I don't see much point now in speculating about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, until the Florida state Justice Dept completes its independent investigation, and releases the as-yet-undisclosed evidence.
I feel like, no matter what the evidence, to the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, to angry black victim-culture-indoctrinated America, to the posturing Democrat politicians and the partisan liberal media pundits who pump up that anger, that no matter what the evidence disclosed that might corroborate, justify, and exonerate George Zimmerman's actions, these ideologically driven zealots will continue to scream for Zimmerman's blood. No matter what.
I can envision a rush to convict Zimmerman on weak evidence, just to appease the zealots and prevent nationwide riots.
I can envision not having sufficient evidence, but still arresting Zimmerman, and holding him for a period of time before releasing him on insufficient evidence, with authorities saying "well, we tried..." just as a show, to again appease and prevent riots.
Or there might be evidence to at least pursue a trial of Zimmerman, or even convict him.
And I can envision Zimmerman being killed, either in prison or as a free man. No matter what the evidence.
Pretty close to what actually happened over the last 16 months.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
You did notice that it links to a CNN story and the killers are recognized for what they are? When Zimmerman killed Martin that didn't recieve huge if any national coverage right away either. Zimmerman not being arrested after killing a kid played a part in the attention it got.
If somebody strange got out of their car at night and ran after one of your daughters, would that be just a guy following them?
I am sure anyone feels differently about a case involving their own family. That is why it is generally a conflict of interest to prosecute, defend or judge cases where a family member is involved. But here we are talking about the law and evidence, not personal emotion.
In addition, here is the actual transcript from CNN’s interview with Jeantel:
MORGAN: But you — but you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn’t know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?
JEANTEL: Yes.
MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?
JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every — who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you have to take it — as a parent, when you tell your child, when you see a grown person following you, run away, and all that.
Would you go stand there? You going to tell your child stand there? If you tell your child stand there, we’re going to see your child on the news for missing person.
Nothing about Zimmerman running.
Similarly, I was unable to find anything in the new coverage of her testimony that indicated she testified that Zimmerman was running after Martin. Instead, it appears she said that Martin ran away from Zimmerman at her urging (in part on the whole theory that Zimmerman was a gaypist).
So, based upon Jeantel’s statements, which you claim to find completely credible, Martin ran away from, and then attacked Zimmerman, in the belief that Zimmerman was a homosexual and possible rapist, simply because he was being followed (not “stalked,” btw).
In any other context, many people would consider that sort of stereotyping and overreaction “gay bashing.” And I’m sure you would have been one of them.
I'm sure it does feel differently when you have some empathy for the victim.
As for Zimmerman chasing Martin, this came up earlier in the thread. Martin's friend testified that she heard a man sounding out of breath before they exchanged questions. You can also hear Zimmerman running on the 911 call. It's after he say's "shit he's (Martin) running!". Even in the interview you posted she doesn't say she was worried about Martin getting hit on but dissapearing. In the trial she uses the word rape.
Even in the interview you posted she doesn't say she was worried about Martin getting hit on but dissapearing. In the trial she uses the word rape.
Yes. Exactly my point. Her testimony indicates that Martin assumed a man chasing him was a gay rapist. He then attacked the man on that assumption.
If anything, that testimony, which you find credible, indicates that Martin profiled Zimmerman as a homosexual "rapist" and attacked him out of homophobia.
Is it really your position that every time a perceived gay man runs it is reasonable to assume that he is out to rape a teenaged boy?
Because that it is the theory you are advancing here.
Even in the interview you posted she doesn't say she was worried about Martin getting hit on but dissapearing. In the trial she uses the word rape.
Yes. Exactly my point. Her testimony indicates that Martin assumed a man chasing him was a gay rapist. He then attacked the man on that assumption.
If anything, that testimony, which you find credible, indicates that Martin profiled Zimmerman as a homosexual "rapist" and attacked him out of homophobia.
Is it really your position that every time a perceived gay man runs it is reasonable to assume that he is out to rape a teenaged boy?
Because that it is the theory you are advancing here.
No you've constructed one of your strawman arguments again. In this instance you put forward that being afraid of being raped by a strange guy who follows you as you try to flee is somehow homophobic. Sorry but that's just dumb. I'll give you some credit and believe that somewhere in your mind you don't actually believe what your posting.
yeah, G-Man! Just because a guy wants to rape another guy doesn't automatically mean that he's gay. Get your mind out of the gutter and stop being so judgemental!
You don't have to assign societal constructs such as gender to people based on what they want to have sex with.
A whole gym full of 'em. I lost 26 pounds this year making use of them.
26 pounds! That's impressive, congratulations.
Hopefully your slim new waistline won't intimidate young black juvenile delinquents into thinking you're trying to gaype them, and result in violence. With great power comes great responsibility.
yeah, G-Man! Just because a guy wants to rape another guy doesn't automatically mean that he's gay. Get your mind out of the gutter and stop being so judgemental!
You don't have to assign societal constructs such as gender to people based on what they want to have sex with.
I can understand their reluctance. Who would want the potential death threats and organized harassment from people like Al Sharpton and Spike Lee? They should've waited in their (overturned) car for the police instead of letting themselves be rescued.
It's understandable that the family would cancel but sad that they have to worry about any percieved blowback. Just something to keep in mind though, the Martins are recieving death threats. There's wackos from both sides that seem to feel a need to "get" the other side.
It's understandable that the family would cancel but sad that they have to worry about any percieved blowback. Just something to keep in mind though, the Martins are recieving death threats. There's wackos from both sides that seem to feel a need to "get" the other side.
Except that no one on the pro-Zimmerman side (i.e., the rule of law!) is making death threats, and actually following through on those threats, in multiple acts of violence nationwide (as I detailed and linked extensively in my last 10 or so posts).
Ironically, Holder's justice dept is trying to circumnavigate the verdict and evidence to pseudo-legally lynch Zimmerman any way they can, and yet deny him and his family any legal protection from the violent rage that Obama and the Democrats' own rhetoric (undermining the rule of law) has stoked!
I've not heard of any threats against Trayvon Martin's parents. And even if there are, I'm sure the liberal media is leaping to find such a threat, while selectively ignoring a thousand times more threats to the Zimmerman family.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
George Zimmerman is free from prison but held hostage by fear.
So are his parents and his attorneys, all of whom have received a deluge of death threats after Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder charges in the killing of Trayvon Martin, his parents told Barbara Walters on Monday in their first interview.
“We have had an enormous amount of death threats,” Zimmerman’s father, Robert Zimmerman Sr., said on ABC News. “George’s legal counsel has had death threats, the police chief of Sanford, many people have had death threats. ‘Everyone with Georgie’s DNA should be killed’ – just every kind of horrible thing you can imagine.”
Robert and his wife, Gladys Zimmerman, haven’t even spoken to their son on the telephone since he walked a free man out of the Sanford, Fla., courtroom, they told Walters. The interview comes a day after Zimmerman’s defense attorney, Mark O’Mara, told ABC that Zimmerman can get back the 9mm Kel-Tec pistol he used to kill Trayvon Martin
A 78-year-old Methodist preacher from Volusia County, Fla., named George Zimmermann, was forced to call the police on Saturday when one of several harassing calls he's been getting, since the acquittal of Trayvon Martin's killer, threatened to send him to "a 6 feet hole."
"Hey (expletive) you're the one who killed Trayvon Martin, when your (expletive) get out, you're dead. Wherever you go, you're dead. Wherever you're trying to hide, you're dead," said the anonymous caller in the vitriolic rant noted in a WFTV 9 report.
"Watch your (expletive) move. You think you're free. You're not. You better get ready to dig a 6 feet hole. Cause you know you're fixing to go," the caller added.
Zimmermann, whose surname has two N's, unlike George Zimmerman's one, said his usually quiet life became a nightmare the night the 29-year-old neighborhood watch captain was acquitted of Trayvon Martin's murder.
"The night of the verdict, I had one at 1 in the morning, which woke me up; was pretty nasty. Another at 3 in the morning," said the Methodist preacher.
When asked how he has been treating the harassing calls, Zimmerman said: "I don't say anything to them except, 'Hey, you've got the wrong guy. The name's spelled differently.'"
What's worse, however, is that even when the preacher has clarified the mix-up, no one has ever apologized to the man of God, and he has handled it with grace.
"I guess if it made them feel better to vent, that's fine. I can live with it," said Zimmermann, who is hoping that the calls will end soon.
George Zimmerman Juror Says 'In Our Hearts, We Felt He Was Guilty' July 25, 2013 By ALYSSA NEWCOMB Alyssa Newcomb More from Alyssa »Digital Reporter George Zimmerman Juror: 'In Our Hearts, We Felt He Was Guilty'Next The only minority on the all-female jury that voted to acquit George Zimmerman said today that Zimmerman "got away with murder" for killing Trayvon Martin and feels she owes an apology Martin's parents.
"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," said the woman who was identified only as Juror B29 during the trial. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."
She said the jury was following Florida law and the evidence, she said, did not prove murder.
The court had sealed the jurors' identities during the trial and still hasn't lifted the order, but Juror B29 edged out of the shadows in an exclusive interview with "Good Morning America" anchor Robin Roberts. She allowed her face to be shown, but -- concerned for her safety -- used only a first name of Maddy.
The nursing assistant and mother of eight children was selected as a juror five months after she had moved to Seminole County, Fla., from Chicago.
All six of the jurors were women and Maddy, 36, who is Puerto Rican, was the only minority to deliberate in the racially charged case. Zimmerman, 29, was a white Hispanic and Martin, 17, was black.
Catch up on all the details from the George Zimmerman murder trial.
Despite the prosecution's claim the Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black, Maddy said the case was never about race to her, although she didn't want to speak for her fellow jurors.
But her feelings about Zimmerman's actions are clear.
"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."
When the jury of six women—five of them mothers—began deliberations, Maddy said she favored convicting Zimmerman of second degree murder, which could have put him in prison for the rest of his life. The jury was also allowed to consider manslaughter, a lesser charge.
"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.
However, on the second day of deliberations, after spending nine hours discussing the evidence, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law.
Zimmerman concedes he shot and killed Martin in Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012, but maintains he fired in self-defense.
"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."
When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so."
"I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said.
Ben Crump, a lawyer for the Martin family, told ABC News, "We and the parents of Trayvon Martin do agree that the killer of their child got away with murder."
Trayvon Martin's mother Sybrina Fulton said in a statement that it was "devastating for my family to hear the comments from juror B29, comments which we already knew in our hearts to be true. That George Zimmerman literally got away with murder."
"This new information challenges our nation once again to do everything we can to make sure that this never happens to another child. That's why Tracy and I have launched The Trayvon Martin Foundation to try and take something very painful and negative and turn it into something positive as a legacy to our son," Fulton said.
Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, said he wants to see the interview before commenting.
As a mother, Maddy said she has had trouble adjusting to life after the verdict, and has wrestled with whether she made the right decision.
"I felt like I let a lot of people down, and I'm thinking to myself, 'Did I go the right way? Did I go the wrong way?'" she said.
"As much as we were trying to find this man guilty…they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it," she said. "I feel the verdict was already told."
Maddy said she has sympathy for Martin's parents and believes she, too, would continue the crusade for justice if this had happened to her son.
I saw that juror's interview. She clearly didn't understand the distinction between "killing" and "murder" since she said she wanted to lock him away based solely on the fact that Zimmerman shot him.
But still, she's to be commended for putting her personal bias and reactionary feelings aside for the sake of following the parameters put down by the court.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
"But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."
on the second day of deliberations, after spending nine hours discussing the evidence, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law.
I saw that juror's interview. She clearly didn't understand the distinction between "killing" and "murder" since she said she wanted to lock him away based solely on the fact that Zimmerman shot him.
But still, she's to be commended for putting her personal bias and reactionary feelings aside for the sake of following the parameters put down by the court.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
"But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."
And they did.
I think she understands the difference but what she ran into was the reasonable doubt standard jurors are instructed to follow. This seems to confuse people from both sides but you can actually think somebody is probably guilty but because of the high standard you really have no choice in your verdict if it doesn't reach that high bar of evidence. OJ was also found not guilty as have many others that probably were guilty but it just couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I feel bad for those jurors because it couldn't have felt good rendering that not guilty verdict.
She said nothing about reasonable doubt. She said that she felt he was guilty on the sole virtue of the fact that he killed Martin. Unfortunately for her feelings, the state still discriminates one kind of killing from another.
I think she understands the difference but what she ran into was the reasonable doubt standard jurors are instructed to follow. This seems to confuse people from both sides but you can actually think somebody is probably guilty but because of the high standard you really have no choice in your verdict if it doesn't reach that high bar of evidence...
As written you seem to be saying that you no longer want to hold the government to the high standard that was and is intended to insure the protection of the innocent from an overreaching police state. Am I correct or am I misreading your post?
Didn't say that. I'm curious where you read into that. I'm just saying reasonable doubt does allow for a juror to feel somebody is probably guilty and still find them not guilty because it doesn't cross that high bar from likely to certain.
Zimmerman’s brother warns: Civil suit ‘might not be very flattering’ for Trayvon Martin’s family By Arturo Garcia Friday, July 26, 2013 20:46 EDTTopics: Robert Zimmerman
5934 • 5934••••• • Robert Zimmerman, whose younger brother George was acquitted for his role in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, told The Huffington Post on Friday that a civil suit might lead to unpleasant facts coming to light about the Florida teenager’s family.
“A myriad of things that were off-limits in a criminal trial would come into play in a civil case,” Robert Zimmerman said in an email to the Post. “Specifically, things that might not be very flattering to Trayvon or his family.”
That of course goes both ways. Besides Zimmerman's assaulting a cop with violence and domestic abuse allegations there was also a cousin that alleged he was molesting her.
Didn't say that. I'm curious where you read into that. I'm just saying reasonable doubt does allow for a juror to feel somebody is probably guilty and still find them not guilty because it doesn't cross that high bar from likely to certain.
The way you wrote it before I wasn't sure if you meant what I asked about or what you just wrote above. I wanted to clarify before I argued with you about something that you might not have actually believed.
That of course goes both ways. Besides Zimmerman's assaulting a cop with violence and domestic abuse allegations there was also a cousin that alleged he was molesting her.
As I noted before, prior bad acts are not necessarily admissible in a civil trial. That cuts both ways.
However, as noted before, from what I understand, the biggest potential exposure to the Martins is a countersuit from Zimmerman for assault by Trayvon and negligence on their part in failing to adequately supervise their son.
It's possible that Trayvon's past might be admissible in that context to show negligence by the parents in that they had knowledge of his bad character and still let him out at night unsupervised.
But that would not mean Zimmerman's alleged past was fair game as well. Most likely, it would come out there, if at all, on cross examination, in an attempt to show an alleged propensity for falsehoods or putting his own needs above society's. Even then, however, depending on the laws of FL, crimes which did not result in a conviction very well could be inadmissible to impeach.
Zimmerman's past would probably come out before a theoretical countersuit in cross examination wouldn't it? More likely his tendacy to react violently or force himself sexually would be used in a possible wrongful death suit if that is allowed.
Zimmerman's past would probably come out before a theoretical countersuit in cross examination wouldn't it? More likely his tendacy to react violently or force himself sexually would be used in a possible wrongful death suit if that is allowed.
As I said above, it is possible it would come out on cross-examination but depending on the laws of the jurisdiction it is possible that only actual convictions would be allowed:
Quote:
Most likely, it would come out there, if at all, on cross examination, in an attempt to show an alleged propensity for falsehoods or putting his own needs above society's. Even then, however, depending on the laws of FL, crimes which did not result in a conviction very well could be inadmissible to impeach.
If I were a betting man, I'd say the alleged sex abuse wouldn't come out at all since the probative value would be outweighed by the potential prejudice of allowing discussion of an unproven and stale allegation.
Only possible convictions for Zimmerman? Wouldn't that also apply to Martin than also? As for the child molestation allegations, Zimmerman's cousin said it went on for years. The family even confronted "Georgie" with it. It wasn't like it was decades ago either. Is there a legal time limit for when something that would go to character becomes stale when it comes to a civil suit?
Only possible convictions for Zimmerman? Wouldn't that also apply to Martin than also?
It depends on how the information is being used.
As noted above, in a counterclaim against the Martins it is likely that the case theory would be that they were negligent because they allowed their son, whom they knew had a history of bad behavior, out unsupervised. If so, that knowledge would be an element of the case. Therefore, it would be provable...and relevant at trial against the Martins. In fact, Zimmerman might be required to show preexisting knowledge on the part of the Martins.
Conversely, if the counterclaim was against the estate of Trayvon for simple assault then those prior bad acts of Trayvon would be more likely inadmissible as character evidence.
And even if evidence were potentially admissible under relevance, as noted above, it would have to outweigh any undue prejudice.
If something is unfairly prejudicial a court would rule it can't be brought up even under cross examination.
I tend to think evidence of Zimmerman committing assaults would not be considered unduly prejudicial on cross. I tend to think that the sex abuse allegation would be. There's no conviction. It's an old allegation. An accusation of sex abuse is something that tends to enflame the emotions. Therefore, unless there is something more relevant to the case about that allegation than shown in the past, I think it would be suppressed.
And, please, understand: This isn't about liking Zimmerman and not Martin, or vice versa. It's about analyzing the likely theories of each case and how those theories would impact what evidence is or isn't admissible. It's something we do in traffic court.
Pointing out the ridiculous double-standard of the news media, throwing maximum kerosine on the fire regarding the rare white-on-black violent attack.
While virtually if not completely ignoring the far more prevalent (50-to-1) black-on-white attacks. And the 90%-plus ratio of black murders that are black-on-black.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
The mother of a 13-month-old boy shot dead in his stroller said she thought the gun being pointed at her was fake.
Sherry West of Brunswick, Ga. recounted the horrifying chain of events that took place Thursday morning when she was pushing Antonio Santiago in his stroller after running an errand. That’s when she said a teenager and a younger boy approached her and demanded money.
“I thought the gun was fake. I didn’t think the gun was real,” West told CNN in an interview punctuated by sobs. “A boy approached me and told me he wanted my money and I told him I didn’t have any money and he said ‘give me your money or I’m gonna kill you and I’m going to shoot your baby.’”
West was shot in the ear, the bullet just grazing her skin, and in the leg above her knee.
“I thought it was a BB gun. It was a small gun, and then all of a sudden he walked over and he shot my baby right in the face,” West said. “He must have died instantly because I screamed for help and a neighbor to call the police, and he ran off — he got scared that I screamed.”
West said she quickly wheeled the stroller away and took the baby out of his harness.
“I tried to perform CPR, I saw his lungs inflating but he was not breathing and there was no pulse,” she said. “By the time the EMTs got there the police, they tried to do CPR also, and we — we lost him.”
De’Marquise Elkins, 17, was arrested and charged as an adult with first-degree murder. Police also arrested a 14-year-old, who has not been identified because he is a minor.
Elkins’ older sister said her brother was not in the area on Thursday and could not have been involved in the shooting.
“My brother wasn’t anywhere near that area as far as we know – not the scene or the shooting,” she told the Associated Press Saturday.
“He couldn’t have done that to a little baby,” she added. “My brother has a good heart.”
This Friday, March 22, 2013 photo provided by the Glynn County Detention Center shows De’Marquise Elkins, 17, one of two teenagers arrested Friday and accused of fatally shooting a 13-month-old baby in the face and wounding his mother during their morning stroll in Brunswick, Ga.. (AP)
West was shown Elkins’ jail mug shot and said she’s sure he’s the one who pulled the trigger.
“That’s definitely him,” she said. “He killed my baby, and he shot me, too.”
Oh yes, such a nice kid! Other reports show his family knew exactly what he did, and helped him conceal the gun and create a fake alibi.
Five months later, still waiting for the media to comment on the obvious racial angle and rage that made this sack of human excrement shoot a 13-month-old white baby in the face. Still waiting for the outrage from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, and Congressional black Caucus.
Still waiting for President Obama to comment on how brutal and senseless this crime is, that black men while about 3% of the nation's population, commit 42% of the nation's crime. That 90% of black murders are black-on-black, and that racially motivated black-on-white crimes occur at a ratio of 50-to-1 of the reverse, and that this murder is a case example of a huge problem in America.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
There's nothing that seems to get a liberal more fired up than acts of racism in America. They will go on television or radio or the Internet and bemoan the state of American society. But as we can clearly see from recent examples, not all racists are created equal, and only certain incidents are worthy of their time. If a white kid is beaten up by a black kid (or kids), you can bet you won't hear a single word of outrage from the left.
So, what exactly does it take to get the left fired up? When Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman and started beating his head into the ground, that was no big deal. But when Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense, then it suddenly became a hate crime. Zimmerman was branded a racist and put on trial in the media before he ever saw a single day in court.
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, and just about every single so-called "civil rights" leader were claiming that there needed to be "justice for Trayvon."
Next, let's look at the beating that occurred in Florida recently. A 13-year-old white student was on a school bus when three older black students beat him severely. According to reports, the boy was left with two black eyes and a broken arm. And yet, despite this massive violence, there's not one word out of America's civil rights "leaders."
Now, the facts of that incident indicate that one of the black boys tried to sell drugs to the white boy, who then reported the encounter to school officials. The black kids then went on the school bus to get their revenge.
The beating does not appear to be racially motivated at all, but that's not really the point, is it? If three white kids beat a black boy on a school bus, the entire contingent of left-wing spokespeople would be out in force demanding "justice" for the boy. None of the "facts" would matter at all.
Then, there is the story of Raymond Widstrand, a white man who was simply out for a walk in St. Paul, Minnesota when he was beaten to near death by a group of black men. Again... no outrage at all.
Where are the calls by Obama for a "racial dialogue?" Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Are they actual civil rights leaders or just black rights leaders? We all know the answer to that question: It's NEITHER. These men don't care about the rights of the average black man. They simply see incidents like the Trayvon Martin case as opportunities... opportunities for them to get in front of a microphone and remind America that they are famous and they have something to say. It's pathetic.
Finally, we have the "case of the clown." I'm talking about the rodeo clown in Missouri who has now been banned for life. What did he do that was so wrong? What did he do to warrant such a harsh punishment? He dressed up with a Barack Obama mask!
Rodeo clowns are all about entertainment. Just like comedians, their job is to make the audience laugh. Comedians all across the country make fun of the president of the United States. It goes with the territory. But, I guess if you put on a Barack Obama mask, you are suddenly a racist... at least according to the left.
It's time for all this to stop. If Jackson, Obama, Sharpton, and others are truly concerned with racial equality in America, then they need to stop giving black America a pass regarding violence. Basically, what these people are saying is that it's ok for blacks to commit crimes against whites. According to them, it's not racially motivated it's just a byproduct of their history in America. That's just a bunch of bull!
The longer we give ANY group an excuse for their violence, the more the violence will continue.
Sorry there isn't a diplomatic way to put it other than you guys are just being dumb.
Obama sat in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, listening to Wright shriek his hate at white America.
Obama was an enthusiatic follower of the writings of Derrick "hate whitey" Bell's lunatic rantings.
On the subject of wife Michelle Obama, his most imtimate soul-mate for over 20 years:
Quote:
In 1985 Miss Robinson received her B.A. in Sociology from Princeton University, where she minored in African American Studies. According to FrontPageMagazine reporter Jacob Laksin, “In a [February 2008] interview with Newsweek, [Michelle] Obama reveals that she got into Princeton … not on the strength of her grades, which she admits were unexceptional, but thanks to her brother Craig, a star athlete and gifted student who preceded her to the school. As a ‘legacy’ candidate and a beneficiary of affirmative action, Michelle Obama was granted an opportunity that others more accomplished were denied.”
During her years at Princeton, Miss Robinson was a board member with a radical campus group known as the Third World Center (TWC), which was established in 1971 to provide "a social, cultural and political environment that reflects the needs and concerns of students of color at the University”; to remedy the fact that “the University’s cultural and social organizations have largely been shaped by students from families nurtured in the Anglo-American and European traditions”; to acknowledge that “it has not always been easy for students from different backgrounds to enter the mainstream of campus life”; and to teach minority students to “become more sensitive to the consequences of a long history of prejudice and discrimination.”
TWC's constitution and founding documents were steeped in anti-American and anti-white rhetoric. TWC's constitution stated:
"The term ‘Third World’ implies[,] for us, those nations who have fallen victim to the oppression and exploitation of the world economic order. This includes the peoples of color of the United States, as they too have been victims of a brutal and racist economic structure which exploited and still exploits the labor of such groups as Asians, Blacks, and Chicanos, and invaded and still occupies the homelands of such groups as the Puerto Ricans, American Indians, and native Hawaiian people. We therefore find it necessary to reeducate ourselves to the various forms of exploitation and oppression. We must strive to understand more than just the basics of human rights. We must seek to understand the historical roots and contemporary ramifications of racism if Third World people are to liberate themselves from the economic and social chains they find themselves in."
A 1976 TWC document titled “Oppression breeds resistance,” stated: “The history of the peoples of the Third World, who have suffered from U.S. Imperialism, and of the oppressed nationalities within the United States—Afro-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, Asians, and Native Americans, has been a history of oppression and resistance.” On one occasion in 1973, TWC brought the Puerto Rican Nationalist and Socialist, Manuel Maldonado-Denis to campus as a guest speaker. “I have come from a colonized country, submitted to cultural assimilation and cultural aggression,” he told the students at TWC. He accused the United States of “dominating,” “fleecing” and “exploiting” Puerto Rico, and said “the only solution” to the problem was “the establishment of national liberation and the establishment of socialism.”
In November 1984, during Michelle Robinson's tenure as a TWC board member, that board maintained that nonwhite students should have the right to bar whites from its meetings on campus and from its meetings with school administrators. Of the 19 elected positions on the organization's board, two were reserved exclusively for each of the five ethnic groups TWC claimed to represent: Asian, Black, Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Native American.
TWC played a key role in bringing to Princeton's campus a host of radical speakers, including such notables as Hassan Rahman, the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s deputy observer to the United Nations; David Johnson, affiliated with the terrorist group FMLN; former Jamaican Prime Minister Michael Manley, a committed socialist; William Bowen, the architect of Princeton’s racial preference programs; Roberto Vargas, a pro-Sandinista, pro-Che Guevara poet; Miguel Barnet, a pro-Castro writer and ethnographer; Manning Marable, a renowned black Marxist; and a number of ACORN representatives.
At Princeton, Miss Robinson wrote a senior thesis entitled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community,” (see complete thesis under the Resources column on the left-hand side of this page). Some excerpts from the thesis include the following:
“Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.” “[My Princeton experiences] “will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.” “I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.” “Earlier in my college career, there was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the Black community I was somehow obligated to this community and would utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit this community first and foremost.” “In defining the concept of identification or the ability to identify with the black community … I based my definition on the premise that there is a distinctive black culture very different from white culture.” After graduating from Princeton, Miss Robinson went on to attend Harvard Law School, where she was accepted under the aegis of a minority outreach program. As one of her friends would later reflect, Robinson recognized that she had been privileged by affirmative action and was very comfortable with that.
In 1988, during her third and final year at Harvard, Miss Robinson wrote an essay for the Black Law Students Association (BLSA) newsletter, condemning Harvard for its dearth of nonwhite and female law professors, and for not having tried to increase their numbers by hiring new candidates on the basis of skin color and sex rather than their academic credentials:
“The faculty’s decision to distrust and ignore non-traditional qualities in choosing and tenuring law professors merely reinforces racist and sexist stereotypes, which, in turn, serve to legitimize students’ tendencies to distrust certain types of teaching that do not resemble the traditional images.”
Also in the 1988 essay, Miss Robinson derided such books as The Paper Chase and One-L, for promoting the notion that law professors should be “cold, callous, domineering, old, white men who took pleasure in engaging their students in humiliating and often brutal discourse.” She criticized the “traditional model” of law-school instruction, which relied heavily on the Socratic method. She lauded the work of several professors who did not use that method, including such far-leftists as Martha Minow and Charles Ogletree. And she heaped praise upon the concept of critical race theory, which holds that because racism is so deeply ingrained in American institutions, classical liberal ideals such as meritocracy, equal opportunity, and colorblind justice are essentially nothing more than empty slogans.
On May 10, 1988, just a few weeks before Miss Robinson received her Harvard law degree, she and some 50 other BLSA members, carrying signs demanding an “end to racism,” stormed the office of Dean James Vorenberg and occupied it for 24 hours. Specifically, the protesters demanded that Harvard Law School hire (and grant tenure to) 20 female or minority professors over the ensuing four years. They demanded, further, that at least seven of those twenty hires be black — and that at least four of those seven be female. Moreover, they demanded that Harvard grant tenure to Professor Ogletree and a deanship to Professor Derrick Bell, the father of critical race theory.
After law school, Miss Robinson returned to Chicago to work for the law firm Sidley Austin. There she met her future husband, Barack Obama, who was working for the firm as a summer associate. In the summer of 1991 she joined the staff of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley.
In 1992, as noted earlier, Miss Robinson wed Barack Obama. The marriage ceremony was performed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), where the Obamas were members of the congregation. (They would remain members of TUCC until 2008.)
and
Quote:
In a February 2007 appearance with her husband on 60 Minutes, Mrs. Obama implied that America’s allegedly rampant white racism posed a great physical threat to her husband, who had just announced his candidacy for the 2008 presidential race. Said Mrs. Obama: “As a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station.” (Mrs. Obama’s implication ignored the fact that the vast majority of violence against black Americans is committed by other blacks. According to the U.S. Justice Department, for instance, between 1976 and 2005, fully 94 percent of black murder victims were killed by black attackers.)
For Barack Obama to live with wife Michelle all those years, he must share that deeply hostile racial ideology.
And Obama's associations with Rev. Wright and Derrick Bell, among others, underscores that racial hostility.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
