Wednesday, July 31, 2013
People who commented on the story did so under the assumption that it had been African Americans who had jumped the pitcher, who was white.
Why did they make that assumption? Well, because the race of the attackers wasn't given, and it happened in Cleveland. When the media reports on assaults or other types of crimes, and does not mention the race - which they invariably do if the crooks are white - more often than not the perpetrators are minorities.
So a day or so later more news came out about this pitcher - actually he hadn't been "jumped," he'd been in a bar, got into a fight, and apparently lost. Again we weren't told the race of the person whom he'd fought and lost to, but *then* the assumption was made that it was someone who was white, and all the comments were, "where are all the racist creeps now who were saying he'd been jumped by a black person? Don't they feel stupid now."
Well, perhaps they may feel stupid, but should they? Isn't it the politically correct media that is to blame whenever someone jumps t the conclusion that the attacker of a white person was black or Latino? Because - that is the way they consistently report news, as I stated above - if it's white on minority crime they are very quick to state that it's white on minority crime - if it's minority on white or minority on minority, not so much.
Case in point, this piece of news:
The article shares several photos of the alleged perpetrator, who is clearly African-American, but nowhere in the written article is this stated!!!!!
All we get is this description:
"The new video shows the assailant buying a drink at a nearby store. He wore a black or brown golf visor and a white T-shirt over a sagging pair of blue denim shorts, officials said. He is believed to be in his late 20s, about 6-feet tall and 180 pounds."
Well, gee, that description is just so helpful, isn't it. He's also African-American, and at the time of the assault had a close-shaved beard. Shouldn't at least one of those factors have been mentioned???
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Then he *lied* and said his account was hacked before admitting that no, it was actually him.
(Why didn't he go to jail for lying about a crime - hacking is a crime!)
His wife forgave him, and stuck by him.
Then, he decided to run for Mayor of New York.
Surely it was in his mind all along to return to the political arena.
So you would have thought that he would have STOPPED sexting women!
If he needed an extra bed partner you would have thought he would have found one whom he could trust to be discreet. He'd pay her great sums for sex and in return she'd never come out into the open and ruin his political career. That'd be a risk, but it would be much less risk than CONTINUING to sext with women while you're working to get back into politics!!!!
On the one hand guys are guys. (And women are women). They have affairs. You'd think they'd be smart enough to handle their own birth control to ensure they don't impregnate their mistresses and thus have to spend the rest of their lives doling out child support for kids they'll never see. But that is apparently beyond most men.
Should a "cheating scandal" derail one's political career? Perhaps not.
But surely, SURELY, being STUPID should derail one's career.
Anthony Weiner was STUPID. He continued in the same behavior that got him caught before and he actually thought that the women he was setting wouldn't reveal all if they could get the right price from the National Enquirer?
As for his wife? Well..gee. If she wants to stick with that scumbag that's her business, but how anyone could respect her for being a doormat.... it didn't stop Hillary Clinton's rise to power and that has always puzzled me, I admit. But I've never had any respect for her and certainly have none for Weiner's wife.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Now, I didn't pay much attention to the Zimmerman trial, I admit. What I *did* see was that whenever the media showed a photo of Trayvon Martin, they showed one where he was 8 years old or so, not the 17 year old teenager he was at the time of his death. What I *did* see was the President of the US saying that if he had a son he could look like Trayvon Martin....etc. etc. What I did see was that Zimmerman, thanks to his name, was not characterized as a Latino but as a "white Latino."....etc. etc.
So, Zimmerman was voted not guilty - and I admit I don't understand why it was left up to only 6 people - and apparently all white women though I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere. I thought a jury had to have 12 people on it?
In any event, most folks - at least those posting on Hannity.com etc., see this as a fair verdict and are outraged that African-Americans are outraged and saying that Martin was the victim and it was a racist verdict, etc. and that the African American community sees nothing odd about castigating white America for the death of Trayvon Martin but don't say *anything* about the dozens of black kids killed practically every month in Chicago....by other blacks.
So the President didn't attempt to calm things down when he spoke a couple of days ago - he clearly thinks the verdict was an unjust one and that racism still exists in the USA - and of course to him and the African American community racism is only a "white" crime... and Hannity took him to task for that.
So I went to Huffington Post today which had an article about the "disgusting" things that Hannity had said about the President's speech - pointing out that 35 years ago Obama was doing drugs too - and every comment was agreeing with the HuffPo article that Hannity was out of line and that Republicans are racist and that the African American community is just one humongous victim of white America.
(This despite the fact that statistics show - if only those folks would read them - that 90% of all black deaths are not caused by whites murdering them but by *blacks* murdering them. Why are Sharpton and Jackson and the President not talking about *that*?)
I don't remember seeing the statistics of what percentage of white deaths are caused by blacks as opposed to whites...that'd be interesting to see, too. (Which is not to say that whites don't go around killing each other, obviously they do - I'm just talking about percentages.)
Sure, there are whites who are prejudiced against blacks - if you read the CBS Sports message boards that's on display every single day - but there is no *institutional* racism - that is out the window. After all, how many educational institutions give black athletes chance after chance after chance after chance to make good, as long as they are good football players. (And white players too, of course, Johnny Manziel (the idiot Heisman trophy winner who thinks that because he's 20 he should be able to get drunk whenever he feels like it, secure in the knowledge that because he plays football all of his pecadilloes will be glossed over ) being a prime example of someone who shouldn't have even been playing last year!). White firefighters can't get raises because not enough black firefighters did, test scores have to be lowered for various civil service jobs because not enough blacks were getting in so of course expecting them to know math was just racist....the list goes on.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
The theory was that if America, with a vast majority white population and 12 to 14% black population, elected a black man president, "Why, that would speak volumes about how progressive and advanced America had become. It would go a long way toward healing the wounds that apparently remain from slavery and discrimination and all the other things." But seems it's got worse, to me. It seems that with the election of Barack Obama, racial strife in this country's worse than it's ever been since the Civil War.
Or as bad, at least.
Certainly it hasn't improved, let's put it that way. It has not improved. The country's more divided in more ways than I can remember in my adult lifetime, and I mean that. I've thought about that. I've gone back in my memory, and I've tried to remember when we may have been more divided on so many things, and I don't remember it. What I do remember is everybody saying -- and many people hoping and a lot of people believing -- that the election of Barack Obama would end a lot of it, and it hasn't.
It has just made it worse.
RUSH: This is Eileen in Clinton, Tennessee. Hi, Eileen. It's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hello. Thank you for taking my call. I'm honored. When you mentioned that... I'm not sure exactly what. You mentioned something that made me think of a study that I had heard about Hispanics assimilating better than we would have thought. You know, there's a lot of talk about the rising Hispanic population and people saying, "We're gonna look like Mexico. They're gonna take over," and there are enclaves where you have to be Spanish speaking to do business in whatever. But as a whole, according to social scientists who measure things like generations talking Spanish over speaking English, they're assimilating much like my grandparents. All my grandparents were immigrants, much like other waves of immigrants have --
RUSH: Well, the Hispanics are, you're saying?
CALLER: The Hispanics. I'm wondering. I'm trying to understand this, because I don't think --
RUSH: Okay, let me understand. What you're saying is everybody's worried about immigration and amnesty and illegals because the Hispanics are not assimilating. But in fact, you read something that says they are and you also --
CALLER: Right, and that's just one study.
CALLER: But I'm trying to apply this to...
CALLER: Oh, I know what it was! You're saying that after Obama got elected we expected better race relations.
RUSH: Yeah, everybody thought that. Everybody thought... Well, not everybody. I didn't. I thought that exactly what has happened, was going to happen. I thought racial relations would get worse. I thought racial relations would be exacerbated. I thought there'd end up being more friction in our society. Because I know liberals, and I knew what was gonna happen. "Okay, we got the first black president elected but that's not gonna count for anything.
"It's gonna be chalked up to people who didn't really mean it. They were just voting for the black guy so nobody would think they're racist, but they don't really love Obama." That was the first thing they were gonna say, and the next thing they were gonna do was this: Any time Obama's criticized, they were going to accuse the criticism of being racist in its orientation. Well, folks, there hasn't been a president alive who doesn't get criticized.
Presidents are criticized by more people every day than anybody else in society. But the left, the Democrats set it up so that any criticism of Obama had nothing to do with substance. It was all racist. The objective here was at least twofold, if not multifold. One was to silence any criticism by making those who would criticize Obama fearful of doing it, because they didn't want to be called racist. The second objective was to be able to call people racists, because it does matter.
If somebody calls you a racist and it sticks, you have a problem, particularly if you're in politics and are seeking people's votes. So that's why I think the next thing the Democrats are gonna do is try to find another first. The first female president. See, any criticism will be sexist. It will allow them to continue the War on Women, or maybe they'll find an Hispanic to run on their side that they think could be elected.
So then we have the first Hispanic president, and every criticism will be anti-Latino, and that's how they set it up. So it's twofold. It's to silence any criticism, but that criticism that actually survives will be characterized as racist or sexist or bigoted or what have you. And it's just a way... The overall purpose of this is for the left to silence and do away with any opposition, because that's their objective.
I was told that yesterday on MSNBC, they had a panel discussion, and the people on the show were literally having cows over my interpretation of them and their reaction to the Zimmerman verdict on Saturday. I approached the Golden EIB Microphone on Monday and I told you that their reaction was really not about Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
It was just they are a bunch of children that didn't get their way.
They've been getting their way on everything. In the last five, 5-1/2 years, they've gotten 99% of what they want. They didn't get this, and they were bellyaching. I accused them of having a temper tantrum. You would not believe how that was purposely misinterpreted and then mis-analyzed, which is something they always do. They limit all of the crucial context of any critic that they launch into. So what it became was... Folks, I don't remember. It was so insane, I don't remember how they interpreted it.
But I am a premier communicator. I say what I mean. I don't leave it up to chance. If somebody asks me a question, I answer it. I don't speak in riddles, and I said that what really had 'em ticked off about this verdict was that they didn't get their way. Somebody didn't let 'em have what they wanted. They wanted a guilty verdict. For whatever reasons, they wanted a guilty verdict. They didn't get it. (crying)
And then they launched into, "The country's racist," just 'cause they didn't get their way. Well, it... Eileen, I've not forgotten your question. This is all sort of a setup for my answer to your question, because she has observed and she's read that it's not so much that the Hispanics are not assimilating. It's actually blacks who are not only not assimilating, they appear to be regressing. There's actually an opinion piece about this at PJ Media.
RUSH: My friends, I can't tell you the number of people -- recently and over the course of my sterling professional career -- who've said to me, "You know, Rush, it's a lose-lose proposition to talk about race, even seriously, the way you try. You can't win. All you're gonna do is get yourself in trouble, and it isn't worth it. You ought to just leave it alone. Just make it one of these things where, when something comes up, you just discipline yourself to ignore it don't go there."
I've been told this... Gee, I don't know. Since probably the first time I mentioned Jesse Jackson's name on the radio back in 1983 in Kansas City. I hear it from close friends, people who say, "Rush, there's nothing to be gained." You know, my reaction to that's always been, "Why isn't there?" They may be right. There isn't there anything to be gained? Why is it a lose-lose proposition to discuss race?
I think it would be said not just of me but a lot of people who probably would be advised the same way. "Just leave it alone." The problem with that is that when you surrender it, you're surrendering it to who? Who are we letting discuss it and therefore shape opinion about it? In my mind, the answer to that question is: The people who have made a mess of this country and this culture for way too long, and that is leftists.
Of all races, creeds, stripes, religions. I don't care.
There is an ideology that has slowly been eating away at the foundational fabric of this country. I don't know whether it's race or whether it is any issue. I don't care what. I can't let it go. I care too much about the country, and I care too much about everybody that lives here. And I'm cursed. I am. I think I'm cursed. I'm cursed with a... Well, I have a hope, a desire that everybody in this country love it, that everybody in this country enjoy the life they've been given and the opportunity they've been given to live that life in this country.
I can't tell you how disappointed I feel when I run across people that don't and can't enjoy their life, and I think that's what this really comes down to. I mean, folks, the kind of anger and angst and tension on this and practically everything else that the American left cares about does nothing but make people miserable and nervous, and in some cases unhappy. Even the people they claim they're looking out for.
And maybe not just "even," but especially the people they claim to be helping. They claim to be the sole representatives. They claim to be the guardians. Those people that are under their wing are miserable, and that misery and angst and unhappiness is exacerbated by the left. It's amplified. Anything other than that isn't permitted. That just... Well, it bothers me, and in some ways, it honestly does break my heart. I have such a deep appreciation for the uniqueness of life.
We each only have one, and most people... Well, maybe not most. Way too many people don't even think about that for whatever reasons. They're too busy, too absorbed in things. But I've always kind of been in awe of it, and the fact that there's only one, and the fact that all we have on the other side of it is faith that there's more? Nobody can prove that. That's just faith, and so this is it. I've been very lucky with mine.
I've been extremely fortunate. I don't think that I'm anything special or unique. I think it's possible for everybody. But then I look around, and I see so many people that basically look like they're just unhappy to be alive. They're just miserable and angry all the time, and I looked at people making them feel that way because they are the same way. It infuriates me, so I just want to help.
I would like to be able to change attitudes and thinking in a positive way that would cause some people to reflect a little bit more deeply than they do, on the really rare opportunity that life in this country affords people. So this latest racial thing, this Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case and all the actors in it, Rachel Jeantel, people say, "Rush, don't go there! Rush, they're not gonna understand when you're trying to be lighthearted and funny about it.
"They're wound too tight. Everybody's just waiting to be offended and they're just waiting to be mad 'cause they want to shut you up, and you shouldn't give 'em ammo." I know all that. I just can't help myself sometimes. I just can't not talk about it. Now, our caller, Eileen, said that she saw something recently, and I found out what she saw. It's a Wall Street Journal editorial called, "America's Assimilating Hispanics."
The Journal claims that they have seen evidence that showed that Hispanics are following the path of earlier immigrants and are assimilating into a singular American culture. Now, Eileen believed it. She read it. She believed it. It's a 2007 editorial that is being re-circulated. You have to keep in mind when you read it, though, that the Wall Street Journal is very much a pro-amnesty organization. Not just the editorial page, but the entire newspaper is what I call "open borders."
They want this influx of people. They want the opportunity for cheap labor for whatever reason. "Can't find Americans to do the work. Too many are unemployed and not suffering from it so they don't want to work. They need the laborer labor pool." That's the Journal's constituency, and so that's who they serve. At the same time as this the article, there was another article then points out that while Hispanics are assimilating, African-Americans born in this country aren't.
In fact they're not only not assimilating, they're regressing. They are Balkanizing, if you will. Now, both of those assertions are fascinating. In the case of the first one, the Journal and the Hispanic assimilation, you do have to read that knowing full well that the Journal's in favor of amnesty and open borders. If all that assimilating is taking place, then why do we hear even more often in our society, "Press 1 for English"? Why is the audience for Telemundo and Univision, both those networks, growing?
Now, as to the other side, that African-Americans are regressing. Oh, yeah, yeah. I heard Eric Holder say we have to have the courage to talk about race. Nobody has the courage to talk about race. Everybody gets beat up for doing it, particularly if you happen to be effective or persuasive in changing people's attitudes that the left does not want them to have. If you are able to talk people out of the mind-set the left wants them to have, then you are really a target.
Most people don't like being targets. So Obama and Eric Holder are the first black president and first black attorney general. You know, it's interesting what's going on right now. The Congressional Black Caucus is having its convention. I think NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucasians are having conventions either at the same time or back-to-back, and in both places Holder and Obama are being pressured to do something about this Zimmerman thing and the travesty of justice.
Now, you would think that President Obama would try to rise above this and do what everybody thought that he was automatically going to do by virtue of being the first African-American -- and that's unite everybody. But he's not doing that. He's got this constituency to serve. He's got the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucasians. He's got the NAACP. Holder, the same thing. They're out there, and they're dangling a carrot in front of these people.
"Don't worry, Zimmerman's not off the hook yet."
We just had a jury trial, and we just had a verdict, and we just had everybody involved say race wasn't part of it. But because it didn't turn out the way the left wants, that's not the end of it. "No, we're not gonna stop until we get what we want. If we have to put pressure on Obama," and I don't know how much it will really take. "If we have to put pressure on Obama or Holder to get what they want, what are Obama and Holder gonna do?"
I find it funny that Obama and Holder are being portrayed as just innocent bystanders here, but they're really under a lot of pressure. The civil rights coalition makes a big move, a lot of pressure, to get Obama and Holder. I have to laugh at that because Obama and Holder lead that movement. They're not innocent bystanders waiting around to be influenced. But, see, even saying that is risky. Yeah, but Holder's out there saying we need courage to talk about race.
Let anybody try and see what happens.
They're lied about, taken out of context, mischaracterized, and people are set out to try to destroy them. So everybody's afraid. It may not be number one, but certainly one of the top three reasons the Republicans don't exist in Washington is because they don't want to be called racists. So the Republicans are caving on practically everything where Obama's involved 'cause otherwise they're gonna be called racists and the media's gonna pick up on it.
The lie will be spread far and wide, and the Republicans probably rightfully think there's nothing they can do about it. They can't stop it. They can't change anybody's thinking, particularly in the black community. The black community believes every Republican is racist, sexist, all that stuff -- and that's what's so frustrating. Not true. Nowhere near the truth. In fact, I would venture to say that most of the racism in this country's on the left.
Most of the oppression in this country stems and originates from people on the left. They're the ones that demand you think right. They're the ones that demand you behave the way they require. They're the ones who demand you live the way they tell you to live. They're the oppressors, if you will.
RUSH: "What Do You Do When the Oppressed are Their Own Worst Oppressors?" PJ Media, David Goldman. He starts this way: "My earliest memory is looking up at a circle of black and white faces. I was seated in the living room of the family home in Edison Township, NJ, and the group I saw was the local chapter of the NAACP. My association with the civil rights movement goes back to the age of two. The year would have been 1953 or 1954, and my parents were left-wing activists, among the very few white people involved at the time.
"Their activism was deep. In 1950, my father drove from New York with a group of Columbia University students to protest the impending execution of Willie McGee, a black man convicted and eventually electrocuted for the alleged rape of a white woman in Mississippi. I followed my parents' example: in my senior year of high school I organized and led a student civil rights demonstration and marched next to Andrew Young. You can look it up. I believe in civil rights as much now as I did then.
"That's why it's painful to watch the degeneration of the NAACP with its silly petition to persuade the Justice Department to bring a civil rights case against George Zimmerman. The leaders of what used to be a civil rights movement want to talk about everything but the main problem afflicting black people in the United States. That is the breakdown of the black family. Just 29% of black women over the age of 15 were married in 2010, according to the Census Bureau's comprehensive Current Population Survey.
"That compares to 54% of white women. At all ages, black women were about half as likely to be married as white women. That is an astonishing number," he writes. "The percentage of out-of-wedlock births has risen from 18% in 1980 to 40% in 2010. Twenty-nine percent of white births were non-marital, against 73% for black births. That's nearly three-quarters of all black births," occur outside of marriage.
"Young black men without a high school diploma are more likely to be in jail than to be employed, reports the Pew Institute," which did the scholarly research. So Mr. Goldman gets to his real point here in the lead sentence of the next paragraph. "The worst oppressors of young black men are older black men who abandon their children. And the second-worst oppressors of young black men are other young black men -- 94% of black murder victims are killed by blacks.
"The accelerating decline of the black family portends a much worse situation in the future. Why have civil rights organizations and black clergy wagered their reputations on the Zimmerman case? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the issues that really concern African-Americans simply are too painful to discuss," and there it is. You just can't talk about it, Rush. "Five years after the ultimate boost to self-esteem -- the election of the first black president -- things are getting worse faster.
"If black leaders -- from Barack Obama and Eric Holder on down -- can't talk about the real problems, the prospects for the future are frightening indeed," and he has a postscript here where he says, "Conservatives should view African-Americans’ emotional response to the death of Trayvon Martin with empathy. What makes the incident so hard to bear is that so many young black men die every day through involvement in violent crime." However, it's 94% black-on-black crime.
Anyway, I read this, and, again: This has stuff that you're not supposed to say.
You're supposed to leave this alone.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Chicago is the murder capital of the country...gang violence is rampant.... innocent bystanders are murdered every day.... but because it's black on black crime there's no "civil rights violations?"
And just what is wrong with "profiling?"
A black person has been seen to commit a crime (and no, it's not only blacks that commit crimes, i'm just using this as an example- whites, Latinos, blacks they all commit crimes because people are people!) but a witness dare not say that the person who committed the crime was black because that would be racist, and the cops can't put out an APB on a black suspect because that would be racist, and news reporters can't say the cops are looking for a black suspect because that would be racist.... so of course the guy gets away... and the black community who may know that he is indeed the perpetrator wont' call the police because that would be snitching.
I think the black community has more of a problem with itself and the culture of victimhood and "don't tell the police anything," than with one "white Latino" who saw a black kid in an all-white neighborhood and dared to "profile" him.
And here's what Rush had to say today about the racial component - or lack of it:
RUSH: An entirely new perspective on this whole sordid incident was provided by Rachel Jeantel last night on CNN. Everybody's been under the impression that Zimmerman was a racist, and that's why he went after Trayvon. I went to great lengths yesterday, folks, to break this down and tell you what I think this was really all about. I'm not gonna repeat that but it is at RushLimbaugh.com. Essentially, it was about economics.
You've got a bunch of people in this community that are barely hanging on. They've worked very hard to get where they are and there are all kinds of robberies and things, and they're just tired of being stolen from, and they've got a Neighborhood Watch and so forth. It's about the Obama economy. But the media and everybody has been saying since this happened, "Zimmerman's a white racist!"
You know as well as I do they've been doing everything they can to portray this as Zimmerman chasing a guy because he was black. Well, Zimmerman's the guy that got beaten up in this. Everybody forgets that. Zimmerman is the guy who got beat up. Now we know why, from a witness for the prosecution who was on CNN last night, Rachel Jeantel. Race wasn't even a factor. When she was asked to define "creepy ass cracka," and "n-i-g-g-a," it wasn't racial.
Not one definition she gave for any of these terms being used had to do with race.
"Creepy ass cracka"?
That's "a police."
That's "a male."
You gotta say n-i-g-g-e-r to make it racist. There wasn't any race. The jury didn't deliberate race. The race aspect was totally manufactured by the media. So listen to Rachel Jeantel's answer to Piers Morgan. The question, "But you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the 'creepy ass cracka' and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man -- you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man -- was pursuing him? And he was freaked out by it?"
So Piers Morgan is asking Rachel Jeantel, "Why was Trayvon Martin 'freaked out'?" Now, everybody has been led to believe that Trayvon was freaked out because some white guy was chasing him, but let's be honest. Zimmerman's not a white guy! It was raining. It's nighttime. He's of dark complexion. He's an Hispanic. This "white Hispanic" is a media creation. There wasn't any racial component here, folks. This is what's crucially important.
The racial component is a pure media fabrication because of the existence of their narrative that this nation is still, essentially, a slave state. But Trayvon Martin wasn't thinking about race, and we know this because Rachel Jeantel talked to him. So, again, Piers Morgan's question: "But you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the 'creepy ass cracka' and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man -- you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man -- was pursuing him? And he was freaked out by it?"
Why was he freaked out by it, Rachel?
JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely. After I say, "Might be a rapist." For every boys or every man, every who's not that kinda way, see a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you gotta take as a parent. You tell a child, "You see a grown person follow it you, run away," and all that.
Folks, there's no race in there.
There's no inference.
You can't infer race from what she said. There's certainly no racial implication that she made. Well, here's what she said, "Definitely. After I say" to him... She's reporting and recounting her telephone call. (paraphrased) "Definitely. After I say to Trayvon, 'Zimmerman might be a rapist!'" I'm translating for you. "Zimmerman might be a rapist. That makes him gay." He's a guy, folks. Male rapist. Rachel is telling Martin... This guy's chasing him. He doesn't know why he's chasing him.
Rachel, says, "He may be a rapist, Trayvon," and then she said, "For every boys or every man, every who's not that kinda way," that means who's not gay, "you see a grown man following 'em, you be creep out." So she was saying, Trayvon is straight; he's got this adult male chasing him. She's put the idea out that this adult male might be a rapist, and Trayvon "be creep out" by being chased by a gay guy.
And then she went further. "So you gotta take as a parent. You tell a child, 'You see a grown person following you, run away,' and all that."
Not racial. Not "white person." "Grown person." You, as a kid, "You see a grown person following you," as a parent, you tell your child, "run away." Then she also said, "And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there." You need me to translate that? Okay. She has put in Trayvon's mind that Zimmerman is gay. Zimmerman might be a rapist, and a predator.
What are we to think? "Grown man." When she says Trayvon's a male, Zimmerman's a male, and she says rapist, what are we talking about here? We're talking about a gay predator. She has put the idea in Trayvon Martin's head that this might be a gay predator chasing him. Then she said on Piers Morgan last night, "And people need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get..."
Trayvon's staying at his father's girlfriend's house, and she is saying people need to understand Trayvon didn't want Zimmerman, that potential rapist, "that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get," and then she paused, and said, "[M]ind you, his little brother was there." So she was saying that Trayvon wouldn't want this gay predator chasing him down to his house where there is a little kid inside. Nowhere in any of this is race mentioned.
Jeantel also said this about Zimmerman being a rapist on the witness stand, under oath. It wasn't just last night with Piers Morgan on CNN. She also alluded to this. So, folks, do you understand? We have been, the country has been entirely fooled. (The jury wasn't, by the way.) There was no racial component in this at all. Rachel Jeantel didn't talk about race. She wasn't talking about race at all. She wasn't worried. She didn't tell Trayvon to run away from a white guy. "Creepy ass cracka" is police.
So maybe, in their minds, Zimmerman is a gay male predator hiding behind a badge, which gives him access to little boys. I mean, this is the way certain people think, and we already know that she believed that Zimmerman was a rapist, or potential rapist, and put that thought in Trayvon's head, and Trayvon didn't run away. He turned around and started beating up on Zimmerman. Not because Zimmerman was "a white Hispanic." He didn't even know what he was!
I mean, it's dark and rainy. Zimmerman's of dark-complexion, too. The race angle in this has been absurd from the get-go. So essentially Rachel was saying... When she says, "And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there," she is saying that this guy, this rapist, after finishing with Trayvon, might then go after his little brother.
She told Trayvon to run, run, run.
I thought, when I heard this last night, that that's all anybody'd be talking about today, because this throws this thing 180 degrees out of phase. So now Trayvon Martin, who is the recipient of full-fledged, 100% victim status? It turns out could well be a gay basher, and the left has been defending him. So what do they do? They have two interest groups here that they represent and champion: African-Americans and homosexuals, and in this incident, the object of their affection (in this case, Trayvon Martin), might have thought he was being pursued by a gay guy and beat him up, or tried to.
I figured they'd be very conflicted today.
But that hasn't come up anywhere.
Now I think I understand why. It's precisely because nobody wants to get near it. Nobody wants to get anywhere near this. Those words of Rachel's are gone, into the ether, never to be remembered until the EIB Network kicked off at noon. Now, one sound bite here before we go to the Obscene Profit Break. This morning on CNN's Newsroom, the anchorette, Carol Costello, is speaking with criminal defense attorney Mark NeJame about Martin's friend Rachel Jeantel's appearance on Piers Morgan Live.
This is one of the well-educated, pseudo-intellectual analysts that CNN offered today talking about how wonderful Jeantel is, and they were just filled with sadness that she had not appeared this way on the stand. So Carol Costello said to Mark NeJame, "If the jurors had seen the Rachel Jeantel that was on Piers Morgan last night," explaining the definition of "cracka," explaining the definition of "n-i-g-g-a," the "creepy ass cracka," and all that. "If the jurors had seen the Rachel Jeantel that was on Piers Morgan last night, instead of the Rachel Jeantel at trial, could it have made a difference?"
NEJAME: It coulda made a difference. This is just another failure on behalf of the state to properly represent Trayvon Martin. That woman last night was a sweet, funny, engaging person. That's anything but what people saw when she took the stand. People need to understand that we do have a cultural divide, and in fact what the jurors saw, uh, when she appeared on the stand was because of her, in my opinion, her lack of preparedness by the state attorney who prosecuted this case! That woman last night, if she had been on the stand, and the juror (sic) would have seen that, they would have come away with a completely different impression, in my opinion, about who Trayvon really was.
I'm gonna tell you something, Mark.
If you had really been listening to what Rachel Jeantel said on Piers Morgan, you would be reexamining the entire way you're looking at this event.
Monday, July 15, 2013
So apparently the Federal Justice Department is going to take matters into Holder's own hands and try him again, double jeopardy be damned.
Now having said that I admit I haven't paid much attention to the case. I was surprised to learn that there were only 6 jurors - what happened to 12? And they were all women. What I didn't see was the racial makeup of the jury - were they all white (or white Hispanic?)
In any event, you know Martin's family is going to sue the guy for wrongful death, and our Justice Department will help them do it...
Meantime, over the 4th of July, there were 74 people shot in Chicago, and 12 of these died. All African American. 200 dead total since the beginning of the year. What's Eric Holder and his Justice Department doing about that?
Thursday, July 11, 2013
RUSH: I have here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a story from PJMedia.com that just cleared this morning. It's by Bryan Preston. Here's the headline, and the headline pretty much says it, but we'll delve into it. "Newly Released Documents Detail the Department of Justice's Role in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests."
Let me reread that with just a slight difference. "Newly Released Documents Detail Eric Holder's Role in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests -- Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents proving that [Eric Holder] the Department of Justice played a major behind-the-scenes role in organizing protests against George Zimmerman. Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin," who, if he were Obama's son, would look like Obama.
"Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the DOJ on April 24, 2012. According to the documents JW received, a little-known DOJ unit called the Community Relations Service deployed to Sanford, FL, to organize and manage rallies against Zimmerman." Now, folks, this is the United States government. This is not some fleabag, left-wing community agitator.
Well, actually it is now. That's what this means. The United States government has been converted by Obama and Holder into a community organizing agitator bunch. The Department of Justice, I mean, they're supposed to be totally blind there. They're not supposed to have any bias whatsoever.
This is a fundamental disintegration, and it's just one of many that are happening to this country under this administration. Judicial Watch was given the documents by the DOJ that prove the DOJ was in Florida organizing anti-Zimmerman rallies. You know the only reason this trial's taking place? The only reason this trial's taking place is because the race hustler industry flew down there the minute this case happened when Zimmerman wasn't charged.
Now, the original law enforcement bunch that first was exposed to the evidence in this case didn't charge Zimmerman. There was nothing to see here. And then Al Sharpton and the race hustlers got in business and flew down there, and Eric Holder flew down there and thanked Reverend Al, as he called him, for his community outreach and service, and this regime saw an opportunity to turn something into a profoundly racial case for the express purpose of ripping the country apart. I don't know how else to describe it.
Here are some of the things that Judicial Watch is reporting that they found.
In 2012, March 25 through 27, the Community Relations Service, that is, again, a little-known unit of the DOJ. "CRS spent $674.14 upon being 'deployed to Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.'"
This is an official DOJ document. This is not something Judicial Watch wrote. The Community Relations Service spent $674 after being deployed on the ground in Sanford, Florida, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies.
March 25 through 28, the Community Relations Service "spent $1,142.84 'in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.'"
March 30 through April 1, 2012, Community Relations Service "spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL 'to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.'"
March 30 through April 1, 2012, Community Relations Service "spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL 'to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.'" Forget the dollar amounts here. This is just expenses. The DOJ deployed people to gin up rallies, to financially support them, to promote them, demonstrations, rallies, protests, the DOJ. This was not even a federal case.
April 3rd through the 12th, Community Relations Service "spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL 'to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.'" These people went down there and they organized the protest. And then they gave support to the people that showed up to protest and rally. But the DOJ lit the fuse. The DOJ went down there and made sure that there were protests, is what this means. The DOJ went down there and stirred the pot. The Obama administration sent Eric Holder down there to stir up the people of Sanford, Florida, and to get 'em all worked up and to get 'em protesting and rallying.
April 11th and 12th of 2012, the Department of Justice "spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL 'to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies,' related to this case. And again, this is expenses for employees to travel, eat, and sleep. They went down there to stir this up.
"Judicial Watch says the documents it obtained reveal that CRS is not engaging in its stated mission of conducting 'impartial mediation practices and conflict resolution,' but instead engaged on the side of the anti-Zimmerman protesters." Didn't just engage. It revved 'em up. Didn't just engage. They went down there and started all of this!
"On April 15, 2012, during the height of the protests, the Orlando Sentinel reported, 'They [the CRS] helped set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police Chief Bill Lee according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.' The paper quoted the Rev. Valarie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church, a focal point for protestors, as saying 'They were there for us,' after a March 20 meeting with CRS agents." So they also went down and had a police chief fired. This is the chief that wouldn't charge Zimmerman.
So the DOJ went down there, and this according to the Orlando Sentinel, set up a meeting between the NAALCP and local protesters that led to the temporary resignation of the police chief. Look, you know as well as I do, this just throws the Constitution out the window. This is really serious stuff here. It's not just that it's partisan, this administration's DOJ participated -- well, they didn't participate -- well, they did, but they did more than that. They actually orchestrated racial strife. They sponsored it. They organized it, propped it up, paid for it, encouraged it.
"Separately, in response to a Florida Sunshine Law request to the City of Sanford, Judicial Watch also obtained an audio recording of a 'community meeting' held at Second Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church in Sanford on April 19, 2012. The meeting, which led to the ouster of Sanford’s Police Chief Bill Lee, was scheduled after a group of college students calling themselves the 'Dream Defenders' barricaded the entrance to the police department demanding Lee be fired. According to the Orlando Sentinel, DOJ employees with the CRS had arranged a 40-mile police escort for the students from Daytona Beach to Sanford."
So there was an audio recording of a community meeting at a church on April 19th. The meeting that led to the ouster of the police chief was scheduled after a group of college students calling themselves the Dream Defenders barricaded the entrance to the police department. Those college students were bussed in by the Department of Justice. A 40-mile police escort for protesters to get to the right place, from 40 miles away. Are you shaking your heads out there? Just rogue employees of the DOJ. Nothing to do with Obama. Nothing to do with Eric Holder. Like the rogue employees at the IRS. Nothing to see here? That right?
"'These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman,' said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. 'My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations.'" If they knew about it, yeah. Anyway, that's the latest on this. That's George Zimmerman's trial and the DOJ, Judicial Watch with a Freedom of Information request, DOJ documents proving the DOJ was down there basically fanning the flames of protests, busing protesters in with police escorts. I wonder what we might learn about, what was that group, Occupy whatever they were. Folks, this is simply outrageous. It's unconstitutional. I can't think of a proper descriptive here to express the anger I have.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Being overweight is a cultural thing, I think. Here in the US, the war on overweight people is ramping up because "we as a culture" have always been hot on dictating to women exactly how they should look.
Many a well-fed German actress came over to the US in the 1920s, for example - Marlene Dietrich being a prime example - and immediately had to drop 20 or 30 pounds to fit into the American male's ideal of what a woman should look like. That's where the flapper look came in.
Today, the overweight are called obese because the government has actually changed the terminology! They changed the food triangle thingy from a healthy eating tool to a "do this to lose weight" tool. You can't watch any children's program these days without seeing the characters take time out to dance or "move." (Would that they'd also take time out to study or read a book ,but that's not a message the government wants to send because that entails sitting on the couch rather than "moving.")
The reason why it's cultural is that if you look at Mexico, or even Hawaii, you'll see that most of the native born folks are obese - it's part of their culture. Why should they starve themselves?
Apparently, 70% of the illegal aliens coming in from Mexico are overweight.
Here's what Rush had to say:
Well, I think now in the case of... I'm just guessing now. I'm just guessing, but I think in the case of immigrant obese people, there will be a lot of sympathy. They come from poor nations. They come from nations where their governments aren't that concerned about nutrition. I don't think that Michelle Obama and the Food Nazis would be nearly as condemning of immigrant obese people as they are of native Americans.
They would be more understanding. There'd be more compassion, and there will probably be more federal aid to help them. Whereas "Mikhail" Bloomberg and Moochelle Obama demand of Americans that we eat a certain way, there would be no demands on the illegals. We don't want make 'em mad. There would be efforts to understand them. They would be immediately made victims. We are supposed to feel sorry for them.
But, Dennis, don't worry. They're gonna have 10 years to lose weight. Remember, they're not gonna get Obamacare for 10 years. Ahem. Ahem. That's what the law says. (interruption) What? (interruption) Right. That's what the law says today, that they won't have access to Obamacare for... It's not even 10 years. I think it's like 14 years, or maybe that's to vote. But that's today. Obama could change his mind tomorrow.
Obama can just say, "You know what? I don't like this notion that these people have to wait a decade to be able to vote, so I'm gonna say they can vote tomorrow. In fact, we're gonna start our voter registration tonight at McDonald's and Burger King, and Kentucky Fried, Wendy's, and Taco Bell." Look, if he can just decide to punt the employer mandate, why can't he decide to grant them the right to vote?
We sit here and laugh about this, but that's actually very serious stuff.
I guarantee you, if a Republican president were trying this stuff with Democrat legislation, you wouldn't hear the end of it. There would be all these howls and protests about shredding the Constitution, violating the Constitution, but there isn't any of that with Obama. I mean, not even from very many Republicans. Instead we get these intellectual analyses of what it means constitutionally and what might happen -- do this and do that and so forth. But it's just amazing.