Saturday, July 27, 2013

If I Had A Daughter.........

Barack Obama infamously inserted himself into the Zimmerman-Martin situation with the words, "If I had a son.....he'd........look like Trayvon."  With those words, he got he ball rolling on the racial component of a self-defense case that had no racial overtones.  Now, after a fair trial and adjudication of the evidence resulting in a verdict of not guilty, the usual suspects, the race hustlers and peddlers of racial division, "Revs." Al Sharpton and Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson have picked up the ball and run with it.  They are demanding that the Obama Justice Department bring civil-rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman.  Included in this push for a second bite at the race-baiting apple are the NAACP, several national liberal commentators and congresspeople and other "civil rights" organizations.

If at first you don't succeed, protest and sue until you get your way.

With all the consternation over the "violation of Trayvon's rights", it's curious that none among these most compassionate, concerned, individuals dedicated to "justice" for all that the following story has gotten little or no national attention.

If I had a daughter.........

In a story out of Austin, Texas a 13yr old runaway was abducted, transported to a remote location and repeatedly gang-raped by between 10 and 13 men, most illegal aliens.  The group cheered as they took turns assaulting the girl over a 24hr period, even filming the assault on their cell phones! So far, there have only been two arrests, a pair of Mexican nationals in the country illegally. Unless you do a search for this story or happen to listen to talk radio you have heard absolutely nothing about this.

There haven't been any pronouncements from the White House on their commitment to "get to the bottom of this", to "not rest until those responsible have been brought to justice".  No one has demanded that Eric Holder mobilize the resources of the DOJ for this little girl the way they have demanded "justice for Trayvon".  As far as the national press and the regime occupying the White House, it's a non-issue.  Perhaps because it goes against the narrative that an influx of illegal aliens is somehow of benefit to the country?  Perhaps because it puts the lie to the claim that all the illegals are only here out of a desire to work and "build a better life for their families"?

Open your eyes, Mr. President.  If you're going to make the claim "If I had a son...." you have to also claim the corresponding "If I had a daughter.....".  In the absence of Secret Service, in the absence of an intact family, in the absence of a society governed by the rule of law, it could just as easily been your daughter.  It just wouldn't be as politically advantageous (unless, of course, she was assaulted by "white" Hispanics).

Oh, speaking of "white Hispanics", there's a new wrinkle in the ongoing Zimmerman saga.

During the run-up to the trial--and during--NBCNews was busted for selectively editing the phone call between George Zimmerman and the Sanford,FL PD, multiple times, in order to portray Mr. Zimmerman as a racist, and as the aggressor.  Now, it appears that ABCNews has decided to try their hand at media manipulation.

In an ABCNews interview, "Juror B29" tells correspondent Robin Roberts that Zimmerman "Got away with murder".  That pull quote has since gone viral, as they say.  It's been promoted all over the national media as "See?!  Even the juror thinks he was guilty!"  Problem is, that's not entirely true.  It seems that ABC heavily, and selectively, edited the full recording of the interview and has presented the Juror's statements falsely.  Or at least, out of context.  This isn't coming from some "right-wing" outlet like FoxNews, it's coming from the usually reliably left-leaning

The writer of the article, Mr. William Saletan, points out several problems with the "Zimmerman got away with murder!" narrative:

1.  The phrase "got away with murder" was put into the jurors mouth, prompted by Robin Roberts.

2.  The juror stands by the verdict "based on the law".  She judged according to evidence, not emotion.

3.  She thinks the case should never have gone to trial.  "......this was a publicity stunt."

Mr. Saletan goes on to list several more points that have been overlooked by the mainstream media in the promotion of the official storyline of "racial profiling" and "injustice".

You can read the whole article here.

ABCNews has still not released the unedited interview video or transcripts.


Friday, July 19, 2013

Making Self Defense Illegal?

So.  AG Holder wants "review" (i.e. repeal) of so-called Stand Your Ground Laws.  Are we going to accord thugs & criminals privilege over law-abiding citizens?

According to the Washington Post, Eric Holder claimed, in a speech to the NAACP, that the so-called Stand Your Ground statutes, currently enacted in more than 30 states, "senselessly expand the concept of self-defense".  I guess he'd be more comfortable with laws that give more rights to prospective assailants than to the victims going about their daily lives.  Holder's speech to the NAACP produced cheers when he promised to go after these statutes. 

Incidentally, the NAACP and other "civil rights leaders" are encouraging AG Holder and Pres. Obama to go after George Zimmerman, whom a jury found not guilty of Murder in the 2nd Degree and Manslaughter in the death of Trayvon Martin, for civil rights violations based on the fact that Trayvon was black and that Zimmerman is a "white Hispanic" who pursued and shot him for no other reason than that Zimmerman is a racist that hates blacks.  Intentionally overlooked are two important factors: 1) race was never introduced as a factor in the trial.  In fact, the only mention of Mr. Zimmerman's relations with blacks was that he often mentored black youth and had associations with several people in the black community.  The testimony of more than 30 witnesses and an investigation by the FBI (a division of AG Holder's own DOJ) found zero evidence of racist activity or beliefs being held by Mr. Zimmerman ever in his life, and 2) subjecting Mr. Zimmerman to a Federal trial after he has already been exonerated amounts to "double jeopardy" i.e. being charged twice for the same crime, which is prohibited by the Constitution.

Pre-trial comments by many involved, on both sides, pleaded for there to simply be a hearing in court to determine the truth.  That whatever the decision of the court, they'd be satisfied.  They only wanted a "fair hearing".  Apparently that only applies as long as the verdict comes down in your favor.  If not, you can count on such peace-loving individuals as the so-called "Reverends" Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to come to your rescue, establishing plans for "protests (riots?) in over 100 cities".

Yep.  They're all for the rule of law, until something doesn't go their way.  Then, it's "civil disobedience", protests, riots, and lawsuits (read, temper tantrums) until they get their way. 

I wonder if Rev Al & Jesse, et al are going to collectively "hold their breath until they turn blue"?

Getting back to Holder and his desire to get rid of Stand Your Ground.  What he would accomplish by the repeal of such laws is the emboldenment of the criminal element and increased risk of harm to law-abiding individuals.  In a nutshell, all Stand Your Ground laws say is that, in a situation where you are in a place you are legally entitled to be, pursuing activities you are legally allowed to do, if you are menaced by another individual and threatened with harm you do not have the legal obligation to run away.  That's it.  You have the right to defend yourself and your family from attack.  Radical idea, huh?

I'll tell you what's radical:  In some states that don't specifically have such laws on the books, if you are legally engaged in activity in a public place and some thug confronts you, you are legally required to leave the area.  If there is a way out, you must take it.  Your assailant has no obligation to leave you in peace.  YOU have an obligation to give way to his/her belligerence.

Gee, I wonder what the result could possibly be to telling these punks that they are free to confront anyone, up to and perhaps including throwing the first punch, and they are protected from retaliation by their victim, provided they leave an avenue of escape?

Stand Your Ground isn't some radical idea promoted by people who want to return to some "wild west" version of life and "vigilante justice".  It's an acknowledgement of man's universal natural right to defense.  Of his home, of his family, of himself.  Every living organism shares this universal right.  It doesn't come from government.  It doesn't come from the State.  It comes concurrent with the physical state of being alive and the primary obligation to protect, preserve, defend and live that life to the absolute best of your ability.


Saturday, July 13, 2013

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Those hoping for a less expensive shopping experience in the Washington D.C. area may be "SOL".

It was reported late this week that the Washington D.C. city council approved a new policy requiring "large employers" to pay a so-called "living wage" of $12.50/hr, 50% higher than the current minimum wage of $8.25/hr.  The measure, obviously aimed at Wal-Mart, would only affect employers with more than $1B in sales revenue and stores larger than 75,000 sq feet.  The "big box" stores.  This  measure would only affect Wal-Mart.  Unionized stores are exempted, while already established large retailers such as Target and Macy's have up to four years to comply with the new regs.

It's an obvious response by liberals and other pro-union interests to the continued refusal of Wal-Mart to accede to their demands that they allow unionization. 

As reported by FoxNews, Wal-Mart has said that, if the measure isn't vetoed by D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray, they will be forced to eliminate three proposed sites for new stores and will investigate their options as to ceasing work at three other sites where construction is already in progress, eliminating many jobs and lower-cost shopping options for low income D.C. residents.

Wal-Mart has faced similar problems in the past, most notably in the city of Chicago, where a similar law was proposed to force the retailing giant to pay a "livable wage" significantly higher than the prevailing minimum wage required by other employers.  When they threatened to pull out of the city, the law was dropped.

I can't see how such a measure can withstand constitutional scrutiny.  It's obviously in violation of the 14th Amendment's requirement of equal protection under the law.  Levying a financial burden on one employer or class of employers while specifically exempting special interests is blatantly illegal cronyism.

It seems the affliction of the Obama regime, it's drive to dictate what industries will and will not be "allowed" and to punish those businesses who dare to resist, is seeping into the local government where, admittedly, it found fertile soil.

Let's hope the Mayor and the rest of the D.C. city council come to their senses before their ideological blindness and hatred for successful businesses drives them to "cut off their nose to spite their face".  The withdrawal of Wal-Mart wouldn't just be a blow in terms of construction jobs.  There are the ongoing permanent jobs in staffing and truck drivers, the loss of potential outlets for local goods (Wal-Mart is well known for searching for local resources for it's shelves), and the loss of lower cost options for shoppers.  There are also the more concrete matters of the increased tax revenue that would be lost to the city's coffers, not just from the retailer itself but from the sales generated and the income taxes generated as a result of the new jobs.

When will Progressives ever learn that there will always be a consequence to their power and money grab regulations?  "For every action, there is an equal, and opposite, reaction."--Sir Isaac Newton


Sunday, July 7, 2013

Recommended Monthly Allowance

When I first started this blog the impetus was the requirement by utilities that customers accept the (sometimes forced) installation of wireless "smart meters" that allow government and utilities to monitor, in real time, residential customers' energy usage.  You can access those posts either in the archive or through the links here and here.

In those posts I proposed the theory that the push by government and utilities for these meters could be laying the groundwork for future rationing and control of access to energy.  For example, in times of projected high demand, the government, through the utility, could decide to reduce or eliminate the supply of electricity to one area of the grid in order to ensure availability to "critical infrastructure" or other "essential needs".

In return, I got some responses that said I was some kind of "right-wing conspiracy nutcase".  Well, as the saying goes: "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that there isn't a conspiracy."

The EPA, in a press release on June 27th, revealed a change in their Energy Star program.  They are going to encourage the makers of refrigerators and freezers to include new technology that will enable "connectivity" between the appliance and the utility.  According to CNS News, this will enable the utility to better manage the grid by remotely controlling energy usage during peak times.  Up to, and including, shutting down the appliances.

Right now, the idea is that the consumer will have to give permission for the utility to connect to and control their appliance.  Wonder how long it'll take for this program to expand to other appliances such as..........air conditioners, for example?  And how long it'll remain "optional"?

This is some potentially serious shit, people.  Let's imagine a significant disruption of the grid on the East Coast.  If/When fully implemented, the utility would have the ability to re-route power from outlying areas (read, so-called "fly over country") in order to ensure power gets to critical areas such as Boston, NYC, Baltimore, and D.C.  How long will the food in your refrigerator stay safe to eat?  How quickly will your home/apartment become unbearable due to the heat after the government shuts down your AC because of "peak demand"?  Heat in the winter?  How often does a winter storm disrupt power?  What happens if you're a senior citizen who relies on a stable supply of power for dialysis?  Or for sleep apnea treatment?  Or to power your portable oxygen machine?

If I were to go way out on the conspiracy limb, such micro-level control of the power supply would make an effective tool for any government interested in control of a restive population.  But.......nah, that's crazy talk.  Almost as crazy as imagining that the government was interested in controlling it's citizens' access to, and use of, electricity.

Just to stir the pot, does anyone else find it curious that the Obama administration's EPA issues these new regulations at the same time that Barack Obama himself is pushing his agenda to bankrupt the coal industry in America by using the EPA regulatory apparatus to enact the carbon control laws he couldn't get enacted through Congress?  The same industry responsible for supplying more than 40% of the nation's energy needs?

Step 1:  Limit electricity availability.  Step 2: Use the limited availability of electricity as justification for enactment and implementation of grid control through the "Smart Grid" and "Smart Meter" technologies.

Sure, I'm paranoid.  My government is making it impossible not to be.


RELATED:  "Want to get off the grid?  It'll cost you.  About $30K." [Link]