Witch’s Will For A Mourning In June
I will remain in “mourning” so long as Obama’s unworthy ass sits in the Oval Office.
Quote of the day:
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic” John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Ever since the governments spying scandal was exposed, sales of the novel 1984 have jumped 6,000 percent on Amazon. Yeah, 1984 shows how scary it would be if society tracked everything you do. And if you want to read it, just buy it on a website that tracks everything you do.
3 Of The Best Stories:
Defenders of Rachel Jeantel Channel John C. Calhoun
Rachel Jeantel’s testimony probably won’t help convict George Zimmerman, but it sure has flushed out the new segregationists.
Consider Chrissy Coleman (@ChrissyCole). She explains away Rachel Jeantel’s shifting story and absurd disassembly of the racial term “cracker” thusly:
So let’s cut to the chase. Any attorney, jury member, judge or white person in that courtroom is not going to understand Rachel Jeantel. And I don’t expect them to. In fact, I certainly, like my fellow writer Rachel Samara, understand why white people wouldn’t like Rachel. … But maybe the reason white people don’t understand Rachel Jeantel has something more to do with white privilege than, what they would call, Rachel’s capricious nature. … The thing is, what white people see in Rachel has little to do about her own issues, and more to say about the America that white people are blind to. … It’s just that your world and our world are, excuse the cliche, worlds apart.
Coleman sounds like John C. Calhoun (D-SC), the South’s leading defender of slavery and segregation. Calhoun believed that blacks and whites could never live together, and that after any emancipation, they’d forever be “worlds apart.”
Opposing Calhoun’s segregationist ideology was Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA). Sumner’s position was the Judeo-Christian one — that all individuals are made in the image of God, hold divine worth, and are given rational freewill to do good or evil.
For this position, he was beaten with a cane on the floor of the U.S. Senate by Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC).
Sumner’s philosophy drove the Civil War Amendments into the Constitution, enshrining into law the notion of racial equality under law. The civil rights movement was all about integration of cultures, as well as in law.
Fast forward to 2013. We are told by Mary Elizabeth Williams at Salon that racial preconceptions explain away Jeantel’s unreliable testimony:
“She is not thin or blond or demure. So there goes her credibility.”
Never mind she testified that she didn’t think “cracker” was a racial term — it’s that hairdo and “court nails” that do her in.
Then this pardon from Rachal Samara, in a post boldly branded with race and titled “What White People Don’t Understand About Rachel Jeantel“:
And if the 5 white jurors (excluding the 1 Latina) are like most white people I know, they are unfortunately not going to like Rachel. They won’t understand her, especially not her defensive nature, and this will unfortunately work against her. Even though it shouldn’t.
To Samara and the new segregationists, we can’t expect universal behavioral standards like honesty, truthfulness, and courtesy.
To me it seems, and it’s just my opinion, that every time the left makes excuses for why African Americans aren’t/can’t/won’t do something they are saying that African Americans are less than the rest of us. And that sure seems racist to me.
Cover the IRS, Don’t Cover for It
Apologists in the media and elsewhere falsely claim the scandal was just a bungle.
by Peggy Noonan
‘Documents Show Liberals in I.R.S. Dragnet,” read the New York Times headline. “Dem: ‘Progressive’ Groups Were Also Targeted by IRS,” said U.S. News. The scandal has “evaporated into thin air,” bayed the excitable Andrew Sullivan.
A breathlessly exonerative narrative swept the news media this week: that liberal groups had been singled out and, by implication, abused by the IRS, just as conservative groups had been. Therefore, the scandal wasn’t a scandal but a mere bungle—a nonpolitical series of unhelpful but innocent mistakes.
The problem with this story is that liberals were not caught in the IRS dragnet. Progressive groups were not targeted.
The claim that they had been rested mostly on an unclear, undated, highly redacted and not at all dispositive few pages from a “historical” BOLO (“be on the lookout”) list that apparently wasn’t even in use between May 2010 and May 2012, when most of the IRS harassment of conservative groups occurred.
The case isn’t closed, no matter how many people try to slam it shut.
On Wednesday Russell George, the Treasury inspector general whose original audit broke open the scandal, answered Rep. Sander Levin‘s charge that the audit had ignored the targeting of progressives. In a letter released Thursday, Mr. George couldn’t have been clearer:
The evidence showed conservative groups were singled out for abuse by the IRS, not liberal groups. While some liberal groups might have wound up on a BOLO list, the IRS did not target them. “We did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled ‘Progressives,’ were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 timeframe we audited.”
One hundred percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “Patriot” or “9/12″ in their names were given extra scrutiny. “While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of Tea Party and other related criteria . . . including employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.”
Zimmerman trial has all the ingredients for a miscarriage of justice
by Eric Zorn
In following the George Zimmerman trial somewhat closely online last week, I noted a familiar pattern:
A “heater” case that draws intense media interest.
Evidence of innocence explained away with far-fetched theories or else ignored.
Evidence of guilt magnified and bolstered with irrelevant detail and innuendo.
These are among the key ingredients for all the wrongful convictions I’ve written about in the last 20 years.
Investigators and prosecutors put on the blinders early, before all the facts come in. They fill the gaps and inconsistencies in the case with suppositions inspired by sympathy for the victim, rage at the defendant and a desire for what they’ve decided is justice.
I don’t presume to know exactly what happened between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin on the subdivision walkway on that rainy night in Sanford, Fla., in early 2012. And, a week into the prosecution’s case, I don’t know how anyone else can presume to know.
Zimmerman shot the unarmed Martin dead at point-blank range after a brief, noisy confrontation. But who struck the first blow in that confrontation, escalating a mere misunderstanding between an officious neighborhood resident (Zimmerman) and an innocent visitor (Martin) into a fight and then a tragedy?
Who was getting the worse of that fight? If it was Zimmerman, was he justified in using lethal force to defend himself?
The original gloss on the story that galvanized protests nationwide was that a white, armed vigilante had pursued and murdered a black child just for sport, and authorities were shrugging it off.
This summary had great appeal to many of my fellow liberals for whom it confirmed their worst fears about firearms, the malignant endurance of racism and the cheapness with which law enforcement regards African-American lives.
I felt it too. But they’ve clung to this narrative long after the emerging facts have shown that the actual story is, at best, far more complex and murky than the first news stories and protest chants had suggested.
Martin wasn’t the slight middle-school student seen in first photos of him made public, but a tall, athletic 17-year-old who’d had plenty of time to walk safely home once he knew he was being followed. Zimmerman was of mixed ethnicity, and he’d lost sight of Martin that night while attempting to keep an eye on him for police.
Witnesses who last week testified that they heard or saw fragments of their fatal confrontation have been all over the place — literally, in the case of the young woman on the phone with Martin up until the altercation began. Her testimony places the fight roughly 50 yards from where it actually took place.
Still, the presumed-guilty crowd has continued to alter their narrative — Martin didn’t double back to confront Zimmerman, as the timeline suggests, but he hid in fear after he was seen running away, and Zimmerman found him! Zimmerman’s bloody head wounds weren’t bloody enough to suggest he feared for his life! — rather than alter their perspective.
A very fair assessment IMO of the media jackels. Perhaps I think so because it enforces a belief that I have had for a very long time.
We have had “trial by media” instead of “trial by jury” for far too long.
Add in political bias and you have injustice applied by media and believed by a gullible public. Or by a public that sees, and believes, what they want to believe. Not my idea of a legal system that dispenses justice.
Poll: Founding Fathers Would be Unhappy with Washington
by Leah Barkoukis
With a scandal-plagued administration, what seems like interminable Congressional gridlock and the growing trend among politicians to completely disregard the Constitution, it’s no wonder 82 percent of Americans think the Founding Fathers would be unhappy with the way things are going in Washington, according to a Fox News poll.
More than three-quarters of voters (77 percent) believe the United States would be a better country if we followed the ideas of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution more closely.
The poll also shows people feel dubious about the nation’s political leadership.
While 35 percent say they trust the federal government, many more — a 62 percent majority — say they don’t.
And 71 percent of voters think the government in Washington has too much power.
Few — just 15 percent — approve of the job Congress is doing. Seventy-seven percent disapprove.
And President Obama’s job ratings are in negative territory: 43 percent of voters approve, while over half — 51 percent — disapprove.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi thinks we should celebrate Obamacare on Independence Day:
Sure July Fourth is traditionally celebrated as the day we declared independence from Great Britain, an action that preceded the Revolutionary War and set the tone for our nascent nation. But now it has another significance. As far as Pelosi is concerned it is “health independence” day, too.
“Next week, when we celebrate Independence Day we’ll also be observing health independence,” Pelosi said during a press briefing recorded by CSPAN. She goes on to say that, “this week marks one year since the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. It captures the spirit of our founders. The spirit they wrote in the Declaration of Independence… So, we’ve had Social Security, Medicare, and now health independence, and that’s something our members will take home to celebrate over this Independence Day.”
Oh, you mean the expensive, unpopular, liberty-trampling train wreck that is Obamacare, NP? I think it’s safe to say the Founding Fathers would not be celebrating health independence with the House minority leader, and would probably be more than just unhappy with the way things in Washington are going.
Worth a Read:
US Park Police lost track of huge supply of weapons, report says
Are there NO competent people working for the government anymore? Any? Incompetence, and entitlement are epidemic. Can any country survive that?
Ex-Pentagon general target of leak investigation, sources say
Lerner, the Fifth and the Committee’s Strategy
by Carol Platt Liebau
Pelosi: Hillary ‘Best-Prepared Person To Enter The White House In Decades’
Hmm, that makes ya wonder why this stupid old hag kissed Obama ass in 2008.
Whatever happens to California is deserved for repeatedly sending this POS to congress.Conservatives and Republicans and people of integrity and common sense need to leave now before they go down with the despicable left.I know it’s irrational to hate a whole state but then you think about Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein…
Court: Gov’t Must Halt Enforcement of Sterilization-Contraception-Abortifacient Mandate Against Hobby Lobby
Anderson Cooper: ‘Why Does Alec Baldwin Get a Pass Using Gay Slurs?’ Conservative ‘Would Be Vilified’
As NewsBusters previously reported, Alec Baldwin had another major meltdown on Twitter Thursday which included a homophobic attack on a British reporter.
CNN’s Anderson Cooper struck back Friday posting on Twitter, “Why does #AlecBaldwin get a pass when he uses gay slurs? If a conservative talked of beating up a ‘queen’ they would be vilified”:
Well Anderson, it’s simple: liberals are allowed to say and do whatever they want no matter how offensive and hypocrites in the media will always give them a pass.
It’s like how feminist groups such as the National Organization for Women weren’t at all bothered by how President Clinton treated women.
Since they agreed with his politics, his sexual misdeeds were unimportant.
Frankly, I’m surprised Cooper didn’t realize this up until now, and that it took a slur hitting him where he lives to wake him up to the hypocrisy.
For the record, here are some of the homophobic comments Baldwin tweeted Thursday that would have likely ended the career of any conservative media member:
Imagine a conservative radio host making such a comment. Seems doubtful he’d be on radio any longer.
But a liberal such as Baldwin tweeting this?
Probably won’t impact his career one bit.
Funny how Paula Deen said something 30 years ago in the privacy of her own home and is excoriated for it while Baldwin just keeps saying things that would get a conservative torn limb from limb in the MSM. And hell, Deen isn’t even a conservative, she’s a white SOUTHERN woman who actually supported Obama.
How about this oldie but goodie from the ever “colorful” Mr. Baldwin:
“If we were in another country … we would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families, for what they’re doing to this country.”]
Baldwin later apologized for the remarks, and the network explained it was meant as a joke and promised not to rerun it.
A joke? Some joke! He apologizes, no harm no foul. Ain’t life great in liberal land?
Will Capital One drop him from their commercials? If they don’t, they should.
Last But Not Least
Does the South Belong in the Union?
by Pat Buchanan
Is the Second Reconstruction over?The first ended with the withdrawal of Union troops from the Southern states as part of a deal that gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency after the disputed election of 1876.The second began with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a century after Appomattox.
Under the VRA, Southern states seeking to make even minor changes in voting laws had to come to Washington to plead their case before the Justice Department and such lions of the law as Eric Holder.Southern states were required to get this pre-clearance for any alterations in voting laws because of systematic violations of the 14th and 15th amendment constitutional rights of black Americans to equal access to polling places and voting booths.The South had discriminated by using poll taxes, gerrymandering and literacy tests, among other tactics. Dixie was in the penalty box because it had earned a place there.
What the Supreme Court did Tuesday, in letting the South out of the box, is to declare that, as this is not 1965, you cannot use abuses that date to 1965, but have long since disappeared, to justify indefinite federal discrimination against the American South.You cannot impose burdens on Southern states, five of which recorded higher voting percentages among their black populations in 2012 than among their white populations, based on practices of 50 years ago that were repudiated and abandoned in another era. You cannot punish Southern leaders in 2013 for the sins of their grandfathers.
As Chief Justice John Roberts noted, black turnout in 2012 was higher in Mississippi than in Massachusetts.Does this mean the South is now free to discriminate again?By no means. State action that discriminates against minority voters can still be brought before the Department of Justice.
Even the “pre-clearance” provision of the VRA remains. All the court has said is that if Congress wishes to impose a pre-clearance provision on a state or group of states, Congress must have more evidence to justify unequal treatment than what “Bull” Connor did in Birmingham back in 1965.Congress could pass a bill today authorizing Justice Department intervention in any state where the registration of blacks, Hispanics or Asians fell below 60 percent of that electorate.
What Congress can no longer do is impose conditions on Southern states from which Northern states are exempt. Washington can no longer treat the states unequally — for that, too, is a violation of the Constitution.
The Roberts court just took a giant stride to restoring the Union.Yet the hysterical reaction to the decision reveals a great deal.