Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.
Marianne Williamson
Blog Update on the Zimmerman Trial
No, I don't have a scoop on the trial, but I've only had one relevant recent post since the arrest of Zimmerman. I feel some mini-rants coming on.
First, it seems every mainstream media starts off by noting that Trayvon Martin was unarmed. The very specification of that fact out of context lends the appearance of Martin being an innocent victim. Don't get me wrong--Martin's death is tragic, but the evidence is that the weapon was shot at close range and there was a physical confrontation before the shot was fired. The facts are consistent with the defense's claim that there was a struggle for Zimmerman's weapon; as Schiff discusses below, if Zimmerman's intent was to shoot, it would have been more prudent to use the weapon far enough from Martin to minimize the risk of Martin disarming him or taking possession of the weapon. I understand that the prosecution is (absurdly) trying Zimmerman for murder and the fact Martin was unarmed plays to the charge, but the underlying assumption is that Zimmerman used the weapon for reasons other than self-defense.The fact that Zimmerman was bloodied before the fatal shot presents strong circumstantial evidence in support of self-defense.
My second complaint is the fact that the left wing continues to attack anything that stands in the way of railroading Zimmerman; how many ways? Let's just list a few: Zimmerman's head didn't seem as bloody at the police station (there was a report of some treating of the wounds before the police station); an allegation Zimmerman described Martin not as a 'punk' but using a racist term, any questioning of a prosecution witness (like Schiff does below) as itself 'racist'.
Third, I think the very fact of the trial is a perversion of the justice system; The police on the scene felt there was no evidence to dispute Zimmerman's assertion of self-defense. The fact that the President in Name Only all but called Martin the son he never had knowingly inserted himself in the trial is an extraordinary violation of legal ethics, perhaps even a violation of his Presidential Oath upholding the US Constitution and Zimmerman's right to a fair trial.
The mass media has even reported distortions of Martin's and Zimmerman's height and weight. Whereas Martin's parents put him at 6'2" and Zimmerman's former girlfriend put him at 5'7", I've seen some outlets put Martin 3 inches shorter and 20 pounds lighter--and Zimmerman inches taller and pounds heavier--trying to minimize the size mismatch. Although Schiff doesn't report on reluctant witness Jonathan Good here, it's very hard to see how the prosecution gets past reasonable doubt here; Good testified seeing Zimmerman on the ground, Martin on top of him in an MMA-style straddle throwing punches down on Zimmerman, and he heard Zimmerman cry for help. The best the prosecution could try to do is try to mitigate details by probing them months later. Apparently Martin had grass stains on the knees of his pants and Zimmerman didn't--adding additional evidence Zimmerman was the victim, not perpetrator of assault. In addition, Martin apparently had a history of getting into fights.
I'm nor going to take apart the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon's friend on the other end of his cellphone on the fateful night in question, as Schiff does. I will say "creepy-ass cracker", Trayvon's reference to Zimmerman on the Jeantel phone call, has become the soundbite of the week in a predictable "hate speech" double standard--consider how Paula Deen has seen her cable show cancelled, endorsement deals (pork company and diabetic supplies) scuttled, retailers like Wal-Mart drop her merchandise, a cookbook deal undone--all because she admitted under oath to saying the N-word once 27 years ago... But the idea that a kinder, gentler Trayvon politely asked (versus confronted) the "creepy-ass cracker" over why he was following him is patently absurd on its face. As I have previously written and Schiff also notes here, Zimmerman was no match for Martin; Martin was taller, stronger, faster. Zimmerman had no chance of catching Martin on foot; the only way they ended up wrestling each other in the grass is because Martin--tragically--chose to fight Zimmerman. I do want to point out here Schiff in the video below keeps referencing the prosecuting attorney; I'm fairly sure he means to say the defense attorney. That is, the prosecuting attorney has no motive to impeach his own star witness; it was up to the defense attorney to undermine Jeantel's testimony.
George Will, "Supreme Court is correct on Voting Rights Act", Thumbs UP!
Justice Scalia loves to mock pretentious sounding legislation titles. It has been almost 50 years since the original Voting Rights Acts act. In its latest extension in 2006, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act passed with only 33 dissenting votes, all in the House. (I like to satirize pretentious titles as the "I Love Moms, Babies and Puppy Dogs Act"; I mean, what legislator wants to explain voting against something sounding so wonderful? It's like providing your next election opponent with a ready-made campaign attack ad; for many legislators it's just easier to go with the flow than educate voters on the bill's objectionable contents.)
The second section of the fifteenth amendment gives Congress the right to ensure voting rights of citizens are not restricted due to certain individual differences (particularly race). The Voting Rights Act of 1965 particularly focused on states in the Old South which had a history of literacy tests, poll taxes, and other policies when in the sixties still showed only a quarter of eligible Southern blacks registered. The Act included preclearances (i.e., federal scrutiny and approvals of voting changes in designated at risk areas, which I characterize as 'Mother, May I?'). The original act was supposed to last 5 years, but has been constantly renewed, the last time, 2 years before the election of the first African-American President and the highest black registration and turnout ever, for another 25 years!
George Will points out that there have been significant changes in the Old South since 1965. He cites Mississippi leads the nation in black elected officials, that black registration and turnout in the designated areas are at record levels, sometimes even more proportionately than white citizens. And yet they are basically restricted as if it's still 1965, subject to the same federal oversight--even voter fraud reforms are subject to scrutiny other states are not burdened with under the principles of federalism--even if similar minority voting performance is better in the Old South than in other states not subject to scrutiny!
I am not impressed by arguments appealing to the alleged mandate by a majority vote from other national regions imposing another 25-year sentence on the Old South,regardless of whether circumstances had materially changed over 2 generations. It's arbitrary and punitive in nature. Shelby County (AL) v Holder correctly decided violations of the Tenth Amendment and Article IV (presumably privileges and immunities, basically preferential treatment of some states over others). (I do not find the minority (5-4) opinion at all persuasive, basically arguing preclearance is principally responsible for improvements in voting performance.) Note that the Supreme Court did not strike down the Act itself or even the concept of preclearance, only the process cannot sanction states indefinitely regardless of voting performance.
The Gay "Marriage" Decisions and the Slippery Slope
I see that Gov. Brown (D-CA) is politically benefiting from the fact he as state attorney general and the Governator unethically refused to represent the people of California whom voted Proposition 8 into law. SCOTUS conveniently ruled the substitute advocates lacked standing into trying to appeal a district court decision. It's not clear how the people can appeal if and when top state elected officials refuse to exercise their responsibilities. Ir'a a perversion of the rule of law. Brown intends to resume gay "marriages" despite the state constitution; I would feel differently if Brown at least had the integrity to put up a referendum on the issue instead of backdoor legalization through the court system. But apparently Justice Kennedy is refusing to issue a stay while the Proposition 8 defenders try to respond to the legal standing problem.
I find it amusing some are calling Justice Kennedy the first gay Justice in the tradition of calling Clinton the first black President.
(HT Libertarian Republican). Gay '"marriage" advocates distanced themselves from other groups seeking legalization or discrimination of other nontraditional relationships as articulated by talk radio host Bryan Fischer: “The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.”
The Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of same-sex marriage Wednesday were greeted with excitement by polygamists across the country, who viewed the gay rights victory as a crucial step toward the country’s inevitable acceptance of plural marriage.
Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the court’s decision as a sign that society’s stringent attachment to traditional “family values” is evolving.
“I was very glad… The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” said Wilde.
The key difference in their missions, Wilde said, is that “gays want legal marriage and polygamists don’t” — they just want their lifestyle to be decriminalized.
“If you legalize plural marriage, that means the government is going to control certain aspects of it,” Wilde reasoned. “They might say, you have to make so much money, you can’t have any more than four like it says in the Koran.”I will say this: Ms. Wilde's point of view on polygamy is much more authentically libertarian by focusing on negative rights regarding free association than gays demanding special government status for their relationships. Ms. Wilde is simply asking for the right of polygamists and their families to be left alone, in the context of traditional libertarian objections to the prosecution of victimless crimes.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Bob Gorrell and Townhall |
The Beatles, "A Hard Day's Night". Another in a string of #1's. In my personal top 5 Beatles' tunes. Just brilliant craftsmanship. When they bridge to the cathartic cresting verses "When I'm home...feeling you holding me tight", it's like they brought pop music to a whole new level.
