Taking Their Chains Off

HT OLLPOH

Surely they have been called Uncle Toms, Race Traitors, Oreos, House Ni**ers, Tokens, etc by the Left already.

But did he have his hands up in surrender?

Guest Posting from: The Progressive Center for Liberal-Islamic Solidarity and Sharia Justice.

 

“You have all seen this picture.

Greetings from the religion of peace

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is not the same picture we see!

Yes, so you say a woman was slaughtered with a knife, being decapitated in fact.  So you say the Muslim man who did this was caught in the process of attempting  to slaughter another. So you say he was shouting Islamic slogans as he engaged in this activity.

What’s any of that prove?

How can we Progressives who stand in solidarity with the oppressed and ignored of the world expect anything less, in this, a country so rife with injustice and bigotry and white hetero-normative privilege?

The important question, the question all good Progressives will instantly want to know is: “How come Alton Nolen was shot three times? And with a rifle!”

Was it because of his religion? Was it because he was black?

Imagining for a moment that there is some shred of truth to the corporate media line: Did he not pause even long enough to receive a fair warning? Were others proven to be in immanent danger of being harmed? How do those who say so, claim to know for sure?  Can their bigotry give them the power of reading minds?

What exactly has the alleged killing of one person, got to do with leveling lethal force against Alton Nolen when we do not yet know if there were any witnesses to the alleged first killing?

Why was Alton Nolen then made the repeated victim of potentially lethal force, when it has not even been proven that he intended to kill the one person with whom he was actually (and allegedly) witnessed to be in a tussle with?

What right had some uninvolved third party to interfere in this dispute and then to level potentially fatal violence against Alton, when they could not possibly have known what led to the altercation in the first place, and whether his actions in allegedly striking back against the power, were undoubtedly justified?

Instead Alton was ruthlessly gunned down … shot three times when he was virtually unarmed in comparison to a trigger happy corporate lackey with a rifle!!!

Alton had only, allegedly, a knife. The so-called knife was not even his own according to the initial reports. It was owned by the CORPORATION!

We suspect that what we have here is another instance of some rent-a-cop taking advantage of a power imbalance in order to lash out and victimize a person of color and a member of a maligned religious group, just because he was able to do so.

We demand information on exactly who the shooter was, and why he was armed in the first place! We demand to know who his parents are and where his wife and children live!

Who gave the would-be murderer of Alton Nolen a rifle? Who told him he was allowed to shoot Black men and Muslims? What right had the gunman to assume that the first (and remember it is only alleged) “beheading” was the work of Alton, and that the altercation which he did witness was not merely Alton defending himself, while uttering sacred prayers for deliverance, against an insufferable systemic provocation and disrespect?

Was the shooter even properly trained and licensed? Has he any indications in his background that he might be prejudiced against Muslims?

WHY … why we demand to know, did he shoot three times?!!! Was not one shot tearing into the helpless body of this poor, marginalized victim of capitalism, racism, and western imperialism  not enough?

 

Innocent!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We demand the immediate involvement of Eric Holder, and the avenging of the attempted murder of Alton Nolen: victim of capitalism, religious bigotry, western imperialism, and hetero-normative race privilege!!!  ”

 

 

 

The above opinion does not necessarily reflect the views of Truth Before Dishonor, its writers, contributors, employees, nor any sane person in the universe.

 

Obama and a Presentment of Englishry?

This Incredible Slinking Men of the Obama Administration never cease to amaze.

Not just in their leftoid, parasitical on the productive class effrontery, but in their lack of logical acumen; their inability to recognize that in breaking legal bonds in one direction, they are broken in the other.

Or perhaps they don’t believe that there is a reciprocal dynamic between leftist conqueror and the American conquered.

As the Obamanaughts phrased it: “We rule now”.  The operative term here being rule, not govern or administer. And if the legislature, that is the American Congress, will not give the Little Imperator what he wants, why he will do it by Executive Order, he threatens.

So why should we be surprised by this report which states that the Obama Administration is proposing what is basically an ethnic based regime of law in Hawaii?

AOL didn’t bury this report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a few years ago no one would have believed that such a report could be credible. But now, with what we have already seen out of this administration, our natural skepticism is reduced.

Law is the embodiment of the moral sense of the people,  Blackstone is alleged to have said.

Now it is proposed we accept the notion within our polity of different laws for different moral moieties; which implies, though the advocates no doubt wish to ignore it, that we have fundamentally different peoples with irreconcilably different moral sensibilities, jostling in the same political space.

This doesn’t seem to line up with leftist moral rhetoric.

But, as we have seen in the past, leftists seem incapable of grasping simple deductive inferences, so caught up are they in their “world-creating” fantasy existence.

 

Yeah, I remember law just like that from my school days.

 

“Such of the crimes as might be prosecuted by an appeal, and for which the criminal’s lands were forfeited to his lord or to the King, and his chattels taken, or for which he lost life or member, or was outlawed, were called felonies. Misdemeanours, such as were subsequently known under a fully developed common law, were practically ignored by the justices of Henry the Third’s reign, and on the eyre rolls of that period may be said not to appear. Homicide and rape are the crimes that here pass before us. The former is the only one that need be considered. In some few cases homicide was held to be justifiable, and when such happened the slayer suffered no punishment.

Neither did he where death was caused by misadventure or in self defence.

Every other case of homicide, that is, that which was neither justifiable nor excusable, was felonious.

The difference between murder and manslaughter was then unknown.

In Glanvill’s day secret homicide, which is murdrum, had to be distinguished from homicidium, but the distinction soon died away.1 The term murdrum however survived as the name of the fine paid by the hundred when a person was slain and the slayer not produced.

The law presumed that everyone killed was a foreigner unless his English birth was proved. Possibly the origin of the doctrine is to be found in the statutes of William the Conqueror, which decreed that all men whom he brought with him or who had followed him should be in his peace.

And if one of them were slain the lord of his murderer was to seize the slayer.

But if he could not do so then the lord was to pay forty-six marks of silver as long as his possessions held out, and on their exhaustion the hundred in which the killing took place was to pay in common the balance owing.

The presentment of Englishry (Englescheria), that is proving the slain to be an Englishman by birth, was at first one of the few formal badges of distinction between the conquering and conquered race. Its practical need could not have lasted long, for at the end of the twelfth century it was impossible, except in the very highest or very lowest ranks, to distinguish Norman from Englishman.” [Pleas of the Crown for the Hundred of Swineshead and the Township of Bristol by Edward James Watson]

Looks like the Obama Administration does in fact believe itself quite capable of distinguishing Saxon from non-Saxon. At least when they see a political gain in it for themselves.

So much for any notion that the left believes or ever really believed in the first place, that mankind constituted one moral species … no matter how rhetorically useful they happen to have found the spouting of Christian and natural law doctrines in order to advance their cause – at least far enough along to subvert and displace the same.

 

 

 

Rat fight! Ted Rall and the Daily Kos

Rall v. Kos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes a rat fight can be rather amusing. Just try not to let them know you’re watching, much less laughing.

Now I admit that I’ve inadvertently ruffled rat fur in the past.  I did it on another blog by making – years after the fact – what were by any rational standards temperate and measured remarks about the object lessons available from that infamous Greensboro, North Carolina gunfight which took place between Neo-Nazi’s looking for revenge and self-professed Maoist revolutionary types trolling for a second-round public confrontation with them.

There were those among that blog’s readers who were especially outraged that I looked askance at the speechifying activities of one of the ideology drunk Maoist participants; as her husband lay on the ground with the top of his head shot off.

Quivering with indignation they fumed – or pretended to fume – that I was dancing in the blood of fellow Americans.  That’s “fellow” and “Americans” in quotes of course, since we are talking here about Nazi-types on the one hand, and totalitarian disciples of a mass murdering Marxist dictator on the other. Listening to self-described leftists wave the American flag over the bodies of its enemies while hysterically shouting about human decency was pretty much worth the price of admission alone.

Anyway, those who are unfamiliar with that particular historical  event – the gunfight not the years later blog eruption – can research it all for themselves, or make a beginning by clicking on this link.

However the rat fight I have in mind here, is not between two species of rat, but a more all in the lefty-family type of brawl. And thus far there have been no known fatalities, though there has been the usual obscene speechifying.

Will rat blood be shed by rat? I doubt it. We can probably rest easy on that point.

Ted Rall versus the Daily Kos.

Gee … what more can one reasonably say?

 

Colin Powell fan club proven to be imbeciles

 

Do you prefer Obama or Obama lite?

U.S. News and World Report has an article that reminds us of the catastrophe that is likely to ensue when a morally degraded population tries to exorcise certain social demons through political self-flagellation.

Remember all those excitable and emotionally immature Republicans who were big supporters of Colin Powell? Remember experiencing the dizzying feeling that they were driven vastly less by what freedom compatible policies and ideology Powell was known to embrace, than the fact that he served as a blank screen upon which they could project their moral redemption fantasies?

In rather obvious search of someone who could stamp their “I’m not a racist” ticket, they giddily latched onto Powell in a paroxysm of hand flapping wish fulfillment.

If you asked them what his positions were on critical political issues, they couldn’t say. They could not, because he cannily would not. Fortunately for the Republican party, saner heads realized this. Well, more or less, given the fact that an almost equally destructive John McCain somehow became the party’s nominee.

Of course it was not too long before Powell felt drawn to demonstrate where his real allegiances lay; and it was not with freedom. They lay with Obama who he endorsed for president, and with the collectivist social manager class with which he identifies as a part.

Probably should not have been much of a surprise. Not everyone who seeks a career in the U.S. military is a libertarian constitutionalist sacrificing his personal daily liberty in order to guarantee it for the larger political community. Powell’s silence should have been a warning. Just like John Roberts’ should have been. But wish fulfillment Republicans have long been in the habit of assuming that just because people don’t speak up, they are somehow fans of liberty. Kind of strange and actually incoherent a thought if you reflect upon it for a moment: “X is so much a fan of freedom he fears to exercise it personally lest he be deprived of the opportunity of defending it at some future date …”

Yeah, just look how well that assumption has played out …

Now Powell, the closet-leftist-masquerading-as-a-closet-conservative is helpfully advancing the cause of freedom and self-direction by advocating the introduction of an even more comprehensive form of fascistic-leftism, than Obamacare: with what is euphemistically called a “single payer system”.  As we a all know Single Payer is actually a government payer system wherein you get tagged for the medical expenses of the obnoxious through taxes; meaning that even the option of your striking back against a fascist system like ObamaCare through civil disobedience or economic subversion, becomes hardly possible. “A new poll shows 28 percent of uninsured Americans intend to pay a fine rather than enroll in a plan. as required by the Affordable Care Act.”

But Powell likes a system with no functional opt out. It worked for him.

” ‘I don’t see why we can’t do what Europe is doing, what Canada is doing, what Korea is doing, what all these other places are doing,” Powell said at the Dec. 5 event. “I am not an expert in health care, or Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, or however you choose to describe it, but I do know this: I have benefited from that kind of universal health care in my 55 years of public life.’ “

I want, you will provide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[US News and World Report Image]

He doesn’t see what the problem with fascism is. He likes it in fact.

What moral subspecies of man are these collectivists?

Unconditional, redistributive, no escape social “solidarity”. What worthwhile person would want such a shit life, or demand it of everyone else; and why?

Hell on earth for edified men; emotional paradise for the “last man” … the soulless man of nothingness.

Maybe that explains it.

How Trayvon Martin was murdered by George Zimmerman …

UPDATE.  The following changes illustrated by the strikeouts have been made out of a respect for accuracy and fairness, something we, especially those on my side of the Martin-Zimmerman news reporting fiasco issue should be highly mindful of  – even if the attempt to be accurate and fair seems to fly in the face of what seems to be self-evident: i.e., in this case the “CBS This Morning” logo. See the latest posting on this matter.

Second update. It appears that our scrupulosity was was uncalled for.

CBS News was in fact responsible for the computer generated video insert in their report which portrayed George Zimmerman shooting down an non-aggressive and child-like Trayvon Martin (dressed in short pants) from a distance .  CBS, through one of their employees had denied that the video, or the segment, “belonged”  to them, but rather to Reuters,  whatever “belonged” was supposed to mean in their usage. I was never able to clarify it with them, and and continued attempts to do so became pointless in the face of the evidence, still available, that it was they who had in fact had published the recklessly misleading and prejudicial account of the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

 

 

 

According to CBS News … Or, maybe not CBS, but Reuters ….

This is John’s blog, so I hesitate to  quote commenter Eric on another blog accurately if vulgarly referring to leftists as being lower than snake shit.

But frankly, how could anyone deny it? How could anyone who as been watching the lead-up to the Zimmerman trial possibly argue that they, the members of the mainstream, left-leaning, almost completely populated by Democrats media,  have any interest in presenting an accurate recounting of facts?

Time after time, they persistently demonstrate they have no such  interest in getting the details right, and that they will elide, insinuate, and even deceptively edit the record for effect; as  NBC News did with the police department recording of Zimmerman speaking to the Sanford Police Department dispatcher.

Exactness, or even accuracy and truth mean nothing to them when their narrative is at stake.

They won’t even get the petty details correct for fear that exposing these details might redound negatively upon the story line they are attempting to push.

Over at the Huffington Post for example, with the trial over and while they are covering the verdict wrap-up, they are still saying Trayvon bought an “iced tea”. Whether they never paid close enough attention to the police photos to notice what it was Martin actually bought, or whether they are sensitive to either a potential racial stereotyping of the purchase, or the possible drug use implications of what it was that he did buy, in each and/or any event, they are perpetrating a fraud on those readers seeking objective information, and a truthful recounting.

“Objective and truthful”: That would be a recounting on which civil peace and other human lives might even depend.

Below is another example of the journalistic malpractice that has gone on during this case. It is illustrated by a screen capture I managed to make some months ago, and which I recently had to do a computer file search on,  in order to find again.

This is the same screen capture I had mentioned in an earlier posting as not being ready to hand.

This looked to be is taken from a “CBS This Morning” computer animation of the shooting which was Reuters apparently allowed to be re-presented on Yahoo:

Zimmerman portrayed as shooting Martin down at a distance

Look what’s being shown here for God’s sake: Zimmerman, gunning down a kid in short pants from yards away. No wonder the low information types went out of their minds.

And here is a capture of the web address …

Yahoo presentation of the CBS video

And this is a close up of the logo,

Logo

And here is the link: news.yahoo.com/family-florida-boy-killed-neighborhood-watch-seeks-arrest-044537742.html

Try it for yourself, and see what you come up with.

So now, what do we have here? We have as everyone already knows,  a clear pattern of the news media attempting to inflame passions and railroad a verdict with a grave indifference to the false narrative they were constructing. It may have been motivated by ideology in some cases, racial animus in others, or a “mere” desire to profit from whatever outrage and attention could be stimulated or provoked in others.

What possible excuse though could these sub-moral creatures offer up for their behavior?

Well, my experiences in dealing with the type convince me that their nihilism is so deep that they are indifferent to the harm they might wreak, and the very idea of excusing their behavior would seem as alien to them as considering it within a framework of “right and wrong” in the first place.

That, is what we are dealing with folks. We need to remember that always. As if we could ever forget, that is.

Zimmerman – Martin: Just as I predicted

I had intended to post this up Friday last but didn’t get to it, because the network graphic  I had captured (depicting a pursuing Zimmerman shooting Trayvon at a distance) months ago wasn’t handy, and an area-wide power outage cut the entire effort short.

So, this commentary is much less topical than it was a couple of days past. Nonetheless:

As I had predicted many months ago, when the facts of the matter were still uncertain: the question in the Zimmerman case would likely evolve into a question as to whether Zimmerman,  if he was the victim of an unjustified physical assault – and we do not absolutely yet know that to be the case – even had the right to defend himself against a battery by responding with deadly force.

There’s no doubt George Zimmerman was getting a whuppin …

Those who have had their attention drawn to the case will no doubt have noticed the changing nature of the claims of the “let’s hang Zimmerman” crowd.

As the news dribbled out we’ve gone from network news graphics depicting Zimmerman poised at a distance while shooting a child-like Trayvon after he had supposedly chased Trayvon into a corner; to a subsequent insistence that while Zimmerman may have been in a “scuffle” he had suffered no physical injuries; to a now new  theory suggested by the bald headed fellow pictured above : i.e.,  you have the obligation under certain circumstances to take an unjustifiable beating.

A beating or “whupping'” in the affected language of the effete clown in the suspenders, that would leave you like this:

ZIMMERMAN, AFTER ENCOUNTERING TRAYVON MARTIN

As I wrote over a year ago on First Street Journal,

“March 28, 2012 at 15:42

Oh, one last thing that despite all of my commentary, I have not yet mentioned.

In my dealings with progressives and lefties, for all of their hyperbole about what they conceive of as rights, for all their willingness to engage in political violence, for all their talk of resisting injustice and fighting for the right of peoples or for justice or for whatever, they seem to nonetheless believe that it is your moral obligation to take a beating, or suffer a rape, rather than kill the offender.

When it comes down to it, if everything that could conceivably be exculpatory for Zimmerman is proved to be true, (and I don’t imagine it will) and if he did nothing whatsoever to provoke Trayvon into a physical assault, and if it is shown that he was having his head pounded against the pavement at the very moment he shot Trayvon, there will still be many on the left that will say it was unjustified.

An essential characteristic of the leftist organism is their different sense of personal boundaries.

Well, we’ll see how it plays out.”

Well, we are now seeing just how it is in fact playing out. And it is just as I predicted.

Legal Insurrection has this, on the actual theory being developed by the prosecution,  the courtroom deployment of which seems to have been waiting in the wings.

UPDATE

In an effort to explain the image I had in mind as I responded to Yorkshire, I am adding the marked up picture below.

If anyone has an updated trial based map which is properly scaled and refers to an uncontested version of the respective parties’ movements,  they are welcome to suggest it, and I will happily remove this one.

Until such a time then …

The red pointer shows the GPS location of the shooting, per the Wiki site. If the Wiki coordinates are accurate, the death location is less further down the condo access path toward the Green condo, than news accounts and graphics originally suggested; graphics which I had accepted.

The red star seems to be the agreed upon location of Brandy Green’s condominium.

The yellow circle represents a location that is both two doors down from Brandy Green’s condo (or townhouse) and between two buildings;  a spot which has been suggested as a place Trayvon had sought out to “escape” from Zimmerman’s view. That is to say, a place obscured between two buildings on the one hand, while being two doors away from home, on the other. (This construction of events is more or less per Rachel Jeantel’s statements,  and assumes she is telling the truth in this regard.)

The green circle is where Zimmerman, if he is telling the truth about his own movements, paused to turn and go back to his vehicle.

The rest is self-explanatory.  A 100 ft scale is found in the lower left corner of the image.

Get yourself a ruler if you need to.

Katie Halper of Salon – fast and loose with the facts

When someone, in this instance Katie Halper of Salon, is caught out playing fast and loose with facts in a transparent attempt to whip up a little progressive mob action, how are we to judge the author and her intentions? Barely sublimated narrative malice is after all, the common coin of progressive political narration. The disposition toward malice is taken for granted by most alert readers as being part of the architecture of the run-of-the-mill leftist mind. So, when we come across news articles which in passing misrepresent the facts of  some leftist cause de jour, we tend not to blink.

When however, the construction of the false narrative is rather more elaborate than usual, we pause.

Wandering from news link to news link recently, I came across this mess , ” ‘Stand your ground’ law helps white defendants a lot more than black ones” Double standards and all of that .

In her essay, Halper poses two Florida cases, “Wald” and “Alexander”, as examples of notorious and especially invidious legal outcomes resulting from what is generally called a no retreat self-defense or “stand your ground” plea.

Wald, who was a white male, got off on a justifiable force plea after killing an intruder in his house. This was bad. Alexander, who is black, went to jail for  for assultively firing a gun in a house she had once shared with her spouse. This is however not good, but also bad. But perhaps we are getting a little ahead of ourselves …

The relevant Florida statute reads in part:

1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

Halper’s narrative strategy is to illustrate her double standard contention with descriptions of what she offers up as two relevant paradigm cases. Halper concludes that the divergent outcomes for defendants Ralph Wald and Marissa Alexander (in these purportedly legally comparable events) is attributable to the race of the defendants. Halper writes:

“The disparity between these outcomes should be shocking. But, sadly, it’s not, once you take into account the fact that Wald is white and Alexander is black.”

Now,  it soon enough becomes apparent that Halper’s real purpose is not so much retrospective and legal as proactive and political. She wishes to use these cases to sound a more particular alarm: warning the progressive troops that while no “stand your ground” claim has yet been made in the Martin-Zimmerman case, as ” Zimmerman waived his right to a “stand your ground” pretrial hearing …”  she nonetheless considers it ” is likely that ‘stand your ground’ will come up during the actual trial.” And, Halper wonders, ” If it does, [and ] … the defense is successful. Will Zimmerman end up a free man, like Wald?”

So it’s to prime the troops for a little, or a lot of, anti-Zimmerman street action as much as any other reason that this is written. But the obvious poisoning of the well aside, what author and left-wing activist  Katie Halper more overtly purports to do, is to draw a contrast in supposedly egregious judicial outcomes between two putatively legally alike cases.

So, just as an exercise, let’s place Halper’s preemptive attempt to de-legitimize a defense which Zimmerman’s defense team has not in fact made, aside for a moment. Let’s instead consider whether the two exemplar cases she cites are even truly alike. In aid of doing so, we ask: is her presentation of the material anything like honest or evenhanded?

Let’s review the first instance in Halper’s parable of racial disparity, injustice, and unequal treatment, which centers on Ralph Wald.

Katie Halper introduces Wald thus,

“On March 10 of this year, around midnight, Ralph Wald, 70, of Brandon, Fla., got out of bed  to get a drink and found Walter Conley, 32, having sex with his wife, Johanna Lynn Flores, 41, in the living room. He immediately went back into his bedroom, grabbed his gun and shot Conley three times.”

Now, the “Think Progress” site, which Halper cites twice in succession as an authority for Conley being Flores’ lover, establishes the background somewhat differently:

“Ralph Wald, a 70-year-old Vietnam veteran, walked into his home around midnight, and less than ten seconds later, fired three shots at Walter Conley, according to ABC News.” Italicized divergences.

Halper, unfortunately,  does not bother to inform us as to why she believes the Think Progress site was a trustworthy source for information on Conley and Flores’ status lovers, but not for a description of the exact circumstances proximate to the shooting.

1. Did Wald walk into his house as Think Progress has it, or did he arise from sleep? Halper does not follow Think Progress there, but does not say why.

2. We also note that as part of the process of establishing context or characterization, Think Progress thought fit to include the factoid that Wald was a Vietnam veteran. This, Halper either also fails to notice, or dismisses without explanation. Her mind is obviously focused elsewhere.

But, as we see when reviewing a number of other articles, besides being as Halper describes him, an impotent 70 year old white man, Wald was 1. a Vietnam veteran, 2. a retired Lieutenant Colonel, and 3. the father of a then 20 year old daughter from a previous marriage.

To then recap the fact situation somewhat more comprehensively (and comparably, as we will see later): It was midnight and retired Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Wald, a 70 year old Vietnam veteran, and father of an adult daughter, had been sleeping in his house.  Wald awoke from his sleep only to find a man on top of his wife in his  own living room. Wald reportedly retrieved a gun from his bedroom, returned, and shot the man three times.

The man was apparently so preoccupied with his activities, or indifferent to their discovery, that he never bothered to decouple and decamp when Wald retreated to his bedroom in order to arm himself against the intruder.

The sticking points for Halper’s moral slide rule seem to be Wald’s age and impotence, along with the reported fact that the man having sex with, or raping, Wald’s wife on the living room floor of Wald’s house in the middle of the night, was a sometime current neighbor, and her one time boyfriend. Apparently Halper believes that this past association somehow made the neighbor’s presence in both Wald’s house and wife, excusable; or at least nonthreatening in some way.

Unfortunately for Halper’s insinuated no-harm no-foul thesis, Wald’s wife Johnna Lynn Flores,  the actual recepient of Conley’s living room floor delivered sexual attentions, is not of much assistance in granting us this particular progressive reassurance.  The Tampa Bay reports:

“Flores, the surviving central actor in the episode besides Wald, testified she was “black-out” drunk the night of the shooting after consuming a large quantity of cognac and remembered almost nothing.”

Halper seems wary that this “minor detail” might imply trouble for her theory, as she defensively admits,

“… while the fact that the two were lovers doesn’t imply consent, Flores has never accused Conley of rape — nor do prosecutors buy that that’s what Wald actually thought was happening.”

No, she is right in this; it does not imply consent. Flores was, on her own testimony blacked out and incapable of remembering anything.

We naturally suspect that if this sexual episode had taken place on, say, a college campus, with Flores an alcohol or drug besotted and blacked out coed, that Halper would be asserting there was a prima facie case that Flores had been de facto , if somehow not legally, raped. We would tend to agree. And note too, Halper’s trust of the prosecutors’ judgment with this statement:

” Flores has never accused Conley of rape — nor do prosecutors buy that that’s what Wald actually thought was happening”.

This trusting attitude will be much less evident later, once Halper begins work arranging her version of the Alexander case. And, while Halper makes much of the fact that the deceased was a former boyfriend of Flores, and an apparently occasional next door neighbor whom Wald might have recognized – and then presumably spared – Wald’s wife Johanna Flores, the recipient of Conley’s sexual attentions, had a somewhat different view of the outcome.

What was Johanna Flores’ own verdict on the verdict? ”

“I am elated, absolutely elated,” Flores said outside the Tampa courtroom where her spouse, retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Ralph Wald, 70, was acquitted of second-degree murder Thursday. Once Wald was released from jail, she said, he had promised her a special celebration. “Because my husband puts me first, he’s taking me to the Waffle House,” Flores said.”  Tampa Bay Times

What then of Conley?

In the second instance of Katie Halper’s parable, the moral character of both Marissa Alexander the shooter, and Rico Gray the abusive husband will become hammering points as she labors to establish exculpating factors in the Alexander case which will help to prove racial bias. So, what of Conley’s character then? Why has that not been introduced more thoroughly? We do remember him. He is after all, the dead “lover” in the Wald case. And Halper even thought fit to include the fact that he had a tattoo honoring Johanna.

Well, in the words of a Mail Online article which Halper cited for the authority that Wald showed no remorse in killing Conley, but which she failed to actually quote, we find this eminently quotable nugget:

“Ms Flores was arrested last October – just two weeks before she and Wald were married – for allegedly firing a shot of Conley. She said he came over and refused to leave. Conley told police Flores invited him back to the home they used to share. She and Conley, who had a record of petty thefts and worked as a laborer, had shared a house next door to Wald in the community of Brandon. Flores allegedly shot at Conley at 3am on October 19. She and Wald were dating then and he bailed her out of jail. Those charges were later dropped. Ms Flores and Wald married on October 25. Wald, a U.S. Army veteran, has a 20-year-old daughter with a previous wife.“

So, in order to drive him away, and in a period prior her marriage to Wald, Johanna Flores had herself shot at Conley – months before her husband finally killed him using the same technique.

Wald, a retired – if 70 and impotent- Lieutenant Colonel; Conley, a petty thief killed while shagging the “blacked out” wife (who had already shot at him) of another man, in the middle of the night, in that man’s own house, in that man’s own living room.

In the Alexander case, as sad as the eventual legal outcome was for Marissa Alexander, the facts on the ground, and the proximate circumstances, are clearly different. But before we start in on the physical facts, let’s make specific note of how Halper introduces Marissa Alexander:

“On Aug. 1, 2010, Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, with a master’s degree and no criminal record, was working for a payroll software company in Jacksonville.”

Compare that again with the treatment she delivers Wald, “On March 10 of this year, around midnight, Ralph Wald, 70, of Brandon, Fla., got out of bed  to get a drink and…”

Again, for Wald, no “Vietnam veteran”; no, father of a daughter; no, retired Lieutenant Colonel; and no mention of a previously clean legal record. Just a description of a supposedly cuckolded and impotent old man, who killed his wife’s lover in a fit of jealousy, when in search of a drink, he got out of bed and discovered them.

On then, to the description of setting in the Alexander case.

First, although the way Halper describes the context in Alexander’s case is jarringly sketchy and telegraphic, it is still clear enough to show that when Marissa Alexander committed aggravated assault with a firearm, the location in which the event occurred was not her current home, and she was not confronting  an unrelated midnight intruder. Instead, Alexander (on testimony and report) went to a dwelling which she had once shared with her spouse Rico Gray.

Thus, according to Halper’s own account, Marissa Alexander  ” … went to their former house to get some belongings.” Halper asserts Marissa Alexander did this thinking, “he [Rico Gray] was not at home”. However, “he”, her estranged husband Rico Gray, was home; whether she knew it or not.

Halper, now switching to one of those really neat passive voices wherein shit just magically happens, says, “The two got into an argument.” And, “Alexander says that Gray threatened her and she feared for her life.”

Ok … Halper then does something seemingly odd for anyone looking to present an objective and informative version of events, but something which makes sense for a polemicist trying to be clever. She angles to base her exculpatory recounting of Marissa Alexander’s actions not on neutral police reports, but on the testimony of the formally aggrieved party: performing a little rhetorical judo so to speak.

In this instance the legally aggrieved party of record is ostensibly Rico Gray, the husband of Alexander. It is Gray who is posited (his kids actually are) as the victim of the aggravated assault charge involving Alexander’s felonious use of a firearm.

Halper aims to undermine the State of Florida aggravated assault charge against Alexander by impeaching her husband Gray with his own words. But now remember, it is really the kids who are the state’s main motivation in bringing charges. Halper then, ostensibly referencing Rico Gray’s deposition of the encounter, tells us,

“When Alexander retreated into the bathroom, Gray tried to break the door. She ran into the garage, but couldn’t leave because it was locked.  She came back, he said, with a registered gun, which she legally owned …”

At a glance, we therefore assume Halper is quoting Gray’s damning admissions in the deposition document directly. The elisions are naturally taken to be all Halper’s. Thus Halper, superficially quoting Gray’s deposition, writes:

” I called her a whore and bitch and … I told her … if I can’t have you, nobody going to have you,” he said, in a deposition.”

But for anyone who actually bothers to check the link under the words “he said”, he finds not a legal deposition, but  an outraged opinion piece written by Fred Grimm of the Miami Herald. Here is how Grimm wrote it up:

“Sitting in the State Attorney’s Office, Gray described how he had erupted in anger when he discovered text messages on his wife’s phone to another man. (Alexander had moved out, but had come home briefly that day to retrieve her clothes.) “I was in a rage. I called her a whore and bitch and . . . I told her, you know, I used to always tell her that, if I can’t have you, nobody going to have you. It was not the first time of ever saying it to her.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/28/v-print/2821403/you-call-this-justice-not-if-its.html#storylink=cpy

Halper did then add an ellipsis to those Grimm used; but she  might better have helped the cause of truth  if she had quoted Grimm a little more extensively rather than elliptically:

“Marissa fired the gun twice that day into the wall. No one was injured. But the State Attorney’s Office said the reckless discharge of a firearm endangered the children. A jury (never told about the mandatory 20-year sentence) agreed. Circuit Judge James Daniel, handing down the verdict, noted that because of the state law, the sentencing decision “has been entirely taken out of my hands.” emphasis added.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/28/v-print/2821403/you-call-this-justice-not-if-its.html#storylink=cpy

Oh yeah, there were those kids in the room. Halper does of course mention them as being there; almost in passing as part of Grays self-critical depositional assessment of his own behavior. But she does not clearly stipulate why Alexander was really charged as she was: which was because the shots were discharged in a dwelling in the presence of kids (one of whom a little research will show was apparently next to the man whom Alexander was trying to impress with her no retreat seriousness of purpose). Or as one news source put it:

“Alexander, 31, claims she fired a shot from a handgun into the wall to protect herself during a confrontation with her husband, who she said had abused her. Because his two children were with them when she fired a shot in his direction, she was charged with three counts of aggravated assault.”2012 by News4Jax.com. All rights reserved Emphaisis added

Nor in Halper’s attempt to establish this as a legally comparable case to Wald which ended in racially motivated and disproportionate justice, does Halper mention the following “little fact”: After the shooting event of August 10 2010, and after her booking on the aggravated assault charge, Marissa Alexander was freed on bond.

Ordered to stay away from her ex husband, she nonetheless, 5 months later on December 30th of the same year violated her probation, and was arrested on a charge of domestic violence for assaulting Rico Gray at his Brockett Way home address.

Photographs were taken into evidence of his [in my view relatively minor] facial abrasions and swelling.

Marissa Alexander was then contacted by the police via phone; and, after initially claiming she had an “alibi”, eventually consented to meet with an officer: She was arrested and remained jailed until her trial over the aggravated assault charge involving the children.

In perusing the various news accounts it appears that Alexander could have made a defensive pleading at trial on a basis other than “stand your ground”, but chose not to do so.  She opted to try for the so-called “stand your ground” defense instead.

However, ” …  a Duval circuit judge rejected her Stand Your Ground defense. The judge decided that Alexander could have fled instead of running into the garage and fetching the pistol from her car. ‘This is inconsistent with a person in genuine fear of his or her life,’ the judge ruled — illustrating, if nothing else, that the effectiveness of the controversial self-defense statute varies wildly from one Florida circuit to the next.”

Whether it affected the judge’s decision or not, it is interesting to note how the law  reads regarding the presumptive coverage of the right. It says,

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or …

It should also be noted that despite all this, Alexander was offered a reduced three year sentence plea by the same prosecutor who is in now charge of the Zimmerman case, Angela Corey.

Corey further indicated that she might have offered an even greater reduction (than three years instead of a potential 20) but it was Marissa Alexander’s violation of the terms of her probation over the outstanding aggravated assault charge, a bond violation which also resulted in her arrest for domestic battery, which made an even greater reduction of sentence offer on the part of prosecutors problematical.

In any event Alexander turned the 3 year offer of reduced time down. And now, unfortunately, she is in jail, sentenced to 20 years. But it is not because she’s black.

Where does all this leave Katie Halper? It leaves her holding title to what can only be, given the sources she herself cites, a deliberately deceitful narrative; a narrative intended to poison the well of public and perhaps even judicial opinion, in order to harm a third party’s interests.

That Halper has done this, is clear evidence of malice. That she has done it so blatantly, and expected it to pass, is persuasive evidence of stupidity.

Halper certainly looks guilty on both counts.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/28/v-print/2821403/you-call-this-justice-not-if-its.html#storylink=cpy

Mia Love Uses White Child Slave Labor!

What better way for a white person born over a century after slavery was abolished to pay reparations to a black woman born roughly a century after slavery was abolished than to perform slave labor for that black woman?

From Mia Love:

Look at all those young men with “fun bags” (according to Pennsylvania Legislator Babette Josephs, D – Phila)!!!

By the way, normal people call them “responsible, politically astute young adults”. We all know Leftists have all manner of different terms for them, many of which would not survive the moderation filter here at Truth Before Dishonor.

Also note: Truth Before Dishonor officially endorsed Mayor Mia Love for Congress many months ago, prior to her winning her Primary in Nevada’s 4th Congressional District.

Dr Thomas Sowell Discussing Dishonorable, Duplicitous Democrats

Via Representative Michele Bachmann (R – MN).

It’s actually very simple, Dr Sowell. The Modern Left have decided that they have the Orwellian power to redefine anything they wish to mean anything they wish, and to Sheol with the Truth.

By the way, a race traitor (according to today’s Left) made the comment and a man with boobs (according to today’s Democrat office-holders) is helping make the comment viral.

MSNBC Spreads Its Socialist Lies

Who among you remembers when MSNBC was frothing at the mouth about the TEA Partier in Arizona who had the unmitigated gall to wear an “assault rifle” on his back out in the open, in a crowd? Do you remember how MSNBC was telling all ten of its viewers that was undeniable proof of the murderous desires of the purely white TEA Party? Do you also remember that MSNBC cropped the shot of that man so closely that you could only see part of the man and the rifle? Do you also remember that, while MSNBC was warning everyone about how the WHITE TEA Partiers so the black men could likewise be afraid, that the closely cropped image of a TEA Partier with a rifle was cropped closely to hide the fact that that particular TEA Partier with a rifle strapped to his back was black? Proving MSNBC would lie and provide wholly dishonorable and deceitful video to advance its Socialist agenda?

WELL…

Mess NBC is at it again! While they claim to be covering the Republican National Convention for all ten of its viewers, it is studiously avoiding anything that would harm the Socialist Baraka Obama’s (and the rest of the Socialist leadership of the Democrat Party) propagandistic agenda. So, what did MessNBC do? In their coverage of the Republican National Convention, MessNBC studiously avoided airing any speeches by minorities!!!! Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware should be proud!!!

When popular Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, the GOP nominee for Senate, took the stage, MSNBC cut away from the Republican National Convention and the Hispanic Republican from Texas’ speech.

MSNBC stayed on commercial through former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis’ speech, as well. Davis, who recently became a Republican, is black.

Then, when Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno’s wife Luce’ Vela Fortuño took the stage minutes later, MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews opted to talk over the First Lady’s speech.

And Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval? Noticeably missing from MSNBC, too.

Mia Love, a black candidate for Congress in Utah, was also ignored by MSNBC.

Say, wouldn’t the practice of ignoring people of color be considered raaaaaaaaaaaacist? And what did MSNBC use as a replacement for all of these speakers last night?

In lieu of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow from Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt.

No doubt, they were trying to keep their 20 19 17 viewers up to date with all of the antics of raaaaaaaaaaaacist Republicans, and so had no choice but to block out Republicans like Mia Love, Ted Cruz, and Artur Davis. I’ve seen news reports from Communist countries that had less Orwellian message control than this.

MessNBC didn’t bother to provide the speeches of minorities. Period. Full-stop. Why? Because the Socialist Baraka Obama (who was a registered Socialist in Chicago) has decided to wage a campaign on the over-played raaaaacist card and the over-played “war on women” lie. And MessNBC is absolutely in bed with the Socialist Baraka Obama and the Socialist leadership of the Democrat Party.

Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice ROCKED THE HOUSE!!! But if you were one of the ten people who were religiously watching MessNBC, you didn’t see it. Because she was a black woman and MessNBC did not want you watching a black woman rock the Republican Cazbah!

 
(YouTube video provided by Barracuda Brigade. Please, do go visit that worthy site.)

Governor Nikki Haley ROCKED THE HOUSE!!! But if you were one of the ten people who were religiously watching MessNBC, you didn’t see it. Because she was a Sikh woman and MessNBC did not want you watching a Sikh woman rock the Republican Cazbah!

Mayor Mia Love ABSOLUTELY ROCKED THE HOUSE!!! But if you were one of the ten people who were religiously watching MessNBC, you didn’t see it. Because she is a black woman born of LEGAL immigrants who have made their own way without freebies from the Government (read “everyone else”).

That BLACK WOMAN, Mia Love hates black people like herself so much that she married a white man! That white man, a Conservative Republican hates black people so much that he married one! MessNBC was right to hide Mia Love’s speech from its ten viewers because nobody should be faced with an intelligent black person who decries the Liberal hatred of all who stand in their way of ruling the ever-declining and ever-impoverished world. Mia’s YouTube video provided by mialoveinterviews. Mia Love is involved in a very tight race for Representative of the 4th District of Utah. All freedom-loving people who haven’t been devastated by the Obama economy should strongly consider donating money to her campaign.

Artur Davis ROCKED THE HOUSE, then CRUSHED THE HOUSE in his speech. Remember 2009 to 2011: lesson learned. 2012, mistake corrected. Absolutely crushingly powerful! Barack Obama is only a man I once knew! Wowzers! Coming from the former up-and-coming black Democrat and former member of the Congressional Black Caucus (is there a Congressional White Caucus, and would the Democrats inside the Congressional Black Caucus remain civil?), the man who seconded Obama’s nomination in 2008 and introduced him to the Democrat Party at their 2008 convention!

 

To those Democrats and independents whose minds are open to argument: listen closely to the Democratic Party that will gather in Charlotte and ask yourself if you ever hear your voice in the clamor.

Ask yourself if these Democrats still speak for you.

When they say we have a duty to grow government even when we can’t afford it, does it sound like compassion to you — or recklessness?

When you hear the party that glorified Occupy Wall Street blast success; when you hear them minimize the genius of the men and women who make jobs out of nothing, is that what you teach your children about work?

When they tell you America is this unequal place where the powerful trample on the powerless, does that sound like the country your children or your spouse risked their lives for in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Do you even recognize the America they are talking about? And what can we say about a house that doesn’t honor the pictures on its walls?

John F. Kennedy asked us what we could do for America. This Democratic Party asks what can government give you. Don’t worry about paying the bill, it’s on your kids and grandkids.

Bill Clinton took on his base and made welfare a thing you had to work for; this current crowd guts the welfare work requirement in the dead of night.

Bill Clinton, Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson reached out across the aisle and said meet me in the middle; but their party rammed through a healthcare bill that took over one-sixth of our economy, without accepting a single Republican idea, without winning a single vote in either house from a party whose constituents make up about 50 percent of the country.

You know, the Democrats used to have a night when they presented a film of their presidential legends: if they do it in Charlotte, the theme song should be this year’s hit, “Somebody That I Used to Know.”

Governor Susana Martinez ROCKED THE HOUSE!!! But if you were one of the ten people who were religiously watching MessNBC, you didn’t see it. Because Susana Martinez is a wise Latina. The NBC News website, which listed Republican speakers, didn’t even mention her. At all.

 

I fear some of our leaders today have lost the courage to stand up. What we have now are politicians. They won’t offer real plans, and only stand up when they want to blame someone else.

And I don’t say that just because a Democrat is in the White House, I was a Democrat for many years, so were my parents.

Before I ran for district attorney, two Republicans invited my husband and me to lunch, and I knew a party switch was exactly what they wanted. So, I told Chuck, “We’ll be polite, enjoy a free lunch, and then say good-bye.” But we talked about issues — they never used the words Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. We talked about many issues, like welfare, is it the way of life or hand up? Talked about size of government, how much should it tax families and small businesses? And when we left that lunch, we got in the car and I looked over at Chuck and said, “I’ll be damned. We’re Republicans.”

Senator Marco Rubio, a Cuban American, ROCKED THE HOUSE!!! Did the ten people watching MessNBC see it? Highly improbable.

 

My Dad used to tell us: “En este pais, ustedes van a poder lograr todas las cosas que nosotros no pudimos” “In this country, you will be able to accomplish all the things we never could.”

A few years ago during a speech, I noticed a bartender behind a portable bar at the back of the ballroom. I remembered my father who had worked for many years as a banquet bartender.

He was grateful for the work he had, but that’s not the life he wanted for us.

He stood behind a bar in the back of the room all those years, so one day I could stand behind a podium in the front of a room.

That journey, from behind that bar to behind this podium, goes to the essence of the American miracle — that we’re exceptional not because we have more rich people here.

We’re special because dreams that are impossible anywhere else, come true here.

That’s not just my story. That’s your story. That’s our story.

It’s the story of your mother who struggled to give you what she never had.

It’s the story of your father who worked two jobs so doors closed for him would open for you.
The story of that teacher or that coach who taught you the lessons that shaped who you are today.

And it’s the story of a man who was born into an uncertain future in a foreign country. His family came to America to escape revolution.

They struggled through poverty and the great depression. And yet he rose to be an admired businessman, and public servant.

And in November, his son, Mitt Romney, will be elected President of the United States.

Former Solicitor General of Texas and next US Senator Ted Cruz brought the house down!!! But if you were one of the ten people who were religiously watching MessNBC, you didn’t see it. Because Ted Cruz is a Cuban-American.

 

This love story is the story of the brave Texans in the City of Gonzales. When General Santa Anna demanded that they give up their guns and the cannon that guarded the city, they responded with the immortal cry “Come and take it.”

It’s the story of the greatest generation of Americans, who rose up to confront the grotesque evil that was the Nazis, and ushered in the greatest era of peace and prosperity the world has ever seen.

It’s the story of civil-rights heroes, like Dr. Martin Luther King, who stood strong against the scourge of discrimination, and bravely championed that every man and woman should be judged, not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.

It’s the story of President Ronald Reagan, who turned back the creeping growth of government and restored Morning in America. Who spoke out against the oppressive evil of communism and demanded “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

It’s the story of my Mom. Irish and Italian, working class, the first in her family to go to college – a pioneering mathematician and computer programmer in the 1950s.

It’s the story of my Dad, who was imprisoned and tortured in Cuba, beaten nearly to death. He fled to Texas in 1957, not speaking English, with $100 sewn into his underwear. He washed dishes making 50 cents an hour to pay his way through the University of Texas, and to start a small business in the oil and gas industry.

My father is here tonight. When he came to America, él no tenía nada, pero tenía corazón. He had nothing, but he had heart. A heart for freedom. Thank you, Dad.
…
This election presents a stark choice. Two visions: we can continue down the road of the Obama Democrats, towards more and more spending, debt and government control of the economy and our lives. Or we can return to the founding principles of our nation-free markets, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s campaign is going to try to divide America. They’re going to try to separate us into little groups, and try to scare everybody. They’re going to tell seniors that Medicare will be taken away, tell Hispanics that we’re not welcome here and send the Vice President to preach a message of division.
…
How do we turn things around? How do we get America back to work? President Obama thinks the answer is more and more government.

Government is not the answer. You are not doing anyone a favor by creating dependency, destroying individual responsibility.

Fifty-five years ago, when my dad was a penniless teenage immigrant, thank God some well-meaning bureaucrat didn’t put his arm around him and say let me take care of you. Let me give you a government check and make you dependent on government. And by the way, don’t bother learning English. That would have been the most destructive thing anyone could have done.

Instead, my parents worked together to start a small business, to provide for their family and to chart their own future. That’s the American dream, and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan understand that.
…
I’d like to close with asking you a few questions, with apologies to Barack Obama.

Can we restore the Constitution?

Yes we can.

Can we retake the U.S. Senate?

Can we repeal ObamaCare?

And can we defeat President Barack Obama?

That, my friends, is change we can believe in.

Thank you, and God bless America.

Ann Romney absolutely killed it!!! Did you ten viewers of MessNBC see it? Well, did you Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware? Not if you watched MessNBC!!!

Senator Rand Paul killed it!!! Did those ten viewers of MessNBC see it? Maybe.

 

When the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, the first words out of my mouth were: I still think it is unconstitutional!

The leftwing blogs were merciless. Even my wife said — can’t you pleeeease count to ten before you speak?

So, I’ve had time now to count to ten and, you know what? I still think it’s unconstitutional!

Do you think Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have changed their minds?

I think if James Madison himself — the father of the Constitution — were here today he would agree with me: The whole damn thing is still unconstitutional!

This debate is not new and it’s not over. Hamilton and Madison fought from the beginning about how government would be limited by the enumerated powers.

Madison was unequivocal. The powers of the federal government are few and defined. The power to tax and spend is restricted by the enumerated powers.

So, how do we fix this travesty of justice? There’s only one option left.

We have to have a new president!

When I heard the current president say, “You didn’t build that,” I was first insulted, then I was angered, then I was saddened that anyone in our country, much less the president of the United States, believes that roads create business success and not the other way around.

Anyone who so fundamentally misunderstands American greatness is uniquely unqualified to lead this great nation.

The great and abiding lesson of American history, particularly the Cold War, is that the engine of capitalism — the individual — is mightier than any collective.

American inventiveness and desire to build developed because we were guaranteed the right to own our success. For most of our history, no one dared tell Americans: “You didn’t build that.”

In Bowling Green, Kentucky, the Taing family owns the Great American Donut shop. Their family fled war-torn Cambodia to come to this country. My kids and I love to eat doughnuts, so we go there frequently.

The Taings work long hours. Mrs. Taing told us that the family works through the night to make doughnuts. The Taing children have become valedictorians and National Merit Scholars.

The Taings from Cambodia are an American success story so, Mr. President, don’t you go telling the Taings: “You didn’t build that.”

When you say they didn’t build it, you insult each and every American who ever got up at the crack of dawn. You insult any American who ever put on overalls or a suit.

You insult any American who ever studied late into the night to become a doctor or a lawyer. You insult the dishwasher, the cook, the waitress.

You insult anyone who has ever dragged themselves out of bed to strive for something better for themselves or their children.

My great grandfather, like many, came to this country in search of the American Dream. No sooner had he stepped off the boat than his father died.

He arrived in Pittsburgh as a teenager with nothing, not a penny. He found the American Dream: not great wealth, but a bit of property in a new land that gave him hope for his children.

In America, as opposed to the old country, success was based on merit. Probably America’s greatest asset was that for the first time success was not based on who you were, but on what you did.

My grandfather would live to see his children become doctors, ministers, accountants and professors. He would even live to see one of his sons, a certain congressman from Texas, run for president of the United States of America.

Immigrants have flocked to our shores seeking freedom. Our forbearers came full of hopes and dreams. So consistent and prevalent were these aspirations that they crystallized into a national yearning we call the American Dream.

No other country has a Dream so inextricably associated with the spirit of its people.

In 1982, an American sailor, John Mooney, wrote a letter to his parents that captures the essence of the American Dream:

“Dear Mom and Dad, today we spotted a boat in the water, and we rendered assistance. We picked up 65 Vietnamese refugees. As they approached the ship, they were all waving and trying as best they could to say, ‘Hello America sailor! Hello Freedom man!’ It’s hard to see a boat full of people like that and not get a lump somewhere between chin and bellybutton. And it really makes one proud and glad to be an American. It reminds us all of what America has always been — a place a man or woman can come to for freedom.”

Hung and Thuan Tringh are brothers and friends of mine. They came to America on one of those leaky, overcrowded boats. They were attacked at sea by pirates. Their family’s wealth was stolen. Thuan spent a year on a South Pacific island existing on one cup of rice and water each day until he was allowed to come to America. Now both of these men and their families are proud Americans. Hung owns his own business and Thuan manages a large company. They are the American Dream.

So, Mr. President, don’t go telling the Tringh family: “You didn’t build that.”

When the president says, “You didn’t build that,” he is flat out wrong. Businessmen and women did build that. Businessmen and women did earn their success. Without the success of American business, we wouldn’t have any roads, or bridges, or schools.

Mr. President, you say the rich must pay their fair share. When you seek to punish the rich, the jobs that are lost are those of the poor and middle class.

When you seek to punish Mr. Exxon Mobil, you punish the secretary who owns Exxon Mobil stock.

When you block the Keystone Pipeline, you punish the welder who works on the pipeline.

Our nation faces a crisis. America wavers. Unfortunately, we are one of a select group of countries whose debt equals their gross domestic product.

The republic of Washington and Jefferson is now in danger of becoming the democracy of debt and despair. Our great nation is coming apart at the seams and the president seems to point fingers and blame others.

President Obama’s administration will add nearly $6 trillion to our national debt in just one term.

This explosion of debt is unconscionable and unsustainable. Mr. President, we will not let you bankrupt this great nation!

Republicans and Democrats alike must slay their sacred cows. Republicans must acknowledge that not every dollar spent on the military is necessary or well-spent, and Democrats must admit that domestic welfare and entitlements must be reformed.

Republicans and Democrats must replace fear with confidence, confidence that no terrorist, and no country, will ever conquer us if we remain steadfast to the principles of our Founding documents.

We have nothing to fear except our own unwillingness to defend what is naturally ours, our God-given rights. We have nothing to fear that should cause us to forget or relinquish our rights as free men and women.

To thrive we must believe in ourselves again, and we must never — never — trade our liberty for any fleeting promise of security.

Author Paul Kengor writes of a brisk evening in small-town Illinois. Returning home from a basketball game at the YMCA, an 11 year old boy is stunned by the sight of his father sprawled out in the snow on the front porch. “He was drunk,” his son later remembered. “Dead to the world, crucified.” The dad’s hair was soaked with melted snow, matted unevenly against the side of his reddened face.

The boy stood over his father for a minute or two. He simply wanted to let himself in the door and pretend his dad wasn’t there. Instead, he grabbed a fistful of overcoat and heaved his dad to the bedroom, away from the weather’s harm and neighbors’ attention.

This young boy became the man – Ronald Reagan – whose sunny optimism and charisma shined so brightly that it cured the malaise of the late seventies, a confidence that beamed so broadly that it pulled us through a serious recession, and a faith that tugged so happily at all hearts that a generation of Democrats became Republicans.

The American Dream is that any among us could become the next Thomas Edison, the next Henry Ford, the next Ronald Reagan.

To lead us forward, away from the looming debt crisis, it will take someone who believes in America’s greatness, who believes in and can articulate the American dream, someone who has created jobs, someone who understands and appreciates what makes America great, someone who will lead our party and our nation forward.

I believe that someone is our nominee: Governor Mitt Romney.

As Reagan said, our freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction. If our freedom is taken, the American Dream will wither and die.

To lead, we must transform the coldness of austerity into the warm, vibrant embrace of prosperity.

To overcome the current crisis, we must appreciate and applaud American success. We must step forward, unabashedly and proclaim: You did build that. You earned that. You worked hard. You studied. You labored. You did build that. And you deserve America’s undying gratitude. For you, the individual, are the engine of America’s greatness.

Thank you.

Because MSNBC is working very hard to lie to all ten of its viewers and pretend that only angry white men are involved in the Republican Party. MSNBC cannot at all tell the truth because the Truth absolutely destroys MSNBC’s lie-filled, hate-filled, anti-American, Socialist agenda, as provided by the Socialist in Chief, one Baraka Hussein Obama.
_________________________________________________
Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware, has just this week hatefully attacked DNW because DNW remains anonymous. Previously, Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware cried like a baby when I refused to release the last name of an US Army officer who told a highly inappropriate joke to my daughter (who rather enjoyed the joke) but could have a career shortened to “today’s your last day” should his or he name be published.

Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware, who is in his late 70s, has decided that he wants anonymity after repeatedly giving his name out in public, but Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware demands everyone else give up his or her anonymity.

That makes Perry Hood of Lewes, Delaware the worst possible person in the world, and an absolute flaming hypocritical Socialist.

Is George Soros a racist?

From Foxfier:

Allen West targeted by new Soros-backed SuperPAC – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

07 12 12

I have mentioned before how Allen West is on the top 10 target list for Democrats this year, Dem SuperPAC targeting “Tea Party 10″.

For that reason, among others, West is on the Operation Counterweight list, and we have a separate Focus Page with his website and other links.

Now a SuperPAC has been formed specifically to get rid of West, as reported by The Shark Tank:

via » Allen West targeted by new Soros-backed SuperPAC – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion.

We have had some people who have equated suspected that opposition to President Obama’s policies must be motivated by racism. Well, Representative Allen West (R-FL-22) is black, so, by using the logic that some other people have used, shouldn’t we at least suspect that George Soros’ opposition to Mr West could be motivated by racism?

Now, whether Mr Soros is actually a racist is something about which I have absolutely no information. But Foxfier’s brief article points out the silliness of the position that opposition to a black person’s policies must be motivated by racism. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) presented a health care plan fairly similar to what was passed into law; had she been elected, and a stimulus plan and universal health care plan been passed, would our liberal from Lewes be telling us that Republican opposition to her policies must be motivated by deeply-seated sexism?

In 2008, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) was also running, and was considered the third of the top three candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.¹ Like Senators Clinton and Obama, Mr Edwards had a universal health care coverage plan as part of his platform, one not terribly dissimilar from the plans offered by Senators Clinton and Obama. Had Senator Edwards won the nomination, and the general election, he would have attempted to get his health care plan passed,² and probably some sort of stimulus plan in 2009; would Republican opposition to those have proved that we hated white men? For that matter, had former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) won the 2008 Republican nomination,³ and proposed something like the Massachusetts plan known as RomneyCare, and we opposed that, would that have made us, well, what now?

What it would have made us are people who supported or opposed given political positions or policies on principles, not on the race or gender of the politician promoting them. More, it makes us people who believe that a person’s race should not define his political positions. As noted here, when our Democrat from Delaware opined that we evil Republicans must hate blacks and women and Mormons and Hispanics and homosexuals and non-Christians, John Hitchcock’s list of endorsements just happened to be loaded up with the groups that our frequent Democratic commenter assured us we, and he, must hate, and, coincidentally enough, didn’t include even one Anglo white male.⁴

Why? Because Mr Hitchcock was choosing favored candidates based on where they stood, not for whom they were; he was selecting based upon the content of their character, not the color of their skin. In favoring Ted Cruz for the Texas Republican senatorial nomination, he is favoring a man running against a solid, Anglo white male, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst (R-TX)

You see, that’s what real conservatives do. We aren’t looking at people’s race or religion, but at their beliefs and political positions. We want to unite people who are Americans as Americans, not divide them into separate groups, selecting some for favored treatment and others for special burdens. And that is the primary thing that separates us from the liberals.
____________________________________
¹ There were other candidates, such as Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM), Representative Dennis Kucinich (Kook-OH) and former Governor Mike Gravel (D-AK), running, but they were always considered the longest of long shots, and their vote totals confirmed that.
² Though it wouldn’t have been in time to pay for the birth of Rielle Hunter’s daughter.
³ He did run for the nomination in 2008, but withdrew two days after the Super Tuesday primaries left him trailing Senator John McCain by more than two-to-one in delegates.
⁴ Mr Hitchcock’s endorsement list:

• (Sarah) Palin/(Allen) West for President 2012
• Ted Cruz for US Senate (Texas)
• Jamie Radtke for US Senate (Virginia)
• Mia Love for US House (Utah 4)

____________________________________
Cross posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

Is BO North America’s Hugo Chavez?

BO has demonstrated quite clearly he has a TOTAL Disdain for the US Constitution. When it fits his needs, actually wants, he will trample on any law that gets in his way. Below describes how he disregards the Defense of Marriage Act. This past week by FIAT, his spoken authority, made his own Amnesty Law. I think it’s fairly obvious Obama has a total diregard for the Constitution by saying the ordinary way of doing things are not going my way. He says the Congress is a do nothing organization. When the Constitution was writen it was set up that way. The way BO is operating is extra-constitution so BO is shredding his oath of office when he swore he would abide by it, and all the laws. Can we spell Impeachment? Can we spell Dictator. BO is still in Community Organizer mode.

Are We in Revolutionary Times?
By Victor Davis Hanson
June 15, 2012 6:51 P.M.

Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

More here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303037/are-we-revolutionary-times-victor-davis-hanson#

But of COURSE!

The usual MSM (ie, “progressive”) talking heads believe a reporter asking a question during Obama’s speech yesterday was due to — you guessed it — racism.

Of course, these same dolts laughed when George W. Bush had a shoe tossed at him by an Iraqi reporter, and when Sam Donaldson interrupted, say, President Reagan … well, that was just being a “good reporter.” Oh, and who can forget Dan Rather yelling at, and then cutting off, then-presidential candidate George HW Bush in 1988?

If I didn’t know better, I’d say these faux progressives were engaging in the bigotry of low expectations — that Pres. Obama somehow can’t handle such “tough” exchanges … because of his color.

Jason “Reasonable People Can Disagree Whether George W. Bush Knew In Advance About 9/11” Scott of the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers jumped right on the bandwagon with this crap … as if his ultra-idiot self ever had any respect for any Republican. Alas, this sort of stuff is absolutely justifiable to him … because the object of the “disrespect” were Republicans.

Racist Race-Traitor’s Racism Revealed

HT Smitty

Listen to the video and you’ll hear all manner of dog-whistles as this man shamelessly attacks the black man in the white house on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Or, if you have an honest bone in your body, you’ll see a man speaking a lot of truth, and absolutely incensed at the Mainstream Media’s dishonest in-the-bag for Democrat tactics. Liberals are not going to like what they see, because it destroys their lies.

Go take a gander at his site Whatever Happen To COMMON SENSE as well. I’ll be adding his site to my list of Race Traitor blogs.