Actually Chris Hayes is full of shit

Yea, its not nice to say someone is full of it, but sometimes you just have to call it as it is.  Chris Hayes thinks that if makes sense to equate a Hispanic male defending himself against assault with a moron killing three students in Chapel Hill NC.  That is, that justifiable homicide in the defense of self is the same as murder, that if attacked unless you just let yourself get killed you are a murderer.

Besides the pure intellectual dishonesty it has to take to consider these equivalent events is the clear manipulation involved in using one to malign the other. I know, I know, people like Chris Hayes live in a bubble with a number of myths that impair their judgement:  Those myths range from the grand belief that no one should own a firearm, much less carry one for self-defense, to the notion that no black teen could ever commit mayhem, to no white (or whitish) man could ever be justified in killing a black (or Muslim) assailant  I know people like Hayes cannot conceive of a possibility that involves a person having to defend themselves against another person.  I know they are so riddled with white guilt that they think it would be appropriate reparations that any white person who is attacked by a black person should simply allow themselves to be victimized so as to make up for the sins of their ancestors, such as they might be. I am sure that, if Hayes was ever to be in a situation where a black male assaulted him, he would probably just shoot himself to make up for the perceived wrongs of his own race.

I know, that makes me sound racist - but it is not so.  I am suggesting that race has nothing to do with it.  I am suggesting the essence of equality; that each of us has a right to defend ourselves against assault, regardless of race, creed or color.  Zimmerman could have been any color or race, so could Trayvon and, in the end, the result being the same was the appropriate end.

So how about getting the fuck off of this crazy train.  Trayvon was killed because he chose to assault Zimmerman. Zimmerman may be an asshole, but even an asshole has the right to defend himself against attack. I have no idea what was behind the killing of these Muslim students in NC.  But I do know that Zimmerman's self-defense is not the same as allegedly killing people for either their religion or over a parking space.

And straining as hard as Hayes has to to try to make this case is absurd - and shows why his ratings are in the tank.

Why?

Why does Huffington Post insist on referring to the deceased man in this article as "a military man"?  Why do they highlight his love of guns?

Gee...let me guess:  hatred of the military and guns, sowing fear.

"They said they want to die as martyrs,"

A couple of truths emerge from recent events in Paris.

In no particular order:

1.  It is all well and good to have a kumbaya mentality and to wish strongly that all people believe in peace, in live and let live.  The paternalism of Western cultures, the idea that we, in our benevolence, are in a position to allow the proliferation of cultures and religions who are dedicated to our destruction, whose tenets are antithetical to our valued freedoms, will sadly be our undoing.  We see this in the alarmism regarding European protests against Islam.  Why are we surprised?  The French have been most welcoming to Muslim immigration.  To what end?

The time has come for Islam to police its own or to be subjected to greater scrutiny and suspicion, to see its march across the world challenged.  The terrorist menace represented in Paris is emerging from within that community.  How odd it is that a society that has held all police to account for the actions of a few, and all whites to account for the racist actions of a few (many in long-past history), cannot get past the reflexive "But it's a religion of peace" argument.  These are not random acts unrelated to religious belief and a President or administration that will not acknowledge the religious component of them is doing the people a disservice. We have a battered wife for a president.

2. Of course, the administration that is avoiding such statements is also motivated to disarm the people.  In France we are seeing a clear and prescient example of what happens when one disarms the people and puts their safety in the hands of the government.  Hostages, victims, terrorists inside, police outside.  Hostages taken, journalists and others slain, armed terrorists bent on martyrdom acting with impunity.  Imagine if only 20% of those victims/hostages were armed and well-trained, capable of defending themselves, to potentially stop these attacks.  Willing to die trying, die in action rather than capitulation.  Even if some of them were to die trying, imagine how it might end such attacks earlier, imagine how it might affect the mentality of terrorists who now feel secure in the knowledge that they can commit such carnage, achieve the body count they want, before state security can take any action (should they do so).  Terrorists who can assume that they will be the only armed participants.  These are terrorists who have no qualms at dying for their cause; the threat of security showing up to kill them and count the bodies means nothing. They fear failure more than death.

3.  "They said they want to die as martyrs." I say we allow law-abiding, armed citizens, to help them fulfill that desire, help them on their way.  And if law-abiding citizens must die, let them die on their feet with guns blazing in defiance, not on their knees cowering like sheep.

As for me:

Heroes in Sydney

Two hostages who died in the siege in Sydney were hailed as heroes for sacrificing themselves.  It is the best that emerges in our selfless sacrifice in such moments.

But how much better would it have been if those heroes had been armed when the siege began and could have saved themselves and others through quick self-defence action?  This is where all the anti-gun rhetoric fails; when it disarms the law-abiding to make them helpless in the face of those who will never obey the law.  So it leads them to hear such stories and opine that all guns should be banned, it leads them to ask why this Muslim madman was not in jail for the many crimes with which he is accused.  It leads me to ask why could the unfortunate hostages not protect themselves, why were they disarmed?

So, yes, we end up with jerk-offs like the plant Mike the Gun Guy (give me a break) on Huffington Post, making big deals of small numbers of concealed carriers who may commit crimes (I am not as keen as he is on taking the numbers from the Violence Policy Center for granted).  Their answer - make firearms the purview of the unlawful and make the rest of us victims in waiting.

Not going to happen; Mike the Gun Guy, Vivik Murthy, Barack Obama, and anyone else can say as they will; They can choose to be defenseless if they like, but not for me.  I will never give up my right to defend myself with all the force necessary as I see fit.  I will not be held on my knees in a coffee shop by a Muslim adman.

Taking us down a treacherous path

Perhaps it is not a surprise, given the notion that many hold that we are not citizens of our nation, but global citizens, that we are walking a dangerous path.  The inescapable conclusion is that, whether consciously or unintentionally, liberals are defining a foolhardy worldview that will lead to the end of the nation that has allowed them the right to promulgate their foolishness.

This is probably nowhere brought into clearer relief than in the recent torture debate.  How many people may have vanished or been vanquished for the belief that we must fight a moral fight, that we must be kind to enemies who would destroy us?  How dangerous is the fairy tale that treating others in humane ways that they would not treat us will somehow insure our survival?  It leads to capitulation, not cooperation.

The bizarre kabuki theater in all of this is those who are now screaming most loudly about torture are those who cried most vociferously for someone, anyone, to defend them in whatever ways were necessary. Oh, the luxury of being safe in your bed, pulling the covers over your head and letting others fight the fight that keeps you safe.

There is little doubt that Jack Nicholson's tirade as COL Nathan Jessup was meant by liberals to be an awful and critical caricature of the mindset of those we task to protect us, making them look inhuman. Still, the kernel of truth is there.

Weasels, cowards, blowhards, self-righteous politicians and pundits, cowering in their hallowed halls, pushing others out in front of them like human shields, seeking only their own safety and security, later criticizing the means whereby those they task do their work.  They should all pick up a weapon and stand a post or STFU. They want rights and freedoms but lack the courage to defend them.

But this is the view of those who would blame themselves for others' misbehavior; crime, riots, and other lawlessness are the fault of those who have not decided to support the "less fortunate".  Terrorism and discontent are our own fault.  This is where they decide, in the name of some amorphous philosophy, to turn their fate over to those who would kill them with no thought.  This is where there notion of diversity and cultural sensitivity fails.  Quite simply their notion that all have won and all must have prizes will lead to their own culture being overrun and decimated in favor of other, less charitable cultures.

This is not an issue of ethnocentricity, that our culture is better and another worse.  it is an issue of survival and an ideology that allows murderous, dictatorial cultures to whom the notions of freedom and rights is anathema to flourish and eventually gain precedence, will be ground under. these cultures do not have a Bill of Rights, there is no freedom of speech or religion, there is only submission.

Foolhardy conflation

It is foolish for people to conflate the two refusals to indict LEOs in the recent deaths in Missouri and New York. I suspect that if I have to explain why, you would not listen anyway.

But let's be clear - one protest is justified, one is not.

Michael Brown was killed by an individual defending himself.  It could have happened just as it did, whether the shooter was a LEO or an armed citizen, being attacked and defending himself.  The evidence supports the determination; this was a tragic, but justified homicide.  Garner was killed for no such reason, with no such justification.  This would be murder if it were committed by a citizen and so it should be when committed by an LEO.

So there is your standard;

- Defending one's self from a threat that could be reasonably assumed to be lethal is a justification for using lethal force in defense.  Brown, a larger man was assaulting another person.  Whether it was Wilson or anyone else in this scenario, Brown's death was justified by his actions. If a civilian would be justified committing this self-defense shooting, then so is a LEO.

- If Garner's death resulted from a civilian attack then it would be murder - there was lethal threat and no need to use lethal force, no justification.  Hence, it was illegal and unnecessary.  The only possible and totally misguided justification for it was that it was committed by a NYPD officer. That is no justification at all.

It is foolish and manipulative to conflate the two cases.  Only those who are using Brown's tragic but justified death for their own purposes would do so.

Running over Protesters, V.2

So, there it is - the modern Missouri version of Reginald Denny.

"Begic was in his vehicle in the 4200 block of Itaska in the early hours of Sunday when the teens advanced on him and began damaging the car, police said. After Begic exited the car, the teens started beating him with hammers. Begic was taken to St. Louis University Medical Center where he was pronounced dead. He had injuries to his head, abdomen, face and mouth, the Post-Dispatch reported."

Note - they are "teens" - not black or Hispanic teens (although they are).  White cop kills black teen - color is everywhere.  But here a 32-year-old Bosnian man is killed by thugs with hammers.  No one mentions race.  No one will be say this was in retaliation.  No one will say it is racist or a hate crime when a white male is attacked and killed for no reason other than his whiteness by teenage thugs-of-color.

Folks - he was white, they were not.  If he had driven over a couple of them, his whiteness and their color would have been critical information - central to the slaughter of innocent young men.  He doesn't defend himself against such disparity of force and they beat him death.  He's Bosnian and they are teens.  Go figure; move long race-baiters, nothing to see here.  Haven't seen the President, who loves to use race as a tool, condemn this one yet.  Either race matters or it does not.