hope I am wrong, but I fear more incidents like the Oklahoma beheading.

Canada’s gun laws have left law-abiding citizens emasculated, unable to defend themselves and exposed to persecution by big government should they attempt to exert the most basic human rights of all. The right to life and to protect one’s family.

 

peter-wright

Donald Stirling strikes a blow for common sense.

Last Laugh

Last Laugh

Media reports indicate that Donald Stirling has sold the LA Clippers for $2 billion – way above the $700 million bandied about when the NBA launched the crusade against him.

Now it appears that he is suing the organisation for $2 billion.

It might be unlikely that he will get anything like that amount, it doesn’t matter. Winning the case will be a huge blow for common sense and a clear victory over political correctness and the tyranny of the intolerant left.

It will also be a sharp reminder to pompous sports administrators that they do not get to play God and that private conversations are just that – private.

It is a sad day when we have to fear expressing our own opinions in our own homes.

Donald Stirling might still have the last laugh in this ridiculous saga.

Is this a sign that the pendulum is reaching the end of its swing towards intolerance of mainstream values, away from common sense and respect for individual rights?

For the future of Western society, let’s hope so.

peter-wright

Why # won’t free Nigerian schoolgirls

 hashtag

 

Creative Commons License Dan Moyle via Compfight

A month ago, 300 schoolgirls were abducted by Islamic terrorists in Northern Nigeria. Their school was destroyed

The Nigerian government made almost no effort to find and release them.

For three weeks there was little reaction from world leaders, few comments in traditional or social media. A deafening silence from feminist groups and all those crusaders for “equal rights” who attack opponents of politically correct causes – same-sex marriage, for example, with such fervour.

More girls were abducted, some escaped and returned home. More attacks from Bakar Haram.

Videos of the girls, now in Islamic dress, were recorded with demands for captured terrorists to be freed in exchange for the girls release.

Angry and frustrated at the lack of response by the Nigerian government, families of the captured girls start protesting and demanding action.

Information released by external organisations suggests that the Nigerian government had been warned of an imminent attack on the school.

It is alleged that the warning was taken so seriously by some teachers that their own children were removed from the school.

Almost a month after the abduction, the outside world woke up and took action.

What did it do? Several nations sent token forces of “advisors” to help the Nigerian forces. Surveillance planes have been offered.

A new secret weapon was announced by the First Lady of the USA.

The hashtag.

Now we see the leaders of the former super powers and other countries, agonising over the fate of the schoolgirls.

What a pathetic spectacle.

I have great sympathy for the abducted girls and their families, but hashtag bearing First Ladies, tweets, placards and pontificating presidents are not going to get the girls back.

Only resolute action can do that.

 

That means capable, determined men on the ground with the skill and will to hunt the terrorists down and shoot them.

But there is no one to do it.

The Nigerian government has proved itself incapable of stopping Bakar Haram.

Western governments have no stomach for armed conflict in Africa.

Neighbouring African states have neither the ability nor interest to take on Bakar Haram.

The seeds of this abduction and much of the misery affecting the ordinary people in Africa were sown many decades ago. Not when Africa was colonised as liberals are so ready to suggest.

Africa was a violent and brutal continent centuries before the first Europeans arrived.

The real problems started after a few decades of explosive population growth thanks to the introduction of Western systems of hygiene, medical care, education and food production.

After introducing these systems, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, by the late 1950s and 1960s, the former colonial powers were abandoning their former colonies with indecent haste.

Leaving millions of people at the mercy of inept, corrupt and brutal dictators like Mobutu in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo) and a succession of military officers installed in armed coups in Nigeria. Similar examples, ranging from madmen like Idi Amin of Uganda to inept social meddlers like Nyerere of Tanzania had equally devastating effects on most of the continent.

The only two countries to buck the trend, maintain law and order, grow their economies and increase living standards substantially, were South Africa and Rhodesia.

Why the difference? Because these were the only two countries on the continent to resist one-man-one-vote, retain efficient, relatively incorruptible governments. Effective administrative systems kept the economy expanding despite, sanctions, terrorist wars and for South Africa, floods of illegal immigrants escaping the harsh reality of life in independent Africa.

There was however a huge problem.

The government of the only two successful countries on the continent were exclusively white.

That was unacceptable to those  who had already ruined their own countries and to weak Western leaders more interested in appeasing murderous dictators than the well-being of millions of people of all races on the southern tip of the continent.

Rhodesia and the old efficient, viable, South Africa are gone, sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. Replaced by the corrupt and economic basket case of Zimbabwe and an ANC controlled South Africa heading down the same slope.

In the most recent version of violent transfer of power on the continent, it is Bakar Haram, and other terrorist groups, Islamic or not, taking advantage of ineffective governments to seize control of vast areas of Africa with their campaigns of terror.

Until the unfortunate residents of countries like Nigeria have governments that can govern effectively, the problem is not going away.

Now is the time for the West to get tough with those governments, cut off all aid, funding, assistance until the governments show some responsibility. Exercise the same rabid tenacity to stop African rulers squandering revenues or stashing funds in tax havens as the authorities do to law-abiding Western citizens taking advantage of legal loopholes.

Only then should material assistance to fight terrorism be given. Weapons and equipment sent now will almost certainly find their way into Bakar Haram’s arsenals to be used to capture more schoolgirls and kill thousands more innocent people.

That will be infinitely more effective than hashtags.

peter-wright

 

 

 

 

Aggravating racism by poking a stick in a festering sore.

Bandage it, don't  poke it with a stick

Bandage it, don’t poke it with a stick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why does North America have such an unhelpful and unhealthy attitude to racism?

The reaction to the comments by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Stirling’s comments goes beyond ludicrous.

His comments, if they were correctly quoted, were not the most sensible considering many of his team and fans are black. They may have upset many people, but on the long list of serious problems in the world today, no reasonable person can rate them near the top.

However, they were made in a private conversation. One that was not intended to be made public.

For a country that claims to be against racism and for freedom of speech, the escalation of this incident and the resulting punishment of Mr. Stirling borders on the insane.

As a victim of far more serious racism than a derogatory comment in a private conversation, I am appalled at both the hysteria that this incident has generated and the reverse discrimination visited on Mr. Stirling.

For the record, my father was murdered, my mother crippled for life.  Later, I was thrown in a police cell while my farm and all my assets were illegally taken from me by the Zimbabwe government. All because we were white. That is the sort of racism every one should be concerned about.

Do I blame all black people for that? Of course not.

The most irresponsible and malicious actors in this sad saga are the person who “leaked” the conversation to the media, the media channel that publicised it and all those in both public and private office who have used it to make themselves look good.

Here’s why:

It was a private conversation.

Who among us can honestly say that they have never made a derogatory comment about a group of people in a private conversation. I cannot and I don’t think many others can.

How many times do we hear criticism of Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, Bankers, Oil executives, the Rich, the poor, the homeless, Southerners, Newfies, Italians, Germans, Russians or any other nationality?

What about criticism of religions, Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists? Or sports teams, the police, the military?

As a former white resident of Southern Africa, now living in North America, I frequently have to ignore allegations of my obviously “terrible attitude to, and treatment of, black people”.

I know that these comments are made from ignorance by people who have no idea of the real situation in my former countries and who have been subjected to anti South African and anti Rhodesian propaganda for most of their lives.

While I may not like the comments, I understand that people are as free to make them as I am to publish my opinions and Donald Stirling is to express his in a private conversation.

The comments were not illegal

At the time of writing there has been no indication that the comments broke any laws.

Donald Stirling is a wealthy man who may be quite happy to sell his team for the $600 to $700 million it is reported to be worth. It’s poetic justice that he will realise a huge profit on his original $12 million investment if he does sell the team.

It would be supremely ironic if he chose to disband the team, but I doubt if anybody would walk away from that sort of money.

Will he go on the counter attack and sue who ever he can? Again much as I would like to see it, I think the deck is stacked against him.

Unethical manipulation of an owners association

If the man has not committed a crime, it is entirely unethical for the NBA to exert pressure on the owners association to expel him. It is also wrong for him to be expelled from the association and banned for life while he legally owns a team.

This treatment establishes a dangerous precedent akin to Hitler’s persecution of the Jews in the 1930’s. Then it started with smashing shop windows. Now it’s by banning an owner from enjoying free use of his assets.

It establishes other dangerous precedents, underhand methods for sabotaging successful teams, alienating sponsors and supporters, crippling them financially.

It gives unsuccessful businesses the ability to raise charges of racism to unfairly eliminate competitors in the knowledge that even if the charges are completely unfounded, the media will ensure that damage is done.

Other than the reversed shirt incident, it does not appear that any team members have expressed their disapproval by walking away from the team. Their outrage is not sufficient to jeopardise lucrative contracts.

What would the NBA do if the team expressed solidarity with the owner and demanded that he continue as owner?

The USA trumpets the virtues of the free market system. The market should decide Donald Stirling’s fate, not the self-righteous advocates of totalitarianism that seek to control the thoughts and comments of a nation.

The end of free speech

It is an unacceptable use of thought and speech control, the same mob rule mentality that hounded Brendan Eich from his job a few weeks ago has struck another victim.

Who will be next, will it be you because you said something that a politician or someone in the media did not like?

Why this attitude is unhealthy

When a child comes to his or her mother with a minor scratch, she treats it with the appropriate amount of first aid and leaves it to nature and time to heal.

She does not poke it with a stick to make it much worse and then call the media to show the festering wound to the nation.

That’s what the over hyped reaction to incidents like this does, turn a minor scratch into a festering sore.

Like minor scratches, incidents like these should be left alone for time and nature to heal, not used to provoke racial tension and victimize people.

Why should incidents like this provoke such over-reaction? More hysteria than in some countries with histories of interracial conflict?

Is it lingering guilt over slavery? Or guilt over the almost total annihilation of the indigenous populations of North America and their reduction to powerless minorities? Or the success of the politically correct liberal left in dividing the moderate majority and stifling any opinion other than its own.

Be aware, you could be the next victim.

peter-wright

 

 

 

mage courtesy of Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The silencing of the brave

▇▇▇▇ [1113] Brian J. Matis via Compfight

It wasn’t enough to hound Brendan Eich out of his job, now one of the bravest women to speak out for women’s rights under Islam, is denied an honorary degree by political correctness.

Rex Murphy reported in the National Post on Saturday 12 April, how Brandeis University withdrew its invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Why?

Because the Council on American Islamic Relations protested. Some students predicted that her appearance to receive the award would make them feel unwelcome and persuaded 24% of the faculty to petition against the award.

Yet another case of the tail wagging the dog.

What had Ayaan Hirsi Ali done wrong?

She had survived physical abuse, escaped an arranged marriage in Somalia, spoken out against the treatment of women by Islamists and become a member of parliament in the Netherlands.

She has continued to speak out despite continual persecution and death threats.

Read the article for the full story.

The silence from some of the normally strident women’s rights organisations is deafening.

On the same page of that newspaper was an article by Charles Krauthammer – Thought Police on Patrol – on the spreading of the totalitarian impulse in America.

It explains why the Brendan Eich’s and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s of this world are attacked not celebrated.

Both articles are worth reading and should also convince you to make a stand for what you believe is right before totalitarianism denies you that opportunity.

peter-wright

The Tail Wagging the Dog Nightmare gets worse.

it's a firefox cake! Rakka via Compfight

Yesterday Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla, and leave the company he co-founded.

Why?

Because in 2008 he donated $1000 to an anti same-sex marriage campaign.

It is ludicrous that in a supposed democracy which trumpets the virtue and right of free speech, a man can be forced to resign for expressing an opinion.

An opinion that is shared by a significant percentage, in some areas, a clear majority, of the population.

An opinion that has been the dominant opinion on which the legal, philosophical and natural laws of marriage have been based for thousands of years.

An opinion that has nothing to do with his ability to perform his role as CEO. It could be argued that as a man with the courage of his convictions, it enhances his role.

Another example of political correctness gone berserk, the dark side of social media exposed.

Why is it that a serving US President did not have to resign after the sordid details of an affair with a junior employee made him the subject of international ridicule. Nor after his earlier denials of the affair brought his integrity into question.

I am not suggesting he should have been forced to resign over the affair itself, that might have established a precedent that could have decimated the ranks of politicians and corporate executives.

Denying it is another matter. Both errors of judgement infinitely more serious than Mr. Eich making a small donation to a legal and popular, cause. A cause that was supported by 7 million Californian voters.

Why can celebrities, fading stars and members of the lunatic fringe be not only forgiven, but in liberal circles, celebrated for unpatriotic comments and actions against companies trying to reduce the cost of energy and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

I don’t recall a single case of a celebrity being asked to resign for making ridiculous allegations against, for example, Canadian Oil, GM crops or gun control.

Some of the attacks on national companies and institutions would have been judged as treason not that long ago.

The answer of course is that the liberal left has hoodwinked the media and many people who should know better with it’s campaign of take from the successful and give to those who want it all without having to exert any effort to produce themselves.

Various estimates put homosexuals at between 11 & 19% of the North American population. Sources Smithsonian.com  and Pacific Standard

Just as some heterosexual couples do not get married, it is logical to assume that a significant number of homosexual relationships would not result in same-sex marriage.

Therefore, whichever estimate of the number of homosexual couples, reduced by any further estimate one chooses to use, of those that would not want to enter into a marriage, results in a very small part of the general population.

Why should such a small minority dictate to the majority? Why can a CEO be hounded out of his job for expressing his opinion on a matter that has no bearing what so ever on the company he runs?

Why have the majority of solid, ordinary citizens been cowed into silence by the radical left who cannot accept that there are other opinions in this world?

Why do corporations and worse, local governments aid and abet these views abandoning any backbone they may have had by, for example flying the “rainbow” flag over town halls during the winter Olympics? A direct insult to the majority of taxpayers.

Why do some corporations take it further and try and capitalise on this trend by organising boycotts? OK Cupid allegedly blocked any users of Mozilla’s browser, Firefox, from using it’s website until Brendan Eich resigned.

Because socialist propaganda has convinced too many good people that the tail can wag the dog.

For a group that whines continuously and vociferously about the unfairness of discrimination, it is bizarre that it should be the weapon of choice to be used against any one with a different opinion.

My personal philosophy is one of live and let live, I have as little interest in any one else’s sexual habits or preferences as I have in publicising my own.

I believe that those involved in same-sex relationships can be protected without a “marriage” of the same status as that for ordinary marriages between a man and a woman.

That’s my opinion and I could assemble pages of facts to support it. Just as proponents of same-sex marriage can raise compelling arguments to support it. It is my right to disagree with that opinion as much as it is theirs to disagree with mine.

Neither of us have the right to destroy the other’s careers, businesses or even lives because of that disagreement.

I have a great interest in fairness and minimal interference in the private lives of others by both government and mobs of social media vigilantes flying a liberal flag.

This mob violence – digital or real – may well come back to bite the hands that feed it. Already there is at least one counter boycott from a Christian group blocking Mozilla users.

What will be the next cause these vigilantes adopt? It might be directed against you or the values you stand for. Will you have the fortitude to resist it?

We had better hope that enough of us do find the courage otherwise we will soon realise that we no longer live in a democracy, mob rule will have triumphed. Anarchy will prevail.

peter-wright

The Mandela Myth

 

 

Richard Branson recently posted an article about Nelson Mandela’s book on Linked In.

I could not believe that someone as astute as Richard Branson would be taken in by the Mandela Myth, but perhaps he is looking to expand his business in South Africa. Political Correctness? Hypocrisy?

Mandela Myth

South African Protea -source Wikipedia Creative Commons

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seemed that my comment might be of interest to readers.

Here is my comment (it exceeded the number of words for a comment, the last 3 paragraphs did not appear in the Linked In version)

As someone who saw the effects of terrorism in both Rhodesia and South Africa at first hand including losing a parent to terrorism in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and being a victim of Mugabe’s brutal farm invasions, I am surprised that a man of your vision and experience is promoting the Mandela myth.

It is a frequently and conveniently overlooked fact that Mandela was convicted and imprisoned for acts of terrorism, not for opposing the South African government. If he had been convicted of the same crimes in the USA or Europe, he would almost certainly have been executed, or still be serving a life sentence.

It is a further fact that approximately double the number of violent deaths have occurred South Africa since Mandela was released from prison in 1992 than in the 44 years from 1948 to that date under the “old” South Africa. Which government was more benign?

I am not sure that the families of those 5000 or so mainly Zulu opponents of Mandela’s ANC who were brutally murdered, many by the burning tyre “necklace” method would agree with your assessment of Mandela.

Before accusing me of being a racist, white supremacist or worse, yes there were aspects of the South African government policies that with hindsight, appear horrendous. Yes the native population could have been treated better in many ways. Yes some white South Africans did terrible things to black South Africans.

However white South Africans did not reduce the indigenous population to a powerless minority through massive European immigration, introduction of diseases, alcohol or casual murder as happened in North America and Australia. South Africa did not practice slavery as did the USA.

It’s very easy to point fingers from the safety of a country in Europe that has not had to deal with the same issues or from a “conquered” country that dealt with them much more harshly, two centuries ago. It’s time that the world starts recognising the contribution white (and other immigrant) South Africans did make to the country and all its people and time to recognise Mandela for what he was.

The world did a huge disservice to all South Africans by imposing sanctions and boycotts, pressuring the country to release Mandela and hand over to a former terrorist group that is proving incapable of managing a sophisticated economy.

By the early 1990’s demographics were changing South Africa and would have continued to do so, allowed to develop and change at its own pace the country would have evolved into a true “Rainbow Nation” and thousands of lives may have been saved.

peter-wright

More Sickening Politically Correct Hypocrisy.

 

political correctness

 

 

 

 

The following story was recently sent to me as an email, I understand it is being circulated widely.

The email contained a photograph of Antonio West (Santiago), I have not included that photo as I am unsure of its copyright restrictions – unlike many others, I do respect the property rights – including intellectual, of others.

Before including the story in this post, I checked the reports from reputable news sources and it does appear accurate, two black teenagers are awaiting trial for the murder of baby Antonio and the shooting of his mother.

Some media channels are raising as a red flag the allegations that both Antonio’s mother and father were found to have gun shot residue on them. As his mother had been shot herself, that would be understandable. There are possible explanations for residue found on the father but the police are not treating the parents as suspects in the shooting.

The media are also pointing out that the father, Luis Santiago  has been arrested for stalking the mother.

Here is the email with my comments at the end:

——————————————

Hello. Don’t recognize me?

That’s OK; I understand.

My name was Antonio West.

I was the 13-month old child who was shot in the face at point-blank range by two black teens, who were attempting to rob my mother, who was also shot earlier this year.

I think my murder and my mommy’s wounding made the news for maybe a day, and then disappeared.

A Grand Jury of my mommy’s peers from Brunswick, Georgia ruled the black teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty… too bad it was me who got the death sentence from my killers instead, because Mommy didn’t have the money they demanded.

See, my family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder wasn’t ruled a ‘hate crime’.

Oh, and President Obama didn’’t take a single moment to acknowledge my murder.

He couldn’t have any children who could possibly look like me – so why should he care?

I’’m one of the youngest murder victims in our great Nation’s history, but the media didn’’t care to cover the story of my being killed in cold blood.

There isn’t a white equivalent of Al Sharpton, because if there was he would be branded a ‘racist’.

So no one’s rushing to Brunswick, Georgia to demonstrate and demand ‘justice’ for me.

There’s no ‘White Panther’ party, either, to put a bounty on the lives of the two black teens who murdered me.

I have no voice, I have no representation, and unlike those who shot me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller – I no longer have my life.

Isn’t this a great country?

So while you’re out seeking ‘justice for Trayvon’, please remember to seek ‘justice’ for me.

Tell your friends about me, tell you families, get tee-shirts with my face on them, and make the world pay attention, just like you did for Trayvon.

I won’t hold my breath.

I don’t have to anymore.

———————————

The comparison with the media’s treatment of the George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin provides a text-book example of liberal hypocrisy, political correctness and media bias.
In this case, very little media coverage, no crucifixion of the shooters in social media, no portrayal of the victim or his family as saints, no clamours for federal intervention and no comment by the president.

Quite the opposite, attempts to show the victim’s family in an unsavoury light and almost no digging into the alleged murderers backgrounds.

George Zimmerman was doing a job he volunteered for, he believed he acted in accordance with the law and in self-defence.

Little Antonio’s mother was minding her own business and was attacked by criminals. There is absolutely no way for her attackers to claim they were acting in accordance with any law or in self-defence.

Liberal hypocrisy certainly knows no bounds. Enough to make you sick and certainly fear for the future of not just America, but all of the Western World.

Our biggest threat is not Al Qaeda, suicide bombers, home-grown or foreign terrorists, it is from the liberal left and their determination to emasculate, and disarm the population, smother all independent thought and impose nanny state control.

To preserve our communities and our countries, to ensure that our children and grandchildren have the opportunity to live in stable societies where freedom is still cherished, we need to use our powers of discernment and stand up to this wave of propaganda.

peter-wright