Friday, July 26, 2013

Ignore Race-baiters Like Sharpton, Jackson and Obama. There is Only One Race.

That's the Cassini probe looking back at us from behind Saturn. See that little dot? That is Earth.

Our whole planet. Six billion people. Despite all the stuff we think is worth fighting over, we're all together on that little speck.

We can still send things out there. We can still do things like this. Tell me we can't afford it, and I have to ask where our priorities really are.

Ignore race-baiters like Sharpton, Jackson and Obama.

There is only one race. We are all in this together.

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Burn down the Sanford courthouse and salt the earth. The justice system revealed by this squalid trial is worth rioting over.

Just when I thought the George Zimmerman “trial” couldn’t sink any lower, the prosecutorial limbo dancers of the State of Florida magnificently lowered their own bar in the final moments of their cable-news celebrity.

In real justice systems, the state decides what crime has been committed and charges somebody with it. In the Zimmerman trial, the state’s “theory of the case” is that it has no theory of the case: might be murder, might be manslaughter, might be aggravated assault, might be a zillion other things, but it’s something. If you’re a juror, feel free to convict George Zimmerman of whatever floats your boat.

Nailing a guy on something, anything, is a time-honored American tradition: If you can’t get Al Capone on the Valentine’s Day massacre, get him on his taxes. Americans seem to have a sneaky admiration for this sort of thing, notwithstanding that, as we now know, the government is happy to get lots of other people on their taxes, too. Ever since the president of the United States (a man so cautious and deferential to legal niceties that he can’t tell you whether the Egyptian army removing the elected head of state counts as a military coup until his advisers have finished looking into the matter) breezily declared that if he had a son he’d look like Trayvon, ever since the U.S. Department of so-called Justice dispatched something called its “Community Relations Services” to Florida to help organize anti-Zimmerman rallies at taxpayer expense, ever since the politically savvy governor appointed a “special prosecutor” and the deplorably unsavvy Sanford Police Chief was eased out, the full panoply of state power has been deployed to nail Zimmerman on anything.

How difficult can that be in a country in which an Hispanic Obama voter can be instantly transformed into the poster boy for white racism? Who ya gonna believe — Al Sharpton or your lying eyes? As closing arguments began on Thursday, the prosecutors asked the judge to drop the aggravated-assault charge and instruct the jury on felony murder committed in the course of child abuse. Felony murder is a murder that occurs during a felony, and, according to the prosecution’s theory du jour, the felony George Zimmerman was engaged in that night was “child abuse,” on the grounds that Trayvon Martin, when he began beating up Zimmerman, was 17 years old. This will come as news to most casual observers of the case, who’ve only seen young Trayvon in that beatific photo of him as a twelve-year-old.

In that one pitiful closing moment, the case achieved its sublime reductio ad absurdum: After a year’s labors, after spending a million bucks, after calling a legion of risible witnesses, even after the lead prosecutor dragged in a department-store mannequin and personally straddled it on the floor of the court, the state is back to where it all began — the ancient snapshot of a smiling middle-schooler that so beguiled American news editors, Trayvon Martin apparently being the only teenager in America to have gone entirely unphotographed in the second decade of the 21st century. And, if Trayvon is a child, his malefactor is by logical extension a child abuser.

Needless to say, even in a nutso jurisdiction like Florida, the crime of “child abuse” was never intended to cover a wizened old granny kicking the ankle of the punk who’s mugging her a week before his 18th birthday. But, if Aggravated Pedophilia is what it takes to fry that puffy white cracker’s butt, so be it. If, for the purposes of American show trials, an Hispanic who voted for a black president can be instantly transformed into a white racist, there’s no reason why he can’t be a child abuser, too. The defense was notified of this novel development, on which the prosecution (judging by the volume of precedents assembled) had been working for weeks or more likely months, at 7:30 that morning.

If you know your Magna Carta, you’ll be aware that “no official shall place a man on trial . . . without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.” But the rights enjoyed by free men in the England of King John in 1215 are harder to come by in the State of Florida eight centuries later. So the prosecutors decided, the day before the case went to the jury, that Zimmerman was engaged in an act of child abuse that had somehow got a bit out of hand: No “credible witnesses” to this charge had been presented in the preceding weeks, but hey, what the hell?

Opposing counsel taking the reasonable position that they’d shown up to defend Mr. Zimmerman of murder and had had no idea until that morning that he was also on trial for child abuse, check bouncing, jaywalking, an expired fishing license, or whatever other accusation took the fancy of the State of Florida, asked for time to research the relevant case law. Judge Debra Nelson gave them until 1 p.m. At that point, it was 10:30 a.m. By the time the genius jurist had returned to the bench, she had reconsidered, and decided that “child abuse” would be a reach too far, even for her disgraceful court.

The defining characteristic of English law is its distribution of power between prosecutor, judge, and jury. This delicate balance has been utterly corrupted in the United States to the point where today at the federal level there is a conviction rate of over 90 percent — which would impress Mubarak and the House of Saud, if not quite, yet, Kim Jong Un. American prosecutors have an unhealthy and disreputable addiction to what I called, at the conclusion of the trial of my old boss Conrad Black six years ago, “countless counts.” In Conrad’s case, he was charged originally with 17 crimes, three of which were dropped by the opening of the trial and another halfway through, leaving 13 for the jury, nine of which they found the defendant not guilty of, bringing it down to four, one of which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional and the remaining three of which they vacated, only to have two of them reinstated by the lower appeals court. In other words, the prosecution lost 88 percent of the case, but the 12 percent they won was enough to destroy Conrad Black’s life.

Multiple charges tend, through sheer weight of numbers, to favor a result in which the jury convict on some and acquit on others and then tell themselves that they’ve reached a “moderate” “compromise” as befits the reasonable persons they assuredly are. It is, of course, not reasonable. Indeed, the notion of a “compromise” between conviction and acquittal is a dagger at the heart of justice. It’s the repugnant “plea bargain” in reverse, but this time to bargain with the jury: Okay, we threw the book at him and it went nowhere, so why don’t we all agree to settle? In Sanford, the state’s second closing “argument” to the strange, shrunken semi-jury of strikingly unrepresentative peers — facts, shmacts, who really knows? vote with your hearts — brilliantly dispenses with the need for a “case” at all.

We have been warned that in the event of an acquittal there could be riots. My own feeling is that the Allegedly Reverend Al Sharpton, now somewhat emaciated and underbouffed from his Tawana Brawley heyday, is not the Tahrir Square–scale race-baiting huckster he once was. But if Floridians are of a mind to let off a little steam, they might usefully burn down the Sanford courthouse and salt the earth. The justice system revealed by this squalid trial is worth rioting over.

From: The National Review

First Obama, then Bankruptcy, Divorce, Liquor

Friday, July 12, 2013

Geraldo Rivera Says All Six Jurors Would Have Killed Trayvon Martin

I can hardly believe I'm actually quoting Geraldo Rivera!
"RIVERA: I see those six ladies in the jury putting themselves on that rainy night, in that housing complex that has just been burglarized by three or four different groups of black youngsters from the adjacent community. So it’s a dark night, a 6-foot-2-inch hoodie-wearing stranger is in the immediate housing complex.
How would the ladies of that jury have reacted?
I submit that if they were armed, they would have shot and killed Trayvon Martin a lot sooner than George Zimmerman did.
This is self-defense."

 If Horrendo Revolver says murder isn't it, then you must acquit.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Obama Feeds More Homies Than McDonald's

This will get your goat: There are more people receiving EBT/Food aid than there are with jobs. If this ratio keeps going, the government will be feeding more people than McDonalds. Hmmm... Guess we all know what happens when those taking receive more than those giving. I guess 'giving' isn't exactly the right word, it should be those being 'robbed from'...

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that a total of 101,000,000 people currently participate in at least one of the 15 food programs offered by the agency, at a cost of $114 billion in fiscal year 2012.

That means the number of Americans receiving food assistance has surpassed the number of private sector workers in the U.S.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there were 97,180,000 full-time private sector workers in 2012.

The population of the U.S. is 316.2 million people, meaning nearly a third of Americans receive food aid from the government.
This  ( ) is merely a harbinger of things to come.

Or,  more realistically, we should perhaps remember this as the penultimate zenith of the welfare state. It will be soon - very soon - that the well runs dry and the unwashed masses of Obamanation begin to feel hunger pangs as we, the overworked, become spent.

Scenes like those from the trailers for the movie "World War Z" will be played out in front of the food stamp offices (NOT the unemployment line).

Not to get all crazy dramatic, but this is how to hack the Constitution and bring down the republic. We have takers outnumbering makers, and therefore in a position to outvote those from whom they take. We have a government pushing welfare and aid everywhere it can on one hand, and persecuting job creators through ObamaCare and EPA regulations on the other hand. The net effect has been to kill jobs and move Americans from work to welfare.

The weak economy perversely helps Obama. Dependence breeds voters who vote to defend the aid the government is granting them, and the Obama Democratic Party is the party of welfare. As long as Obama keeps the welfare flowing and the media remain mostly on his side, he has a free hand to do almost anything he wants. By the time government runs out of other people’s money, Obama will be out of office, but will have his Organizing for Action group and its massive databases set up to make him a kingmaker and enemy destroyer for the rest of his life.

Sunday, July 7, 2013

You are a Racist if You Don't Hire Criminals

What’s Obama’s latest brainstorm? Force businesses to hire criminals - particularly black criminals

Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is charging  automaker BMW and national retailer Dollar General with racism, discrimination and violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for using criminal background checks before hiring employees.

How can this be? Don’t companies have a right to check backgrounds before hiring employees that represent them? Don’t companies have a right not to hire convicted criminals? Not anymore. Not in Obama’s America. At least, not if the criminal is black.

The Obama government’s logic is frightening. The EEOC argues that because blacks are more likely to have been convicted of a crime, doing a criminal check discriminates against blacks.

How bad can this get? Well, the EEOC not only wants to ban background checks for black Americans, it wants the 70 black job applicants who BMW refused to hire because of criminal records to now be hired and given back pay and legal costs. On the other hand, the white applicants who were rejected don’t have to be hired. Obama’s EEOC argues it’s fair to do criminal background checks on whites.

You couldn’t make this up in a fictional novel without being laughed at. You couldn’t put this in a “Saturday Night Live” skit. The critics would call you ridiculous. Yet it’s happening in real life under Obama.

So when you won’t hire an applicant because of his criminal record you are a racist.

from:  The Tennessean

June 12, 2013

Dollar General sued over background check policy

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Dollar General Corp. over its criminal background checks of new hires and employees, a case that legal experts say could affect hiring practices nationwide.

In a civil lawsuit filed in Chicago on Tuesday, the federal agency said the Goodlettsville, Tenn.-based retailer has “engaged in ongoing, nationwide race discrimination against black applicants” for nearly a decade.

The suit contends the company’s practice of using criminal background checks disproportionally affects blacks, who have higher arrest and conviction rates than whites. The agency also filed a similar suit Tuesday against a BMW manufacturing plant in South Carolina.

“Overcoming barriers to employment is one of our strategic enforcement strategies,” EEOC spokeswoman Justine Lisser said. “We hope that these lawsuits will further educate the public and the employer community on the appropriate use of conviction records.”

In a statement, Dollar General denied the EEOC’s allegations and said the company would “vigorously defend” itself.

“Dollar General’s criminal background check process is structured to foster a safe and healthy environment for its employees, its customers and to protect its assets in a lawful, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner,” the company said.

The suits are the first since the EEOC revised guidelines last year that included urging employers to stop asking about past convictions on job applications and allow applicants to explain past criminal conduct before they are rejected.

The commission said it wanted to prevent limiting job opportunities for those with criminal records who “have been held accountable and paid their dues.”

The agency sued Dollar General on behalf of an unidentified woman hired at the company’s Waukegan, Ill., location in 2004. Although the woman disclosed a 1998 felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance before she was hired, she was fired shortly after beginning work because it — and a misdemeanor conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia — appeared on her background report, the suit said.

She fell victim to a Dollar General hiring policy that unilaterally bans those with certain convictions within certain time frames from working for the retailer, according to the suit.

For example, the company won’t hire anyone convicted in the previous 10 years of flagrant non-payment of child support or possession of drug paraphernalia, the suit said. Those convicted within the past three years of illegal dumping or improper supervision of a child also won’t be hired.

The EEOC’s suit contends the policy is too strict and doesn’t consider other factors, such as the applicant’s age and whether the crime was job-related.

The policy has resulted in blacks being rejected at a higher rate than whites, although blacks received just a quarter of job offers during a recent 2½-year period, the suit said, citing data provided by Dollar General.

The two cases likely won’t end the use of background checks, but could change how they’re used, two Nashville labor attorneys said.

“It may require the employer to have more justification as to why some smaller crimes are grounds not to hire an applicant,” Jim Higgins of The Higgins Firm wrote in an email. “(Still), no one is going to be required to hire a bunch of criminals and no one is going to mandate that they stop using background checks.”

Higgins also said he doesn’t believe EEOC is overreaching with the suits — a contention disputed by an attorney who represents employers in labor issues.

“The EEOC is putting forward some very aggressive interpretations of the law,” said Zan Blue of Constangy, Brooks & Smith. “These are test cases, and the defendants are unfortunate that they got selected. The EEOC chose high-profile targets for a reason — to make examples of them.”

He also said he believes Dollar General “will be a formidable foe” for the EEOC.

The BMW case focuses on a contractor that staffed a warehouse in Spartanburg, S.C., where the suit was filed.

The contractor’s policy was not to employ anyone with a criminal record within the past seven years. When a new contractor took over, BMW ordered a new round of checks and fired those with a criminal record from any year — even those who had worked at the warehouse for more than a decade, that suit said.

Of the 88 workers fired, 70 were black, the suit said.

BMW spokesman Sky Foster said the company “believes that it has complied with the letter and spirit of the law and will defend itself against the EEOC’s allegations of race discrimination.”

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Good luck with that  - huh?

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Declaration of Independence - Does Any of This Sound Familiar?

Take a look at just a few of the tyrannical actions of King George as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.

King Barack and his Court are similarly guilty

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.  

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: