Posts Tagged ‘Crime’

Miscarriage of Justice

Saturday, July 13th, 2013

Judicial Intemperance

In the case of the State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman on Thursday, Judge Nelson stepped out of line.  The purpose for which a judge serves in any trial is to be sure that the evidence is presented, and that a fair trial is conducted that by its processes, procedures, and by the judge’s own conduct, does not prejudice the jury flagrantly either for or against the defendant.  Whether you believe that George Zimmerman had been merely defending himself, or instead that he had shot Trayvon Martin with other motives, he is entitled to a fair trial.  What occurred on Thursday in Nelson’s courtroom was a travesty, and everything about it stinks of corruption or malfeasance on the part of the judge.  There can be no excuse for the conduct of the judge, so that whatever you think of Zimmerman’s alleged guilt or presumed innocence, you ought not be satisfied with the conduct of this trial.  From the very start, the deck has been stacked against George Zimmerman, and to see our system of justice perverted in this manner is one more piece of evidence in the case that we are entering post-constitutional, post-American conditions.

To begin, there should have been no trial.  The trial is the result of a special(read: “political”) investigation conducted by a state government that was seeking a political solution arising from a purely legal problem: The original investigation by Sanford, FL police found no cause to prosecute George Zimmerman, finding there was insufficient evidence to support prosecuting him.  All bizarre conspiracies aside, what Sanford investigators concluded was that George Zimmerman had acted in self-defense when he discharged his weapon, resulting in the death of Trayvon Martin.  At that point, the usual suspects in the unending meme of racial discontent took the stage, including our aggrieved President, who proclaimed “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”  From the moment these words issued forth from Barack Obama’s mouth, the die had been cast, and there could be no fair process for George Zimmerman. For an alleged “constitutional scholar,” Mr. Obama exhibited the prudence one might expect from a drunken lout making off-hand declarations.

The prosecutors spent the course of their case contradicting themselves, putting on witnesses that damned their case against Zimmerman, and mostly making a spectacle of their own incompetence.  If one didn’t know better, one might conclude that the prosecution had given up making any serious case against Zimmerman, and was merely going through the motions as a matter of political obedience to those same authorities, including the governor and attorney general of the State of Florida who insisted on bringing this case despite the clear lack of evidence for prosecution, and in spite of exculpatory evidence and witnesses that would tend to confirm the defendant’s claim of self-defense.  This has been a show-trial in mockery of justice, and throughout the presentation of their case, the prosecution didn’t manage even to put on a good show.

On Thursday, the judge permitted the prosecution to seek a conviction on the lesser charger of manslaughter, a charge that could still carry up to thirty years behind bars for Mr. Zimmerman, despite the fact that throughout the course of the trial, they had been seeking a second-degree murder finding.  While not unprecedented, it shows the degree to which the court has been accommodating to the prosecution’s interests.  It also clearly demonstrated that the prosecution knew it would never get a guilty verdict on the legal standard of second-degree murder, but they are hoping the jurors are willing to play Solomon and cut this baby in two, by finding Zimmerman guilty of the lesser charge despite the fact that their case hadn’t even met that standard.

More, judge Nelson entered into an interrogatory with the defendant in an entirely improper way, using her power of the bench to silence defense attorneys in what can only be regarded as a gross violation of the defendant’s civil liberties.  Zimmerman had the right to remain silent, and he had the right to reserve the matter of whether he would testify until the conclusion of the case being put on by his defense team.  In ordering the attorneys to be silent, the judge effectively deprived Mr. Zimmerman of counsel.  There is no other way to describe this, and it is an unconscionable breach of her duty to remain impartial to either party.  On the one hand, she was sabotaging Zimmerman’s defense, and on the other, she was providing clear appellate cause if there should be a conviction, and she admitted that might be the case in her own remarks to the court, but this did not deter her actions.  Why?

Some suspect foul play, inasmuch as it is not beyond the conceivable bounds of the Obama administration.  By opening his mouth on the matter, Obama now has a huge personal stake in this.  His prestige as President is on the line, and while he is mocked overseas from Europe to the Middle East to Asia, and while our foreign adversaries continue to consider him as a less-than-serious threat who has no credibility, at home he remains something of a cultural icon among minorities and youth.  His credibility is on the line, and if George Zimmerman is acquitted, after all the tampering by he and Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice, in many quarters, they will lose face on the street.  This may explain why the DOJ helped facilitate anti-Zimmerman protests at the outset of this case. Yes, to add insult to injury, tax-payer dollars went to support the creation of the spectacle of a racially-motivated rent-a-mob at the beginning of this case.

Should Zimmerman be convicted of manslaughter, I would not be surprised if on appeal, he may either get a retrial or have the conviction overturned.  Cynics might argue that this is the intention of the judge: Set Zimmerman up for conviction knowing that he will likely find relief in the appellate system.  In this way, the immediate threat of violence will be deferred so that when he finally finds relief from courts of appeal, people will have forgotten about him and the case, and the specter of riots averted.  If that’s the intention of any person connected with this case, they ought to be disbarred, removed from public offices in any capacity, and prosecuted for their misdeeds.  It is a heinous crime to rig the system of justice on the potentially false assumption that they will find justice at some later date.

Judge Nelson is a life-long Democrat, and a Jeb Bush appointee.  None should be surprised at this since we know Bush is no conservative.  If Zimmerman is convicted on the basis of this sabotage by the judge, Bush may face questions should he seek the nomination of the Republican Party about the quality and temperament of his judicial appointees, as well he should.

As all of this goes on, the same media that worked devilishly to rig public opinion by editing the 9-1-1 tapes is continuing to push the violence meme, replaying clips of the same old garbage, with perpetual vermin like Al Sharpton being looped repeatedly across the networks from the beginning of this case, when he added his voice to those comprising the lynch mob seeking Zimmerman’s blood.  It’s a sorry spectacle, but do not be dissuaded: If an injustice is carried out in this case, it will have been because our judicial system upon which we must all rely for a fair hearing in court has been bastardized and corrupted like so much else in our rapidly devolving culture.

As this goes to press, the jury is continuing their deliberations, and one can only hope that whatever their verdict, that these people will not be swayed by faulty process, misrepresentations, threats of violence, or any other factor except the law and the evidence.  If that is the case, justice will be done, and that’s all we can ask, but given the circus-like atmosphere of the court proceedings, it’s difficult to imagine the jury remaining completely untainted.  With this firmly in mind, like all the world, we must await a verdict, fervently hoping a further injustice will not have been done, but given the conduct of judge Debra Nelson, a grave miscarriage of justice has already occurred irrespective of what verdict may be handed-down by the jury.

Note: Some of the site update work has been delayed due entirely to my work schedule.  As outages are expected, I will let readers know.  Thank you for your patience.

Liberty Needs Your Help in Coryell County Texas

Sunday, August 12th, 2012

Justice Denied

From time to time, we all encounter stories about a corrupt institution of local government, and we wonder at the mindset that must lie behind the corruption.  As it turns out, in my own area here in Central Texas, there is at least one corrupt institution of government, and if there is any justice on Earth, the demons who have used their authority to demolish a lady’s life will be made to pay.  Sadly, the system is rigged against her, and naturally, the authorities involved have a corrupt media in their pockets.  What makes this story all the more frightening for me, personally, is the fact that I know the lady involved who has been the ceaseless victim of an attack by cronyism between a few private interests and a local government.  I will now share with you this story, in the hope that you will find a way to help her cause.  We mustn’t leave government or justice to the corrupt sorts who use it for personal vendettas or personal gain, but in Coryell County Texas, the law has become the servant of criminals.

You should know that in Central Texas, one of the counties in the region is Coryell.  Its seat is the city of Gatesville, and its largest town, Copperas Cove, is on the Western edge of the Fort Hood military reservation.  To travel from Copperas Cove to Gatesville entails a thirty minute drive on Highway 116, a roadway that runs  parallel to the Western boundary of the military reservation.  It is along this rural Texas highway that this controversy was initiated, and it was enacted by parties in the Copperas Cove vicinity, and otherwise assisted by officialdom in Gatesville.  Before telling you the details of the case, let me tell you about its primary victim, a lady I have known for a dozen years, who is remarkable both in her person, but also in her personal history.  Her name is Marijeta Medverec, and if there is any justice in Heaven or on Earth, Coryell County will come to bear her name.

Marijeta is an immigrant to the United States.  She was born and raised in what had been Yugoslavia, when it was a part of the Soviet Bloc.  She was among the first handful of female fighter jet pilots in her country, being one of the first women in her country, and indeed in the world, to exceed the speed of sound.   She was also the first female pilot in her home country’s “commercial” air service.  She was trained in martial arts. When her son had a congenital heart condition, the government would not allow her to travel to the West to get it fixed, so she did something astonishing and courageous:  She defected.  She left behind everything, including her family, and defected to the West.

She went to the United States.  She joined the United States Army as a private.  She did so because she knew that it would increase her odds of being stationed in Germany, from where she would eventually smuggle her family out.  She had seen the villainy of socialism, and as one of that system’s premier examples of what a human could do, she went on to do even more.  She became a physician’s assistant, and she went on to retire from the U.S. Army as a Lt. Colonel, a disabled veteran and veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom who has seen and done more in her life than most of us would ever imagine.

Marijeta was not yet finished, however, as she decided she would have a horse farm and riding school in order to work with disabled children and anybody at all who wished to learn the rigors of horsemanship and good animal husbandry.  She bought a small piece of land just North of Copperas Cove, Texas, where our case begins, and on her small sixty-acre parcel, she began to bring the horses she had already acquired, and began to add to this with more animals, including charity cases, such as an old blind horse, nearly 30 years old, and some others, whose owners could no longer afford to feed them in our current economic travails.  She worked at least two, but usually three full-time jobs as a medical professional in order to pay the feed bills, the hay bills, the vet bills, and still keep everything else going.

To say Marijeta is a driven person is to understate the matter.  She is the sort of person whose life is a refutation to all who say “life is hard, it’s not my fault,” and she is the very picture of human achievement.  I am a person who thrives on work, and I disparage readily those who lay about and complain about their situation, but truly, I am a mere shadow of the sort of person Marijeta has been across the whole span of her fruitful life.  She is clever, engaging, disciplined, and compassionate almost to a fault.  In the dozen years I have known Marijeta, I have never known her to do wrong by any living thing, except perhaps herself.

More is the irony that in July of 2012, Sheriff’s deputies arrived on her property and seized all of her livestock.  The oafs trailered out her old blind horse, her mares, her gelding, her prized breeding stallion, as well as her cattle(ten head) and her goats(45) and donkeys.  They left behind her guinea hens, her dogs, and her cats.  All of this was done in a highly-publicized media circus orchestrated by the Coryell County Sheriff’s Office.  The claim was that some of the animals were in imminent danger of death from some sort of neglect or mistreatment.  That claim is an utter lie, but one might wonder how it could be that such a claim would come to be made in the first place.

Marijeta had a brief marriage to a person of local notoriety in the Copperas Cove vicinity, and that man has friends.  That man actually introduced Marijeta some years ago to the Sheriff’s deputy, one of his buddies, and the man who turned out to be the officer who initiated the investigation that resulted in this seizure.  The warrant for the seizure was issued by Justice of the Peace Coy Lathan, an elected JP who has served in Coryell County, but who is neither an attorney nor a scholar, as defined by the standard meaning of those terms.  The warrant would never have passed muster in a real court, which is presumably the reason it was sought in the JP court.  I suppose that if you want to do something really ugly to somebody, you ought to begin in a Kangaroo Court where the authority is on your side, and easily swayed to your cause.

More, the JP Court is limited in law to issues in controversy not to exceed $10,000.  Any dozen of her animals would cross that threshold, and yet to the Kangaroo court this went without delay, a County Attorney playing hatchet-man and pulling stunts in open court that might have gotten him a contempt charge in a civilized county.  Why could he get away with it? Because Coy Lathan is apparently unfamiliar with the rules of civil procedure governing the conduct of a hearing or trial in a court in the State of Texas.

The Deputy who initiated and conducted the investigation was one of only two witnesses for the prosecution, a prosecution for which no actual charge existed at the time of the hearing-turned-trial, although one was subsequently concocted to fill in the blank on the form.  The other witness was a “friend of a neighbor” who had been in the vicinity of Medverec’s property twice in the period of a half-dozen years.  On Medverec’s side were a number of witnesses, including a licensed, practicing veterinarian, who had examined the animals only a few days before the seizure(when Medverec got suspicious about the poking-around by the Deputy in question.)  Other witnesses included a skilled farrier, who is also a police chief and animal control officer in another jurisdiction.  There were roughly two hands-full of witnesses on Medverec’s behalf.  Medverec’s attorney actually asked what sort of plea he should be entering, since he didn’t understand whether this legal farce was hearing or a trial, and what were the charges if it was the latter.  She was not accorded the ability to request a jury trial.  She was deprived of all the ordinary civil liberties accorded to the accused, because upon the commencement of the procedure(?), she hadn’t been charged with anything.    There was not even a court-reporter present to make a permanent legal record of the hearing/trial/farce.

Yes, this is the state of justice in Coryell County, Texas.  You may have had your own dealings with the “good ol’ boys” where you live, but these are prototypes for the worst of the breed.

In the end, after hearing all the testimony, Justice of the Peace Lathan(a damnable heresy that he should hold such a title) said he would retire to consider the case, and that he would issue his decision the following morning.  His decision defied all law, all equity, and all logic.  He ordered Medverec’s horses returned to her, but ordered that the county would keep her goats and cows in order to satisfy the cost of the care of her animals.  He ordered that a veterinarian must monitor her animals regularly.  (As if this wasn’t already the case???)  What he did was to steal from Medverec.  That’s it.  It was official oppression, and when she lawyered-up, they got a bit worried, so they backed-off but they could not help it:  Lathan had to try to hide his idiocy or corruption(coin toss?) in issuing such a warrant, and in issuing such a seizure order, and if he didn’t do this, the county would be stuck with the bill for the animals’ care, that should never have occurred in the first place.

Of course, if you think this ended the controversy, you’d be mistaken.  Medverec knows a thing or two about government oppression, and she’s fought worse thugs than these.  She instructed her lawyer to file a suit, and she is currently figuring out if she is able to file an appeal at present, since it turns out that in the rush to get her horses home, she may have waived the ability to appeal. The rush to get her horses home was caused by the fact that her thirty-nine head were sharing a one-hundred gallon water trough that remained empty most of the time, and in this mass environment, her horses were becoming injured.  They also had injured her stallion, at one point during the seizure process, threatening to shoot him, and actually drawing their guns on her when she attempted to intervene.  I want you to consider the picture of a woman of slight build, stepping between armed official thugs and a horse, and the thugs drawing their guns on her.  That’s what Marijeta is up against.  These people who were there to seize her animals from alleged “imminent danger of death” ran over one of her goats, killing it, and injured her prized stallion, subsequently turning out a herd of horses into a barren pasture with insufficient feed, hay, water, and shade.  Who was the imminent danger to her animals?

Now come the stories of threats.  The rumor is that the veterinarian who had examined her animals and who testified on her behalf in the show trial has been told that he will get no more contracts with the county, particularly if he continues to testify on her behalf in any future court actions.  A neighbor shot one of her guinea hens, on her property.  During the hearing, she had windows smashed and tires slashed.  There is no point in reporting it to the authorities since it seems the authorities may be in collusion with the criminals.  I have begun to fear for Marijeta’s life, as the sort of thugs who clearly run that backwards county are the very sort who would kill to silence the truth.  The media is not covering this, since they would now look like idiots, having trumpeted the phony story from the outset.  The relation between local media and local authorities is incestuous, at best.  How did the media know to be at some remote property in Coryell County for the seizure pictures and footage?  They were tipped, but who tipped them?  There is only one answer:  A person or persons within the County government were seeking a propaganda decapitation strike. The media has many relationships with local government, and in our vicinity, it is clear one can trust neither.

I will be updating this story as more information becomes available.  In the mean time, I need your help.  We need to bring severe scrutiny upon Coryell County.  The cattleman’s association there has already seen the danger implicit in this action, and is agitating for the ouster of the Sheriff.  Others in the community have had similar things done to them, and they are now beginning to tell their stories  to the slim degree the media will cover it.

I’ve had the distinct privilege to know Col. Medverec for more than a decade.  She’s a first-rate horseman, and she’s a talented, dedicated medical professional.  She’s a workaholic, and she doesn’t deserve this treatment here in her adopted home.  This travesty should never be permitted, and it’s clear that so long as the current government of Coryell County, Texas is left in place, there can be no justice for its residents, and there can be no safety for their rights either.  I am absolutely floored by the corruption implicit in this entire case, and that it seems to have been concocted by cronies only makes it worse.  Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Coryell County, Texas, where crooks wear badges and black robes while retired veterans with livestock are understandably nervous.

I would ask readers to contact the Texas Attorney General’s office on Col. Medverec’s behalf.

Email Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott

You can also attempt to contact Coryell County Judge John Firth, chief administrator of Coryell County, not that it will do any good.

Email Judge Firth

For my part, I am going to use every resource I can in the area to battle on Medverec’s behalf.  This is a crime being enacted under color of law, a.k.a. “Official Oppression.”  Marijeta is a proud woman, and she has not solicited any sort of financial support, but I am going to ask her how people can donate to her defense against this outrageous act of corrupt government.

The Screams You Didn’t Hear

Saturday, July 21st, 2012

I refrained from posting on Friday, because while there was a rush to politicize the shooting just past midnight on Thursday in Aurora, Colorado, I frankly wanted to leave it be for a day.  Too many people in media were in too big a hurry to capitalize in some political fashion, and given the nature of the event, I must admit that I was spitting-mad.  I was mad at the culture of the left, for trying to immediately leap in to make propagandist pronouncements, and I was mad at the right for failing to see that one must choose one’s battles wisely.  The best thing for talking-heads to do on Friday was to shut the Hell up.  Most of those on the right did precisely that, but we also had the obnoxious spectacle of Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempting to advance his political position on the matter of gun control.  From the moment I heard Bloomberg’s comments, I became livid.  It had been bad enough with the episode of Brian Ross trying to tag the Tea Party with guilt by association, but hearing Bloomberg on the radio spiked my blood pressure, and I did something unusual.  I went off-clock, hopped in my car, drove to a wide-open space, and cursed all of these parasites at the top of my lungs.  Finished, I returned to work, leaving my most vicious contempt with the wind, where none will hear of it.

Having given this a day to settle in me, and having afforded the dead and their survivors the barest modicum of the respect they deserve, I am prepared to state my case:  These deaths needn’t have occurred, but it is the masterminds of the universe – characters like Mayor Bloomberg – whose preferred policies permit our people to be slaughtered by villains, defenseless in the face of mad-men.

Let me first state as a baseline of absolute clarity: One person is directly responsible for the deaths of and injuries to the victims in Aurora, Colorado. His name is James Holmes.  He plotted this cruel massacre, he planned his actions, he armed himself with vicious intent, and he carried out the slaughter.  He acted in cruel indifference to the liberties and lives of his fellow men, and for this crime, he must be tried and punished without remorse by the full fury of the instrument of Justice, wielding her sword without hesitation.  He must be removed from the face of the Earth with the deliberate action of the state in the name of the people whose rights it is sworn to protect.  Let us not discuss this part of the matter further, for there is no consolation or relief in it.  I don’t care for his particular motive, whatever twisted excuses he might concoct, or others might raise on his behalf.  He did it, and he must pay the only appropriate price.

Having covered the essentials facts relevant to the actor in this case, I now wish to deal with the generations of non-actors who demanded, through their intransigence, within their own sense of “moral” superiority, and from behind the fortress walls of the protected bubbles in which they live, that these victims be defenseless before the blazing guns of this mad-man.  I wish now to address the man who presides over the City of New York like a King, dictating that salt be stricken from the menu, that soft-drinks be limited to sixteen ounces, and that no law-abiding citizen may easily obtain a gun for his own defense.  There are many like him, and they are all equally guilty in abetting murder wherever law-abiding citizens have been deprived of the lawful ability to carry the means of their own defense.  Even in jurisdictions where concealed handgun permits are available, business owners, acting within their rights as property owners, often restrict patrons from bringing their weapons on the premises, irrespective of permits. Patrons at least have a choice as to whether they shall frequent such establishments, yielding their ability to self-defense.

What none of the political opportunists will tell you is that in every state in which concealed-carry permits are authorized, the incidence of violent crime against persons has fallen precipitously.  What none of these masterminds will tell you is that in all of the locales in which they have had their way, imposing gun control measures for their own nefarious purposes, these have become the deadliest cities in the country.  Chicago, New York, and Washington DC have among the tightest gun control regulations in the country, but they also remain at or near the top the list of violent murders by all weapons, including guns.   Once you have been armed with this knowledge, when Mayor Bloomberg addresses the media with his crass indifference to the murders committed under the shelter availed criminals by his sort of law, you should know that you are facing a man who is an accomplice, if not in the crime at hand in this case, then in others like it, numbering in the thousands, that draw little media attention because their victims number in ones and twos at a time, rather than in scores.

Do not tell me that we cannot know with certainty whether an armed citizen in the theater could have prevented some or all of this killing and maiming that visited this audience with gruesome indifference.  We do know with certainty that none were armed in defense of their own lives, and that the killer was unmolested on his way in and out of the auditorium.  What we also know, as Americans, but also as human beings in general, is that every person is entitled to defend his or her life, limb and liberty against brutal assault, but that none were able because they were faithfully abiding by rules that prohibited to them the instruments of their own possible salvation.

Make of it what you will, but every American ought to be outraged, as in instance after instance, killers seek out victims en masse, assembled for some peaceable, ordinary purpose, who are by virtue of the locale prohibited from their own defense.  To those who would argue that the killer might have succeeded anyway, given his body armor, I ask, since it appears by virtue of his booby-trapped apartment that he had a particular desire to take out cops if he were killed, why did he not launch his attack at a police station?  Why did he not attack people gathered at a practice range?  Why not?  He knew that the place he selected for attack was likely to be a weapons-free venue.  Unless there had happened to be an off-duty cop, he was likely to commit his mass murder unopposed.

The shooting at Virginia Tech was the same.  The gunman in that case struck where he could rampage unopposed, and it only ended when he decided to end it.  Major Hasan, at Fort Hood, knew full well that under ordinary circumstances, on an Army installation, despite the arms-rooms full of weaponry and bunkers full of munitions, soldiers do not walk around armed, and when on those rare occasions they train under arms, they do so without ammunition on hand.  A military base, should you penetrate its perimeter security, is a place where a shooter can rampage for some time without opposition, and Major Hasan was in the Army, so he knew this all too well.  He did not launch his attack in a restaurant off-post, where he might well be able to kill service-members, but might also encounter an armed civilian.  He knew his greatest chance of “success” in his spree of “work-place violence” would be where he would find legally disarmed victims.

More than two decades ago, when George Hennard rammed through the front of a Luby’s restaurant in Killeen, Texas, nearly within sight of the gates of the same Army post, he set in motion more than mass murder.  One of the survivors of that attack, Suzanna Gratia Hupp, whose parents were both killed in the assault, fought to see the concealed-carry law enacted.  She had a gun, but it was in her vehicle, as she did not wish to run afoul of the law, so she never carried it in her purse as she would have preferred.  Testifying in passionate words before the legislature, she explained how if only she had possessed the slightest idea that this attack was imminent, she would have risked all the sanctions of law to have her parents back.  Who would blame her?  She would have operated on the basis of the old maxim: “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six,” but she had no idea an attack was only moments away as she walked into the restaurant.  Almost nobody ever does, except the killers.

We have seen these senseless acts of brutality enacted upon innocent people for too long to be mere bystanders caught up in the drama the media lays before us.  We have been told for generations that if we only stripped guns from law-abiding persons, or limited the types of guns, or prohibited this feature or that, our world and our lives would be safer.  It has never worked, and I don’t believe for one moment that the proponents of such laws believe it will have any effect, except perhaps to leave us defenseless against them.  Let me tell you what I do believe is their real motive:  They fear the day that we realize the treachery they’ve enacted, and that while they ride around in bullet-proof limousines that consume a gallon of gasoline in six miles because of their weight, and while they are escorted by well-armed bodyguards who are highly trained to react to any threat to their persons, and as they pontificate on the evil of guns upon which they rely to keep them safe, they have hypocritically, sanctimoniously argued that you should not be afforded the same privilege.

If you are part of the favored elite or privileged classes, whether a politician or celebrity, you will be afforded every exemption known to man, and you will be able to buy licensed private protection to care for your well-being.  If you are a single mom, on your way home from work with your children, you will have no such privilege when a hooligan smashes your window at a stoplight, sticks a gun in your face, and does unspeakable harm to you and your family.  If you are a retired school teacher, walking alone in the park, you will not have the benefit of such protection, or even the ability to defend your own person, outnumbered by multiple youthful attackers.  If you’re a young man on a date with your girlfriend at the movies, you will not be given the chance to defend her from a villain, all because the masterminds have decided you’re a bigger liability than you are an asset, by whatever twisted calculus they apply to the lives of we “lesser” men.  A father will be forbidden from wielding arms in defense of his children, because the geniuses have decided that there is an acceptable rate of loss to the inevitable mad-men who arise to commit heinous crimes against their fellow men.

Do you think the police can protect you?  On Friday night in New York, a police officer was stationed at every movie theater in the city, to give the appearance of security and to defraud the prospective movie-goers of that city into believing they would be safe.  Don’t go to the play, the musical, or the rock concert,  because all the cops are occupied elsewhere.  At this moment, the criminal element in New York is likely assessing the possibility of carrying out crimes at locations well away from movie theaters, knowing that the response times will be slower since the police are otherwise engaged.  Do you think thugs don’t watch CNN or FoxNews?  All around the country, cities are putting on a show of force at movie theaters, but that’s all it is: A show.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must no longer yield the means of our personal defense. We must not cede responsibility for our protection to the likes of Michael Bloomberg, who enjoys protection provided at taxpayers’ expense while we languish at the mercy of every would-be mass murder who would demonstrate that a “gun-free zone” is only gun-free so long as it is inhabited strictly by law-abiding citizens.  Too often, these venues are the precise targets of choice for those who would do others harm.  For once, as happened two decades ago here in Texas, the people of America should consider that rather than restricting the instrument on the basis of the preposterous notion that any one of us might lose our minds at any given moment, we ought again yield to the natural fact that none has a greater interest in or capacity for your defense than you. Not Mayor Bloomberg. Not even the most conscientious cop.  You.

Editor’s note: I realize some will take offense at my remarks above, particularly with respect to the Mushmouth of New York.  Tough.  His maniacal launching of an attack on the 2nd Amendment in the wake of this tragedy earned him all the contempt reasonable people may wish to heap upon him, and certainly much more than I have mustered here. He and his cohorts who opportunistically utilize such circumstances to advance their anti-freedom agenda are a blight on this country, and I will offer such charlatans no quarter in my assessments.

As for the people of Aurora, Colorado, particularly those who have suffered directly the grievous loss and the trauma of this nightmarish event, you have the sympathies and support of every American of good will.  When I have seen images from the scene, of first responders, health-care workers, and members of the community who have reached out to help their fellows in a time of despair, I am heartened by what are the inestimable good graces of so many fine people rendering all the aid they are able.  On this website, I often focus on the doom and gloom in which so much of our world seems to have become cloaked, but this day, in Aurora Colorado, while I see a grim tragedy, I also see reason for hope, not in some shoddy politician offering slogans, but in the actions and the fraternal love I see among the people there.  When I am asked why I am proud to be an American, it is because such people as these give light and love to our country even in its darkest hours, when it would be easier to simply turn it all off in order to avoid the horror.  I recently explained that I had been searching for America, and in the finest devotion to purpose, and in the greatest tradition of American spirit I’ve seen in a community wracked by terror, I have found her, and she is still thriving.  May those souls be at peace, and may America take their survivors into the bosom of her fullest compassion.

 

Trayvon Martin and the Politics of Division

Sunday, March 25th, 2012

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

I had decided to avoid this case because I could see that it was headed for inflammatory realms in which race would become one of the central talking points, and I don’t wish to be part of such vicious spectacles, or in any way add to the situation, but this has gone too far.  Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old, was shot and killed after some sort of altercation with George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida, on February 26th.  Martin, an African-American, was apparently armed only with Skittles candy and ice tea, and the presumption has been that Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch participant or captain of some sort who has a concealed hand-gun carry license, must have overreacted in the moment and shot Martin.

Initially, it was reported that Zimmerman was white, but it was later amended to reflect the reality that he is Hispanic. The political impact locally was immediate:  There was outrage.  Since that time, various political figures and operatives have stuck their noses into this,  agitating for their own agenda, the list of agitators sadly including the President of the United States.

At the scene, police let Zimmerman go because according to witnesses, it appeared to be the case that during the final moments of the incident, Martin was atop Zimmerman, hammering away at him with punches.  Zimmerman was battered and bloodied, and he had grass stains on his clothing indicating he had been on his back, defensive, when the shooting occurred. Witnesses have confirmed much of this account.  That has not been enough to stem the tide of racially-charged agitating going on in Sanford, Florida, and increasingly, around the country, as the con-artists who use such incidents to try to sew chaos in the black community have continued to work their worst.  It’s abominable, but it’s also sadly telling, because rather than attempting to calm things, President Obama stirred them up further with his own ridiculous remarks before heading to South Korea.

We will likely never know with absolute certainty what transpired, or how this went down in the moments leading up to Trayvon Martin’s death.  We will have the words of the witnesses, the 9-1-1 call, and the testimony of George Zimmerman, along with any physical evidence collected at the scene.  All of this is important in reconstructing those moments, but the suspicion among many is that Zimmerman was an overzealous neighborhood watch participant who went too far, but it is also entirely possible within the framework of the evidence disclosed thus far that Zimmerman is entirely innocent of any wrong-doing. After all, the cops had a dead body, and a smoking gun, and a shooter.  They had everything they needed if they thought Zimmerman had committed a crime to arrest him on the spot.  This is the reason for the outrage, of course, because there are those who are suggesting that there’s no way this could be anything other than criminal malevolence on the part of Zimmerman.

One of the other reasons I haven’t written about this is because I know passions are running high, but information is thin. I am not about to condemn Zimmerman who may have done exactly nothing wrong, nor am I about to cast aspersions on 17-yo Martin, who may well have been the victim in this case, but in any event lost his life in the event.  What I am going to say is what the Mayor, the Governor, and the President should have said, but in various ways failed to do:

We are a nation of laws.  We have the system of justice that permits the investigation, the charging, the arresting, the trial and the punishment of wrong-doers.  We must trust in this system to sort through the physical evidence, the testimony of witnesses, circumstantial evidence, and the whole body of what is known about this case in order that justice be served.  What we do know is that in the hours afterward, the police saw fit to let Zimmerman go.  His story seemed to check out, and after interviewing Martin’s father, they verified that the screams for help heard on the 9-1-1 recordings were not those of Trayvon Martin, at least implying that at some point during the altercation, Zimmerman was on the receiving end of the worst of it.  Then there was a gun-shot, and that all changed.

Could the discharge of the weapon have been accidental?  Was it while prone on the shooters back, being pummeled by the other?  If this is the case, and that seems to be the story the police have accepted, then whatever led to that moment, you have the lanky teen in command of the situation in the moments just before the trigger was pulled.  I’ve read remarks from people who immediately criticize Zimmerman for using a gun on an unarmed assailant, but I would like to caution those who throw about such loose talk because fists can be deadly weapons too, and to assume that because we’re talking about punches is no reason to assume that Zimmerman was in any less danger.  If I had a dollar for every person who has been beaten to death, I’d be able to retire comfortably tomorrow.  In such a situation, it really comes down to whether the person being beaten believes his life is in danger.  Once that belief exists, his actions thereafter may be justified, however he arrived at the situation.

This is one of the real problems with these sorts of scenarios, and it’s really not conducive to the sort of hyper-emotional talk that accompanies such events.  The event must be deconstructed on a time-line, and that’s critical to understanding who is to blame for what, and where the points of demarcation along the chain of events may be. Knowing how the two came to blows will be one way-point, while there may come another at which Martin gained the upper hand, and yet another at which Zimmerman came to believe his life was in danger, and used the gun.  All of this is a complicated thing to put together, and it’s not made easier by the charges of racism, or charges of bias, or all of the rest of it that agitators and media add unnecessarily to the sad story.  I think every person outside direct involvement in this situation who has commented about this to the press is an irresponsible ass.

I except only the family of Martin, understandably stricken with grief and shock, and the local police who must make some statement, but they may be constrained by laws and regulations concerning the disclosure of all evidence and testimony until the case is closed.  The family can say what they want, and they should, but at some point, it’s also up to them to try to gather all the facts.  If Martin had a hand in his own demise, they need to know it.  What annoys me about the press is that they will talk to the family in such a case and do everything they can to build on any controversy.  This creates unnecessary hysteria in the community, and leads to the sorry spectacle with which we are now faced, but it also brings them around-the-clock ratings bonanzas and for the enterprising local journalist, if the story goes national, it may be the chance to move up to food chain.  Don’t kid yourself:  For every sad story in which there is any controversy, there is a legion of parasites trying to figure out how to exploit the situation to their personal advantage.

Now enter the circus of hucksters and hustlers, who have nothing much to lose, but everything to gain from turning a sad situation into a circus.  The New Black Panthers are on the scene, as are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and while not there in person, but in spirit and in words, Barack Obama, President of the United States.  I feel badly for the community there, because what should have been a sad story that resulted in an investigation that concluded one way or another is now a politicized three-ring circus with every hanger-on and vulture one can imagine.  It’s despicable.  Four weeks after the fact, this tragic tale has become a spectacle into which people who have no actual interest in the case have inserted themselves for their own nefarious purposes.  I can scarcely imagine that the grieving mother of Trayvon Martin is in any way relieved or heartened by the New Black Panthers issuing a $10,000 bounty for the “capture” of George Zimmerman.  It will not bring back her son, and it certainly won’t serve justice.

Sunday, Director Spike Lee tweeted George Zimmerman’s home address, exhorting followers to spread it.  To what end?  Is Spike Lee now engaged in trying to foment a lynch mob?  If anything befalls George Zimmerman as a result, or his family, or his neighbors, as a result of this ridiculous behavior by Spike Lee, I sincerely hope they sue this ridiculous character half out of existence.  His intent is clearly malevolent, and violent.  What Lee is effectively doing is calling for violence, though he’s careful not to say it directly.  Providing an address in this fashion is simply a form of hooliganism that all should abhor.  If we had a responsible President, he would have said something to put a stop to all of this, but his agenda is not served by stopping it.  He wants the chaos.  He wants the agitating.  This is what he did for a living before he was an elected politician.  This is all very much right up this President’s alley.

Of course, you would think that some responsible person seeking the Presidency would say something to condemn all of this loose talk, and somebody did:  Newt Gingrich pointed out the bad behavior of Barack Obama in the matter.  On the other hand, Jeb Bush, former Florida Governor, actually piled on with the anti-Zimmerman rants.  As the former Governor of that state, you would think that he would have exercised the prudence of keeping his mouth shut until all the facts are known, but he couldn’t stay quiet about it, trying to ingratiate himself with whatever interests he thinks will one day serve him should he seek higher office.

“This law does not apply to this particular circumstance,” Bush said after an education panel discussion at the University of Texas at Arlington. “Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”

The problem with this remark is that Bush isn’t any more aware of the facts of the incident than the rest of us.  He doesn’t have any special insight to offer, but the last part of this remark could be said to be inciting.  We don’t know how those last moments of Martin’s life went down, and Bush really had no business injecting the biased statement about “somebody who’s turned their back.”  This reminds me of the “The Cambridge Police acted Stupidly” remark of Barack Obama.  It assumes and implies what may be all the wrong things about this case, and ignores some of the details that are now widely available. His next remark,  however, should have been his only remark on the case:

“Anytime an innocent life is taken it’s a tragedy,” Bush said. “You’ve got to let the process work.”

If Bush has said this only, and left it there, it would have been fine, and in fact, that’s the sort of thing all our politicians should say when asked about this case, or any like it.  Of course, for his part, Bush was a relatively minor player in the fiasco, because when you consider the outrageously prejudicial remarks of President Obama, it’s easy to see how this circus got out of hand very quickly:

“When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids,” Obama said in the Rose Garden. “I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this. And that everybody pull together.”

“My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said. “All of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves.”

“Obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” Obama said. “All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this has happened.”

This is absurd because it was going to be investigated, and indeed, the investigation was well under way when he opened his mouth on the issue. It’s also true that this case is not really a federal issue.  I don’t understand what the Federal government is doing in this case unless and until the State of Florida and the local jurisdiction put in a call for assistance, or until somebody makes a charge to the Department of Justice claiming that somebody’s rights have been violated under the existing legal system. To then bring his own kids into this, or to make the remark about “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” is simply a disgusting appeal to race as a motive.  It’s either that, or Obama is so fundamentally narcissistic that he must translate every issue and problem into a personal one in order to understand it.  Either way, Obama’s remarks are an outrage in and of themselves, and Newt Gingrich, commenting on Obama’s behavior, was quick to denounce the remarks, again from Politico:

“It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background,” Gingrich said. “Is the President suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn’t look like him?”

They also reported this on his remarks earlier the same day:

“That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot,” Gingrich continued on Hannity’s show. “It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian-American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American. It is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.”

Here, the former House Speaker sounds the right basic theme, but I think it’s important for all of these folks to avoid over-politicizing the issue itself, and urge calm and remind Americans that we have a justice system to handle this, and that prejudging anything here absent all the evidence could lead to a tragic miscarriage of justice, one way or the other.  In the context of commenting on the comments, I see that as proper because this is to focus on the behaviors of those not even remotely connected to the issue who are clearly adding fuel to the fire.  On the other hand, those commenting on the situation directly absent the full results of the investigation, including all circumstantial and physical evidence, along with all available testimony are acting irresponsibly.

There are a number of people who can’t wait to jump in front of a camera or a microphone and do a good deal of indignant harrumphing about this case, but all they are adding to the situation is more emotional invective.  The correct  answer is:  Stop!  This situation cannot possibly improve by the  injection of comments from uninvolved parties.  That we now have the New Black Panthers offering a bounty and effectively calling for Zimmerman’s scalp, while Spike Lee tweets the guy’s address is a recipe for disaster.  The media shouldn’t give any of these jerks face-time, but they’re trying to push the story for the sake of ratings, but maybe also a political agenda.  Either way, the President, Governor, Mayor, Prosecutor, and anybody else connected with the administration of justice in any way with this case ought to restrain their remarks to the very basic: “No comment,” or “We need to let the system of justice work,” or “I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation,” and most importantly, “the system of justice cannot work when we have hooligans trying to incite violence or using violent rhetoric.”

The simple truth of this case may be that race had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.  The attempt by some to turn this into a racial issue is simply disgusting, as Newt Gingrich asserted.  This is an instance in which cool heads should prevail, but with a parade of hucksters, opportunists, and politicians with their own agenda in mind, the media has turned this into something it should never  have been while they overlook real cases in which outrage is warranted irrespective of the issue of race.  In the end, the evidence may show Zimmerman acted improperly, and if so, he will be punished, but if not, then there’s going to be a bad situation here because too many people are trying much too intently to make of this a spectacle for their own purposes.

The media reports in ways that simply boggle the mind, and as late as Sunday, I have seen one Reuters story in which the shooter was described as a “white hispanic.”  If this doesn’t demonstrate the lunacy of the media, and their firm commitment to getting the most controversial angle on every story, I don’t know what does. It is my sincere hope that justice is served for all involved, whatever that turns out to be once all the facts are known and all of the investigations are concluded, but not one moment sooner.  This sort of rush to judgment is dangerous, and it should be rejected by every American irrespective of race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation or political affiliation. If we are to have a civilized society, it begins with the proposition that when something uncivil occurs, we must respond to it in an orderly fashion that permits rational examination of facts without bias.  Many of the agitators in this instance are trying to obtain the opposite result, but we must not permit it. It’s long past time for cooler heads to prevail. I expect our national leaders to reflect that sentiment.

 

 

Obama-Fan Sentenced For Death Threats Against Sheriff Joe

Friday, March 16th, 2012

Deliver us from Evil

There are nuts, and then there are loco-weeds.  This man, Adam Cox, a self-described Obama fanatic was sentenced for his threat on the lives of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ.  You’re likely familiar with “Sheriff Joe” for his various exploits over the years, including pink jail jumpsuits, the revival of chain gangs, and the tent city in which he housed inmates.  Last month, it was his “Cold Case Posse” that had been investigating allegations about Barack Obama, and had made a determination that the birth certificate published by the White House last year in response to Donald Trump was likely a forgery based on the image the Obama administration posted on the Internet.  In short, leftists think Joe Arpaio is the villain, and the institutional left throw insults at him constantly, and the DoJ under Attorney General Eric Holder has investigated Arpaio’s department half to death.  I suppose this liberal loon simply wanted to finish the job.

Maybe some of that is why Adam Cox decided to make threats against Sheriff Joe on the Internet, but whatever the case, as Fox Phoenix reports, he’s now been sentenced.  Unfortunately, he won’t be doing any jail time, instead facing probation instead.  According to Fox Phoenix:

PHOENIX – A man described as a President Barack Obama fanatic pleads guilty to threatening to kill Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  Adam Eugene Cox appeared in a Tennessee courtroom on Wednesday. He was arrested last year for a death threat that began on the Internet. Cox threatened to kill the sheriff and his family.  Cox will not go to jail. He was sentenced to supervised probation.

This is troubling, because the man actually threatened multiple murders.  I’m not sure we should take such people so lightly that we turn them loose in society.  Supervised probation certainly seems a small price to pay for levying murder threats against one of the best-known and most popular law enforcement officers in the country.  Besides, look at him.

And to think that Obama’s supporters make fun of conservative Republicans as a bunch of “inbred rednecks” and so on?   When I look at this guy, a movie comes to mind.  Deliverance?

 

Occupiers Revealed: Common Criminals and Thugs

Sunday, March 4th, 2012

Occupying a Jail Cell

Three “Occupy” protesters were arrested and charged with hate crimes and robbery in Oakland on Friday after hurling epithets and generally battering a woman who asked them not to protest in her neighborhood.  They took her wallet, but she was able to break free from the thuggish threesome long enough to get away and call police, who arrested the assailants in short order.  While not clear from the Reuters article, it seems unlikely that the woman had been part of the “1%,” offering some substantiation of what has been alleged all along:  The Occupiers are nothing but garden variety hoodlums who have adopted a political excuse for their behavior.

According to the police:

“She was surrounded by three protestors and battered as they yelled vulgar epithets regarding their perception of her sexual orientation,” Oakland Police spokeswoman Johnna Watson said.

The female victim was not identified except as a 20-year resident of the neighborhood.

“Her wallet was taken during the crime,” Watson said. “The victim broke away from the group and called police, who were able to arrest one suspect near the scene.”

What this reveals is how the “Occupy Movement” has relied upon the recruitment of thugs to swell its ranks.  This isn’t a movement against the top one-percent in wealth, so much as a movement by the bottom one-percent in moral standing.  The Occupy movement has continued to lose the support of the American people as many more incidents of this sort have dominated the news from the various protest sites.  That fact may help to explain this, in the Reuters article:

“An Occupy Oakland organizer could not be reached for comment on Friday evening.”

The Occupiers have lost all ability to control their would-be movement.  Instead, due to the ugly behavior of its generally thuggish members, Occupy organizers are ducking the press. With a history of burglary, rape, sexual assault, robbery and murder, as well as rioting to their credit, they have finally begun to full reap what they have sewn in terms of public perceptions.  While there are plans for a repeat of Occupy come Summer, and into the Fall, it just may be that their time is up.

Most of the public seems to think so.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Detroit Shock City: Self-Defense Killings Soar

Monday, February 6th, 2012

Self-Defense v. "Vigilantism"

The Daily is covering the story of Detroit’s soaring rate of self-defense killings, but as usual, the liberal slant on the story quickly abandons the notion of self-defense and instead re-labels it “vigilantism.” I have a serious problem with the shading of this story as one about vigilantism, because if a thug breaks into my home and I kill him, I’m not a vigilante, but a home-owner and citizen exercising my right to self-defense.  Only in a place where violence against innocent citizens is considered tolerable at some level could it be possible to see this as anything other than what it is:  A direct response by the citizens of Detroit who refuse to be victimized because big government has failed them and is now collapsing under its own weight.  Instead, they blame it on the citizens, comparing Detroit directly to the Wild West.

From the article:

“It’s a lot more acceptable now to get your own retribution,” the official said. “And the justice system in the city is a lot more understanding if people do that. It‘s becoming a part of the culture.”

The problem isn’t that it is now acceptable, but that it hasn’t been all along.  Had it been acceptable for the last fifty years, Detroit might not have spent most of that period at or near the top of the country’s Murder Capital list.  It’s well past time that the citizens of Detroit begin to act in their own defense, in recognition of their predicament, because despite the propaganda, cops cannot protect us.  The Daily spends a good deal of time talking about the response times for Police in the Detroit area, but the truth is that most things happen faster than cops can be called, never mind respond, as one officer points out:

“It’s not about police response time because often the act has already taken place by the time the police are called,” said Sgt. Eren Stephens. She said citizens have a right to defend themselves.

“Anytime a life is lost, we’re concerned,” she said. “But we can‘t be on every corner in front of every home. And we know that there are citizens who will do what they have to do to protect themselves.”

Of course, this is obvious to we residents of RealVille, USA, where we understand that bad guys aren’t really impressed by cops, and don’t tend to wait around for them to respond.  They hit, take what they want, and flee.  There’s not going to be time for a response when thugs strike, and relying on police to take care of your self-defense is a very risky proposition, since they can’t be everywhere at once.  The article concludes with this story:

Early, the director of the criminal justice studies program at the University of Michigan’s Dearborn campus, reasoned with the men for more than 20 minutes before he sensed they were about to shoot him in the head — then he ran. As his attackers fled in the opposite direction, neighbors emerged from the street’s stately homes with shotguns.

“All I could think of was my daughter coming home,” Early said. “I didn’t want her to see me shot dead.”

Weeks later, Early packed up his home and left Detroit. He hired Threat Management to supervise the move.

“Where else do the police come to your house after you’ve been robbed and ask you, ‘Why did you call us?’ ”

I don’t blame the gentleman for moving, but the ugly truth of our current cultural and economic collapse is that the thugs will eventually follow.  It’s not as though these are folks who are inclined to take a job at a gas station or fast-food outlet. I’m actually happy to see that the people of Detroit have finally had enough, and are now adopting the habits of a vigorous self-defense.   I wonder how many people have lost their lives over the years waiting for a Police response that would never arrive on time.  That’s not a complaint about the police, either, but merely a recognition of what sort of shape we’re in as a country.

There is no easy way around what is likely coming, as our economic problems aren’t likely to substantially improve, and may indeed become dramatically worse. The sooner we realize that just as good fences make for better neighbors, that a well-armed citizenry makes for a more polite society, the better off we’ll be.  It’s not vigilantism but instead a simple recognition that the cops simply can’t cover it all, and as the resources of government are shifted from their most important roles of defense and public safety to a focus on welfare statism.  If you wonder why people no longer wait for police, it’s not because they want to pack arms like the old days of the Wild West, but because increasingly, it’s the only rational alternative to ending up on a slab in the morgue.

Leftists can piously suggest that this had been about vigilantism, but it’s nothing of the sort.  The people of Detroit are merely exercising the vigorous defense of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and in all of this there is a lesson for all of us, both in what we must be willing to do, but also in the fallacy of liberal-induced social complacency.

What’s More Frightening Than A Teenager Packing Heat?

Friday, January 6th, 2012

A Mom With a Gun

In my view, the case of 18-yo Sarah McKinley is a perfect example of why we have the second amendment. The media coverage has likewise exemplified the typical  out-of-touch attitudes that demonstrate little knowledge of the culture, while pontificating endlessly about it.   24-year-old Justin Shane Martin, armed with a twelve-inch hunting knife, was killed on New Year’s Eve as he tried to break into McKinley’s Oklahoma home along with an accomplice.  His accomplice, Dustin Stewart, fled, calling 9-1-1 to report the shooting.  While some in media thought this story was another example of the horrors of firearms, on Thursday, Sarah Palin made mention of the case, making plain the cultural divide, telling the National Review:

“I’m all in favor of girls with guns who know their purpose.”

She went on to say:

“She fulfilled a purpose of the Second Amendment. I’d advise my own daughters to do the same. This mom protected an innocent life. Kudos to the 911 dispatcher, too.”

You and I are apt to nod in grim agreement with that sentiment, surviving out here in fly-over country where the intelligentsia cares not to tread, but where they have no problem spewing their disdain for us while taking ad revenues based on our reading and viewing.  In this case, Suzi Parker, writing for the Washington Post, seems less than comfortable with the whole notion.  Writes Ms. Parker:

“There’s something a bit frightening about teenaged girls running around packing heat. Where I live, it is very common for girls to go hunting with their fathers as a rite of passage. As my colleague Lori Stahl wrote earlier this week, it’s not even uncommon in the South for suburban moms to carry a gun.”

Note to dingbats everywhere: Women living in the suburbs are not immune from attack by violent felons.  More, to suggest that there’s anything wrong with the fact that women are arming-up with greater frequency merely speaks to Ms. Parker’s woeful ignorance.  This young woman wasn’t “running around packing heat.”  She was home alone, a recent widow, with her infant child.  Parker seems most upset by the fact that this woman was a teenager, and she worries very much about the maturity of young people who might have guns:

“But I know more than a few teenagers of both genders, and they should never be near a gun. In Teen Land, everything is traumatic. You try to dye your hair blue, it turns green: “I’ll never leave the house again!” the teenager screams.

“Imagine one of these drama kings or queens post-break-up, grabbing his or her rifle.”

Does Sarah McKinley have green or blue hair, Ms. Parker?  Even if she did, would it mean she is somehow inherently incapable of taking seriously the possession of firearms or their use in the defense of herself, her home, and her child?  After all, do we really want to call her a “teenager,” lumping her in with the 13-yo who is more prone to such moments of exaggerated trauma?   This young woman is a widow and a mother, meaning she has more practical life experience than some women twice or even three times her age.  Losing her husband to cancer on Christmas day, Sarah McKinley has every reason to be considerably more mature than some of her contemporaries.

Of course, this may be part of the problem for Ms. Parker, since she seems to scorn the whole idea of guns as a means to self-defense, but I wonder if it’s cultural.  After all, Parker is from a different world than McKinley, as I’m betting that young Sarah McKinley was never a writer for such wellsprings of erudition as Penthouse, like the wise Suzi Parker, but I suppose that’s okay so long as you only write the articles. (To get a better sense of Ms. Parker, you can read an interview with her here.)

The point is that Ms. Parker has a thinly veiled contempt for a culture with which she seems only vaguely familiar.  She seems to sneer at the notion that a young woman would defend herself, as she writes:

“In Oklahoma, McKinley has become a hero. A fund has been created to help out the “pistol-packing mama” as she’s been dubbed. Some women’s groups are heralding McKinley as a woman who refused to become a victim in her own home.

“I understand where they’re coming from, but not everyone is as cool and collected as Sarah McKinley. It’s natural to celebrate the successful defense of hearth and home. But for every gun-brandishing hero or heroine who blows away the intruder, there are many more that get shot with their own guns during a struggle.”

That not every person successfully defends themselves from an intruder doesn’t imply the intruder wouldn’t have harmed them even without the presence of the gun.  I suspect Ms. Parker has never faced a felonious attacker armed with a twelve-inch hunting  knife while unarmed.  It’s as though Ms. Parker seems to think that everything would have gone just fine if only Ms. McKinley hadn’t been armed with a shotgun and pistol.  Then we get to the real point of the article, which is a an attack on gun ownership:

“Hopefully, McKinley won’t inspire thousands of young mothers, fathers, or any teenagers who want guns – to buy firearms for their homes without, as Palin said accurately, knowing their purpose.”

She seems to suggest that there might be a real danger posed by young parents seeking to defend themselves and their families, but she should also know that teenagers younger than 18-yo cannot purchase long-guns, and in most jurisdictions, a person cannot purchase a handgun until attaining 21 years of age.  I suppose it would be a worthwhile exercise for Parker to acquaint herself with the laws in question, but why bother when you have a story to write?  What frightens me more than a teen-aged mother with a gun is one who is without, because some do-gooder(?) like Parker agitates against it.  How many young mothers will be brutalized and murdered for lack of a gun, unarmed because such allegedly thoughtful persons as Parker have cautioned against it?

In my view, the infinitely more dangerous concept is another liberal with a keyboard, because the damage they do in the world is nearly always more offensive.  Being something of an expert on “Sex in the South,” one would think she’d more easily grasp the concept of guns as a prophylactic.  For journalists, of course, the backspace key works well too.

Texas Santa Claus Killer Was a Muslim

Tuesday, December 27th, 2011

I wondered about this story because it had seemed so bizarre: Somebody dressed as Santa Claus killed his entire family on Christmas.  Now comes the awful disclosure: The killer was a Muslim man, and this was apparently an “honor killing” in which he murdered his estranged wife and disobedient 19yo daughter, along with other family members, before killing himself.  Police aren’t discussing motives, but the investigative reporting seems to reveal one anyway.

There’s really little else to say about this tragic story.  Draw what conclusions you wish to draw. For me, it’s abundantly clear that he was just another average guy down on his luck who lost his mind and offed his family and himself.

The Obama/Holder Department of Justice would agree, I’m certain. I also have some ocean-front property in Kansas I’ll sell you…

How Could They Cover Up The Rape of Children?

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

Leaving the Field

Sexual assault is always an ugly act of violence, but the rape of children is something for which I believe we should employ the death penalty.  I don’t care what civil libertarians, humanitarians, and any other would-be do-gooder claims about how such would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.  It would at least begin to fit the crime.  Frankly, those who commit such wanton violence against children born of some perverse lust for power over the powerless should be dealt with no differently than we handle serial killers, except perhaps that we ought to be more severe.   I’m not a sports fan, but even I know of Joe Paterno, but I don’t care how great a coach he has been.  I don’t care how many victories he has amassed.  I don’t care what form of excuse some might wish to offer.  If this, or anything vaguely approximating a fraction of this goes on in your organization, and you know of it, you have a responsibility to take it to the police, the FBI, and whomever else may be available until justice is done.  More, if you see it going on, you must act to intervene.   No rational, respectable and decent person knows of such things and does what amounts to nothing.  For this, there can be no excuse, and to whatever degree the institution of Penn State is damaged, it should be.

Unsubstantiated rumors are now circulating in media that this may have been far worse than we had  imagined.  It may be that the charitable organization at the heart of these charges, the Second Mile  is nothing more than a front for a criminal enterprise to provide young children for the sexual appetites of a paying clientele.  Frankly, I hope that turns out to be wrong, because if it is true, it means that this scandal reaches much further into the society and culture of Penn State than most would ever have guessed, and it would mean that this institution needs a thorough clean-out.  Something is fundamentally broken there.

Let us now consider the students who rioted in support of Joe Paterno on Wednesday night.  I don’t understand what they could possibly be thinking.  How can anybody contend with a straight face that Paterno ought to be held blameless and harmless?   I realize that they are loyal to their school, its football team, and its coach, but this is a situation that completely obliterates such superficial concerns.  Ladies and gentlemen, football is a game, but the lives of the children who have been victimized are real.  I am astonished that students who are allegedly being taught to use their higher reasoning abilities could fail to recognize the distinction.

I’d also like to talk about Mike McQueary’s role.  He allegedly witnessed an incident involving Sandusky’s predations on a boy in a shower at the athletics complex on University grounds.  He turned around and went to report it?  Why didn’t he intervene?  That’s the action a responsible person must take, so in my view, he isn’t off the hook either.  Who among my readers is so confused about the criminal and moral implications of a sexual assault that when witnessing one in progress, would not intervene to stop it? I doubt any of my readers would be so thoroughly derelict.

I simply cannot imagine how excuses are being formulated for anybody involved in this case.  There is a story now circulating that the DA who failed to prosecute Sandusky back in 1998 has been missing since 2005, and is now listed officially as presumed dead.  The circumstances of his disappearance have never been resolved, and it’s leading to more probing questions about the Penn State scandal. There is rampant speculation that his disappearance might be linked in some way to this case.

What this case makes clear is what happens when people in positions of responsibility fail to act when given information about criminal conduct within their organizations.  This is simply sickening, and I am tired of all the excuse-making.  I don’t want to hear another word about how Mike McQreary is being threatened.  That he witnessed such an act and failed to intervene, and did not insist on the immediate involvement of the appropriate authorities is all I need to know that this is another case of misplaced sympathies.  In my view, he had a duty to act, and a moral obligation to see this acted upon in a timely manner.  Those who now wish to scapegoat the victims ought to turn their sympathy from Joe Paterno to the victims of these horrendous crimes. Late Thursday, both US Senators from Pennsylvania withdrew their support from Paterno’s nomination for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

We need to get back to the notion of enacting justice, and justice can only begin by affixing blame where it is due.  This sickening display of rioting by students loyal to Joe Paterno is symptomatic of the narcissism rampant in our culture, whereby these rioters believe their needs and wants of the moment ought to supersede the pursuit of justice, and the assignment of responsibility.  That’s absurd.  These educated idiots ought to understand that there are consequences for every action, good or ill, in a just society, and demanding relief from consequences for one person ultimately leads only to relief for others, and no relief is due or proper in this case.  It’s sick.  It’s diseased thinking.  For every child who may have been abused since 2002, when McQueary witnessed what transpired in that shower,  he and everybody above him who reviewed or considered his report are guilty of aiding those subsequent abuses, by failing to pursue the original reports vigorously.  Remorse and shame simply are not enough.  Heads must roll.

 

Democrats Never Go Quietly

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011

It Was a Mistake! I Swear!

In another case of thievery by public officials, a California Assembly member, Mary Hayashi, Democrat of Castro Valley, has been charged with felony theft after heading out the door of a San Francisco Nieman Marcus store with $2500 in clothing for which she had not paid.  She was apprehended by a security officer.   Hayashi is the wife of a Superior Court Judge in San Francisco, reports the Sacramento Bee. The Bee reports that her spokesman, Sam Singer has said that Hayashi is embarrassed, distraught and she apologizes for any misunderstanding, but she has no intention of resigning from office.  No, of course not.  Democrats never yield power until their own party chucks them overboard.  They always try to round up support and simply ride it out.

“Absolutely not,” he said. “She is one of the most respected members of the Assembly – a fine, upstanding citizen and a role model. This is a mistake and nothing more.”

Sure, it’s just a big misunderstanding. I think Weiner said something similar.  It’s just preposterous that these people are so hungry for power and have so much confidence in their connections to somehow get them off the hook.  Most Republicans simply resign in shame as they should, but not Democrats.  No, they fight tooth and nail for every moment they can, until it simply cannot be sustained any longer.

I don’t think much of most politicians, because I know that so many of them are corrupt in one fashion or another, but this is just ridiculous.  $2500 worth of clothes?  I’m not sure that I own $2500 worth of clothes.  She was walking out the door with that much in a single heist, er uh, “misunderstanding.”  I hope they throw the book at her, but it’s California, so I expect not.

Sexual Assault Being Hushed By Occupiers?

Sunday, October 30th, 2011

Cold Prevails; Occupy Gets Too Cozy for Comfort

The New York Post is reporting that another sexual assault has occurred in the Occupy Wall Street tent city in Zuccotti Park.  You can read the story at the post, but what I find curious about the situation isn’t that another sexual assault has happened, but instead, the odd reaction of the victim, and of the Occupiers.  It suggests that something really ugly is going on in the OWS movement, and I think it is related to the story from yesterday from Joel Pollak at Breitbart about the media strategy of Occupy Wall Street.  They’re trying to make negative news related to their protest disappear, and in this case, it sounds as though the victim has been told to shut up about it.

This is another stark reminder of a different revolution, nearly a century ago, when women were told to shut up about rapes that happened among revolutionaries.  The Bolsheviks also insisted that women “take one for the team,” and not discredit their revolution by complaining about rape.  Could this be a sign that OWS really has regressed to the state of a century-old repressive reflex in the name of propaganda? Looking at the statements from the victim, it seems so.

From the post article:

A sex fiend barged into a woman’s tent and sexually assaulted her at around 6 a.m., said protesters, who chased him from the park.

“Pervert! Pervert! Get the f–k out!” said vigilante Occupiers, who never bothered to call the cops.

“They were shining flashlights in his face and yelling at him to leave,” said a woman who called herself Leslie, but refused to give her real name.

She said that weeks earlier another woman was raped.

“We don’t tell anyone,” she said. “We handle it internally. I said too much already.”

“Handle it internally?”  How can they “handle it internally?” These people aren’t a law unto themselves.  More, in saying “internally,” it’s an admission that the assault was carried out by another Occupier.  This wasn’t some rogue interloper who targeted an Occupier, but a fellow Occupier who carried on his assault.

Ladies and gentlemen, if nothing else tells you about the nature of Occupy Wall Street, this should be the thing that grabs your attention.  In order to minimize negative media coverage, this poor victim of a sexual assault is being asked to shut up for the sake of the movement.  That’s sick.  There’s something very unhealthy about any movement that seeks to silence victims within its own ranks in order to stave off negative publicity.  The Occupiers wish to be thought of as relatively harmless, in the same vein of the Tea Party, but I can guarantee you that no such perpetrator would be given cover by a Tea Party organization.

That’s the most amazing thing, because while there will be no police report, and no official pursuit or prosecution of the perpetrator, he will likely go free, able to pursue other women on the streets of New York, victimizing others because the OWS organization has promised this one victim that they will “handle it internally.”  Everybody who realizes what this means about the nature of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and how they are willing to close ranks around a sexual predator in order to preserve some notion of their purity is a sign that OWS is a diseased movement. I realize that one predator doesn’t define the movement, but permitting themselves to be associated with a movement that hushes sexual assault victims in order to avoid negative publicity is sick, and serious and thoughtful OWS members should flee this movement if they’re serious about individual liberties. It’s clear that if this is the operational direction of OWS, no civilized people should endorse it.