Matthew Owens was allegedly beaten by a vicious mob, after which someone uttered the words, "Now that's justice for Trayvon."
Mobile Ala. – Mathew Owens was left in critical condition after being beat up by a a mob of twenty blacks. Mobile Mayor, Sam Jones, stands committed in his belief that the attack was neither a hate crime, nor had anything to do with race itself. This, despite the fact that some of Owens attackers allege Owens had spewed racial slurs at them at the time. Now, which is it? Either Owens did in fact taunt a group of blacks with racial slurs, who in turn violently attacked him, or Owens was attacked by a mob of blacks simply for being white, and it really is all part of the “Justin for Trayvon” mentality. Said Jones, “Wait for the facts as far as we’re concerned right now. But, I would caution people to not jump to conclusions right now. This is really very divisive in communities throughout the country, and I don’t think we have any reason to be divisive here because I don’t see any evidence of that.” It sounds as though Mayor Jones (who is black) is trying to deny reality. Namely, a group of blacks beat up a white person. In Jones book, that doesn’t constitute a hate crime, a race issue or racism. Even the caption in the photo showing Owens in critical condition, and which can be found in the article is skewed. It says “allegedly beaten by a vicious mob”. There’s no “allegedly” about it. The blacks in the “vicious mob” not only do not deny beating up Owens, they give reasons why they did it. Mayor Jones begs us to “wait” and to not “jump to conclusions” at the same time millions of blacks around America already have in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident. The article goes on to say “Owens reportedly has a long rap sheet in the area, the station reported. He’s been booked on charges of assault, domestic violence, harassment and public intoxication in the past.” Just like Trayvon. But somehow we must accept that Zimmerman is guilty. If we are supposed to accept Zimmerman is guilty, without the facts, why are we supposed to wait to form an opinion as to whether this mob of blacks is guilty? Just like Zimmerman, they too admit they did it. What’s the difference?
Related articles
- Black On White Crime And The Sound Of Crickets Chirping (societybytes.wordpress.com)
- Beating of Alabama man not seen as hate crime, despite claim ‘Trayvon’ invoked (mega949.com)
- Beating on White dude from Alabama by 20 black adults is wrong wrong wrong & in response to Trayvon Martin (bonjupatten.com)
- Beating on White dude from Alabama by 20 black adults is wrong wrong wrong & in response to Trayvon Martin (theconservativehillbilly.wordpress.com)
- 18 Year Old Black Thug Charged With Hate Crime (theroycroftreport.com)
Society Bytes 
abortion politics, abortion rights, Barbara Byrum, euphemisms, Female Lawmakers Silenced, Kate Segal, Liberal feminism, Lisa Brown Vagina, Michigan Lawmakers Vagina Comment, Michigan politics, Michigan Woman Lawmakers, Politics News, poltics, Reproductive rights, war on women, West Bloomfield Township Michigan, Woman Michigan Lawmakers
A Challenge To Liberals Who Fight For “Reproductive Rights”: What Are “Reproductive Rights”? Be Warned – You Will Not Be Able To Meet That Challenge
In abortion, politics, women on June 15, 2012 at 11:10 amThese are the faces of two women who don’t know what they are talking about.
It’s a simple challenge, really. (But not if you are a liberal and you support it) However, dare to challenge any liberal feminist in America who so passionately fights for, and on behalf of, “reproductive rights”, to define exactly what “reproductive rights” are and they fall flat on their face trying to answer that challenge. It sounds so simple, and yet it is the most difficult question for any liberal feminist to answer because they cannot answer it honestly. They cannot answer it honestly because to do so is to literally shoot themselves and their cause to smithereens. In other words, if they could answer it honestly, they wouldn’t be calling it “reproductive rights”. Because calling what liberal feminists are really advocating for in “reproductive rights” is the equivalent of calling crap with whip cream and sprinkles a chocolate ice cream dessert.
Two Michigan congress women (Democrats) Rep. Lisa Brown (West Bloomfield) and Rep. Barb Byrum (Onondaga), are in a feminist driven psycho-babble hissy fit because they were not allowed to speak on because of “reproductive rights” on the House floor. They naturally blamed anti-woman and misogynist Republicans for this, despite the fact that the minority leader in the Michigan House, Kate Segal, (a Democrat) also refused to let them speak. They had wanted to speak about an upcoming House bill that would, if passed, make it harder for women to enjoy legally protected “reproductive rights”.
“I’d love to know what I said that was offensive,” Brown told The Huffington Post. “It was an anti-choice bill regarding abortion, which obviously involves a vagina, so, you know, I don’t know what word I’m supposed to use otherwise.”
Vagina? That is the best this liberal feminist can come up with as to why she was not allowed to speak?
And of Byrum? She had wanted to introduce an even more juvenile and nonsensical amendment to the bill that would force all men wanting a vasectomy to show proof it was a medical emergency. As if there is even the remotest comparison to a vasectomy and what liberal feminists lovingly refer to as “reproductive rights”. By the way – that challenge still stands. What are “reproductive rights”?
“It’s my impression that I’m being banned from speaking as a result of my use of the term vasectomy — a medical procedure,” Byrum told The Huffington Post.
This is why it is dangerous to elect liberals, and especially liberal women, to political office. Two liberal women who cannot for the life of themselves understand why they were not allowed to speak other than their fervent belief it was over their choice of words – vagina and vasectomy, respectively.
But there is another side to this story:
Ari Adler, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Jase Bolger (R-Marshall), said the lawmakers were banned from speaking because of their behavior, not because of their word choice. “They behaved in a way that disrupted the decorum of the House,” Adler said. “For Brown, it was not the words she used, but the way she used them that resulted in her being gaveled down.” In Byrum’s case, Adler said, “I hate to put it this way, but she essentially had a temper tantrum on the House floor.”
We ought not be surprised to hear of liberal feminists having a temper tantrum – that is what they do. Liberal feminists act only through their emotions, without thinking ahead, rather than acting through reason and rationality. Case in point? Challenge these two liberal feminists from Michigan, and any liberal feminists anywhere, to define “reproductive rights”.
This is a very serious challenge. And it is a serious challenge for the reason that not one single liberal, feminist or otherwise, can answer that question, or ever has answered that question. How do we know? Because in their indoctrination of young, impressionable girls in high school and college, more often than not, uneducated, liberal feminists throw out cushy, safe and feel all warm and fuzzy inside buzz words like “reproductive rights”, “pro-choice”, “women’s rights”, women’s health issues”, etc. But they are never candid in the definitions of these buzz words, and we all know the reason why. euphemisms
So again, the challenge is – if you, as a liberal feminist, really want “reproductive rights”, and really want laws governing the legal recognition and full protection of these “reproductive rights”, what exactly, and honestly, are you talking about?
Related articles