Sunday Morning Open Thread

I was thinking about writing something on the Zimmerman trial, but there’s really not much to be said.  Low information people who actually fell for the narrative simply can’t be changed in their views – facts and logic are meaningless to them (which explains why they voted for Obama, twice).  Those of us who do pay attention to facts and logic are merely pleased that a gigantic miscarriage of justice was avoided – though we are disgusted with the government, from Obama on down, about how they tried to railroad an innocent man for partisan, political purposes.

Still, this is likely to be the topic of conversation for a few days, so this open thread will be the place to do it – after that, we can get back to the real issues of the NSA, IRS, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the collapsing global economy, the messes in Egypt and Syria…you know, all the stuff the Zimmerman trial was supposed to distract us from.

84 thoughts on “Sunday Morning Open Thread

  1. Cluster July 14, 2013 / 8:22 am

    There are no winners here. Trayvon is dead and Zimmerman’s life will never be the same, but that fact has been further aggravated by the media and race baiters. Not long ago, another light skin colored Hispanic killed a black man in Boston, but have we heard Aaron Hernandez referred to as a “white Hispanic”? Where is the concern for Odin Lloyd’s life? Where is Al Sharpton?

    As long as there is profit and political power to be derived from keeping racism alive, our society will never get away from it.

  2. Amazona July 14, 2013 / 9:14 am

    One miscarriage of justice was stopped in its tracks, though not until an innocent man had been savaged by hysterics, race pimps and Leftist sheeple.

    Sadly, the circus is not over. There is now the possibility that Zimmerman will be hauled into a federal court on trumped-up “civil rights” charges, a very real possibility given the blatant participation of Eric Holder’s and Barack Obama’s Justice Department in helping stir up racial hostility in the matter.

    I don’t know when I have been so profoundly disgusted as I was watching the persecution wallow in mindless vitriol. To say that Zimmerman shot Martin “because he WANTED to” was one of the most despicable things I have ever seen. The media gave them a forum in which they could posture, and pander to the hate-driven, and they fed on the attention. The Special Prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence after overcharging Zimmerman. The entire charade was a blot on our judicial system and these people should be ashamed.

    Unfortunately, all we can do is be ashamed FOR and BY them.

    • neocon01 July 15, 2013 / 11:46 am

      OVER 500 blacks MURDERED by other blacke in chicago since GZ shot the thug, doper, thief during a felony battery….not a peep fron the racist left.

      where is the outrage for the 13 month white child shot in the face by two feral black “children” NONE!!

  3. Amazona July 14, 2013 / 9:29 am

    No one could ever call Alan Dershowitz a right-winger, but does speak his mind, and he has distanced himself from the Leftist mob mentality in his assessment of the Zimmerman show trial.

    From Newsmax:

    “Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial should be charged with “prosecutorial misconduct” for suggesting the defendant planned the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.

    “That is something no prosecutor should be allowed to get away with … to make up a story from whole cloth,” Dershowitz told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

    “These prosecutors should be disbarred. They have acted absolutely irresponsibly in an utterly un-American fashion.”

    • Cluster July 14, 2013 / 9:43 am

      I agree with Dershowitz. The prosecution over reached due to external pressures from powerful forces with clear agendas. I am not 100% though in Zimmerman’s corner. I think the shooting was an accident as a result of fight that occurred, so in my opinion, the proper charge should have been manslaughter with probation or a very short stint in custody as punishment. Of course I was not there, but I have been in many fights and I just have a hard time believing that Zimmerman was in fear for his life.

      • Amazona July 14, 2013 / 10:21 am

        Cluster, I am not sure what Zimmerman should have been “punished” for. He followed someone at a distance, making no effort to engage him or threaten him but merely to see where he was going, while he alerted police to the presence of someone he saw in what he thought were suspicious circumstances. He was not ordered to stop following this person when he made his call to the police, but merely told by a dispatcher that he did not “need” to follow this person, but he did turn around to return to his vehicle, after determining the address where he had last seen this person.

        Martin evidently knew he was being followed, but if he knew this he also had to know that the follower had turned back. Testimony was that Martin did not step into the shadows to hide from the follower, or hurry on to his father’s house, but turned into the shadows and came back toward the follower. The testimony was that he then, when the follower had stopped following and was walking away, chose to confront the follower, and furthermore that he confronted him in a violent and threatening manner.

        If Zimmerman was telling the truth about turning back to return to his car, then Martin had no reason to feel threatened or concerned. And the following itself was not against the law.

        It would not have been illegal for Zimmerman to openly taunt Martin while following him, to say his mommy dressed him funny, even to moon him. And none of this happened. Zimmerman testified that he followed at a distance, with the sole purpose of knowing where the suspicious person went, so he could provide police with this information, and then stopped following and headed in the other direction. He did not engage Martin, call out to him, threaten him, or otherwise interact with him.

        Evidence backed up the testimony of Zimmerman that he was attacked by Martin. Zimmerman’s clothes were wet on the back, consistent with being on his back on wet grass. The back of his head had several lacerations, consistent with it being smashed into a concrete sidewalk. His nose was swollen and bloody and there was blood on his lip, consistent with being hit in the face, as he testified. He had no marks on his knuckles, to indicate he had struck Martin. His testimony before he knew that any screams had been heard or recorded was that he had screamed for help but no one came. The closest witness said Martin was on top of Zimmerman and aggressively attacking him.

        When a police officer engaged Zimmerman in a “challenge interrogation” to try to shake his story, he told Zimmerman that a surveillance camera had captured the event on video, and Zimmerman’s reaction was to visibly relax and say “Thank God. I hoped there would be.”

        None of this even remotely indicates any action on the part of Zimmerman that could be construed as illegal and deserving of “punishment”.

        On the contrary, up until Martin made the choice to turn around and confront Zimmerman, and initiate contact, and to make this contact violent, the acts of Zimmerman were those of a good citizen. If I lived in an area where there had been multiple break-ins and I learned that a Neighborhood Watch person had seen a suspicious person in my area, called this in and then followed at a distance to be able to tell police where the person had gone, I would have thanked him.

        Once Martin made his choice, he set in motion the actual events that led to his death. But this sequence of events began not when Zimmerman started to follow him, but only when Martin chose to first initiate contact and then to become violent and threatening. There were two sequences of action, one benign and one violent. Zimmerman initiated the first, Martin the second.

      • Amazona July 14, 2013 / 10:30 am

        Cluster, have you ever been jumped, hit in the face and knocked down, and then been pinned to the ground while someone repeatedly bashed your head into a sidewalk?

        This was not a “fight”. Zimmerman did not have time to evaluate a situation. He was walking along when he was confronted, struck, knocked down, and then pummeled by someone who gave every appearance of wanting to seriously injure him, at the very least.

        Just where in this scenario was Zimmerman supposed to think “I’m pretty sure this guy doesn’t really want to kill me by bashing my head into the sidewalk, and he’s going to stop before he really hurts me”? If Zimmerman was not capable of fighting back, either because he was taken by surprise, stunned by the blows to his head, and pinned to the ground, or just because he had no experience in fighting, just how long do you think he should have allowed this treatment to go on?

        And you may feel very confident in speculating that your own reaction would have been different, but the fact is, you don’t know. Until you have been helpless and had repeated violent efforts made to seriously hurt you, you can’t know.

      • Cluster July 14, 2013 / 11:05 am

        Cluster, have you ever been jumped, hit in the face and knocked down, and then been pinned to the ground while someone repeatedly bashed your head into a sidewalk?

        I actually have. Back in college, when I use to bounce at a bar, I ruffled some feathers with some guys the previous night who paid me a visit at my home the following day. The minute I answered the door, completely unaware, I was sucker punched in the face, and when I fell back I was jumped on by the guy who initially punched me who continued to wail away, and then was kicked in the ribs in the back by his two buddies. I was hurt pretty bad.

        The fact is, a kid is dead, and I believe it was an accident, not self defense, hence manslaughter.

      • Amazona July 14, 2013 / 12:02 pm

        “…. I believe it was an accident, not self defense, hence manslaughter….”

        Except this is not consistent with Florida law regarding self defense, or that of any other state as far as I know.

        You do not have to be in actual imminent danger of death for self defense to be a valid defense. If you fear for your life, or fear that you may be seriously injured, you are entitled to defend yourself.

        As for “accident”, Zimmerman purposely fired his gun, not accidentally. And by his testimony, bolstered by the evidence, he did so because he had already been injured, and the nature of the head injuries and the actions witnessed by the closest witness regarding the nature of the attack would have led any reasonable person to believe he was in danger of, at the very least, serious injury. He was hardly in a position to evaluate the strength and power of the slams of his head onto the concrete. He could hardly have been expected to reflect on the fact that so far he had not lost consciousness and to then extrapolate that the attacker had no intention of escalating the degree of violence to increase the strength of those blows. He could hardly have been expected to know exactly how strong a blow to the back of the head from an immobile slab of concrete would have to be to cause serious injury, or death. (BTW, even doctors say that there is no absolute level at which head trauma is not serious.)

        Martin made the decision to initiate a violent encounter, with a man who was walking away from him. Martin made the decision not to just knock him down with a sucker punch but to then kneel on him and slam his head into the sidewalk, and to beat on him. Zimmerman could not flee, and at that point had only one recourse to end the attack on him.

        And no matter what your opinion may be, this is law.

      • Cluster July 14, 2013 / 12:39 pm

        I think that’s a slippery slope when it comes to self defense. If you get punched in the face, do you have the right to shoot and kill someone? According to this law, that would be a yes. After all, a slight punch in the right area of the head could cause death, so evidently the slightest provocation and strike to the head could justify killing someone.

        I don’t know if that’s right

      • Cluster July 14, 2013 / 1:14 pm

        I also don’t think Zimmerman meant to shoot and kill Trayvon. I think he may have gone for his gun to show it and hopefully get Trayvon to back off, but not to kill him, of course I can’t possibly know his true intent but that’s just my hunch.

      • Amazona July 14, 2013 / 1:43 pm

        Zimmerman meant to shoot his gun. The policeman at the scene said Zimmerman was very surprised and very upset to learn that Martin had died, so it is logical to assume that killing was not his intent.

        “Assault” is if you threaten to injure someone and that person believes that you are both serious about this threat and have the ability to carry it out. “Battery” is if you actually do something beyond the threat.

        The legal standard for self defense is if you believe yourself to be in serious danger you have the right to defend yourself, and this includes the use of potentially deadly force. In Colorado, there is what is sometimes referred to as the “Make My Day” law that says if someone has come into your home and you fear for your safety or your life, you can use deadly force to defend yourself. However, if you feel this fear and by the time you get your gun out the intruder has gone back out the window or door and is retreating, you can’t shoot him because he is no longer posing a threat to you.

        This is the standard I applied to Martin. He may have felt some degree of threat at some time, but once this person stopped following him and was headed in the other direction, the threat was removed and there was absolutely no justification for attacking him.

        On the other hand, Zimmerman had every reason to feel fear for his life. Remember, he testified long before he knew that there was a recording on the 911 call, that he had screamed for help but no one came. This supports his claim that the voice on the recording was his. No one listening to that recording can doubt for a moment that the person screaming was in mortal terror.

        You have not said what you think Zimmerman should have done, in this situation. You remind me of the people who wonder why the police didn’t just shoot to wound someone who is shooting at them. Sorry, but the person who initiates potentially dangerous or fatal acts against another has made the choice to risk potentially dangerous or fatal defense against him.

        And there is the question of motive. Zimmerman’s motive in following Martin was to be able to tell police where he had been and where he had gone, a motive consistent with his history as a neighborhood watch person and with being a good neighbor. What do you think Martin’s motive was, in coming up behind a man who was walking away from him, hitting him in the face, knocking him to the ground, and then kneeling on him and pounding his head into the sidewalk and using a cage fighting technique on him?

        And yeah, if someone hits me in the face, I do NOT feel the obligation to evaluate the power of the blow, how many I would have to endure to be seriously injured or killed, or an intuition about when my assailant might decide to stop hitting me. At that point, the assailant has waived his right to my consideration, which has been narrowed down to whatever it will take to remove me from this threat. Period.

        You said “… I think the shooting was an accident as a result of fight that occurred…” Yet there was zero testimony that there WAS “…a fight that occurred…” Unless you choose to define a “fight” as an ambush, and a situation in which only one person was fighting until the other took steps to remove himself from the threat. The term “fight” implies a mutual confrontation with both parties exchanging blows. It is a word that drags Zimmerman into a shared responsibility for the violence, and I don’t think either the testimony or the evidence support that.

      • Cluster July 14, 2013 / 1:54 pm

        I don’t know what the answer is and I don’t disagree with the verdict. It’s a sad situation all the way around.

      • Amazona July 14, 2013 / 4:07 pm

        The death of Trayvon Martin is sad, but no sadder than the deaths of thousands of young black men every year, young men who have chosen dangerous paths in life and found themselves in harm’s way because of it.

        His family has talked to friends and confidantes about the troubles they had with him, and they were evidently not surprised when he “went to the store” and disappeared for three days. You want to talk about sad? What is sad is that no one looked for him when he just disappeared off the face of the earth.

        Sure, his family was sad he got killed, and glad to have the blame shifted away from his family and his upbringing. But we need to remember they didn’t seem all that worried about him when he never came home with his Skittles. That says a lot about the kind of life he led and the kind of relationship he had with this now-grieving family.

        The tragedy of Trayvon Martin’s death started years before he decided to take down that creepy-ass cracker.

        What I don’t get is the determination of so many to romanticize him, try to make him something he was not. He aspired to a life which would have made a death like this very likely, and along the way he became a stoner and, according to some evidence, a thief, before he became a person who found it OK to mount a sneak attack from behind and try to injure someone, trying out a fighting technique he had probably seen on TV.

        Personally, I am glad the person he chose was able to defend himself.

      • dougq July 14, 2013 / 5:42 pm

        Yeah, I’m beginning to think this country is full of morons who think the only correct action for Zimmerman to do while he was lying on his back and getting his head knocked into the cement was to just take it like a man and let himself be killed so the younger kid could go on and live a more productive life.

        Cluster, you still have too much liberal non-common sense in you, get it removed before it’s too late. If it was me, not only would I be suing NBC, HLN, DOJ, some of those twitter folks who advocate for killing Z….but I would definitely be suing the estate of Martin for damages he caused….but then again I am not Zimmerman and I think he likely is a far better man than I and won’t.

      • Cluster July 14, 2013 / 6:40 pm

        Yeah, I’m beginning to think this country is full of morons who think the only correct action for Zimmerman to do while he was lying on his back and getting his head knocked into the cement was to just take it like a man and let himself be killed so the younger kid could go on and live a more productive life

        Well lets see, Zimmerman did call the police who were on the way. He was in a neighborhood where people were beginning to hear the struggle and pay attention, and he was a male and did have four working appendages himself, so there were probably a couple of other things he might have been able to do.

        But shooting and killing and then suing anyone who disagrees with that course of action is also a viable strategy. Good thinking.

      • dougq July 14, 2013 / 6:46 pm

        So, then, as a man with 4 working appendages and knowing that the police would be there within 10 minutes or so, and knowing that people might have been watching who could easily come to help him in a matter of minutes, he could have said a little prayer hoping that in the next 5 seconds when his assailant was going to bash his head into the concrete one final time, that the damage wouldn’t kill him, or at least, hope that when he was dead that someone would be able to at least point out who killed him?

        Again, I would pray that you NEVER make it on a jury as you are obviously someone who would rather make a compromise deal (just like you have done in your politics) than make an absolute decision on innocence or guilt.

      • Cluster July 14, 2013 / 7:04 pm

        No Doug, it’s just that I am a man, who has been in more than my share of scrapes before and I never had a gun, or killed anyone who was getting the best of me. There are lots of things you can do short of shooting someone. Just saying. But you’re probably right, at least anyone shouldn’t ever disagree with you, right?

      • Amazona July 14, 2013 / 8:36 pm

        Let’s see—–a man who has been taken by surprise by a sneak attack from the rear, slammed with a sucker punch to the nose, thrown to the ground, and pinned there by his assailant who is then kneeling on him pounding his head into the concrete and using a martial arts tactic on him while he screams for help is supposed to do…..what? Because he hasn’t had any legs or arms amputated?

        OK, so you want us to realize what a big tough guy you are/were, a guy who could take a beating without ever fearing he might be seriously injured or even killed, a guy who might be able to toss a guy like Martin off him and—-well, and do SOMETHING. Fine. I am willing to accept that about you, on your word. Hey, if you survived then anyone else would, too. After all, no one ever dies from a beating, or head trauma, right?

        So what does this have to do with chubby, non-fighter Zimmerman and HIS situation?

        Although no one had yet come to his aid in spite of his screaming for help, he was supposed to know not only that help was on the way, eventually, he was also supposed to know he would still be alive when it got there, so chill, man, just chill.


        Just lie there waving those four appendages while a younger, angrier, tweaked assailant thumps on him and slams his head into the sidewalk, ’cause someone who was not there has some weird idea that because HE would not have used a gun if he had one, when HE was set upon and beat up, that means that deadly force was not the appropriate response for anyone else, no matter how deeply he feared for his life.

        I guess if a woman is set upon, hit in the face, knocked to the ground, and then beaten and raped, she should not use a gun to defend herself because after all, most rapists don’t kill, and someone will come along eventually. And she does still have all four appendages.


      • Cluster July 14, 2013 / 11:17 pm

        Excuse me for having another opinion. I will try and not let that happen again. And by the way, your account of what happened is conjecture.

      • M. Noonan July 14, 2013 / 11:35 pm

        Well, good, then, you’re learning! :o)

      • Amazona July 15, 2013 / 7:59 am

        Oh, you do get to have another opinion. It’s just that when you express it in a forum designed for discussion of different opinions, you put it out there for disagreement.

        And by the way, my account is based upon testimony and evidence.

        Not one single element of the evidence discounted or contradicted the testimony of George Zimmerman that he:

        1. Was walking back to his vehicle (that is to say, no longer following Martin)
        2. Was attacked from behind
        3. Was punched in the face (evidence includes a photo of a swollen nose, blackening eyes, and blood)
        4. Was thrown to the ground on his back (evidence includes wet clothing on his back, consistent with lying on wet grass)
        5. Was pinned to the ground by his assailant (eyewitness testimony corroborates this)
        6. Had his head slammed, repeatedly, into the sidewalk by his assailant (evidence includes bleeding abrasions from wounds on different parts of the BACK of his head)
        7. Screamed for help (as he said this before knowing that screams had been heard and recorded, this is consistent with the evidence)
        8. Was in fear for his life

        Not one single element of this “account” is conjecture on my part.

        Among the many aspects of this that ARE conjecture is the claim that Zimmerman not only had options when he was being pinned to the ground and beaten, he knew he had those options. That is pure conjecture, with absolutely not one single fact to back it up.

      • Cluster July 15, 2013 / 8:58 am

        I probably didn’t follow the trial as closely as you did, but the account just laid out I believe is Zimmerman’s account and largely uncorroborated. Also, if he was on his back on the grass, I am assuming his head was then over the concrete, right?

        I am just saying that if Zimmerman had a free hand to reach for his gun, he also had a free hand to do a myriad of other things to remove himself from that situation. And what if he didn’t have a gun? Are you saying that his only option was to just suffer the beating to his ultimate death?

      • Amazona July 15, 2013 / 9:29 am

        Cluster, you seem pretty deeply invested in the idea that Zimmerman had options.

        Yes, he was partly on the lawn and his head was on the concrete.

        You say: “….if Zimmerman had a free hand to reach for his gun, he also had a free hand to do a myriad of other things to remove himself from that situation.”

        Such as ???? One hand free. OK, as we don’t know all the facts, let’s assume that the “one hand free to reach for his gun” meant the entire arm was free, that the shoulder was not pinned to the ground, and that he could then move the entire arm to—–what? Hit someone above him? What kind of force would that have?

        I am sure there are moves an experienced fighter such as yourself might have employed. But what would you expect of a man who had no experience in fighting?

        You seem to be factoring in upper body strength for Zimmerman, an entirely free hand and arm, and the experience necessary to calmly evaluate the situation and come up with a solution. But all of this comes from your own mind.

        And then there is the fact that he could have moved his lower arm, if only that was free, enough to reach for his gun. He stated that Martin, in the course of the wrestling match, saw the gun and reached for it, saying something to the effect of “Tonight you die” and that both men tried to gain control over the gun. If this is true, that “free arm” was much more importantly used to control the gun than to impose some superhero martial arts karate chop or something.

        If this testimony is true, then Zimmerman did not even attempt to use his gun until it became a matter of him or Martin using it, at which time the entire scenario would have changed dramatically.

        “And what if he didn’t have a gun? Are you saying that his only option was to just suffer the beating to his ultimate death?”

        Yeah, what if he DIDN’T have a gun? That would mean that the aggressor would have attacked an unarmed man, giving him yet another advantage, in addition to youth, adrenaline, and surprise.

        What I am saying is that if Zimmerman had not had the means to protect himself, his options would have been far fewer and far less optimistic for him. We don’t know if Martin would have killed him—-but neither did Zimmerman. We don’t know if Martin would have just beaten him into unconsciousness and then left him alone, with or without brain damage—-and neither did Zimmerman. We don’t know if the outcome would have been “ultimate death”—–and neither did Zimmerman.

        Here is what we do know. The law allowed Zimmerman to carry a gun after he qualified, under Florida law, to do so. The law allowed Zimmerman to defend himself against an attacker to avoid bodily harm or death. Zimmerman used his legally carried weapon to defend himself against an attacker who was in the process of inflicting bodily harm, and he testified that he was in fear for his life.

        We also know that he was, by the laws of the United States of America, considered innocent until proven otherwise. We know that this was NOT proven otherwise. Therefore, he is and was innocent of breaking the law.

        And simply refusing to believe him is hardly adequate proof of anything else.

      • Amazona July 15, 2013 / 9:33 am

        Just curious—are unarmed people ever beaten to death? Or beaten so severely they suffer permanent damage?

        Is there a reason to assume that being beaten will not result in serious damage or death?

  4. Retired Spook July 14, 2013 / 9:41 am

    I followed this case early on, but haven’t really kept up with it. And non-stop house guests since the 4th of July have kept the TV off most of the time, so I haven’t paid much attention to the trial. My wife just happened to turn on the TV for the news last night about 2 minutes before the verdict was announced. She and I and the couple visiting us had all figured he’d be found guilty of manslaughter, so the verdict was a pleasant surprise.

    We’ll never know precisely what went on, particularly in the minds of Zimmerman and Martin, during the few minutes preceding the shooting, but it always seemed to me that this was one of those avoidable tragedies if the two had just talked to each other.

    Martin: why are you following me?

    Zimmerman: I’m George Zimmerman. I’m a neighborhood watch captain, and we’ve had a lot of break-ins lately. Who are you and where are you going?

    Martin” I’m Travon Martin. I’m staying with my dad who lives at _________. I’m just on my way back to his house from picking up some snacks at the 7/11.

    End of story. No altercation, no fight, no dead teenager.

    Just my 2 cents.

    • neocon01 July 15, 2013 / 11:59 am

      Ama you are 1000% correct

      in Fla when there is a fight between two people the first to throw the punch (tra von) is considered the aggressor regardless of the circumstances that led up to it.This is misdemeanor battery.
      When one of the combatants is rendered incapable of further defending himself (GZ) and the other combatant (tra von) continued to embattle and strike the first person this now raises to FELONY BATTERY!!

      In Florida a “forcible felony” can be met with deadly force. It was NO accident for GZ to shoot tra von it was clearly self defense, hell GZ’s neighbor could have legally shot tra von while he continued his felonious attack on a helpless man laying on his back screaming for help.

      • Amazona July 15, 2013 / 12:19 pm

        neo, welcome back.

        We are now being told things that the state, and the media, have been very reticent about discussing. Evidently Trayvon’s phone had records of discussions about gun purchases. Though the records were double password protected and it took the state a long time to get through to them, the judge was worried that some seven-year-old might have gotten hold of the phone and added things, deleted things, etc. And of course the records of him being found with burglary tools, with stolen property (taken in a burglary) and his drug use were not discussed, much less made available to the jury.

        Hmmm. Think if Tray was white, his history of possession of burglary tools, property taken in a burglary, and 24 missing minutes after he left the convenience store to stroll through a neighborhood often burglarized would have been kept a secret?

        And I couldn’t remember what you told us about the drink he and buds made that included flavored iced tea and Skittles.

        Let a white guy get caught with fertilizer and diesel fuel, and there will be the immediate assumption that he is up to no good. Let a teenaged gangsta wannabe get caught with the makings of a drug he has bragged about using and he is just an angelic kid with a bag of candy and something to drink.

  5. seniorwoman July 14, 2013 / 10:07 am

    I watched this unfold last year. I thought Mr. Lee did the correct thing in not arresting Zimmerman. Well he got fired and I got to watch Obama once again interfere where he shouldn’t have. When all those “black leaders” aka Sharpton and his cadre of racists and bigots took to the air waves one would have thought that Trayvon was the only black teenager to have been killed with a gun. It was obvious that the MSM and those so called leaders have been blind to the killing fields of Detroit, Oakland, Chicago, LA, and so many other big cities across the USA.

    Trayvon Martin had been missing for 3 days and his oh so concerned parents were nowhere in sight. Trayvon was not a choir boy. He had been expelled from school 3 times. He was found to have burglary tools in his bag along with dozens of stolen jewelry items. He attacked a bus driver. He was a druggie and he was 17. His parents were where?

    I have watched as community leaders in other cities band together to “save the reputation” of knock around black kids. Thugs who terrorize helpless victims and laugh and when one of them gets killed in an act of self defense, those oh so concerned black community leaders and not so concerned parents make them into super heroes and tragic victims.

    Blacks have long ignored black on black crime. If there is any justice in this country, maybe this will be a wake up call. But I doubt it.

    • Amazona July 14, 2013 / 10:37 am

      SW, did you notice that all through this travesty the only photo repeatedly shown of Trayvon was of the darling little kid Trayvon? None of the gangsta Trayvon with the “grill” and tats, none of him showing off his loot, none of him as the near-adult he was. Even Fox just showed the baby-faced kid, never the wannabe thug.

      And nowhere was there coverage of the meaning of the watermelon iced tea and Skittles, which were common ingredients of a drug mixture Trayvon had repeatedly talked about using, on his Facebook page.

      So the narrative was about a sweet baby-faced kid strolling home with some candy and an iced tea, and never about a stoned teenager enamored of the gangsta culture, who had gotten the tats and gold grill of the gangsta, who had been caught possessing stolen property, and who was on his way back to his house with the makings of a potent drug he often used to get high.

  6. M. Noonan July 14, 2013 / 9:54 pm

    To me, the whole thing as figuring out where right and wrong lay. Trayvon was not wrong to be out at night; he had a perfect right to be on the street. Zimmerman also was not wrong to be out at night; he had a perfect right to be on the street. Zimmerman was completely in the right by looking around and observing the neighborhood and, once he spotted someone suspicious (Trayvon) he was perfectly within the right to observe and follow that person – and especially so as he quickly called law enforcement to advise them.

    Now, at some point in this chain of events, Zimmerman (per the 911 transcripts) loses sight of Trayvon, is advised the 911 operator not the pursue and then returns to his vehicle. So far, no one has done wrong – not Zimmerman, not Trayvon. Some time after the end of that call to 911, Zimmerman and Trayvon wind up in a confrontation – did Zimmerman, once off the phone, return to the pursuit of Trayvon? We don’t know. If he did, he still wasn’t wrong to do so. Did Travyon return to confront Zimmerman? Zimmerman says so, but it is uncorroborated testimony – we don’t really know. What happened? Who said “fighting words”? Who threw the first punch? Zimmerman says it was Trayvon, but once again this is uncorroborated – we don’t really know. But here is one thing for certain – at some point in the confrontation, Trayvon knocked Zimmerman down with a punch to the nose. In this, there may or may not have been wrong done by Trayvon – all we have is Zimmerman’s uncorroborated testimony that Trayvon was wrong, but we still don’t know. What we do know – based upon very solid, forensic evidence – is that once Zimmerman was down, Trayvon continued to attack him. All decent people who mean no harm know that you don’t hit a man when he’s down – once he’s down, the fight is over unless he picks himself up and resumes the battle. Trayvon could have left the scene, or he could have remained in fighting stance, daring Zimmerman to get up, and Trayvon would not have been in the wrong. But he got on top of Zimmerman and started to beat him. It doesn’t matter how hard. It doesn’t matter if it was badly damaging or not – Trayvon, at the moment, went in to the wrong no matter what else had transpired before.

    How Zimmerman chooses to respond to this is up to him – and whether its to beg for mercy, shout for help or kill his attacker, the moral opprobrium still entirely resides with the man who was hitting another man when he was down. That is when Trayvon took his own life in his hands, morally compromised himself, and opened himself up to any action Zimmerman choose to take – in the event, Zimmerman choose to draw his weapon and shoot. The bullet, as it left the gun, was entirely propelled by Trayvon Martin’s actions. He might as well have shot himself – morally, it was just the same sort of thing.

    • Amazona July 14, 2013 / 10:22 pm

      Well said. Thank you.

    • neocon01 July 15, 2013 / 12:17 pm


      two additions to your well written piece.
      This was a private gated community (private property) tra von had a LEGAL obligation to identify himself and in MOST cases if visiting wear a name-identification tag.
      it was NOT 911, it is a non emergency number for homowner and neighbor watch (police sanctioned) people to do as GZ was doing…report suspicious activity to a civilian telephone operator who had NO, NONE, ZIP authority to give anyone any directives.


    • ricorun July 16, 2013 / 7:38 pm

      Wow, that was really good, Mark! Kudos!

      I also think Cluster did a good job arguing for another opinion. But I think Mark’s comment clarified how narrow the difference was between one opinion and the other. Cluster shouldn’t have been dumped on because of his opinion, but perhaps that’s just my opinion.

      I didn’t follow the trial in any detail, but I didn’t hear anything to suggest the prosecution had met their burden of proof. So the verdict didn’t surprise me. The Rodney King verdict surprised me. The OJ verdict surprised me. But not this one. My wife, on the other hand, took the “mother first” viewpoint: a kid was in a place he had every right to be in, yet someone made erroneous assumptions and ended up shooting him dead, That’s a mother’s nightmare of the highest order. And to her, nothing makes that right, let alone a not guilty verdict.

      In short, there are a lot of ways of shaving one’s opinion about the verdict in the Martin/Zimmerman case, but precious few of them have anything to do with race — or even political differences. So ease up on Cluster. He took the “bouncer first” viewpoint. ‘Nuff said. At least that’s my opinion.

      One final point: I used the word “opinion” here liberally — I made no distinction whether one or another “opinion” well-reasoned on the one hand, or idiotic on the other. It didn’t seem to matter in the present context. But should push come to shove in the future, I think it’s very clear that there is a very real difference. Said in another way, an “opinion” is not always just an “opinion”. I also think the difference is under-appreciated.

      • Amazona July 16, 2013 / 8:40 pm

        rico,if your wife really believes that “… a kid was in a place he had every right to be in, yet someone made erroneous assumptions and ended up shooting him dead…” then of course she would be upset.

        I’m just curious about why she thinks he had “every right to be” on top of George Zimmerman after coming up behind him as he walked away, sucker-punching him, and knocking him to the ground,

        Of course, it may just be my OPINION that Martin did not, in fact, have “every right to be” where he was—but that’s just me.

        Oh, he had “every right to be” walking down the street. And he had “every right to be” a little worried that some rabidly gay guy might follow him home to molest his little brother. And he even had “every right to be” concerned enough to step into the shadows and come back around to make sure the dude wasn’t gaining on him while plotting homosexual pickup lines.

        But gee, it seems to me, IN MY OPINION, that once he determined that this potential sexual predator was going the other direction, possibly looking for easier pickings at the playground, that should have been that. And no, he did not “have every right to be” on George Zimmerman’s chest.

        Does your wife feel that Zimmerman fearing that he might be seriously injured, or killed, was “ erroneous ASSUMPTION…” Just curious. Maybe she can help me out. I have never been able to figure out just where, in the sequence of being approached from behind, punched in the face, knocked to the ground, having ones’ head repeatedly slammed into a sidewalk while being straddled by the attacker, and being punched out, one is supposed to mentally step back from the proceedings and analyze whether ones’ fears of injury or death might just appear, to someone who was not there, to be an “erroneous assumption”.

        Your wife sounds like a gentle caring person. Would she, do you think, have kicked her son out of the house for skipping “skool”? Would she, do you think, have let her son disappear for three days and nights without even reporting his absence to the police?

        As for me, my opinion is that Trayvon Martin started down the path that led to his death a loooong looooong time before he decided to teach a predatory creepy-ass cracker queer a lesson.

      • ricorun July 16, 2013 / 10:27 pm

        Amazona: rico,if your wife really believes that “… a kid was in a place he had every right to be in, yet someone made erroneous assumptions and ended up shooting him dead…” then of course she would be upset.

        Thank you for saying so. And on the most peripheral level of analysis, that’s pretty much an accurate description. And that’s as far as she went. Like I said, she approached the situation as any mom would. Moms always think their kids are angels. But or course they aren’t.

        That said, could I ask you how much of your description in that same was available to the jury, and in what context? And if any of it wasn’t, why wasn’t it? Your answer would go a long way towards figuring out what your level of adherence to “the rule of law” is, as opposed to what your own personal opinion is. You seem to be having a very hard time telling the difference, but it’s a very real and very important difference. At the very least you need to establish why YOUR opinion should be more valued over “the rule of law”, which you are already on record as valuing over “mob rule”. If you can’t, nothing you said makes any sense.

  7. Cluster July 14, 2013 / 11:32 pm

    I am glad to see this:

    Now that he has successfully defended himself from criminal charges brought against him by the state of Florida for the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman is going to resume a lawsuit he filed several months earlier against NBC News.

    Someone needs to call NBC out.

  8. Retired Spook July 15, 2013 / 8:03 am

    The guy who owns Frontsight firearms training facility in Nevada had this to say about the Zimmerman verdict:

    George Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges.

    I was pleased with the verdict. I believe the jury made the right decision, the only decision any juror could rationally make when presented with all the evidence and testimony.

    We are innocent in this country until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    From the moment police arrived at the scene and the investigation began, Zimmerman was considered innocent. He was found by those investigating the case that he justifiably used deadly force to defend himself against serious bodily injury.

    The detective who investigated the shooting, the Chief of Police and the District Attorney, after viewing the evidence believed Zimmerman was innocent of any wrong doing or they would have arrested him and prosecuted the case. They did not arrest or prosecute.

    Zimmerman’s problems should have ended there, but people who should know better, people who are educated and know the law, but don’t respect the law, just wouldn’t leave an innocent man alone.

    Shame on President Obama, Eric Holder, Florida Governor Rick Scott, State Attorney Angela Corey, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, the media, and all the other irresponsible people who played the race card where there was none and politically pressured the justice system into prosecuting an innocent man.

    Those who are still calling for “justice” need to take a course in the Judicious Use of Deadly Force so they too will understand what the detective investigating the Zimmerman shooting, the Chief of Police, and the District Attorney all understood when they chose not to arrest or prosecute Zimmerman for justifiably using deadly force to defend himself against serious bodily injury.

    We teach Judicious Use of Deadly Force at Front Sight, right along with our lectures on Criminal and Civil Liability Following the Use of Deadly Force.

    For 17 years, we have prepared our students to properly handle a Zimmerman type scenario and many more situations like it.

    Our students are trained to carry guns to protect themselves, their families, and those around them from unavoidable and immediate danger of serious bodily injury or death.

    Our students are trained to know that the best gun fight is the one you avoid.

    I’m sure that George Zimmerman, knowing what he knows now, even though he did not break any laws and was found innocent of all charges, wishes he had avoided that gun fight.

    George Zimmerman’s lesson is a good lesson for all gun owners.

    If you can avoid a lethal confrontation, do so.

    But please do not lose sight of the fact that it is ALWAYS better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

    Get a gun and GET TRAINING. Training is the key to making proper and responsible decisions in the use of deadly force and training is the key to expertly defending yourself in an unavoidable lethal encounter.

    • Amazona July 15, 2013 / 8:34 am

      And speaking of Angela Corey—what a disgrace to the fine state of Florida.

      She quite clearly loved the spotlight. She got to trowel on a ton of makeup, paste a huge grin on her face, and drag out her moment in the spotlight for as long as possible.

      I couldn’t stand to watch the charade, but one thing did stand out—she claimed, behind her big clowny grin, that there was no doubt that Martin had been “profiled”.


      Unless she meant “profiled” as a possibly suspicious person, she is simply lying through that Joker grin.

      The whole charade was disgusting. If she had to appear on camera at all, it would have been far more appropriate to dress like an attorney, STOP SMIRKING, and give a very brief and solemn comment on how the system had worked, Mr. Zimmerman had been found not guilty, and we should all move on.

      But not Angela, no sirree. She got herself ready for Prime Time (or a cocktail party) and she put on a show.

      • neocon01 July 15, 2013 / 12:23 pm

        purple drank any one??
        poor St. Skittles had his last because ol mean GZ

      • Amazona July 15, 2013 / 12:46 pm

        “Zimmerman’s attorneys say the court should also consider text messages sent before that day, because they establish Martin’s marijuana use and fights he had been involved in.
        “This (fighting) evidence is admissible in support of Mr. Zimmerman’s self-defense claim regarding the abilities and capacity of Trayvon Martin as an experienced fighter,” Zimmerman’s attorneys wrote.

        The text messages include a conversation from November 2011 in which he appears to say his mother has kicked him out of the house after “da police caught me outta skool.”
        “So you just turning into a lil hoodlum,” the person with whom he is texting says.
        “Naw, I’m a gangsta,” the text message read.
        In other messages, text message exchanges appear to be discussing guns.
        “U wanna share a .380 w/ (blacked out),” one text message sent from Martin’s phone reads.

        The text messaging logs are also peppered with references to marijuana use.
        “I got weed nd I get money Friday,” a message sent from his phone reads.
        “I hid m weed,” another text sent from Martin’s phone reads. “its wrapped.” ”

  9. Amazona July 15, 2013 / 6:03 pm

    Sooner or later I always get to the question of “Why”?

    It is linked to that of “Who benefits from this?”

    Now might be a good time to ask these questions of the Zimmerman/Martin fiasco. I’m not big on coincidences, and too many things happened here to avoid wondering if the whole mess wasn’t pumped up to serve some other purpose.

    The most obvious, of course, is that of expanding and exploiting racial divisiveness, a real winner for the Left. Stir up gullible black people into acting like savages, count on others to look down on them because they are acting like savages, convince black people that others (especially white people) are out to get them and then get them acting so crazy that others (especially white people) think they might be out to get them—-it’s all a winning strategy for the Left.

    This was undoubtedly the primary reasoning behind the race-baiting indulged in from the White House on down. Back then, they didn’t know that Egypt would be exploding, that the White House support for the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood mightbe prompting a second look at Dear Leader and his judgment and, yes, his allegiances. But they did know that the more black people hate and fear white people, the more likely they are to vote Dem.

    The distraction from the international policy debacles represented by the Obama regime was just a great big bonus.

    But there was sure to be SOMETHING connected with the ongoing failures of Obamunism that would be better served by bread and circuses, rather than risking too much attention being paid to the nuts and bolts of these failures. And they could count on the mindless drones of the Left following blindly down paths of irrational hatred and utter stupidity, so when a white man with a Jewish name (who later turned out to be half Hispanic, but that was ignored or rewritten as “white Hispanic) killed a young black man in what could be portrayed as an elite neighborhood—-a gated community —–it was a simple matter to fund and staff protests, have the Pres make an inflammatory comment, and get the Usual Suspects in town to do some hysterical race-pimping.

    • neocon01 July 16, 2013 / 8:44 am


      I am actually up in WNY on “vacation” Matts country….

      Ama the real brass ring on this travesty is Florida’s SYG, castle doctrine, and liberal CCW laws. This was a cherry picked case that the regime wanted to win at all costs, then on to make a show trial of our state laws to get them repealed, overturned, so other states laws may fall like dominoes.
      Believe me this debacle is far from over.
      NOW the DOJ. WH, naacp…et all is screaming for federal hate crimes, and civil rights violations to be slung at GZ as well as a wrongful death lawsuit by the parasite blood sucking “parents” who didnt even know tra von was dead let alone missing for 3 days….

  10. Amazona July 16, 2013 / 8:44 am

    I see that the Executive Branch is still working hard to keep the whole Trayvon Martin non-scandal alive, so they can keep their mob mentality base pumped up. This is both disgusting and disturbing.

    Racist and race-baiter Eric Holder is out there again, now publicly claiming that Martin’s shooting was “unnecessary”. While this is true—-it was not necessary for this self-identified “gangsta” to try out his martial arts move on an unarmed man walking away from him, thereby setting in motion the events that led to his death—-we can count on Holder, et al, to omit that very important detail from their narrative.

    Nah, not when the goal is to build as much as possible on the distrust, unrest, and overall cultural chaos they have willfully created, stirred up, and are now trying so hard to keep in motion.

    Back in 2008, a friend from South America, who was himself, like Obama, half black, told me that Barack Obama would turn out to be the worst thing that could ever happen to black people in America. This was at the height of the swooning fandom that surrounded Obama, so this took me a little by surprise. He went on to explain that Obama would be the worst president we ever had, and furthermore that his appeal to racism would only end up turning races against each other, with the end result that the country would never elect another black president.

    Obama could have governed as an American, but instead he has chosen to use his position to govern as an angry black man intent on retribution against white people. When he appointed Holder I could see that this was in the works, but it has been more blatant, and more despicable, than I imagined it could be.

    It will be interesting to see if future black candidates try to build upon the shameful history of Obama to appeal to the same mindless, hate-driven mob mentality, or if they will distance themselves from it and fight the uphll battle of trying to convince us that they, unlike their predecessor, would govern as Americans and not anti-Americans.

    When I watch this administration tossing raw meat to the mobs they have helped create and are now feeding, when I see their contributions to the utter destruction of every single advance this nation has made in the last 150 years toward becoming a non-racial, colorblind, nation, it sickens me.

    We can recover from the economic damage done by Obama and the Left. We can rebuild our international position and respect. But it will take decades to recover from the damage done, purposely and callously, in cold blood, by these people. I don’t think the scars will ever disappear. I predict that history will view this decade as the most shameful in our history, and the most damaging. I am reading a couple of books about the Civil War, and it has struck me that even that conflict did less to turn American against American than the vicious, calculated, callous acts of this administration.

    And again, the question “Why?” And the answer is simple: Power. They are puppetmasters, pulling the strings of the gullible, the easily led, the stupid, the mindlessly furious looking for targets for their rage, to tear this entire country apart, as we see them doing now, knowing full well what they are doing and why. It allows them to seize power, and it creates an underclass that they can tap to undermine any reasonable, rational, group that might take back the reins of the nation and try to rebuild its character and its identity.

    Think about this one thing: Of all the young black gangsta men killed, because of their attraction to this culture and this lifestyle, who have been killed in the past year, how many overwrought comments have been made in the national press about the anguish, the suffering, the pain, the misery of the parents who will never be able to hold their beloved sons again?

    Right. It took the perfect situation for these race pimps and political whores to pounce upon, for their own vile purposes. It took a white man with a Jewish name in what could be portrayed as an elite white enclave to stand as villain, to be developed as the focal point of carefully created and managed outrage and hysteria. And once this narrative was established, none of the contradictory facts could be allowed to intrude. Not Jewish, only half white, middle class neighborhood that is racially mixed, “victim” a pretty unsavory character, indifferent parents who didn’t even bother to look for him when he disappeared, none of this was allowed to be made very public, because it would contradict the narrative.

    And by the time any of it did leak out, in dribs and drabs, the mob was so inflamed they simply did not care.

    • neocon01 July 16, 2013 / 8:57 am

      The “fun” has begun…..

      Zimmerman protesters raid LA store, stop freeway

      LOS ANGELES (AP) — Protesters ran through Los Angeles streets Monday night, breaking windows, attacking people on sidewalks and at one point raiding a Wal-Mart store, while others blocked a major freeway in the San Francisco Bay Area in the third night of demonstrations in
      California over George Zimmerman’s Florida acquittal in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

      Thirteen people were arrested after multiple acts of vandalism and several assaults in Los Angeles’

  11. neocon01 July 16, 2013 / 9:14 am

    Dershowitz: DOJ Should Investigate ‘Prosecutorial Tyrant’ Who Violated Zimmerman’s Rights
    By David A. Patten, Newsmax

    Famed defense lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz is calling for a federal investigation into civil rights violations stemming from the George Zimmerman case — but he says the probe should focus on prosecutorial misconduct rather than on allegations of racial profiling and bias.

    Speaking Sunday in an exclusive Newsmax interview, Dershowitz said the jury’s finding that Zimmerman was not guilty of either second-degree murder or manslaughter was “the right verdict.”

    Read more:

  12. Amazona July 16, 2013 / 10:55 am

    Over 700,000 people have signed petitions to have the Justice Department file federal charges against Zimmerman.

    Let’s phrase that another way: Over 700,000 people have signed a document that says they believe we should be ruled by mob opinion rather than the rule of law.

    Doesn’t say much for the “fundamental transformation” of our country, does it?

    • ricorun July 16, 2013 / 8:49 pm

      Amazona: Let’s phrase that another way: Over 700,000 people have signed a document that says they believe we should be ruled by mob opinion rather than the rule of law.

      Considering the above comment came from the same person who very recently cautioned that Supreme Court “opinions” are nothing more than that makes for a very deep irony.

    • ricorun July 16, 2013 / 8:56 pm

      Let me also say that to the extent that the person in question (as well as all others of similar persuasion) doesn’t see the deepness of the irony in her comment, I agree that the whole issue “doesn’t say much for the fundamental transformation of our country.”

  13. Retired Spook July 16, 2013 / 11:29 am

    Doesn’t say much for the “fundamental transformation” of our country, does it?

    Actually, it says everything.

  14. dougq July 16, 2013 / 11:41 am

    If the administration really wanted to ‘heal’ the country he would tell everyone that the only person whose civil rights seemed to be violated was George Zimmerman and that he will ask Holder to investigate civil rights violations against that Hispanic-American, most notably from the obviously racist prosecutor in the case.

    • Amazona July 16, 2013 / 7:21 pm

      I wouldn’t call it a “good article”. It is just an article.

      It still describes Zimmerman as a “phobic” overreactor, putting a very biased spin on what he did.

      It still completely ignores facts about Martin, such as the purpose of his Skittles and beverage given his posts on the drug he has used in the past which has used flavored iced tea and Skittles to make it taste sweet. It still overlooks the fact that when a neighborhood has been victimized it is prudent and an example of situational awareness to be sensitive to behavior which is out of the norm. It still fails to address the fact that Martin may have attacked Zimmerman not out of fear but out of homophobia, given the recent comments of his friend that he thought he was being followed not by someone who meant him violence but by a gay man intending to hit on him.

      Every single thing in this article steadfastly overlooks Martin’s propensity for violence, from his history of fighting to his fascination with martial arts as seen on fight shows on TV. Every single thing in this article overlooks Martin’s drug use, and the fact that he had been trying to buy a gun, and his self identification as a gangsta.

      Yeah, one of the people in the event identifies himself as his brother’s keeper, who has a history of helping others, even strangers, and feeling an obligation to watch out for his neighbors. The other one identifies himself as a gangsta doper fighter who has been caught with stolen property taken in a burglary, and with burglary tools, who has been texting about buying a gun.

      Yet they are portrayed as equal, or with the former as the villain. The main complaint about Zimmerman is the judgment that he should not have followed a person who appeared suspicious, in a neighborhood already plagued by crime, while talking to a dispatcher to tell her what he was doing and where he was, so police could come to the area and take over. Yet the man was walking AWAY from where the stranger had disappeared, was heading toward his parked car. He could have run after Martin yelling “oogie boogie” but once he headed in the other direction no action of his prior to that could possibly be justification for attacking him.

      It is hindsight that says Zimmerman was foolish to follow Martin, but that is based solely on what eventually happened. If Zimmerman had followed Martin, who then broke into a house and attacked a woman in her bedroom, Zimmerman would have been a hero. All this pompous analysis of what he did is always based on what the analyzer already knows—that the event ended in a confrontation with one man dead. But without that knowledge, what Zimmerman did was just fine, helpful to the police, helpful to his neighbors, and considerate.

      Even the juror who was interviewed said she would be happy to have George Zimmerman as a neighborhood watch person in her neighborhood. I know I would.

      • Cluster July 16, 2013 / 8:34 pm

        It still completely ignores facts about Martin, such as the purpose of his Skittles and beverage given his posts on the drug he has used in the past which has used flavored iced tea and Skittles to make it taste sweet.

        What does that have to do with anything? And saying that Martin attacked him out of homophobia based on Jenteals comments is just pure speculation. Nobody recalls hearing any gay slurs, so that’s a crystal ball type comment. Zimmerman did what he should have done, call the police. I have previously said that the jury reached the right verdict, but Zimmerman could have avoided this. He could have yelled out and identified himself or he could have simply waited for the police to arrive who were minutes away. And Martin could have avoided this as well, but honestly you seem very married to the idea that Zimmerman had no other option other than to shoot and kill him.

        So what if Martin was going to get high at home and glorified the gangsta culture? A lot of kids unfortunately do but that is completely immaterial to this incident, however it is a larger issue we should be discussing, and we should feel bad as a society that that is what our kids are in to.

      • Amazona July 16, 2013 / 8:47 pm

        Hey, the only person who had a legitimate insight into what was going on in Martin’s mind that night was the person he was speaking with on the phone, the person with whom he was sharing his thoughts and ideas and fears.

        “…honestly you seem very married to the idea that Zimmerman had no other option other than to shoot and kill him.”

        Well, let’s clear that up and say “dishonestly”. I do think that once Martin made the decision to assault Zimmerman, and escalate the assault to a level which indicated a willingness and perhaps a desire to inflict, at the very least, significant bodily harm, AT THAT POINT Zimmerman was forced into a situation in which he had no choice but to defend himself as best he could, and given the circumstances that meant with his gun.

        It was quite clear that he did not intend to KILL his assailant, as he was surprised and dismayed to learn that he had died.

        This will go a lot more smoothly if you don’t make stuff up.

      • Cluster July 16, 2013 / 8:49 pm

        Are you saying that Zimmerman could not have avoided this situation in any way? And you do seem to know what Martin was thinking.

      • Amazona July 16, 2013 / 9:07 pm

        “So what if Martin was going to get high at home…?”

        It is mentioned only because of the unrelenting drumbeat of the Complicit Agenda Media, the race pimps, the political whores, and the hysterical bleeding hearts that Martin was the sweet-looking baby-faced kid shown, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

        He was not.

        He was nearly a man, he had a propensity for violence, he identified as a gangsta, he was texting about buying a gun, he was a stoner, he was probably a thief given the evidence of his possession of goods stolen in a burglary as well as burglary tools, and he was far from the way he was portrayed.

        You may call the possibility that being stoned might have made him paranoid “immaterial” to the fact he overreacted to having a man walking behind him in the dark, to the point he circled back and attacked him. Most people would consider this as an important piece of the puzzle, as the circling back doesn’t make any sense at all but if you understand that being stoned can lead to paranoia it offers at least one explanation. You may call being attracted to violent fighting and gang culture “immaterial” but when the person in question deals with a situation which poses no real threat to him by initiating violence and the using violent fighting techniques on his victim I think it could be material.

        Zimmerman “could have” done a lot of things. He could have seen a suspicious looking person acting in a suspicious manner and said to himself “what the hell—not my house, not my problem” and gone on about his business. He could have sat in his car and when the police got there said “Hell if I know where he went—I think it was over there somewhere”. He could have stayed home that night and watched old video tapes of Bonanza. He could have……

        But he was a man who cared about other people, and about his neighborhood, and about his neighbors. He was a man who got involved instead of sitting on his ass letting other people do things. He wanted to be able to give the police accurate information so they could do their jobs. You condemn him for this. I admire him for this.

        The fact that he was assaulted from behind and attacked in such a violent manner that he feared for his life and defended himself is something else. I am sorry it happened, but it was not his fault.

        And you know what? Trayvon could have decided that staying home with his kid brother was better than leaving him alone and going out to get the makings for getting high in front of him. He could have walked straight home instead of doing whatever accounted for the 24 extra minutes between the store and where he was killed. He could have stepped into the shadows and let the man behind him go on, he could have stepped into the shadows and gone in a different direction, he could have circled back and when he saw the man leaving he could have gone on home, he could have……………

        The fact you are absolutely determined to ignore is the one that Mark pointed out—-that when the really important decision was made, the one that REALLY started the real problem, that decision was made by Trayvon and only Trayvon.

        And it is despicable to claim that I support killing anyone. But I do support honesty, and truth, and fairness, and I do support the absolute right to protect yourself from a predator. And when Trayvon Martin came up on George Zimmerman and hit him and then knocked him down and then jumped on him and then slammed his head into the sidewalk he was, at that time, a predator, no matter what had happened up until that point.

        And honesty and truth and fairness say that Martin was a jerk, and a thug, and not a nice person, who had become less nice the older he got.

        He texted about buying a gun. Have you wondered how that night would have turned out if he had been successful and had it with him?

      • Amazona July 16, 2013 / 9:11 pm

        Of course I am not saying that Zimmerman could not have avoided this situation in any way. I gave several examples.

        But nothing he did do—NOTHING, no matter how stupid you may decide it was—-justified being jumped and beaten.


        If a woman was dragged into an alley and raped on her way home from a bar, would you be here ragging on her because:
        She went to a bar
        She dressed provocatively
        She drank too much
        She flirted with guys
        She walked home alone

        Lots of bad decisions here, lots to point at—-but not one of them, not all of them together, would justify her being beaten and raped.

      • Amazona July 16, 2013 / 9:19 pm

        What I “..seem to know..” about what Martin was thinking is what his friend told us he was thinking, which is what he told HER he was thinking, as he talked to her as he walked along.

        What I speculate about Martin is based upon:
        His history of drug use, particularly that of the mixture of cough syrup, flavored iced tea and Skittles—from his face book page and texts
        His texting about his fighting—ditto
        His admiration of gang banging and thugs and that culture—ditto, plus the tats and grill
        The presence of THC in his body at autopsy
        Awareness that some drugs often cause paranoia in users

        Being a jerk, a thug, a gang-banger wannabe, a stoner, a bully, a bad son, a school truant, none of these is a capital crime. But he didn’t die because of what he was, or what he thought. He died because of what he DID.

      • Cluster July 16, 2013 / 9:23 pm

        Since when has any of us cared about what the liberal media says? They have an agenda which is to be ignored. Martin was a 17 year old kid who was enamored with a destructive culture that many kids are enamored with, and a culture of which requires a conversation that the politically correct in our society refuse to have. And one of which is resulting in kids being killed every day. It’s a sad thing and I don’t necessarily blame Martin for it.

    • Amazona July 16, 2013 / 8:24 pm

      “Zimmerman is guilty, morally if not legally, of precipitating the confrontation that led to Martin’s death.”

      Really? By being there? Because he did not confront Martin, he did not attack him, he did not do anything but be behind him—-and not very close behind him at that—-and then turn and walk away? “Precipitate”?

      How about taking a look at the person who DID initiate contact, who DID confront the other person, who DID attack him? That’s how I would define “precipitate”.

      Zimmerman had no way of knowing Martin was stoned on pot, and therefore prone to paranoia, or that he was so homophobic that he thought he was being followed by a gay man intent on hitting on him and afraid to lead him to the house where his little brother was, because after all gay men will pretty much jump on anything, right? Zimmerman had no way of knowing Martin was someone who identified with gang culture and violent fighting techniques, who had been in enough fights to indicate a liking for fighting.

      “Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot.

      “Pursuing”. Gee, not much spin there, is there? Now following is the same as “pursuing”. But you have to admit, “pursuing” does have a much more dramatic and threatening tone to it.

      “Zimmerman, packing a concealed firearm, got out and started walking after Martin..”

      But since Martin did not know Zimmerman was “..packing a concealed firearm..” this is hardly relevant to Martin’s reaction. And BTW, Zimmerman was “..LEGALLY packing a concealed firearm..”

      “Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda ……….. pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight.”

      Yeah, he did. He (or his co-counsel) also “pointed out” that Zimmerman shot Martin BECAUSE HE WANTED TO. Quoting these shysters is hardly a way to provide accurate information. What the evidence did show was that Zimmerman was on his back, had his head slammed into the concrete several times, had his nose punched, and had no marks on his hands to indicate that he had struck anyone. The wounds DID match Zimmerman’s story. “DNA evidence”?

      How about the testimony from Zimmerman’s martial arts teacher who described him as “soft” and “weak” and that he couldn’t throw a punch? Compare that to the guy who had bragged about being in fights, who watched and practiced the kinds of martial arts moves you see in cage fighting.

      William Saleton might be posturing as fair-minded, and he might throw in a token nod to balance, but when you go back and analyze his article you see it still reeks of bias.

      And unfortunately some will consider this a “good article”. This is one of the biggest problems we have in this country today. People have never learned to dissect an article, or a book, or a speech, to discern its real message.

      • Cluster July 16, 2013 / 8:40 pm

        I think another problem we have in our country today are people who are so sure that they are right, they will manufacture beliefs and speak condescendingly to those who disagree.

        The real message of that article was that both parties overreacted, and both parties could have avoided the situation. It seems though that you are very satisfied that Zimmerman took out a stoner, homophobic, wannabe gangsta.

      • ricorun July 16, 2013 / 9:17 pm

        Cluster: I think another problem we have in our country today are people who are so sure that they are right, they will manufacture beliefs and speak condescendingly to those who disagree.

        Cluster, I’m guessing you’re gonna come totally unglued when she starts making condescending, totally irrelevant, not to mention totally untrue comments about your family. But hey, that’s Amazona — when she’s backed into a corner that’s where she goes.

        Short of that, it would be nice if we could have an actual, civil conversation about the issues at hand — and in a way that approximates the true technicolor of real life, rather than the narrowly dichotomized “gray scale” (it’s gotten so it’s not even a gray scale anymore) of modern American two-party politics.

      • Amazona July 16, 2013 / 9:24 pm

        Fine. Ignore the slurs against Zimmerman, the blatant bias, the acceptance of what the prosecutor claimed as fact. Ignore the determination to sterilize the image of Martin. Ignore the carefully provocative language.

        The author told you what he wanted you to think about the article, and this is what you think about the article. I went past that to what he really said.

      • Amazona July 16, 2013 / 9:37 pm

        I’m just sure I have not ignored facts just because they don’t jibe with preconceived prejudice. I may be right, I may be wrong, but at least I have looked at all the information out there, and not cherry-picked it to make it fit into an idea of what I think it should be.

        Sorry you are so fragile and sensitive. Funny that when someone has a different perspective which can be, and is, supported by fact and evidence, you have to resort to attacking me personally, and trying to divert from me pointing out what you missed to me merely being “condescending”.

        Oh, BTW, if you get “backed into a corner” whatever you do, do NOT suggest that rico’s wife is a kind and gentle person. This kind of “attack” on his family tends to upset him, to the point where he finds it necessary to clear the air and emphasize that this is “….condescending, totally irrelevant, not to mention totally untrue…”

      • Amazona July 16, 2013 / 9:42 pm

        “It seems though that you are very satisfied that Zimmerman took out a stoner, homophobic, wannabe gangsta.”

        Really? You’re pretty sure it seems this way, eh?

        Funny how you could get to that odd conclusion, when what I have said is that Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, that he was attacked, and that I am tired of the media narrative that the man he killed in self defense was a sweet, angelic “child” when in fact he was a mature young man, nearly an adult, with a lot of very distasteful characteristics, who initiated the violence that led to his death.

        I merely object to the lack of honesty in reporting.

      • Cluster July 16, 2013 / 9:48 pm

        Amazona, I am not attacking you – I am disagreeing with your assessment. I don’t care what the media says, I care that a 17 year old kid was killed by what could have been an avoidable incident, by both parties. You seem to think that Zimmerman was some angel, selflessly on guard protecting innocent people. A kind of Underdog here to save the day. In reality, he was kind of a wannabe cop who armed himself to give him that feeling of extra toughness (just my opinion, don’t come unglued). A kind of Barney Fife who should have had more training in what he was doing.

        The jury reached the right verdict. Why don’t we leave it at that?

      • M. Noonan July 17, 2013 / 12:56 am


        I’ve got friends and family members who go along with your view – and there is that FBI report which allegedly claims Zimmerman is “overzealous”. I view it differently – remember, his neighborhood had been victimized by burglaries, including the home invasion of a friend’s house. Zimmerman’s wife was frightened about this – and who wouldn’t be? Zimmerman did what he did, it seems to me, because no other man was standing up to do it…and the police clearly weren’t doing it. That, to me, is the actual, crucial issue at stake here, and as far as I know, I’m the only one who sees it: the reason men like Zimmerman are out there patrolling because the police aren’t…they are driving around in cars and spending money on detective forces, military-style weaponry and arresting people, it seems, on the basis of how easy it is to get a conviction. Trayvon Martin is dead because there wasn’t a cop on the beat – had there been, then if he was up to no good, then a cop would have arrested him and thus no confrontation with Zimmerman. If there had been a cop on the beat, Zimmerman would have been home, feeling completely safe and secure, watching TV at the time Trayvon Martin was out on the street. If there had been a cop on the beat, Trayvon Martin might have been home watching TV, too…because lots of cops in the immediate area always deters crime.

        The ultimate failure of Big Government is that it ceases to do what Small Government does. Small Government patrols the streets, fixes the potholes, picks up the trash and provides clean water and sewer systems. Big Government worries about diversity, builds up bureaucratic empires and seeks to please those they feel necessary to the maintenance of their power.

        If we want fewer dead Trayvon’s, then the answer is to make government smaller…even while we make police departments larger.

      • Amazona July 17, 2013 / 9:09 am

        Sorry—-I guess I took being called “condescending” to be snotty.

        I am just fascinated by your determination to invent things I have said and thought.. Now you are claiming I think of Zimmerman as an “angel” and a cartoon character, at the same time you simply invent something about him out of whole cloth: “…he was kind of a wannabe cop who armed himself to give him that feeling of extra toughness ..”

        My entire string of responses has been solely centered on the determination of some to do this very thing—–to recast the characters according to their own personal biases.

        I don’t have a problem with the fact that Zimmerman aspired to be a policeman—–my own personal bias is that I think most who do, do so out of a sense of wanting to do good, and I have a hard time criticizing that. I didn’t bring that into my assessment of the situation, but people like you do, and use it as a criticism of him. “…kind of a wannabe cop…”

        The bias you show toward people who carry guns is something else I object to. I know a lot of people with concealed carry permits, and I am signing up for a class for next month so I can get one. None of us has pursued this legal right out of some need to give ourselves “…a feeling of extra toughness…” It’s an offensive stereotype, it is untrue, and in this case it was simply invented because of a preference for seeing Zimmerman in a certain light.

        My entire focus here has been on the inability of the media, the howling mobs, and otherwise decent people like you to set aside all the various things that thave been invented (the need to feel extra toughness) or not accepted (distasteful facts about the dead man because of a need to support a highly personal narrative.)

        Nothing I KNOW about Zimmerman makes me think he was overzealous, or driven by some neurosis, or any of the other things that have been said about him. Nothing i KNOW about Martin supports one iota of the romanticized, sterilized version that has been created to sanctify him.

        All I have done is try to strip away the various inventions and disguises applied by people, so that the situation can be viewed objectively.

        And the amount of pushback to this is astounding.

        It has been edifying, though, as an object lesson about how people view things through their own personal filters (such as yours as a bouncer who has been in fights and has an image of how people ‘should’ fight) and then how strenuously they fight to defend the bits and pieces they have stuck onto the truth because they support the personal narrative.

  15. neocon01 July 17, 2013 / 10:00 am

    WE CCW ***BECAUSE*** of the people like tra von.
    When seconds count the police are only minutes away, this miami gangsta drug head tough guy happened to run into a small town central Fla homeowner and mis read him. He LOST the fight because of this. An ole adage, IF you F##@K with the bull you may end up getting the HORN!! ole tra von got the horn that night and rightfully so.

    • Amazona July 17, 2013 / 2:01 pm

      neo, did you read any of the comments on this site? Boy, talk about low information morons! The wide range of absolute inventions and the passion with which they are told is truly astounding. Every one of these people invented a scenario in his or her own mind, irrespective of the testimony and/or evidence, and the proceeded to explain it as if it was actually true.

      One woman even thinks Zimmerman hit himself in the nose after he shot Trayvon, to set up an alibi. While these people definitely have active imaginations, the sad part and the scary part is that they actually believe their fantasies, and the fantasies are hate-driven. But they are truly insane—the fantasies, anyway. It’s possible that some of these people are not.

      • neocon01 July 17, 2013 / 8:43 pm


        it is amazing the ignorance and the gobbling up of the BS as presented by the MSM and the communist news network……astounding……

        I have said right from the get go this was a cherry picked case with the goal of going after Fla and our SYG, castle doctrine and CCW. holder, ubama, and their ilk have made me look like Orwell. (a prophet)

        we DO know what happened that night, it was 95% taped, had several eye witnesses, and TONS of forensic evidence to back what GZ stated IMMEDIATELY after the FELONY BATTERY.

  16. Jeremiah July 17, 2013 / 4:27 pm

    I have a reserved opinion of this case because I wasn’t there, and can never know precisely what went on.

    I just know that I don’t stand out on the street watching all the gangsters walk by, I stay over on the porch, and sit in the chair. I might look/stare when the pretty women walk by, and whistle a little bit. But that’s pretty much it.

    On the other hand, if someone walks through the gate uninvited, then they are asking for trouble. And I’ll be glad to give it to them. But it’s rare, because my dog, he goes berzerk whenever anyone comes around, I can’t even talk to my neighbors at the fence, have to put him in the house before I can have a conversation with the neighbors/relatives. That little rascal is vicious! lol

    • neocon01 July 18, 2013 / 6:14 pm

      Jesse Jackson: Florida an ‘Apartheid State’…
      Calls For Boycott…

      ROTFLMAO………IF that were true…..HOW could a Hispanic shoot a Black??

      • Jeremiah July 18, 2013 / 9:33 pm

        Those who keep a chip on their shoulder (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Farrakhan, etc) … they will never get it. Never! The old civil war trenches that dot our land will have to be put to use again before this will ever be settled, cause now the government is taking sides.

        Eric Holder says, “We aren’t finished with America, yet…” speaking in reference to the Zimmerman trial.

  17. Amazona July 18, 2013 / 10:10 pm


    “Booker T. Washington basically predicted Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in 1911 when he said,

    “There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

    since Feb 16th 2012 18 17 year old black males have been killed in Chicago alone. why haven’t we heard any outrage about that? simple, nothing to gain politically.”

  18. Amazona July 19, 2013 / 1:42 pm

    From The Goldberg File, on NRO (emphasis mine)

    “Both the literal and the merely figurative mobs clamoring for justice against Zimmerman are in important respects asking for the same thing. Sure, the lynch mobs want Zimmerman dead, while those pushing for a federal case just want him locked up — an important distinction to be sure. But they both want to reject the findings of a court of law and a duly appointed jury because they do not like the result. In this, both are manifestations of arbitrary power, the bane of conservatives since Edmund Burke. Arbitrary power is the exercise of force for grievances found neither in law nor reason. It is the marshaling of violence to remedy resentment and justify caprice.

    Because we are drenched in the language of democracy, we tend to think that the will of the crowd has legitimacy simply by virtue of numbers. But numbers alone do not a reasonable argument make. As I wrote back in 2006:

    Politics has a math of its own. Whereas a scientifically minded person might see things this way: One person who says 2+2=5 is an idiot; two people who think 2+2=5 are two idiots; and a million people who think 2+2=5 are a whole lot of idiots — political math works differently. Let’s work backwards: if a million people think 2+2=5, then they are not a million idiots, but a “constituency.” If they are growing in number, they are also a “movement.” And, if you were not only the first person to proclaim 2+2=5, but you were the first to persuade others, then you, my friend, are not an idiot, but a visionary.

    Arbitrary power is the same whether it comes from a monarch or a mob. Indeed, they are very often the same thing. In modern times, all leaders derive their legitimacy from the masses. In democracies, we formalize the process and temper it with the rule of law. But even so, while presidents and prime ministers derive their formal power from elections, they derive their practical power from popularity. If president Obama had an 80 percent approval rating (shudder) he could do far more with the same office than he can with a 45 percent approval rating.

    The same often holds true for kings. In The Treason of the Intellectuals Julien Benda noted that the rising tide of populism meant that kings were now subject to the whims of the masses. In the past, a monarch could act on the national interests of the state without fear of correction from below. But by the 20th century, “The modern citizen claims to feel for himself what is demanded by the national honor, and he is ready to rise up against his leaders if they have a different conception of it.” That may sound like an improvement. Indeed, it may well be one. But absent the rule of law and constitutional guarantees of individual liberty, it’s all just different manifestations of arbitrary power. It reminds me of one of my favorite lines from William Jennings Bryan: “The people of Nebraska are for free silver and I am for free silver. I will look up the arguments later.”

    Most mobs have someone out front egging them on, telling them where to find the victims, and where best to string them up. Whether that person is a king, a president, or just a random human carbuncle like Al Sharpton is of little difference. Legitimacy has already left the building.”

    RANDOM HUMAN CARBUNCLE. Tell it like it is, Jonah………

    • neocon01 July 19, 2013 / 3:34 pm

      Obama Interrupts Press Conference to Comment on Zimmerman Verdict: ‘Trayvon Martin Could’ve Been Me 35 Years Ago’

      Too bad it wasn’t with the same verdict!!

      • Amazona July 19, 2013 / 4:49 pm

        My jaw dropped when I heard this moron’s irresponsible and profoundly stupid comments.

        His job, much as he hates actually having a job, is to be a LEADER, not a rabble-rouser “activist”. There doesn’t seem to be much about his job he understands or does well.

        He also wondered if, if Martin had had a gun, HE would have been able to “stand his ground”. Huh? No one in the incident had to “stand his ground”. Martin was never approached, never challenged, never threatened, so there was no ground to “stand” and for the President of the United States to add to a lying narrative invented and disseminated and repeated solely for the purpose of stirring up racial animosity is the most despicable, irresponsible and reckless thing this empty suit has ever done.

        I am so sick of this man I could spit. But I finally heard someone else say what I have been saying since the last election, which is that it is time to stop blaming the politicians and start blaming the people who put them in office. Not one single person who voted for Obama the second time is lacking responsibility for anything he does.

      • Cluster July 19, 2013 / 5:58 pm

        I agree with your sentiment 100%, and the list of people I hold contempt for doesn’t stop with Obama. Included on my list are his dishonest ideologues in his cabinet, his inner circle and those in the media. It is just beyond shameful where they have taken this country.

        BUT, we had better put aside our frustration and figure out a way to turn it around because the legions of dumbed down masses that Obama has following him are enough to keep people like him in office. We need a strategy to start winning the argument and that will require us to start to control the message and be proactive. And we can’t accomplish that, if all we do is react.

        One idea would be – instead of wondering why Obama doesn’t speak out on, and do something constructive in Chicago for the young black youth, we should. And actually there is a GOP representative there with a good plan that the entire RNC should get behind and let people know that we won’t sit by why young black children are ignored and killed on a daily basis.

        Another idea would be to calmly point out the reasons why Detroit is bankrupt, and highlight the long list of Democrat/liberal leadership that has been the steward of that municipality and the people that were negatively impacted. And then without pointing fingers, simply outline a strategy to bring the city back from the abyss – things that government can and should do – offer tax incentives to employers, eliminated impact fees for developers, incentivize investors, encourage non profits to come in a assist, partner with current business to expand, etc., etc.

      • Amazona July 19, 2013 / 8:20 pm

        You are so right, Cluster. The Right has been on defense for so long, we don’t seem to know how to stop being back-footed and be proactive. And when we try, as we have on the school voucher thing, we get slammed and never seem to be able to counter the attacks.

        Have you ever tried to talk to your Senator or Representative? The Colorado Senators don’t even have answering machines on their phones. At least when I was in Wyoming I got personal responses when I wrote to my Senators there.

        Those of us out here in the heartland have good ideas but no way to get them heard.

  19. Amazona July 19, 2013 / 8:28 pm

    Barry stopped too soon, in his heartwrenching account of Trayvon Martin. He didn’t tell us just how he could have been Trayvon, or Trayvon him.

    Did he mean that Trayvon might have gone to an elite private school, then on to a series of elite secondary education opportunities made available to him because he was black? Or did he mean he, too, as a stoner, might have been caught skulking around on a drug run, wearing clothing identified with the people who had been breaking into houses?

    To hear Barry talk, he suffered greatly because of his color. Yeah, right. But in fact he got into Occidental because he was black, he got into Columbia because he was black, he got into Harvard Law because he was black, he was the head of the Law Review because they wanted a minority person, he got his first job at a law firm because he was black, he became a community agitator because he was black, he was chosen to run for the state senate because he was black, he got into the White House because he was black.

    If he was going to give a lecture on being black, he should have talked about how to use color to take advantage of quotas, Affirmative Action, white guilt, etc. to get ahead, as he did.

    But not our Barry, who once again made it clear he is not the president of all Americans, just for the few he can goad into increasing rage and resentment.

Comments are closed.