In all of the heat surrounding the verdict in the Martin/Zimmerman case, there are many facts that have been lost, or perhaps even suppressed. How many of these facts have you never heard about?
1) Martin's school caught him with women's jewelry and a screwdriver in his backpack. He refused to explain the jewelry and the security officers believed that the screw driver was a burglary tool.
2) Martin was suspended for graffiti.
3) He was also suspended for pot possession.
4) He had significant levels of THC - the drug in pot - in his system at the time of his death.
5) Martin's tweets, which can be found HERE, paint a picture of him that is far from the image of angelic little boy the MSM constant paints by interviewing his parents and using a five year old picture. Ditto for the texts and photos on his phone, which show weed and guns.
So, before the incident ever took place, we see that Martin looks like a young man in trouble - and young man probably involved in crime and definately using illegal drugs.
Let's remember the two things Zimmerman was concerned about: Drug use, and possibly casing for a home to rob. When you know these facts about Martin's past, it appears that Zimmerman's assessment was on point.
Again, without relying upon Zimmerman's statements, the following can be established concerning Martin's actions during the incident:
6) The time between George Zimmerman's call to the police non-emergency line ending and the first call reporting the disturbance was four minutes. Martin lived about 300 feet away. If he was afraid of Zimmerman, he had ample time to go home. He chose not to do so, Instead it appears that he chose to confront Zimmerman.
7) The only person to make a racist comment was Martin, not Zimmerman.
8) Martin had two physical injuries: Cuts on his hands consistent with having repeatedly punched someone and the gunshot wound that ended his life. Why is this important? Simple: It proves that Martin was the aggressor. He started the fight. Martin had no wounds inflicted by fists and Zimmerman had no injuries to his hands.
9) The only eyewitness puts Martin on top of Zimmerman "raining down blows MMA style". Let's stop and think about this for a moment. Let's imagine for a moment that the police arrive 5 seconds before Zimmerman fires the fatal shot. Based upon witnesses and Zimmerman's injuries what would the police have done? Answer: They would have arrested Martin for felony assault. Given that Zimmerman reported that Martin had told him he was going to die, he might have been charged with attempted murder - but my point is that before we even get to Zimmerman's testimony, the police would have had enough evidence to charge Martin with a felony.
This is important, because under Florida law anyone may use deadly force to resist a violent felony. Even without Zimmerman's statement, there was enough evidence to acquit - because Martin was committing a violent felony.
Is the loss of a young man, who probably did not follow the teaching of his parents (who seem to be great people), a tragedy? Absolutely. Could Zimmerman have handled things better? You bet. Are there lessons we all can learn? No question about it, Yet, Zimmerman is clearly not guilty.
Both Zimmerman and Martin had every legal right to be where they were. No laws were broken until someone decided to assault another person. All of the evidence shows that the person who did so was Trayvon Martin.
Finally, consider Zimmerman's reaction - after having given his statement - when cops told him, "We have it all on tape?" He said, "Thank God." Does this sound like a lying racist, or someone who acted in self defense and is telling the truth. Furthermore, Zimmerman's video taped statement and walk through dovetail nicely with all the witness statements and evidence, to which he had no access. If you want to know how uncommon this is, hop on Netflix and watch a few episodes of "The First 48". This almost never happens.
The sad truth is that those who want to convict George Zimmerman of murder do so by ignoring or suppressing the facts.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Did President Obama Just Kill Immigration Reform?
Unlike many of my fellow conservatives, I favor comprehensive immigration reform that includes both securing our borders (and tracking visitors who overstay) and granting legal status to employed and otherwise law abiding illegal immigrants. Sadly, president Obama may have just killed any chance of it passing. Let me explain.
Last week, in of all things a blog post, the administration announced that it will not be enforcing the employer mandate portion of Obamacare until - surprise, surprise - after the 2014 elections. Knowing this would be controversial the blog was posted late last Wednesday - just before the 4 day weekend.
The reason for this postponement is blatantly political. The mandate actually rewards employers who cut their employees hours to less than 30 per week. Having apparently just figured this out (it must be one of the things in it Rep. Pelosi told us we would only know about after it passed), the administration acted to prevent massive Democratic losses in the 2014 mid-term elections. Somehow, they thought that voters who had just had their hours cut because of Obamacare, might not vote Democratic........
Most of the discussion has focused on Obamacare and it's future - but another angle is: Did Pres. Obama have the legal authority to do this?
Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution states: "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Nothing is the Obamacare law permits a president to postpone implementation of any part of the law. (Remember, they did not know who would be president today when they passed the law.) Effectively, Pres. Obama is ruling by decree, changing a major provision of a law passed by the Congress and signed into law by himself. There is a word for a political leader who does this: Dictator.
Now, if you think this is a strong word, consider what the reaction would be if Romney had won last fall and simply said, "I am voiding Obamacare. None of its' provisions will be enforced." Get my point now?
So, how does this have anything to do with immigration reform? Well, it's all about trust. A huge part of the compromise involves securing the border and restricting newly legalized immigrants:
These are just a few of the provisions that are under discussion. There may be more.
The problem Pres. Obama has created in this: If he can effectively nullify a key provision in his own signature legislation, what prevents him from doing exactly all the same the same thing with the provisions of any immigration bill that becomes law? Answer: Absolutely nothing.
In the House of Representatives Republicans, and even some Democrats, may be asking that very same question today.
Last week, in of all things a blog post, the administration announced that it will not be enforcing the employer mandate portion of Obamacare until - surprise, surprise - after the 2014 elections. Knowing this would be controversial the blog was posted late last Wednesday - just before the 4 day weekend.
The reason for this postponement is blatantly political. The mandate actually rewards employers who cut their employees hours to less than 30 per week. Having apparently just figured this out (it must be one of the things in it Rep. Pelosi told us we would only know about after it passed), the administration acted to prevent massive Democratic losses in the 2014 mid-term elections. Somehow, they thought that voters who had just had their hours cut because of Obamacare, might not vote Democratic........
Most of the discussion has focused on Obamacare and it's future - but another angle is: Did Pres. Obama have the legal authority to do this?
Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution states: "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Nothing is the Obamacare law permits a president to postpone implementation of any part of the law. (Remember, they did not know who would be president today when they passed the law.) Effectively, Pres. Obama is ruling by decree, changing a major provision of a law passed by the Congress and signed into law by himself. There is a word for a political leader who does this: Dictator.
Now, if you think this is a strong word, consider what the reaction would be if Romney had won last fall and simply said, "I am voiding Obamacare. None of its' provisions will be enforced." Get my point now?
So, how does this have anything to do with immigration reform? Well, it's all about trust. A huge part of the compromise involves securing the border and restricting newly legalized immigrants:
- The border is supposed to be secured before any newly legalized persons get permanent status, much less citizenship.
- Before receiving permanent status, these persons are supposed to "learn English".
- These same people are supposed to pay fines.
These are just a few of the provisions that are under discussion. There may be more.
The problem Pres. Obama has created in this: If he can effectively nullify a key provision in his own signature legislation, what prevents him from doing exactly all the same the same thing with the provisions of any immigration bill that becomes law? Answer: Absolutely nothing.
In the House of Representatives Republicans, and even some Democrats, may be asking that very same question today.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Boston Terrorists Bought Gun on Black Market (Video)
Former Head Of ATF Says No Law Can Prevent Criminals and Terrorists From Obtaining Firearms.
Comments Echo Those Of Gun Rights Advocates
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Gun Owners and 2nd Amendment Supporters - Boycott Staples!
When a local gun shop entered a Staples contest, they were a bit shocked to get this reply:
“We’re sorry, but your small business entry into the Staples PUSH It Forward Contest has been rejected for the following reason(s): Entry contains content that promotes alcohol, illegal drugs, tobacco, firearms/weapons (or the use of any of the foregoing); promotes any activities that may appear unsafe or dangerous; promotes any particular political agenda or message; is obscene or offensive; or endorses any form of hate or hate group.”
Please note that not only does this policy place legal gun dealers (many of whom are retired cops or military) in the same category as drug dealers, pornographers and Nazis - it also places all of us who own and responsibly use firearms in the very same category.
The complete story is HERE.
Since we are still living in a free country, we have a remedy available: We can choose to shop elsewhere - AND LET STAPLES KNOW WHY WE ARE DOING SO.
They can be reached at: staplessoul@staples.com
If you wish, feel free to use my email, reproduced below:
Dear Staples,
In regards to your actions as described in this story: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/staples-says-gun-store-cant-enter-contest.html
I am writing to let you know that I will never shop are your stores again. Your bigoted, prejudiced and baseless attitude towards the 50% of American households who own firearms is simply inexcusable. Be assured that I and many others who value our 2nd Amendment rights will spread the word of your actions far and wide. We will encourage everyone we know to NEVER set foot in any of your stores again.
If you are still clueless in regards to how much trouble you are in, imagine the outcry if you had refused to let a church or a gay bar enter your contest because you found religion or homosexuality unacceptable. You have every right to do this - and we have every right to take our business elsewhere. You have underestimated our power and our numbers - just as the national media did. This may not cost you much in California, New York and D.C. - but it will cost you a great deal in Nevada, Nebraska, Texas and about 40 other largely pro-gun rights states.
What were you thinking?
Don't just sit there and let them insult you - do something about it!
“We’re sorry, but your small business entry into the Staples PUSH It Forward Contest has been rejected for the following reason(s): Entry contains content that promotes alcohol, illegal drugs, tobacco, firearms/weapons (or the use of any of the foregoing); promotes any activities that may appear unsafe or dangerous; promotes any particular political agenda or message; is obscene or offensive; or endorses any form of hate or hate group.”
Please note that not only does this policy place legal gun dealers (many of whom are retired cops or military) in the same category as drug dealers, pornographers and Nazis - it also places all of us who own and responsibly use firearms in the very same category.
The complete story is HERE.
Since we are still living in a free country, we have a remedy available: We can choose to shop elsewhere - AND LET STAPLES KNOW WHY WE ARE DOING SO.
They can be reached at: staplessoul@staples.com
If you wish, feel free to use my email, reproduced below:
Dear Staples,
In regards to your actions as described in this story: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/staples-says-gun-store-cant-enter-contest.html
I am writing to let you know that I will never shop are your stores again. Your bigoted, prejudiced and baseless attitude towards the 50% of American households who own firearms is simply inexcusable. Be assured that I and many others who value our 2nd Amendment rights will spread the word of your actions far and wide. We will encourage everyone we know to NEVER set foot in any of your stores again.
If you are still clueless in regards to how much trouble you are in, imagine the outcry if you had refused to let a church or a gay bar enter your contest because you found religion or homosexuality unacceptable. You have every right to do this - and we have every right to take our business elsewhere. You have underestimated our power and our numbers - just as the national media did. This may not cost you much in California, New York and D.C. - but it will cost you a great deal in Nevada, Nebraska, Texas and about 40 other largely pro-gun rights states.
What were you thinking?
Don't just sit there and let them insult you - do something about it!
Thursday, May 16, 2013
How President Obama stole the 2012 Election
When President Obama was reelected last Fall, I thought he had won fair and square. Democratic turnout was simply higher. Obama supporters must have worked harder than Romney supporters. Sadly this is not the whole story.
In recent days we have learned that the IRS specifically targeted not just Tea Party groups, but hundreds of groups that were likely to support the Republican candidate. Even theologically conservative religious groups were targeted for audits. As a result, these groups were not able to raise money that would not only be used for issue advertising - but this targeted IRS harassment hampered efforts to register voters, something these groups commonly do. Meanwhile, groups supporting the president continued to operate unhindered. There is zero doubt that this happened, the only question is: Who gave the order?
Then there is Benghazi. We now know that: 1) Before the attack, Ambassador Stevens requested additional security over 30 times. Even though the facility had been attacked, his pleas were ignored. 2) During the attack - even though no one knew how long the attack would last - no help was sent. In fact, military units were ordered not to respond. Those CIA and State Department operatives who did respond, did so without orders. 3) After the attack, the administration made up a lie about a demonstration over a YouTube video - and even though they knew from the beginning of the attack that it was terrorism, they stated that it was not. The constant before, during and after the attack was an effort to maintain the illusion that President Obama had killed Bin Ladin and won the war on terror. Four Americans died to maintain this illusion. Who gave the order?
How can we know who gave the order? Well, let's as a couple of questions any detective would ask:
1) Who had motive, means and opportunity? Answer: President Obama. What is more likely, that low level officials made all of these decisions on their own - or that they did so under orders from the top?
2) Is the subject in question acting like he is innocent? In regards to the IRS, the president is not acting as if he is innocent. Consider his choice for the new IRS Commissioner. An innocent president would have picked a distinguished member of the other party and had them take over at once. Instead, President Obama appointed a White House staffer and let the current disgraced commissioner remain in office for two months. In the Benghazi scandal, the president has been caught in lie after lie. His administration has stalled and obstructed the efforts of the press and congress to discover the truth. In both scandals, he is acting like he is guilty.
What would have happened to President Obama's reelection chances if the whole truth about Benghazi had been made public the next day? Would the election have been very different if hundreds of conservative organizations had been free to register voters and place issue ads instead of fighting the IRS? Of course, we will never know for sure - but it is probable that our current president would be named Romney.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Is President Obama The Democratic Nixon?
Well, let's take stock of how the Obama administration has attacked the "charter of negative liberties" (Pres. Obama's words about our constitution):
1) He has attacked the 1st Amendment religious freedoms of Catholics and others2) He has attempted to muzzle and/or suppress the free speech rights of conservative groups by using the IRS - just as Richard Nixon did.
3) His DOJ has illegally spied on AP reporters - perhaps in an attempt to control the press
4) His DOJ (ATF) sent thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels, for no good reason - and then used the increase in US guns recovered in Mexico to argue for more gun laws - including laws that violate the 2nd Amendment. When his DOJ was asked for information by congress, he claimed executive privilege - forcing congress to sue him to get to the truth.
5) In the wake of the Newtown mass murder he renewed his efforts to ban guns. Many of his proposed laws clearly violate Supreme Court rulings affirming the 2nd Amendment.
Then there is Benghazi. It now appears clear that:
1) His State Department failed to provide adequate security even though the very Ambassador who was killed requested it OVER 30 TIMES.
2) When the attack took place, and no one had any idea home it would turn out, our president's response was to do absolutely nothing. He ordered no help sent - and someone actually gave an order forbidding military units that could have helped from doing so. State Department security forces had to go into battle without them.
3) After being told by both the career State Department personnel and the CIA that this as a terrorist attack - he and highly placed members of the administration lied to the American people so he could win an election.
I lived through Nixon and Watergate - and all of this seems very familiar.....
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
How Obama Could Have Background Checks Tomorrow
Background checks - of all gun control measures set forth - make the most sense. However here are the facts regarding them - and the recent effort to expand them:
1) Nothing is done when people fail the check - even though prosecution is easy. Local authorities are not even notified. Instead, the criminal or mentally ill person is left on the street, free to find a gun in the black market. This is the biggest reason gun rights advocates think this is not about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
2) Any background check system is dependent upon having a good database. Until the totally broken mental health system is fixed, many mentally ill people will still be able to buy firearms. The Giffords shooter had 20+ law enforcement contacts and was never sent into a hospital for evaluation. As a former paramedic I find this unbelievable as in CA this guy would have been evaluated. Had that happened, he would not have been able to buy a gun in the legal market. Yet, mental health reform is dead - because the administration only wants gun control.
3) In the initial background check bill, records of approved background checks would have been retained and would have identified the firearm and the new owner - it was a back door registration system. There were no exemptions for transfers between family members. This would have amounted to gun registration, hiding under the label of "background checks". This overreach and deceptiveness doomed the bill. Even when a very reasonable compromise was set forth - and supported by the one of the big gun rights groups - the die was already cast. The gun owning public remained focused upon the original version - even with a compromise that actually gave us gun rights folks many things we have been striving to get for decades.
Obama could have his background checks tomorrow. A bill could have NRA support tomorrow. It just needs to have the exemptions and controls that were in the compromise bill, the protections against a registration system that was in that bill, and a significant gain for gun rights. It should be clear that nothing is going to happen without the support of the NRA and gun owners.
I can think of two that would work:
1) Mandatory CCW permit reciprocity. This would likely lead to the remaining 9 states that do not have a "shall issue" system adopting one - since their residents could simply go to another state and get a permit. 25 years have proven the anti-gun rights crowd wrong. There have been no blood baths, no shoot outs in the streets. Permit holders have actually been proven to be less of a risk than off duty cops! Crime has dropped, faster than the national average, in every state that has adopted shall issue and not one state has repealed their "shall issue" law. This provision got 57 votes in the Senate, only 3 shy of the 60 needed to pass.
2) Preemption of state laws regarding purchase, possession and ownership of firearms. Gun control advocates have always argued that state laws don't work because of other states having more "lax" laws. Indeed, the states rated highest on the gun control advocates lists (California, New York, New Jersey, etc) actually have the highest crime rates. Since these laws are not working, and the federal laws will be greatly tightened, federalizing the whole matter of gun regulation makes sense. Additionally, many of these state laws may be struck down in the wake of recent Supreme Court rulings. States could be empowered to pass laws that mirror federal law, enabling them to enforce federal law. Since the NRA has lots of members in states hostile to gun rights, this would be a huge win for them. It would be an answer they could not refuse.
Either of these measures would protect the NRA from charges that they "sold out". However, the administration won't do either because the real goal is not "reasonable gun control" - it is ever tighter gun laws, until there is a virtual ban. I'm actually disappointed that a compromise that expanded background checks (with exemptions for private sales) AND gun rights was not adopted. It could have been a huge WIN - WIN, but the gun control side was not prepared to recognize the huge influence of millions of gun owners who are single issue voters.
1) Nothing is done when people fail the check - even though prosecution is easy. Local authorities are not even notified. Instead, the criminal or mentally ill person is left on the street, free to find a gun in the black market. This is the biggest reason gun rights advocates think this is not about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
2) Any background check system is dependent upon having a good database. Until the totally broken mental health system is fixed, many mentally ill people will still be able to buy firearms. The Giffords shooter had 20+ law enforcement contacts and was never sent into a hospital for evaluation. As a former paramedic I find this unbelievable as in CA this guy would have been evaluated. Had that happened, he would not have been able to buy a gun in the legal market. Yet, mental health reform is dead - because the administration only wants gun control.
3) In the initial background check bill, records of approved background checks would have been retained and would have identified the firearm and the new owner - it was a back door registration system. There were no exemptions for transfers between family members. This would have amounted to gun registration, hiding under the label of "background checks". This overreach and deceptiveness doomed the bill. Even when a very reasonable compromise was set forth - and supported by the one of the big gun rights groups - the die was already cast. The gun owning public remained focused upon the original version - even with a compromise that actually gave us gun rights folks many things we have been striving to get for decades.
Obama could have his background checks tomorrow. A bill could have NRA support tomorrow. It just needs to have the exemptions and controls that were in the compromise bill, the protections against a registration system that was in that bill, and a significant gain for gun rights. It should be clear that nothing is going to happen without the support of the NRA and gun owners.
I can think of two that would work:
1) Mandatory CCW permit reciprocity. This would likely lead to the remaining 9 states that do not have a "shall issue" system adopting one - since their residents could simply go to another state and get a permit. 25 years have proven the anti-gun rights crowd wrong. There have been no blood baths, no shoot outs in the streets. Permit holders have actually been proven to be less of a risk than off duty cops! Crime has dropped, faster than the national average, in every state that has adopted shall issue and not one state has repealed their "shall issue" law. This provision got 57 votes in the Senate, only 3 shy of the 60 needed to pass.
2) Preemption of state laws regarding purchase, possession and ownership of firearms. Gun control advocates have always argued that state laws don't work because of other states having more "lax" laws. Indeed, the states rated highest on the gun control advocates lists (California, New York, New Jersey, etc) actually have the highest crime rates. Since these laws are not working, and the federal laws will be greatly tightened, federalizing the whole matter of gun regulation makes sense. Additionally, many of these state laws may be struck down in the wake of recent Supreme Court rulings. States could be empowered to pass laws that mirror federal law, enabling them to enforce federal law. Since the NRA has lots of members in states hostile to gun rights, this would be a huge win for them. It would be an answer they could not refuse.
Either of these measures would protect the NRA from charges that they "sold out". However, the administration won't do either because the real goal is not "reasonable gun control" - it is ever tighter gun laws, until there is a virtual ban. I'm actually disappointed that a compromise that expanded background checks (with exemptions for private sales) AND gun rights was not adopted. It could have been a huge WIN - WIN, but the gun control side was not prepared to recognize the huge influence of millions of gun owners who are single issue voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)