The NBPP, the thug Trayvon Martin… and the election

From what I have been reading, Trayvon Martin was a street thug and not the angelic little boy that the media sought to betray.

An analysis of what appears to have happened on the night that Trayvon Martin was killed points to the fact that Zimmerman was not a white person but an Hispanic on his way to Target when he spotted someone acting in a suspicious manner… in the end Martin reached for the gun that he saw Zimmerman was carrying at the same time that Zimmerman was reaching for the gun… Martin had been bashing Zimmerman’s head into the ground. The gun went off and Trayvon Martin was dead. This should be a clear cut case of self-defense.

However, the parents, not taking responsibility for their son’s action decided on a course of action that is enough to make one feel sick. First the mother trade-marked her dead son’s name. They hired a race-baiting lawyer by the name of Benjamin Crump and they brought in the hateful race baiters Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

The whole thing has escalated and it is quite scary because the NBPP are wanting to draw blood. These clowns and race bating racists want to have riots and they want to kill whites in the process. It is all being orchestrated from the White House.

11 responses to “The NBPP, the thug Trayvon Martin… and the election


    Let’s say, hypothetically, two men were walking along ‘perfectly innocent like’, although one has a concealed gun and the other does not, and they encounter each other, exchange rude words, and then a fight breaks out. In said fight there is reaching and grasping for the gun, and it actually maybe changes hands several times. Eventually the man originally in possession of the gun regains control of the weapon and shoots the other one.

    The riddle is this:

    Is it reasonable and proper (or even legal and ethical) to say that an unarmed man was shot by an armed man? What does ‘armed’ mean – and when. Suppose the fracas had turned out the other way around. How to best describe THAT situation? In either case, at the critical juncture, one is armed and the other isn’t.

    Is the age, sex, or race of the participants even remotely relevant?

    Would it be presumptuous to say simply that “There was an incident involving two persons and a gun. There was a fight and, in the scramble, one of the them obtained control of the gun and shot the other one”? Am I being unreasonable to wish for less hysteria and hyperbole and insisting on simply reporting the unembellished facts? Now, of course, as things are investigated, more facts will come out and it would THEN be appropriate to discuss them.


    • Carlyle you are on the right track with your questions.

      Except there would not have been an incident if one of them… the one who threw the first punch… had gone home…. a home that was very close to the fatal incident… instead of hiding from sight then appearing out of nowhere and then throwing a punch, and then bashing the other person’s head into the ground, then spotting the gun… then telling the other person he was going to die….

      Who in their right mind trademark’s the name of their dead son? Who could not give a stuff about their dead son, but want money because their son was a thug?


  2. I have a new theory: FKO is not stirring this up to “play to his base”. FKO’s refusal to defuse the situation is not “elections games”. FKO is not saying “this is my son in whom I am well pleased” for racist reasons. FKO is using this as an example – a shot across the bow – for the consequences of messing with hisself. If the savages get this stirred up over an inconsequential nobody, think what they will do if Obamessiah is harmed or persecuted!


    • try the desire to change the second amendment.

      I just came across information that Crump the race-baiting two bit lawyer wants this to be the catalyst to change stand your ground rules in various states.

      That would be a terrible thing, unless it tightens up the circumstances where it applies in order to not let some people get away with murder.


  3. Air Force Brat

    There will be a Second Civil War before the Second Amendment is changed or done away with.


  4. Air Force Brat

    I think it’s almost certain that he does indeed want one. And I totally agree that to incite such a cataclysm is criminal.

    However, should Obama, his minions, and his hired thugs actually make a serious attempt to disarm this nation — and especially if they have any degree of success in any part of the country — it’s my honest assessment that the American people will have no choice but to defend themselves with force.

    Americans have many similarities to the Aussies, whichmay be why I so greatly admire our friends Down Under: Great people, intelligent and affable by nature, able to endure things that would cripple others — but don’t, under any circumstances, push them too far.

    Long live the Anglosphere!


    • I honestly hope that it never gets to the point of another civil war.

      Whilst I have a history of military connections, spanning all the way back to the Eureka Stockade (yes, it is true but my great-great grandfather was not there as far as I can see, he was a part of the 40th foot brigade which was one of the regiments present), I still have no taste for war itself.


  5. Air Force Brat

    Agreed. Let us pray it doesn’t come to pass. Let us crawl on our knees over broken glass to get to the ballot boxes in November. And let us THROW ‘EM ALL OUT.

    Even though I’m not tremendously enthused re Romney personally, he’s light-years better than Obama. And whether he himself is or is not intensely pro-Second Amendment, if we keep the House and win the Senate, his feet can be held to the fire as necessary. Bottom line, whatever Romney’s faults may be, I sincerely do not think he hates America. And he certainly would not provoke a Second Civil War.

    ABO 2012


    • it is important for Republicans to not do what they will normally do when they do not like the candidate. They need to get out and vote regardless…. I am not sure about Romney either. I just think he is very flawed.


  6. I am continuing to monitor this story and it has taken many twists and turns. There is no way that Zimmerman should have been charged with second degree murder.

    I think that there might be evidence that either DeeDee does not really exist or that she was coached by the Chump. This is not just a hunch, because the girl who is supposed to be DeeDee really did not care all that much. Her real boyfriend is a different person. Trayvon Martin was a friend, a good friend, but nothing more to her. DeeDee is prolific on twitter, and those alleged 400 minutes were probably her tweets to all and sundry. It is questionable about whether she spoke on the telephone.

    Now here is the real kicker…. the phone account lists times in PST which is not the same for Florida… in other words the alleged phone calls happened about 3 hours later than has been suggested… oops… if this is correct.