Trayvon Martin And An American Tragedy

The entire Nation is a victim in the death of Trayvon Martin.

The emotionally charged national conversation that has followed the tragic killing of Martin has turned what was the story of two individuals who crossed paths and were involved in an altercation that resulted in a death into a speculative hate-fest. The obvious surviving victims — Martin’s family and the man who pulled the trigger, George Zimmerman — might have had a chance to work out exactly what happened on the night of Feb. 26 in a Sanford, Fla., suburb without the racially charged media frenzy. That will never happen now, and every citizen of the United States, regardless of race, has become a victim in the tragedy.

Those who are at the heart of making race the central issue in the Martin case have seemingly thrown aside any semblance of fact in their discussions of why Zimmerman used lethal force against the teenager. Reporter Rene Stutzman of The Orlando Sentinel pointed this out in a recent article.

When the mainstream media initially released a picture of Martin, they chose to release a dated photo of the young man when he was of a much smaller stature. This sparked the claim: It is absurd that Zimmerman needed to use deadly force against a teenager he outweighed by 100 pounds.

Stutzman retorts: “A Sanford police incident report says Trayvon was 6 feet tall and weighed 160 pounds. A spokesman for the family’s lawyers gave a slightly different set of numbers: 6 feet 1 and 150 pounds. Zimmerman is 5 feet 9 inches tall, according to the police report, but it is silent about his weight. A family member says he currently weighs about 190 pounds. Zimmerman used to be far heavier. A 2005 police report put his weight at 250 pounds, but security camera video released last week by Sanford police show him to be much trimmer.”

Given the reporter’s information, there is little question that Martin could have inflicted the injuries visible on Zimmerman’s head and face in a recently released police surveillance video.

The reporter also addresses allegations that the Justice Department is investigating the Sanford Police Department for a long history of civil rights violations, making it plausible that the officers would have no problem letting individuals get away with hate crimes.

She writes: “Not so. Since Trayvon’s death Feb. 26, the NAACP and others have alleged widespread and long-standing civil rights abuses by the department and asked for a broad investigation. But last week, DOJ spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa and FBI spokesman Dave Couvertier told the Los Angeles Times that there’s only one civil rights investigation under way: whether Zimmerman violated Trayvon’s rights when he shot him.”

Why might a reporter in Orlando be attempting to make readers examine the facts rather than jump on the racially driven hate wagon with those who want Zimmerman hanged? Perhaps she wants to do her part to avert the widespread racial violence that is liable to break out if emotional rhetoric outweighs logical consideration of fact.

In a recent visit to the area, Jesse Jackson told protesters that Martin was shot in the back of his head. Martin was shot in the chest. And Al Sharpton also said this: “Sanford is a beautiful city. It’s on the side of the water, has great potential for tourism. You are risking going down as the Birmingham or Selma of the 21st Century.”

In Birmingham and Selma, Ala., during the struggle for civil rights in the United States, a church was bombed, killing four girls; peaceful protesters were sprayed with fire hoses and brutally beaten by police; Americans were made to use segregated facilities based on race; and the leaders of the civil rights movement were arrested and thrown in jail.

In fact, while jailed, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. wrote “A Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” In one portion of the letter, King, to justify the actions of civil rights protestors in Birmingham at the time, writes:

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham.

Sharpton and his fellow race provocateurs have skipped directly to direct action in screaming injustice in the case of Martin’s death.

As the story continues to unfold, Zimmerman, who has minority heritage himself, doesn’t look like the racist he is being painted as.

 A recent article in The Daily Caller says that Zimmerman has been active in fighting injustice against minorities in the past. He reportedly was one of very few people in his community to get involved and speak out against the Sanford Police when the white son of an officer brutally beat a black homeless man and went uncharged until community members, including Zimmerman, demanded that he be held accountable.

Reason published a list of questions that people concerned about the case would be asking if race were laid aside: Who started the fight? Did Zimmerman shoot Martin “in cold blood?” Is Florida’s “stand your ground” law the reason Zimmerman has not been arrested?

The answers to those questions from people who want race to be the central issue of the case are already defined: Zimmerman started the fight. Yes, he killed Martin “in cold blood” (explaining Jackson’s erroneous claim that he was shot in the back of the head). And, the stand your ground law is acting as a get-out-of-jail -free card for a man who committed a hate crime.

The race baiters have ignored one very important fact, however. Zimmerman has not been charged in Martin’s death, though he is already long into a trial in the court of public opinion.

If race determines how the justice system will handle the case, political correctness has sealed the fate of any American who is forced to use deadly force in self-defense. Zimmerman has been forced into hiding and his life is changed forever due to the unfortunate incident. Unless you want the same fate to befall you, if you ever must use deadly force in self-defense, be sure you are of the same race as your attacker, he/she is white or you have witnesses. If not, you may become the next George Zimmerman.

Welfare, The American Dream

Government payouts — including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment checks — account for more than one-third of total wages and salaries in the United States. The Department of Agriculture reports that 43.6 million Americans are on food stamps.

The United States has effectively become a welfare Nation, with more Americans than ever before opting to completely drop out of the workforce and live on the public dole. The percentage of the Nation’s populace relying on social welfare as a primary source of income has risen from 21 percent to 35 percent in little more than a decade. In 1960, only 10 percent of Americans depended on welfare programs to survive.

While no statement can be made to define all recipients of social welfare in America, there is a growing and alarming trend among the dependent class: Living like a parasite on the public’s back has somehow become glamorized among some segments of American society.

Last month, Alexandria Pelosi (daughter of California Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi) produced a video for HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” wherein she interviewed multiple welfare recipients in New York City. The clip, entitled “Freeloading Welfare Queen,” offers perspective about the mindset of at least some individuals who survive only as a result of the hard work of American taxpayers. Pelosi said that she did not have to go very far in New York in order to locate “freeloading welfare queens.”

The individuals interviewed for the video — most of whom appear to be able-bodied and aged between 20 and 40 — said things like, “I’m here to get some Obama bucks” and said that they could not find work because of criminal history. When asked if they were looking for work, most of the people interviewed said they were not.

The people interviewed in the video who appear to be completely happy living on the government dole, even wearing their ability to get welfare as a badge of honor, may also explain a more recent welfare news item. A nightclub in Montgomery, Ala., recently announced that it would be hosting a “Food Stamp Friday” event, allowing patrons on food stamps to attend a rap concert at a discounted price. Public outcry since news of the event broke has made the nightclub’s owner encourage Young, Black & GettinMoney Promotions and No Lunch Promotions, to rename the planned event.

The idea of food stamps being used for fun is actually not the brainchild of the enterprising promoters of the event in Alabama, as Republicans in the House of Representatives only recently worked to enact legislation that would ban the use of welfare money at strip clubs and casinos throughout the Nation.

If freeloaders bragging at the welfare office and “Food Stamp Friday” are not convincing enough evidence that the United States is becoming an entitlement society, consider recent stories about some more grandiose welfare recipients. Nadya Suleman ( aka Octomom), who — despite already having six children and financial problems — decided to be implanted with embryos which resulted in her giving birth to eight more children, has applied for food stamps in the State of California. Suleman will receive about $2,000 per month in taxpayer funding to feed her children.

There are also a number of reports of lottery winners throughout the country continuing to draw welfare benefits after receiving big winnings. Michigan resident Amanda Clayton sparked an outcry in her State after winning a $1 million jackpot and continuing to draw welfare benefits.

“I thought that they would cut me off, but since they didn’t I thought maybe it was OK because I’m not working. I feel that it’s OK because I have no income, and I have bills to pay. I have two houses,” she explained to a reporter.

Michigan officials have since cut Clayton off the public dole. Her case, however, may offer credence to what many critics of welfare have said for decades: Entitlement perpetuates poverty by removing initiative from the equation. Despite winning a large lottery jackpot and having the opportunity to create a new life for herself, Clayton saw no stigma associated with being a parasite to American taxpayers and continued to feel entitled to her food stamps.

The bulwark of American social welfare programs was put into place as a result of the hard times of the Great Depression. According to Jerry D. Marx, Ph.D., a professor at University of New Hampshire Social Work Department, social welfare programs that were created by the Federal government were largely put into place by a bureaucracy that feared joblessness and widespread poverty would spark a revolution in the country.  Social welfare made citizens of the United States more comfortable, and anger at the government subsided. Now, more than 80 years later, social welfare has become a way of life for many Americans while large factions of groups like Occupy Wall Street are calling for more government assistance. Everybody wants to live the leisurely life of the Freeloading Welfare Queen, and politicians like President Barack Obama will give the people what they want. Anything to keep them fat, happy and subservient.

Michelle Obama Tells Kids To Campaign

First lady Michelle Obama spends a great deal of time pushing healthy eating and her Let’s Move campaign on American children by making appearances on commercials and television shows aimed at younger audiences. Now she has a new message for youngsters: Get out and tell your grandparents to vote for my husband.

According to Breitbart.com, the first lady was speaking at a $500 per ticket fundraising event at San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park when she said:

I mean, I can’t tell you in the last election how many grandparents I ran into who said, I wasn’t going to vote for Barack Obama until my grandson talked to me, until my great-grandson talked to me, and talked about the future he wanted for this country.

You can get out there with your parents. You guys can knock on doors. I had one young lady who brought me a petition — she’s already working. You can convince wrong people. Sometimes we don’t listen to ourselves, but we will listen to our children.

Obama Calls GOP Budget ‘Social Darwinism’

President Barack Obama criticized House Republicans and Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for the GOP budget proposal that the President likened to Social Darwinism.

“It’s nothing but thinly veiled Social Darwinism. It’s antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everyone who’s willing to work for it, a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class.”

The President also called the budget a “Trojan horse” that would be used to force radical change in the United States.

Ryan’s budget passed in the House last Thursday in a 228-191 party-line vote, setting the stage for an election-year battle with Democrats on spending and the debt. The budget aims to cut $5 trillion more than Obama’s budget proposal and would create a “premium support” option for future Medicare recipients.

 

Paul: Republicans Need To Be Saved From Themselves

Republicans and Democrats seemingly have very little ideological difference when it comes to the destruction of liberties in the United States, at least according to GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday, Paul made it clear that he believes that Republicans are destroying their own party by adopting the same big government ideals as Democrats when it comes to babysitting the world and stealing away individual liberty in the name of safety.

“The truth is, I’m trying to save the Republican Party from themselves because they want perpetual wars; they don’t care about Presidents who assassinate American citizens; they don’t care about searching our houses without search warrants,” Paul said.

A recent poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS makes it appear as though many voters agree with Paul when it comes to disdain for the continual war and world policing policies that have been adopted by Republicans and Democrats alike. The poll found that opposition to the war in Afghanistan has jumped from 53 percent four months ago to 69 percent today.

The opposition comes from both sides of the political spectrum. While Republicans are more inclined to support the war, 60 percent say it is going badly and just 30 percent say that American troops should remain in the country.

Paul said in a recent speech to the House of Representatives that if the United States fails to remove troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year, he predicts they will remain for another decade.

In the candidate’s view, Americans who voted for President Barack Obama in hopes of seeing a change in the foreign policy practices of the George W. Bush Administration got fleeced by Obama and are likely to see no change after November even if Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich beat the incumbent.

Paul said that as long as Republicans run on trying to “out-militarize” Democrats, issues facing the Nation such as the soaring national debt are only going to compound.

“I think the Republicans have dug a hole for themselves because they’re trying to out-militarize [the Democrats]. If this is to be an issue, the other Republican candidates offer nothing more than a continuation of the status quo, or actually, increasing the militarism that we have around the world,” he said.

Supreme Court: If You’re Arrested, You Should Be Strip Searched

As bureaucracy in the United States grows, it is becoming harder and harder to avoid a run-in with law enforcement because of some minor infraction; due to a recent Supreme Court ruling, you will likely be strip searched if you do have one.

The Nation’s highest court ruled on Monday by a 5-4 vote that law enforcement officials may strip search any individual who is arrested, regardless of criminal record or severity of offense.

The Justices opined that courts are in no position to scrutinize the judgments of correctional officials who must consider the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs, identify public health issues and try to collect information about gang affiliations of individuals who are booked.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said it would be “unworkable” to make an exception for people who are arrested for minor offenses because county jails often must process hundreds of new inmates a day.

The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Albert Florence, who was arrested by mistake in 2005 because of a bench warrant issued for a fine he had paid years earlier. Despite having documentation of compliance with the court, a New Jersey state trooper arrested Florence during a routine traffic stop as his wife and child watched. Florence then spent seven days in jail. Florence was reportedly strip searched at two separate jails, despite there being no evidence that he had any contraband or violent behaviors. Florence sued and was granted a summary judgment, but the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision.

North Carolina ‘Emergency Powers’ Gun Ban Axed

The Second Amendment Foundation secured a victory in North Carolina for gun rights last week when a Federal judge did away with a rule that gave the State power to ban firearms and ammunition outside the home during a declared emergency.

The case, Bateman v. Purdue, was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Grass Roots North Carolina FFE and three individual plaintiffs against Governor Beverly Purdue and Reuben F. Young, secretary of the State’s Department of Crime Control and Public Safety.

Federal Judge Malcolm J. Howard ruled that “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not strictly limited to the home environment but extends in some form to wherever those activities or needs occur.”

“Under the laws at issue here, citizens are prohibited from engaging, outside their home, in any activities secured by the Second Amendment,” Judge Malcolm wrote in his opinion. “They may not carry defensive weapons outside the home, hunt or engage in firearm related sporting activities. Additionally, although the statutes do not directly regulate the possession of firearms within the home, they effectively prohibit law abiding citizens from purchasing and transporting to their homes firearms and ammunition needed for self-defense. As such, these laws burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment.”  

Hide Your Valuables, The Feds Are Coming

The Administration of Barack Obama recently released the details of an executive order (National Defense Resource Preparedness) that has led some Americans to believe that the President is working to put the final mechanisms in place to enact martial law in the United States.

The order calls for government acquisition of resources and the ability of the government to “foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness” if it is deemed vital to national security interests.

The blog Lonestar Watchdog, in a recent post, raises new concerns about the President’s executive order: Can it be used to confiscate American citizens’ gold, silver and other valuables?

The author writes:

To speak hypothetically of a possible scenario that I would not put past Obama to try to pull. We can see again that the government is going to run out of money. This time congress is less reluctant to give in to the President’s wishes this time around. The dollar might fully collapse at a time they did not plan for in their timetable. It can be a fabricated crisis. Congress can refuse to raise the debt ceiling this time due to public pressure. Anything the President perceives as a national emergency, or does he need the money to fund the wars. He can enact the powers of these executive orders to go after anything.

We can see a phony crisis being concocted to go after the American’s people gold, maybe even silver. He will order people like back when FDR was President to seize all safety deposit boxes and demand American to turn in their gold and silver coins, jewelry and would not surprise me if that be a couple’s wedding rings now required to be surrendered this time around.

It is unknown whether the author is correct in being concerned that the Federal government will use such measures in an outright effort to confiscate individuals’ physical gold and silver investments. What is known is that the elite have been quietly confiscating wealth from hardworking Americans via currency debasement and wealth-redistributing social welfare programs for decades. Bob Livingston has been warning his readers about this for more than 40 years with newsletters (The Bob Livingston Letter™), books and websites. If you are interested in finding out how you can protect your wealth from the Federal government and the elite banksters, you can find a collection of Livingston’s most informative titles here.

Scalia Makes Obamacare Jokes

If his quips during the oral arguments over the Constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s healthcare plan are any indicator, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia likely thinks the whole thing is a ridiculous mess.

In discussions about how the Court could decide which portions of the 2,700-page healthcare document couldn’t stand up to the test of Constitutionality, Scalia told Obama lawyer Edwin Kneedler that making the Justices read the entire document would violate their 8th Amendment rights.

Scalia said, “Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”

Scalia also took on the Administration’s counsel on Tuesday, taking a moment to lecture Obama lawyer Donald Verrilli Jr. about the savvy of American consumers.

The transcript of the exchange:

SCALIA: These people are not stupid. They’re going to buy insurance later. They’re young and need the money now.

VERRILLI: But that’s –

SCALIA: When they think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical bills, they’ll buy insurance, like the rest of us.

VERRILLI: But that’s — that’s –

SCALIA: — I don’t know why you think that they’re never going to buy it.

VERRILLI: That’s the problem, Justice Scalia. That’s — and that’s exactly the experience that the States had that made the imposition of guaranteed issue and community rating not only be ineffectual but be highly counterproductive. Rates, for example, in New Jersey doubled or tripled, went from 180,000 people covered in this market down to 80,000 people covered in this market. In Kentucky, virtually every insurer left the market.

And the reason for that is because when people have that guarantee of — that they can get insurance, they’re going to make that calculation that they won’t get it until they’re sick and they need it. And so, the pool of people in the insurance market gets smaller and smaller. The rates you have to charge to cover them get higher and higher. It helps fewer and fewer — insurance covers fewer and fewer people until the system ends.

This is not a situation in which you’re conscripting — you’re forcing insurance companies to cover very large numbers of unhealthy people —

SCALIA: You could solve that problem by simply not requiring the insurance company to sell it to somebody who has a — a condition that is going to require medical treatment, or at least not – not require them to sell it to him at a rate that he sells it to healthy people. But you don’t want to do that.

According to SCOTUSblog, the Court will render a decision regarding Obamacare by June 28.

Below is the audio for the Supreme Court’s Obamacare hearings from this week:

In NYC Second Amendment Rights Sell For $340

New York City residents who challenged a policy that requires handgun owners in the city to pay a $340 residential licensing fee as unConstitutional were shot down by a Federal judge on Monday.

Federal Judge John Koeltl ruled that the lawsuit brought by citizens and gun rights advocates, including the New York Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, was void because he believes there is no evidence that the hefty fee has stopped anyone from exercising his rights. The fee must be paid every three years, according to The Associated Press.

“The city defendants contend that the $340 fee is permissible under this standard because it is designed to defray, and does not exceed, the costs of administering New York’s handgun licensing scheme,” Koeltl wrote in his 38-page Opinion and Order. “However, the plaintiffs argue that, to be permissible, a fee must not only be designed to defray administrative costs but must also be a ‘nominal’ amount. According to the plaintiffs, the $340 fee is too high to be nominal.”

The judge cited several appellate court rulings that determined such a fee is considered nominal, according to Courthouse News Service.

“While it is possible to conceive of fees that are impermissible because they are so exorbitant as to deter the exercise of the protected activity … there is no showing that the $340 handgun licensing fee qualifies as such a fee,” Koeltl wrote. “The plaintiffs merely assert that the $340 fee is excessive, which is not sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the permissibility of the fee.”

The residential license affords holders the right to have a handgun in their homes; it is not a carry permit.