.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Thursday, December 14, 2017

Mueller's unconstitutional open warrant must be modified to look at WHOEVER might have colluded with the Russians, not just Trump

Andrew McCarthy sets out to answer in today's Washington Post: "is special counsel Robert S. Mueller III running an impartial investigation?" But like everyone else Andrew is skipping past the original sin that establishes the entire enterprise as highly criminal and proves already that Rosenstein and Mueller are the founding criminal conspirators. That original sin is the wording of the investigatory charge that Rosenstein authored and Mueller accepted. It is an unconstitutional open warrant of precisely the kind that the Fourth Amendment was written to bar. It is Star Chamber. 

The order starts out okay. Mueller was appointed not as a prosecutor but as a special investigator, and the purpose is stated without prejudice: “to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” 

Under a “full and thorough” investigation either Hillary (already known to have taken $145m from the Russians in Uranium One) or Trump might be found to have illegally colluded with Russia. Russia might or might not have been involved in WikiLeaks. Cloudstrike might or might not have been lying about Russian fingerprints on the DNC hack/leak, etcetera. The FBI might or might not have used a known-to-be-phony Russia-sourced anti-Trump dossier to mislead the FISA court into allowing the agency to spy on Trump. All would be proper subjects for investigation. Wherever the “Russia” story goes.

But the specifics of the order narrow the target of the investigation to one man:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation

This is the inverse analog to Comey and Strozk finding Hillary innocent of criminal wrongdoing with her private email server before conducting an investigation. Here Rosenstein limited who the supposed investigation into Russian interference could focus on before the “full and thorough” investigation had even begun.

The illegality is that the naming of Trump as target (not upon probable cause, or supported by oath or affirmation, or particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized) turns the investigatory powers delegated to Mueller into an unconstitutional open warrant.

A subpoena is a form of warrant and using it in prosecutorial fashion certainly activates Fourth Amendment protections

A subpoena is form of warrant.  The targets are required to provide information. That is a seizure. They themselves are compelled/seized to appear before the special counsel, all of which would be acceptable as investigation. The problem is that the limitation of the investigation to one man turns the special investigator into a special prosecutor operating with no probable cause and no other Fourth Amendment limitations. 

That is blatantly illegal, and the easily predictable likely consequence is the gravest imaginable: the successful suppression of the voting rights of the winning electoral coalition in the last presidential election. This is the highest of high crimes — usurpation — and  Rosenstein and Mueller both have a highest obligation, their oath to protect the Constitution, to protect against such criminality. Instead they both whole-heartedly engaged in it, personally shaped it (Rosenstein) and carried it forward with the most blatant bunch of democracy haters imaginable (Mueller).

To think that this was not all fully intentional is ludicrous but the illegality of the order and of Mueller’s acceptance of it does not depend on intentions. An open warrant against the president is highly illegal and of utmost importance to defend against whether the perpetrators understand the wrong of it or not.

Real Russia collusion has been uncovered

Of course we now know, thanks to investigations by Congress, that there was a very ambitious and illegal collusion with the Russians to influence the 2016 election, not by Trump but by Hillary Clinton, who paid the Russians for the phony anti-Trump dossier. It now seems that the DOJ and the FBI were also involved in this illegality, using the phony dossier to mislead the FISA court into letting them spy on Trump, which is a whole further crime in itself, but there is no indication that Mueller is investigating any of this.

FBI/DOJ must have known about Hillary paying the Russians for the phony dossier because of what has come out about the many incestuous relationships between The FBI and GPS Fusion, which acted as Hillary’s bag man with the Russians, and  all of them have deep ties to Hillary. Mueller and Rosenstein were both deeply involved in these webs of personal relationships. The actual Russia conspirators who are rapidly being uncovered by Congress seem to all now be working for Mueller!

Mueller cannot plead ignorance of who these people were. They have been his “right hand men,” marking the whole crew, starting with Rosenstein and Mueller, as one big gang of co-conspirators, committing the most monstrous criminal act in the history of the nation.

Much of this criminality can only be pinned down by amassing numerous key particulars but the criminality of the original sin — the blatant unconstitutionality of Rosenstein’s open warrant against the president and Mueller’s acceptance of if — is 100% proven by its mere existence.

The GOP establishment won't let Trump end Mueller's investigation but he can and must modify Mueller's order so that it is no longer unconstitutional 

The threat of the “establishment GOP” harridans to back Democrats in impeaching Trump if he touches Mueller ties Trump’s hands in many ways. He can’t just terminate the monstrous criminal plot against him, even though it is fully within his inherent powers to do so, but what he can do is condemn the illegal nature of Mueller’s open warrant and demand that the special investigator’s orders be reformulated so that they no longer violate the Constitution, meaning they cannot name the president himself as the designated target but must order Mueller to investigate improper Russian election influence and collusion with Russia to influence our election by whatever parties may be found to have engaged in such activities.

Mueller should also be instructed to follow not just whatever leads may be uncovered by his own investigation but to also consider evidence of Russian influence and Russian collusion uncovered by Congressional investigations and by inspectors general. As written now Mueller is actually required to ignore all of Congress’ work in uncovering Hillary’s election collusion with the Russians. Under provision ii he can only follow what he himself uncovers.

Certainly he can take a cue from Congress about what to look into so he can repeat their discoveries for himself, if he wants to, but as things stand he can also use provision ii of the order to studiously ignore other findings if he wants to. That needs to be changed. The writing of the desired conclusion into the order itself is highly illegal and must end.

(Written as a WAPO comment this afternoon. Still needs some links to documentation, but the substance here is the argument.)

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Crutcher's arm clearly seen reaching INSIDE his SUV at moment of shooting

Nobody else seems to have noticed yet what was caught by the helicopter camera as it flew by the other side of the SUV from where Mr. Crutcher's is standing. Terence Crutcher's body is momentarily visible through the SUV's moonroof and right at that instant he can be clearly seen reaching inside the SUV.  His entire forearm is visible inside the SUV.

The clearest video seems to be from CNN. Here is a screenshot at the 47 second mark (click image for full resolution):

Surrounding video frames show the movement of Crutcher's arm inside the SUV. Once you know where to look you can watch the video at normal speed and be able to see Crutcher's arm pull out from inside the SUV as he falls away from being shot. No doubt about it. So it looks like Officer Betty Shelby will be cleared.

Tulsa police must already know that the window of Crutcher's SUV was down, since they would have pictures of the crime scene that have not been released yet, but Tulsa prosecutors must not have realized there is video that verifies Shelby's claim that Crutcher was reaching into the SUV when she shot him. Otherwise it is hard to see how they could possibly have charged her with anything, never mind manslaughter.

I hope D.A. Kunzweiler's reaction to this proof of her veracity is a glad one, instead of wishing it would go away, but given how fast he charged her I suspect the latter. It looks like prosecutors are hoping that throwing her to the mob will reduce racial tension but appeasement only whets the appetite of the appeased. Kunzweiler needs to listen to President Reagan. "No Danegeld":

Note that it is Crutcher's right arm that reaches in, not his left, so Officer Shelby's lawyer Scott Wood got that detail wrong (at the CNN link), but otherwise Shelby's story is borne out, and possibly the left-arm bit too. Video from several seconds earlier, when the helicopter is behind Crutcher, does seem to show him reaching in with his left arm, so maybe Shelby should have shot him then, but the actual shooting occurred when he reached in with his right arm, which makes sense, as that reach-in would have been more visible to Shelby.

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Nugent's blistering critique of Jewish anti-gunners was/is not anti-Semitic

Every category of anti-gun activist needs to be hit where its members are most vulnerable. I have gone after the Newtown Mothers group for angrily demanding that all of America's school children be just as thoroughly stripped of protectors as their own slaughtered children were. Last week Ted Nugent did the same for Jewish anti-gun leaders, who he slammed for betraying their own history.

Gun control enables genocide, so how can the group whose victimization gave rise to "never again" be so heavily represented among those who would let it happen again? That is a paraphrase. Nugent was less gentle, writing "Jews for gun control are nazis in disguise," but the substance is the same. These Jews are advocating the Nazi policy of civilian disarmament that enabled the slaughter of European Jewry.

It is fine to take issue with Nugent's execution. There is a reason I didn't call the Newtown Mothers "Adam Lanza in disguise." That hyperbole would just create more sympathy for these women whose moral perversity already gets a pass because everyone has so much sympathy for them.

But flawed execution does not alter the legitimacy and importance of Nugent's critique, so how about we edit the execution a little and see if we can find some common ground? Consider this an exercise in alternate history.

If Ted Nugent knew how to use Photoshop

(click for larger image)

The photo-collage of leading anti-gun Jews that Nugent used to illustrate his initial post (the center portion of the graphic above) contained elements that people familiar with anti-Semitic propaganda recognize as impugning the loyalty of American Jews. In particular, the little American flags were originally little Israeli flags with the Star of David in the middle.

Most people would only see those flags as an indicator of Jewishness and it is quite clear that Nugent did not intend any imputation of loyalty to a foreign power. His issue was strictly these people's anti-gun idiocy. So change the flags, do a little editing to the commentary on the individual anti-gun honchos (in red), and make the graphic self-contained by including a toned down version of Nugent's explanation for why and how anti-gun Jews warrant their own special critique (but not too toned down).

So how did I do? Is this about right?
What do y'all think?

Nugent has angrily denied that he intended anything anti-Semitic and there is no reason to doubt him. A normal person does not see an Israeli flag as anti-Semitic and if you don't have Photoshop skills you have to go with what is available. Bloomberg, Feinstein, Shumer + 9 more? That's a pretty good start. Just really does need that little bit of editing.

Some critics think it is anti-Semitic to single out anti-gun Jews at all. No it isn't, any more than it is anti-mom to criticize anti-gun moms for wanting all children to be undefended, and it is important to single them out. It is important to go after each of these groups where they stand.

Moral error has no authority and no amount of victimization can change that. Point out the most personal and blatant moral perversity of our various anti-gun groups and their moral authority can be shattered. They want to impose on everyone exactly what got their own loved ones killed. How perverse is that?

Ted Nugent deserves credit for recognizing the validity of this response. There is a special critique that can be leveled anti-gun Jews and kudos to Nugent for stating it.

Turning the moral authority of the Newtown Mothers back against themselves

The reason I immediately recognized the validity of Nugent's attack on anti-gun Jews (while many others accused him of doubling down on anti-Semitism), is that I have already been down this road. When the Demanding Newtown Mothers put out a one-year anniversary video their ticking-clock motif powerfully evoked the pro-gun understanding that when seconds count it is doesn't help that the police are only minutes away (fifteen in the Newtown case), so I reversed it back onto them by adding a pro-gun voice over:

Finally the urgent dread on the Mothers' faces directs an obviously necessary course of action: get those children some armed defenders! Turning their story back onto them works.

So I'm right with you Ted (and glad to have the company). Now we just need a few thousand more. In the meantime I hope people can realize that jettisoning Nugent over THIS of all things, something he is insightfully right about, would be a disastrous and unpardonable mistake.

Saturday, October 03, 2015

NYT's gay "modern man" marks how far the Democrat's inversion of tolerance and approval has progressed

NYT's "modern man" is obviously gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but he seems to think that everyone else should be gay too, or else they are not modern, or not a man? You have to be gay to be a man? Really?

But this is perfectly in line with the double-standard supremacism that the various groups who make phony claims of victim status are all demanding these days as their due redress. It is no longer enough to tolerate homosexual behavior. Now everyone must approve it (marriage being society's stamp of approval), and those who only tolerate without approving are not themselves tolerated, but are severely punished by the power of the state. The small tolerated minority hops directly into a new position as an intolerant power.

By this standard, then of course you have to be gay to be a man. Gays are no longer a minor group relying on and receiving the tolerance of the majority, they are an intolerant group, out to marginalize and destroy all who do not approve of them, and this has become the standard for all of the victim-cliamant groups. The suppression of disapproving but tolerant majorities is the payment that intolerant minorities are receiving for joining the Democrat's 51% tyranny of the majority.

I live in Palo Alto where the high school just ended its tradition of selecting a homecoming king and queen with male and female courts on the grounds that this tradition might be uncomfortable or offensive to transgender students or staff. You know, like when Morgan Hill banned American flags from school property on the grounds that it might offend the large percentage of students whose loyalty is to Mexico, not the United States.

But wait a minute. If anyone expresses discomfort about transgender students they are immediately subject to severe re-education demands if not expulsion, so why is discomfort about heterosexuality on the part of hypothetical transgenders not only presumed but validated and placed as a controlling interest? Again, majority views are not tolerated while minority views are not just tolerated but are imposed on all.

People of Mexican heritage are presumed to be offended by the American flag in the same school where any student to took offense at the Mexican flag would subject to extreme corrective measures by the state. Tolerance for majority views is denied and approval for minority views is required.

Same on race. The vast majority of interracial crime in America is black on white yet the only news stories in which race is raised as an issue are the rare man-bites-dog cases where a white attacks a black. Brutal intolerance by blacks is swept under the rug while tolerant disapproval of the manifest perversities of black American culture are not tolerated.

This monstrous inversion of the necessary priority of tolerance over approval is virtually total within every institution that Democrats control: the news media, entertainment, academia, K-12, the professional societies, most philanthropies, most social media and the Democratic Party. To the extent that this ideology is enforced it is the absolute destruction of liberty to the very last brick, a complete totalitarianism.

The only saving grace is that Democrats only have partial power. They control all of our information industries but they have not achieved a secure majority of political power, so we are not done yet, but we are very close, and the K-12 brainwashing of the next generation will make the identity-group left's destruction of liberty hard to stop.

The NYT's gay "modern man" is a ludicrously bad joke, but it is also a very dangerous joke, like finding a single Lionfish where invasive species had not been previously found. It tells us, oh no, the infection has spread all the way to this far corner of the globe,  which means it is everywhere, and as idiotic as this Lionfish looks it will be hard to push back.

These perverts are raising YOUR kids, six hours a day, plus television time, plus social media time. They are very close to winning/destroying everything.

UPDATE: It is obviously not necessary to the theme of this post that Brian Lombardi, the author of the NYT's "modern man" lunacy, actually be gay instead of just a pajama-boy type anti-man. Either way, the theme of the NYT piece is that to be a "modern man" you have to be at extreme odds with the majority view of manliness. And yes, the NYT piece is written very much in a bossy, "this is how it's done guys," way, ridiculously so, as in Lombardi's "way to be a modern man" #7:
7. The modern man buys only regular colas, like Coke or Dr Pepper. If you walk into his house looking for a Mountain Dew, he’ll show you the door.
That's a caricature of a spoiled eight year old. Did Lombardi come up with his examples of manhood by using George Costanza's "opposite" method? Whatever you think an actual man would do, say the opposite?

Writer In Black offers a full fisking where 25 out of Lombardi's 27 are seen to be pretty much the polar opposite from manliness. Black's non-opposite response to #7:
The modern man drinks whatever he wants. If it's Diet Cherry Mountain Dew, it's Diet Cherry Mountain Dew. The modern man does not apologize for his choice of beverage. 
If a guest asks for something the modern man does not stock the modern man says something like "I'm sorry but I don't have that. Would you perhaps like..." and then offers a selection of what the modern man does have. If a modern man knows in advance that a guest has a particular preference, the modern man will insure that he has a supply of it.  See "courteous" above. 
The modern man's guests never leave hungry or thirsty unless it's by their own choice. 
So Lombardi could be opposite boy, or he could be pajama-boy, but the obvious explanation is that he is a flaming homosexual, deeply girly, with the somewhat common over-the-top streak. This would actually seem to be proven by Lombardi's "way to be a modern man" #1:
1. When the modern man buys shoes for his spouse, he doesn’t have to ask her sister for the size. And he knows which brands run big or small.
It isn't just that no heterosexual man would deprive his wife or girlfriend of her favorite shopping activity by buying shoes for her (unless it be with the express idea that they won't fit, so she can return them and get what she wants). It's that revealing bit about knowing which brands run big or small. To know that a man would have to be trying on his own feet the same styles and brands as he is looking to buy for his spouse, which means the spouse must also be a man.

Then it makes sense. They both have girl brains, they both love shoe shopping and they can think of sharing what they know about how certain brands fit, but that is only even possible for homosexuals.

Yeah yeah, Lombardi says he has a wife named "Linda" and that they have three children, but that is what the gays are doing now, right? They are calling themselves husband and wife and adopting children. I just hope the kids come out okay.
17. Does the modern man have a melon baller? What do you think? How else would the cantaloupe, watermelon and honeydew he serves be so uniformly shaped?
Can you say "that's so gay"? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's gayer than Saint Patrick's Day in San Francisco.

Okay, here's one that isn't gay, unless a person wants to put a nasty negative spin on gayness:
25. The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will.
That is a wussified, pantywaist, icky-ew type flaming, which is really an unfair caricature of homosexuality. Homosexuals are not morons.

But that's the only contra-indication to Mr. Lombardi being gay. His list finishes strong on the female-brained theme:
26. The modern man cries. He cries often.
Like, at that time of the month?
27. People aren’t sure if the modern man is a good dancer or not. That is, until the D.J. plays his jam and he goes out there and puts on a clinic.
Dancing is neither gay nor straight, but if ever there was a sentence that reads with a lisp...

At the very least, Brian Lombardi is a definite putths.

Thursday, September 10, 2015

To end white privilege put all black (and white) criminals in jail

White people have a very clear privilege compared to blacks. Strangers do not expect, upon seeing our race, that there is a very substantial likelihood that we will turn out to be violently and viciously criminal, whereas with blacks this is a likelihood that absolutely cannot be ignored, for anybody who does not want to be violently and viciously violated.

That is a huge racial privilege and society ought to try to reduce it. So who is to blame for it and now do we get rid of it? Black criminals are to blame for it and we get rid of it by putting all criminals, white and black, into prison or into the ground and keeping them there.

Do an effective job getting rid of the criminals and you get rid of the expectation that unknown blacks who are met in free society will turn out to be criminals. That is how society gets rid of "white privilege," by cracking down harder on criminals, not going easier on them, as this BlackLives criminals'-lobby is urging.

If black privilege is desired as a kind of compensation, that can be achieved too. Let the white criminals continue with their marauding and only remove the black criminals from free society. Then it is unknown whites who will be assigned an especially high likelihood of turning out to be criminal, and voila: black privilege, in the exact mirror image of the white privilege that exists today.

To limit crime, people can either defend themselves (the right to keep and bear arms) or they can call for more police

Policing is an inferior solution to crime. That's because society has an unfortunate tendency to criminalize whatever any powerful enough interest group finds momentarily bothersome, and then these laws stay on the books forever, which over time ends up criminalizing a whole lot of things that should not be criminalized, making law enforcement a sometimes serious nuisance, which in turn makes more intense law enforcement a more serious nuisance.

The better solution is the one what the founders of this country wrote into the Constitution. People can defend themselves against crime by keeping and bearing arms. Because serious and violent criminals get stripped of their gun rights the effect of gun rights over time is to systematically shift the balance of power on the streets in favor of the law abiding. Kids coming up see who has the power and they scorn the criminal path.

It is an ideal system. Unfortunately blacks in this country keep depriving themselves of it by voting Democratic, and that is entirely on blacks, who are the author of their own powerlessness in the face of crime. Don't blame the police and don't blame whites. I've been lobbying for black gun rights for 20 years.

Having voted for their own disempowerment, leaving no solution to black crime but a more burdensome police presence, it is no surprise that many blacks are unhappy with the police, but this cannot account for the radical perversity of the OnlyBlackLivesMatter movement.

BlackLivesMatter is a lobby in defense of the worst criminal behavior

Their two leading martyr icons are a pair of blacks who were killed while committing attempted murder (Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown). That's a criminals' lobby, directly on the side of the worst bad guys, so long as they are black.

Other BlackLives icons were not killed intentionally but died of accidents and happenstance that proceeded from their own criminal decisions to fight the police (Oscar Grant and Eric Garner), but BlackLives again inverts blame, as if dying makes the drunk driver who causes an accident a victim instead of a perpetrator.

Some BlackLives icons died while police were enforcing questionable laws (Eric Garner, selling "onsies," and Freddie Gray, not even allowed to carry a folding knife). Who is to blame there? BlackLives, for voting Democrat, when it is Democrats who pass these noisome laws. Don't blame the police for enforcing the laws YOUR votes supported.

Always backwards, always trying to switch blame from the innocent to the guilty, with no compunction and no limit. The peak of their outrage is in response to what any normal moral person regards as a "feel good story of the day": when a criminal attacks an intended victim and it is the criminal who ends up dead. The most immediate goal of the BlackLives group is to protect black criminals from the people who are trying to resist their criminal behavior.

Which side has the cowards who can't handle an honest discussion on race?

BlackLives activists are welcome my interrupt my visit to the restaurant with obnoxious demands for "conversation on race," but don't expect it to be one sided. I will gladly explain where white privilege comes from and how to get rid of it. Permanently remove all of the serious criminals from free society and there will be no white privilege.

Alternatively, treat the police as the enemy, have some demagogic success in making police pay a price for shooting blacks in self defense, and you force them to retreat and become less effective at controlling black crime, which jacks the already disgustingly high rate of violent black criminality up yet another notch, which forces every rational person, white, black or "other," to be that much warier of unknown blacks.

Of course those who declare for the BlackLives criminals'-lobby are no longer unknown. They are known to be allegiant to the criminal side and should not be trusted one inch. Odd that they seem to be hurt by that distrust. Their icons are attempted murderers. They hold stopping the worst crimes to be an injustice. It is a purely racist movement. They will side with the worst criminal over his intended victim purely on the basis of race. To them ONLY race matters. This is a radical evil.

That some not-all-bad people get caught up in it is comprehensible. The policing that black criminality brings down on innocent blacks is a serious burden and people who are in pain often lash out in ways that makes the pain worse. Society just needs to reject the racist dyspepsia of BlackLives, regardless of its threatening magnitude, and actually get rid of white privilege by doing a much more effective job of removing all criminals from society.

The best way is by allowing the law abiding citizenry of all races to end criminal threats with a gun. The other way is by upping police activity, but one way or another the criminals need to be eradicated.

Knowing that unknown blacks pose a high risk of vicious criminality is NOT racism

To have a pejorative meaning the term "racism" cannot refer to rational information processing, and it doesn't, not if we are being logical. The logical meaning of racism is to continue to expect a person to act as other members of their racial group on average tend to act even when the information one has about the person as an individual indicates a different character. If a black individual shows a strongly law abiding character it would be perverse to still treat him as if he is as likely as other blacks to engage in vicious criminality. That would be racism.

Logically, information about a person as an individual trumps information about group behavior. Like all additional information it needs to be accounted, and it is better information. Wherever individual information is available it reveals where group based expectations are off the mark (or on the mark) in the particular case, rendering the group-based information irrelevant henceforth on the revealed point. 

There is an industry of blacks concocting ways to see things that aren't racist as racist because this is seen as a source of power. If you can claim victimization you can demand redress, but of course it tends to backfire. People aren't going to want to have anything to do with you at all if they have to worry that you are going to concoct false charges against them as a way of trying to make off with some ill-gotten gain.

It is a kind of criminality and fits with the other ways that people (white and black) expect unknown blacks to turn out to be criminals, and that is not working out so well for blacks. Think Vester Lee Flanagan II, who murdered his television ex-co-workers for such "racist" comments as telling him that some other reporter was "out in the field." "This guy was a nightmare," said one co-worker, "Management’s worst nightmare."

This near-criminal extortion game raises negative expectations about all blacks, but it blows back most directly on the individuals who engage in it. People recognize what they are, that these are bad people who can't be trusted. Their particular bad nature of course interprets the negative reaction to their demagoguery as racism. So we get these crazy-angry blacks, constantly looking for any way they can find to interpret everything under the sun as racist, and when people quite rationally recoil from the imminent threat they present, they are enraged, in Flanagan's case to the point of murder, but it goes far beyond Flanagan.

The entire BlackLives movement is doing the same thing. Whenever a black is injured in the commission of even the most murderous crimes the movement erupts with insane cries of racism, prompting their shock troops to burn down their own cities and viciously attack any whites or Asians they can get their hands on.

As a result, there has probably been a solid 20% increase in "white privilege" over the last few years. The more monstrously racist blacks on average become, the more strongly people recognize the danger that blacks on average present. Hire a black who you don't know to be immune to demagogic race-mongering and you could end up with one of a million potential Vester Flanagan's on your hands.

There is a whole movement built around Vester's kind of thinking and it seems to be widely embraced on the black left. Since most blacks are on the left, expect more and more employers to be willing to risk equal opportunity lawsuits rather than risk bringing a racist time-bomb into their workplace. BlackLivesMatter is the biggest engine of white privilege and black disadvantage ever.

Now they are waging a graffiti campaign across Texas urging the ambush murder of police officers, as was done to police officer, husband and father Darren Goforth.  When the murder-baiters get caught, plaster their name far and wide so that they will never be hired as long as they live. That is the proper individual punishment for bad individual behavior, but when all that people know is a person's racial group it is rational for them to take into account group behavior. This widespread black descent into the most extreme moral depravity is going to make everyone that much warier of all not-well-known blacks.

It is not racist to expect people let into college under lower standards to be less able than other students

Beyond the epidemic of deliberate attempts to concoct phony claims of racism there is also a real difficulty that a lot of well meaning people have in understanding what is and isn't racism. They think that any expectation about racial groups, no matter how rationally founded, is supposed to pushed out of their mind. That is morally insane. All information has to be rationally processed.

Rational information processing is how we get to the King ideal of judging people by the content of their character instead of by the color of their skins, by learning to give individual information its proper priority over group information, but we can't do that if we at the same time try to block people from rationally processing group information. Everything irrational is nonsense. It is known to be wrong. Not being willing to embrace known error is a quality of mind. Do you care whether you are making sense? The war against rational processing of group information, to the extent that it is successful, destroys the quality of mind that is needed if people are to give individual information, when available, its proper priority over group information. 

Want to get rid of the presumption that black college students are less well qualified than their peers? Stop admitting them under lower standards. All that affirmative action in college admissions has achieved is to shift the entire population of black students out of their element, from where they would be on a par with the other students to where they are less qualified, and the same happens with jobs.

Promoted ahead of ability on the basis of race, co-workers all rationally expect blacks to be less able. Knowledge of them as individuals may come to confirm that expectation or to reject it but the "white privilege" remains: that whites don't have to endure the rational group-based expectation that they don't merit their position.

To get rid of white privilege we have to get rid of the affirmative action policies that create it. We could go further, if we want to create a black privilege, by raising the bar for blacks to be hired. Co-workers would rationally expect blacks hired under such policies to be extra-qualified. But we shouldn't allow any racial group to have these "privileges." The cost is high (suffering bias in hiring, or high rates of criminal victimization), and the resulting privilege is unfair.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Media still claiming that Trayvon Martin was shot while walking home from 7-Eleven but key revelation from trial was that Martin ran home first, then went back out, angry at "creepy ass cracka"

Two years after George Zimmerman’s acquittal widespread pre-trial misinformation about Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin remains set in media stone. It’s as if the trial never happened. After the last spate of coverage for Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin I started rounding up a survey of the coverage. That was back in February when the DOJ announced it would not file civil rights charges against Zimmerman.

As documented below, almost every news report summarized Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin as occurring while Martin was on the way back to his father’s house from a nearby 7-Eleven. That is a direct contradiction of the testimony from Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel who had been on the phone with Martin when Martin and Zimmerman first saw each other. Martin initially started to approach Zimmerman, then decided to run away, at which point his phone call with Jeantel disconnected. She said in court that when they reconnected a short time later Martin sounded tired and told her that he was back by his father’s house (first reported by Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection).

The fatal confrontation occurred a couple of minutes later about a hundred yards back in the direction where Martin and Zimmerman had first seen each other. Thus the best and only evidence we have says that the beating of Zimmerman by Martin and the shooting of Martin by Zimmerman occurred, not when Martin was on his way home, but shortly after he left home, apparently in search of Zimmerman, who he called a “creepy ass cracker” according to Jeantel.

Of course that changes everything. It strongly suggests that Martin went back out to find Zimmerman, which strongly supports Zimmerman’s claim that it was Martin who initiated the confrontation and Martin who attacked him.

This best and only evidence about the actual sequence of events doesn't tell the story that our Democrat-dominated media wants to tell. They believe that stories of black victimization are advantageous for their political side so that is what they publish, the facts be damned.

When civil rights charges were not filed against Zimmerman most news reports explained this result by emphasizing the difficulty of proving that the reason Zimmerman shot Martin is because Martin was black, and their counter-to-evidence statement of the facts allowed them to create the impression that it was likely that the shooting of Travyon Martin was a race-motivated execution. Thus was the utter lack of any case against Zimmerman presented as yet another re-victimization of the black community.

Several major news reports went so far as to assert another strongly counter-to-evidence claim: that it was Zimmerman who initiated the fatal confrontation, and The New York Times fixed blame further by reporting that Zimmerman “got out of his car — ignoring the advice of a police dispatcher.” Anyone who is willing to listen to the recording of the call can verify for themselves that it was only after Zimmerman was already out of his car and could be heard getting winded that the police dispatcher advised him not to follow, at which point Zimmerman immediately replied “okay.”

The claim that Zimmerman declined to follow police advice is just a flat lie, which is no surprise. The Grey Lady is always the worst violator of journalistic ethics. Every lie that fits in print, if it serves the Democratic party’s perverse conception of its own interests.

This is obviously never going to stop so the second anniversary of Zimmerman’s acquittal seems a good time to lay out the actual evidence from the trial as it contradicts the media’s ongoing narrative. To keep this post manageable I am putting a lot of documentation (full survey results, etcetera) in a set of five addenda.  The body of the post focuses on the evidence that Martin made it home before the fatal confrontation, and the front page coverage that this revelation received during the trial.

All the reporters know about it! Which makes their counter-to-evidence statements of fact all the more damning. Here are the first three summaries of the shooting incident that I came across when the DOJ announced there would be no civil rights charges against Zimmerman.

Mis-statements of fact, set in media stone

From USA Today
Zimmerman shot Trayvon, 17, on Feb. 26, 2012, as the teen walked back to a relative's home after purchasing snacks at a convenience store in Sanford, Fla.
From ABC:  
The case sparked intense discussions over race in America because Martin was walking to his home with only Skittles and an iced tea in his hands.
And from US News
Zimmerman shot Martin in a Sanford, Florida, gated community after what Zimmerman described was a violent tussle with the 17-year-old. Martin was unarmed and walking back to the house where he was visiting father after a trip to a local convenience store.
Contrast these media summaries with the key revelation from the trial, where Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel testified about her second phone call with Martin, after he had run away from Zimmerman’s initial surveillance. The first call disconnected when Martin started running. When Martin and Jeantel reconnected 18 seconds later (see the phone-call timeline in Addendum 1) she testified that he sounded tired and (at some point in the conversation) that he said was back by his father’s house (about a hundred yards beyond where the fatal confrontation occurred):
JEANTEL: He sounded tired, sir. 
WEST: And you don't know how far he may have run. 
JEANTEL: No, sir.   … 
WEST: And you have this conversation with him for a couple of minutes, and then he says he sees the man again? 
JEANTEL: Yes, sir.  … He told me that he was close to him. 
WEST: Right. At that point he [Trayvon] decided to approach this man and say, why are you following me? 
JEANTEL: Yes, sir. 
WEST: And he could have just run home if he wasn't there. 
JEANTEL: He was already by his house. He told me.
There is no other evidence about where Martin was during the three and a half minutes between his running away from Zimmerman and his fatal encounter with Zimmerman a hundred yards from his father’s house. The best and only evidence is Jeantel’s claim that Martin told her at some point during this second phone call that he was back by his father’s house. That evidence says he was not heading home when the confrontation occurred, but has just left his home, very likely with the intent of confronting Zimmerman.

Is it too much to ask that the media’s one and two line summaries of the case not directly contradict key evidence from the trial? We don’t have a real press anymore. We have Democratic operatives with bylines.

“That’s real retarded sir”: Jeantel’s testimony about Martin getting back to his house was the most highlighted moment of the entire trial thanks to defense attorney West's confused attempt to refute it

When Jeantel revealed that during the second phone call Martin had said he was by his house, Zimmerman’s attorney Don West, not realizing that Jeantel had just made his case for him, started suggesting that maybe Martin had been lying about having reached his father’s house. When West persisted in this counter-to-interest line Jeantel astutely observe that West was being “real retarded,” landing the exchange on the front page of most major newspapers.

Any reporter who is the least bit familiar with the case would have to know about it. Even left-wing outfits like Huffpo/AP reported it (6/27/13):
At one point, West suggested that though Martin told her he was by his father's fiancee's house while Zimmerman was following him, that she doesn't know that for sure. 
"Why he need to lie about that, sir?" Jeantel asked West. 
"Maybe if he decided to assault George Zimmerman, he didn't want you to know about it," West replied. 
"That's real retarded, sir," she said.
Together with the eyewitness testimony of John Good that it was Martin who was on top raining down punches “MMA style,” and the physical evidence that Martin had been bashing Zimmerman’s head into the concrete, Jeantel’s testimony that Martin said he was home, and by implication must have gone back out in search of Zimmerman, makes self-defense a near certainty.

The burden of proof goes the other way. It is the prosecution that has to show beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not defending himself, thus the only miscarriage of justice was that Zimmerman was ever charged at all, but that truth does not serve the media’s interests, and to evade it they are willing to mis-report even the most high profile facts.

In my semi-complete survey (Addendum 3) only Fox and NBC managed not to actually contradict key evidence but no press organization described how the evidence supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. Presented with an opportunity to shed light on why civil rights charges were not viable our press corps chose instead to either take a pass or to actively un-explain the decision, making it seem as if a guilty man was going free (again), in most cases by directly contradicting the facts that came out in the trial.

They all know that the trial’s big “that’s real retarded sir” moment was about Jeantel’s revelation that Martin said he was back at his house minutes before the fatal confrontation. They just don’t want you to know what they know.

Alternate juror explains the import of Trayvon having reached his house before the confrontation

If reporters cannot figure it out for themselves, an alternate juror came out after the trial and explained it to everyone. In his account the keys to the verdict were the injuries to Zimmerman and Jeantel’s admission that Martin had reached his father’s house, then somehow ended up pummeling Zimmerman a hundred yards away.  If the best evidence they had was that Martin had gone back out looking for Zimmerman, that strongly supported Zimmerman’s  claim that it was Trayvon who attacked him:
And then she [Rachel Jeantel] called back and she called to talk to him again. 
At that point, Trayvon said he had lost the man and he was at this -- this -- where his father was staying. He was at that place. At the same time of that -- that happening, George Zimmerman had only just gotten out of his car about 25, 30 seconds. So he was still up at the T. 
And Trayvon, according to Jeantel's -- or Rachel's testimony, would have been down the other end of the buildings at that point. So somehow, those two got back together up at the top of the T. 
And you know, we don't know how that happened but -- and in all likelihood, in my mind, you know, even if George Zimmerman had walked down to where Trayvon was, they both walked back up to the T. So that would have implied that Trayvon had followed George Zimmerman back up. 
If George Zimmerman didn't walk down there, then Trayvon walked up, back up to the T somehow because then the earwitnesses heard the noises up there, most of the earwitnesses, I believe. One of them said the noises went the other direction. But the majority of them had the noises coming from the top of the T down to the truck where -- where John Good saw him laying on the ground, or Trayvon on top of George Zimmerman. 
And I believe that John Good said that it was -- I believe -- I believed that it was Zimmerman because he had the color of the jacket that he had. 
And so tying all those together and the injuries that George Zimmerman had, that's where I -- that's where I came to my conclusion that it was justifiable.
With the revelation that Trayvon had reached his father’s house the verdict is easy to explain, which is why the press pretends that this information never came out.

If anyone had their civil rights violated it was George Zimmerman, first by Trayvon Martin, then by President Obama

Between Martin and Zimmerman the only one who seems to have been motivated by race (necessary for a civil rights violation) was Trayvon Martin. In contrast to Martin’s racially bigoted “creepy ass cracker” remark, Zimmerman did not mention Martin’s race (“he looks black”) until asked by the 911 dispatcher (regardless of NBC’s doctoring of the 911 tapes to say otherwise).

The 911 tapes also reveal incredible forbearance on Zimmerman’s part. A voice that can only be Zimmerman’s was recorded screaming for help (or “yelping for help” according to the police report) 14 times in 38 seconds, and before that 911 call began the fight had already been going on for 27 seconds (the gap between the end of the second Martin-Jeantel call and the first 911 call), plus whatever part of the fight Jeantel heard before her call disconnected.

Over this span Zimmerman absorbed numerous “MMA style” ground-and-pound punches and had the back of his head smashed into the concrete multiple times before he finally pulled his gun and fired a single shot at his assailant. Wow dude, what took you so long?

The strong evidence that Martin went back out from his house to confront the “creepy ass cracker” who had been keeping an eye on him indicates clearly that Martin’s use of life-threatening force against Zimmerman was not in self-defense and had a clear racist motivation. Martin was violating Zimmerman’s civil rights, while Zimmerman’s extraordinary reluctance to use lethal force belies any claim that he was acting in other than self-defense.

The obvious miscarriage of justice here was the decision to charge Zimmerman at all, never mind under blatantly racist pressure from the President of the United States, who was emoting at the time how: “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”

In 1986 The U.S. Court of Military Appeals opined that “Command influence is the mortal enemy of military justice,” and the same holds true for the civilian courts. Due process must prevail not just in the courts but in the prosecutor’s office and there is no more improper process than to base a prosecutorial decision on racial sympathy for one of the parties, never mind under the influence of high level political pressure, but this is exactly the pressure that “constitutional scholar” Barack Hussein Obama brought to bear.

As Zimmerman himself has protested, that is a real wrong. In contrast, there is nothing wrong at all when a murderous assailant is killed by the defensive actions of his would-be victim. If only it could always turn out that way.

The end

Further documentation and discussion are provided in the following five addenda

Addendum 1:  Map of the scene and phone call timeline

Addendum 2: Other counter-to-evidence media claim  (that Zimmerman initiated the fatal confrontation and that he disregarded police instructions or advice) 

Addendum 3: My semi-complete survey of errant media summaries of the facts

Addendum 4: Rachel Jeantel’s post-trial revelations

Addendum 5: The Media’s refusal to portray Trayvon (“no limits nigga”) Martin as he saw himself

Addendum 1:  Map of the scene and phone call timeline

The 7-eleven that Trayvon Martin was walking back from (1125 Rinehart Rd) was a half mile or so to the east/left down Oregon Avenue at the top of the image above (click for larger). When George Zimmerman first spotted him inside the gated Twin Lakes community Martin and his friend Rachel Jeantel had already been talking on the phone for about fifteen minutes. That could explain why Martin seemed to Zimmerman to be “just walking around” in the rain, “looking about.” Here is the beginning of Zimmerman’s call to the Sanford police department. He gives his location as near the clubhouse, which is near the intersection inside the northern gate: 
Zimmerman: Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there's a real suspicious guy. … This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around looking about.
Martin saw Zimmerman watching him and correctly assessed that Zimmerman was looking at him as a possible criminal. According to Jeantel’s testimony Martin called Zimmerman  a “creepy-ass cracker,” which she would later explain to Piers Morgan meant “a person who act like they are police.”

From Zimmerman’s call, Martin’s first reaction to being watched seems to have been aggressive, before he changed his mind and ran away:
Zimmerman: Something's wrong with him. Yep, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is. 
Dispatcher: Ah, OK, just let me know if he does anything. 
Zimmerman:  Get an officer over here. … 
Zimmerman: s---, he's running. … Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood.
The “other entrance” is at the southeast corner of the neighborhood, next to Martin’s father’s fiancée’s house. 

The second Jeantel-Martin phone call

It was 7:11:41 PM when Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that Martin was running.  Seven seconds later, at 7:11:48, the first Jeantel-Martin phone call disconnected (see the 13:35 mark of this video testimony from T-Mobile representative Raymond MacDonald) and the evidence suggests that he ran all or most of the way back to his father’s fiancee’s house.

It was only 18 seconds later, at 7:12:06 PM, when Jeantel got Martin back on the phone for a final three minutes and 38 seconds (see the 13 minute mark of the T-Mobile testimony). When they reconnected Jeantel testified that Trayvon sounded tired, and at some point in the call he said he was back at his house. As quoted earlier:
JEANTEL: He sounded tired, sir. 
WEST: And you don't know how far he may have run. 
JEANTEL: No, sir.   … 
WEST: And you have this conversation with him for a couple of minutes, and then he says he sees the man again? 
JEANTEL: Yes, sir.  … He told me that he was close to him. 
WEST: Right. At that point he [Trayvon] decided to approach this man and say, why are you following me? 
JEANTEL: Yes, sir. 
WEST: And he could have just run home if he wasn't there. 
JEANTEL: He was already by his house. He told me.
WAPO phone-call timeline, with the two Martin-Jeantel phone calls added

The Washington Post created a graphic time-line of Zimmerman’s call to the police, and the subsequent 911 calls. I added timing marks and annotations for the Martin-Jeantel phone calls as well (click for larger image):

It is not clear how much of the struggle Jeantel heard before her phone disconnected, but it seems that the fight went on for at least about 80 seconds.

Zimmerman did NOT get out of his car against police advice

Note also that when the police dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following the suspect, Zimmerman was already out of his car. He did not get out of his car against police advice, which is another piece of disinformation that some leading press outlets are pushing (see NYT in addendum 2 below.

At the 2 minute mark in WAPO’s recording of Zimmerman’s call he says that the suspect is running. A few seconds later, at the 1:52 mark, Zimmerman can be heard getting out of his car and shutting the door (WAPO’s time stamps count down instead of up). Zimmerman’s breathing quickly starts to get heavy and there is wind noise and only then does the dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is following Martin.

The dispatcher is clearly responding to audio evidence that Zimmerman is already out of his car and is pursuing on foot. Zimmerman says “yeap” and at 1:40 the dispatcher say “okay, we don’t need you to do that,” and Zimmerman says “okay.” 

WAPO’s summary of the audio gets this sequence right: 
Zimmerman got out of his truck to follow him. The dispatcher told him to stop, and at 7:13:38 p.m, the call ended.

Addendum 2: Other counter-to-evidence media claims 

The LA Times repeats the counter-to-evidence claim that Martin was walking home when the confrontation occurred, and adds the unsupported assertion that it was Zimmerman who confronted Martin:
Martin was visiting his father and his father’s girlfriend at a gated community in Sanford, Fla., when he went to a convenience store in the rain. Wearing a hoodie, he was on his way home when Zimmerman confronted him.
No, Martin was not on his way home, and even Trayvon’s friend Rachel acknowledges that the first words between them were Trayvon challenging Zimmerman: “Why are you following me for?”

The question by itself sounds like it could be Martin challenging Zimmerman for coming up behind him, but once you know that Martin has already been home the interpretation changes completely, suggesting that Martin, who had from the beginning been complaining about out Zimmerman watching him, had gone back out to challenge Zimmerman over it, just as he started to do when he first saw Zimmerman.

The question of who initiated the fatal confrontation is critical. If it was Zimmerman that tends to vitiate his claim of self-defense. Of course it would be legal for him to approach and question Martin, but even such fully legal behavior could raise the question of whether Martin felt legitimately threatened, possibly leaving Zimmerman with some responsibility for the turn to violence, which could tend to support a manslaughter conviction, making the LA Times summary of the case very harmful to Zimmerman, but it is also completely without support.

The New York Times backs up the claim that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by adding the counter-to-evidence assertion that Zimmerman ignored police advice not to follow the suspect:
[Zimmerman] got out of his car — ignoring the advice of a police dispatcher — and followed Mr. Martin, setting off a confrontation that led to Mr. Martin’s death, prosecutors said. 
Angry at Mr. Zimmerman and feeling threatened, Mr. Martin pushed him to the ground, punched him and slammed his head into the pavement, leaving visible wounds, defense lawyers said. Mr. Zimmerman, flat on his back, took out a gun and killed Mr. Martin. He told the police it was self-defense.
The police dispatcher did not advise Zimmerman not to get out of his car. Zimmerman was already out of his car when the dispatcher advised Zimmerman not to follow Martin, to which Zimmerman answered: “okay.” The Times is just lying here. See the timeline discussion in Addendum 2 above. 

The Times tries to get away with their false depiction by putting it in the mouth of the prosecutor but the prosecution is not a neutral party. They are one side, in this case the losing side, of an adversarial contest. It is obviously inappropriate to base a one-line summary of the incident on just the prosecutor’s assertions. Zimmerman denies that he continued to follow Martin and all the evidence is on his side.

Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that his truck is parked by a “cut through,” which turns out to be the bend in Twin Trees Lane where a walkway cuts over to the eastern side of Retreat View Circle. He has been out of his car for 15 seconds when the dispatcher suggests he stop following Martin and Zimmerman says “okay,” but the wind noise continues for several more seconds. It isn't until 30 seconds after Zimmerman shut his car door the wind noise ends completely.

Thirty seconds of brisk walking from his truck would cover about 200 feet which would put Zimmerman somewhere near the top of the “T” where another walkway proceeds south from the cut-through, down through several back yards including, about 150 yards down, the back yard of the house where Martin was staying.

Zimmerman says he next walked all the way across the cut-through to try to find a street sign so he could tell the police where he was, then came back to the area of the T, and that is where he says Martin jumped out and attacked him.

It is possible that Zimmerman is lying and that he actually did walk down behind Martin’s house (though there is no evidence that he lied about anything), but as the alternate juror noted, that would still mean that Martin followed him back up to the T, still indicating that it was Martin who at the end closed the distance and initiated the confrontation. 

Addendum 3: My semi-complete survey of errant media summaries of the facts

AP wrongly claims that Martin was headed home from the store when the fatal confrontation occurred, and claims with no evidence that it was Zimmerman who approached Martin:
The February 2012 confrontation began after Zimmerman observed Martin while driving in his neighborhood. Zimmerman called police and got out of his car and approached Martin, who was returning from a store while visiting his father and his father's fiancee at the same townhome complex where Zimmerman lived. Zimmerman did not testify at his trial, but he told investigators that he feared for his life as Martin straddled him and punched him during the fight.

WAPO doesn’t say that Martin was on his way home, but their one line summary of the incident at the beginning of their 21 paragraph story does show a glaring omission:
 Zimmerman fatally shot Martin while the unarmed African American 17-year-old was walking in Sanford, Fla.
Martin was not “walking” when he was shot, he was sitting on top of Zimmerman smashing his head into the concrete. Only “below the fold,” more than halfway through the article, does the Post get around to mentioning that:
Zimmerman, a former volunteer neighborhood watchman who identifies as Hispanic, told police he was fighting for his life and fired at Martin in self-defense.

Civil rights leaders, as well as Martin’s relatives, took to the streets contending that the teen — who’d gone out to get a drink and Skittles from a Sanford, Florida, convenience store only to run into Zimmerman on his way back — might still be alive today if not for the color of his skin.
Martin and Zimmerman saw each other when Martin was on his way back home, but the evidence says they did not “run into each other” (have a physical confrontation) until Martin, after reaching home, went back out in search of Zimmerman. 

This was the most decisive piece of evidence to come out of the trial and the one or two line summaries from the great majority of news outlets manage to directly contradict it.

Al Jazeera 
The Islamofascists take the NYT line, using the false claim that Zimmerman went against the advice of the 911 dispatcher to claim that he initiated the confrontation:
The fateful night began when Zimmerman called the police after he claimed Martin was acting suspiciously by walking in a neighborhood where he was not recognized. Against the wishes of the police dispatcher, Zimmerman approached Martin, who was in town visiting his father’s fiancee in the gated community Zimmerman was patrolling. In the ensuing confrontation, Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, claiming self-defense after the teenager allegedly punched him. 
Washington Examiner

Even the Washington Examiner’s conservative-leaning reporter Becket Adams got in on the disinformation, implying but not quite directly asserting the NYT line that Zimmerman ignored police advice to stop following Martin and barged ahead to initiate the fatal confrontation:
During a 911 call, Zimmerman described his suspicions of Martin, but a dispatcher suggested he not follow the teenager. Moments later the two came to blows. Physical evidence and the defendant's testimony indicate Martin was winning the fight when Zimmerman shot and killed him.
By saying that the struggle came “moments” after the dispatcher suggested that Zimmerman not follow Martin, Adams creates the imputation that Zimmerman did not heed the dispatcher’s advice, that he did continue after Martin and likely was the one who initiated the confrontation. 
But the confrontation was not “moments” later, it was minutes later, during which interval the only available evidence says that Martin reached his house and then went back out to confront Zimmerman.

That Adams seems not to know this shows just how pervasive the media disinformation is. Reporters get as much disinformation from their colleagues as the rest of us do, making it difficult not to get swept along with the tide. Becket trusted other news outlets to tell him the truth, but as the majority of Americans already know, you can’t do that!

Honor roll

No press outlet mentioned the testimony that Martin had already been home before the fatal confrontation occurred but credit is due to Fox and NBC (!) for not positively contradicting this and other evidence. 

Zimmerman has said he acted in self-defense when he shot the 17-year-old Martin during a confrontation inside a gated community in Sanford, Florida, just outside Orlando. Martin, who was black, was unarmed when he was killed.

Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges. He was charged with second-degree murder, and jurors also had the option of convicting him of the lesser charge of manslaughter. He said that he was acting in self-defense when he killed Martin, 17, during an altercation in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, on Feb. 26, 2012.
These are the only two examples I was able to find of summary statements that do not make crucial assertions that directly contradict key evidence.

Addendum 4: post-trial revelations from Rachel Jeanteal

In post-trial interviews Rachel Jeantel opined that Martin threw the first punch but said Zimmerman didn’t need to shoot him because Martin was only giving him a “whoop ass,” not trying to kill him. Why did Martin want to "whoop ass" Zimmerman, if not kill him? The likely motive can be seen in Martin calling Zimmerman a “cracka”: 
RACHEL JEANTEL: Yes, and that's a person who act like they are police.
It seems that Martin did not like to have someone monitoring his activity for possible criminal intent, which is not surprising for someone who’s Twitter handle was “no-limits-nigga.” Zimmerman was trying to put limits on him, trying to make sure he couldn’t get away with any crimes. That's not going to work for someone whose texts with friends indicate that drug use, fighting and stealing were all on his “no limits” agenda. 

In the months before his death Trayvon had been suspended from school three times for drug use, graffiti, and burglary. There is also video of him orchestrating an arranged MMA-type fight, so what else was he going to do when a some “creepy ass cracker” tried to put limits on him? Jeantel tried to put it in street terms for Morgan.

She didn’t think the jury was racist, she just thought the problem with having so many whites on the jury was that they didn’t understand, as a black person would that, that Martin was not actually gong to kill Zimmerman, but just “whoop ass” beating, not even as bad as a more serious “bashing”: 
MORGAN: Because of the make-up of the jury? Do you think it was just wrong that you had no black people on the jury at all? 
JEANTEL: No, not that. They don't understand, they understand -- he was just bashed or he was killed. When somebody bashes like blood people, trust me, the area I live, that's not bashing. That's just called whoop ass.
In another interview with Marc Lamont Hill Jeantel said she thinks it was Martin who threw the first punch:
At some point a fight breaks out, who swings–who hits who first in your mind?” Jeantel replies “In my mind, I believe Trayvon. It was Trayvon…
She also repeated her view that Zimmerman didn’t have to shoot Martin because Martin wasn’t actually going to kill him: 
Hill pointed out “George Zimmerman’s defenders would say well, if he didn’t pull out a gun, if Trayvon was whoopin’ his ass he could have killed George Zimmerman.” Jeantel replies “No. Trust me. That’s not killing. You have a big bruise, you don’t see inside your skin. You might have a little stitches.” Jeantel adds “He [Trayvon] would have fight him and run.”
Jeantel’s sense of Martin’s actions dovetails closely with what Zimmerman says happened, with the exception that Zimmerman says Martin told him that he was going to kill him.

The interview part of Jeantel’s story did not come out in the trial but it was all widely reported and it is all pointed to by what did come out in the trial: that Martin had been back by his father’s fiancée’s house before the fatal confrontation.

If he went back out in search of Zimmerman, Jeantel is telling us that the reason was to give Zimmerman at least a “whoop ass.” None of which keeps our agenda-driven media from writing as if no evidence ever came out and the verdict is a mystery. They are even still using the original misleading pictures of Trayvon Martin looking like an innocent child.

Addendum 5: the media still refuses to show Martin as he saw himself

Seventeen year old Trayvon Martin’s own chosen public image was aggressively thuggish. Here is his “no-limits-nigga” Twitter avatar, trying to look like a rap-gangster, showing off his removable gold-colored “grill”:

Here is Martin’s  “T33ZY TAUGHT M3” Twitter avatar, where he tweeted, “Plzz shoot da #mf dat lied 2 u!”:

But the press still refuses to show Martin as he saw himself, instead using the same wholesome looking picture they used from the beginning to depict Trayvon as an innocent child murdered by a racist “white Hispanic.” Here is the still video frame that ABC selected to head their coverage of the DOJ announcement:

Here is how the 17 year old five-eleven, 158 pound Martin actually looked on the night of his death, approaching the counter at the 7-11 a half mile from the gated community where he was staying. This is no little boy:

Showing Martin’s imposing figure and his ugly self-image would help to de-mystify the jury verdict that upheld Zimmerman’s self-defense claim but our Democrat-dominated press obviously does not want this verdict de-mystified. Instead of explaining it they would rather un-explain it, creating a false narrative of black racial victimization that they believe works in their political favor.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

The Supreme Court's gay marriage decision destroys the concept of tolerance, conflating it with approval, which is a near opposite

It's a huge error, and one that just lost us the battle for Islamic hearts and minds. The appeal for tolerance is moral and right. A demand that society approve of homosexual relationships is morally insane, and will destroy whatever moral standing we had to appeal on the world stage for tolerance of homosexuality.

Homosexuals have a right to be tolerated but no one has a right to approval and marriage is society's stamp of approval, thus the only legitimate path to gay marriage is through majority support, a path that SCOTUS has now cut off with their Obergefell v. Hodges decision. To do it they annihilated the distinction between tolerance and approval, which is the foundation of all of our liberty. Five half-educated lawyers who don't even grasp the distinction between tolerance and approval are completely oblivious to the magnitude of the pillar that they just removed from our system of liberty.

It's like knocking out a bottom corner of the Empire State building to make room for some extra parking. They have absolutely no idea what they have done, and homosexuals, who will always be a very small minority, utterly dependent on the tolerance of society, will suffer as much as anyone by the Court's destruction of the principle of tolerance. Do homosexuals think that their need for tolerance is past? Have they looked at the world recently?

Tolerance is in for the fight of its life and yet our system of law, at the very highest level, has suddenly wadded it together with approval, which is a near opposite. It is not tolerance to abide what you approve. Tolerance is abiding what you don't approve, and that is the one thing necessary for pluralism to exist. So we have this stab at the heart of pluralism, just as the totalitarian communists, feminists, and other groupists in the U.S., and the totalitarian Islamofascists everywhere, are ascendant in their power.

Tolerance has taken a huge hit, with implications far beyond this one issue. We now no longer have a coherent legal concept of tolerance to defend. How are we going to sell tolerance to the Islamic world when we have just declared that it means approval, that to be civilized according to our understanding of natural right Muslims don’t just have to stop throwing homosexuals off of rooftops but that they have to give their blessing to homosexuality and consecrate homosexual relations with their rites of social and religious commitment?

Sorry, but that declaration is wrong, and the Court’s assertion that it is right just lost us the battle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. If the Court was right then losing Muslims would be okay. If we have to have WWIII with these people then we have to have WWIII. Follow right and let the chips fall where they may, but we followed wrong. Natural right demands tolerance, not approval, and nothing could be more basic. The violation of our own fundamental principles here is immense and will be debilitating.

Scott Walker's facebook post on the Supreme Court's sudden invention of a right to gay marriage

My remarks above were composed as a comment on Walker's post, which I think is very good. Here is Governor Walker's opening paragraph:
I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake. Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges ‘has been with us for millennia.’ In 2006 I, like millions of Americans, voted to amend our state constitution to protect the institution of marriage from exactly this type of judicial activism. The states are the proper place for these decisions to be made, and as we have seen repeatedly over the last few days, we will need a conservative president who will appoint men and women to the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our land without injecting their own political agendas. As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage.
Yes, the issue must be left to majority rule. As Governor of Wisconsin it is fully appropriate for Walker to assert the primacy of state majorities. National majority-rule could also be legitimate, and given our Constitutions's "full faith and credit" clause (that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state), a national majority decision may be required, but when decisions can be lived with locally then the more local majority rule affords more liberty and is preferable on that basis.

Walker also correctly identifies one of the key legal points: that what the Supreme Court has done is change the definition of marriage. This fact vitiates the Court's equal protection argument. Homosexuals have always had an equal legal opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex (the millennia-old definition of marriage), but what they wanted was something else entirely new, something that no one else had ever had before: legal sanction for marrying someone of the same sex (a new definition of marriage). But the equal protection clause cannot redefine marriage. It can only require equal treatment for the same activity engaged by different persons, not between different activities engaged by different persons.

I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with Huckabee about anything, but he also nails this one:
This ruling is not about marriage equality, it’s about marriage redefinition.
This is the difference between gay marriage and the old laws against interracial marriage, which the Court rightly struck down in Loving v. Virginia. In Loving interracial couples were being denied the ability to marry a chosen mate of the opposite sex. They were not seeking to redefine marriage, only seeking equal access to marriage as it had always been defined. Redefining marriage is something altogether different which goes beyond the scope of the simple concept of equal protection.

Loving does deserve some of the blame for the current debacle, but only because the Supremes were not prescient in that case about how liberty rights to engage in intimate relationships were about to become dis-entangled from the institution of marriage.  I come back to this history in the last section of this post.

The distinction between tolerance and approval derives from John Stuart Mill's distinction between "direct" and "indirect" interests

My 2009 essay, "Gay marriage is not a right," explains how the principle of maximum equal liberty (arguably implied by the "inalienable rights" of the Declaration of Independence) give rise to John Stuart Mill's famous principle of liberty, where "direct interests" (interests that impinge physically on a person's liberty or security) must take complete priority (what modern moral philosophers might call "lexical priority") over indirect interests (vicarious interests in what other people are doing or in what others think about what you are doing).

This distinction between direct and indirect interests gives rise in turn to the distinction between tolerance and approval, so the lexical priority of direct over indirect interests (necessary for the securing of maximum equal liberty) becomes in turn a lexical priority for tolerance over approval.

Approval interests (such as the homosexual interest in gay marriage) are to be given zero weight against the need for tolerance (or direct liberty interests). Thus for instance, even if homosexual marriage were to be granted social approval via legitimate means (by majority decision), it still could never justify punishment for those who refuse to participate (by baking cakes, conducting ceremonies, etcetera). Toleration of that personal preference must take absolute precedence over anyone demands for approval.

The connection to Mill's distinction between direct and indirect interests is well worth going into (the link above) if you are interested. Legal analysis does not get to these moral-philosophical fundamentals, thus is no surprise that five Supreme Court justices, who know nothing but legal analysis, and clearly do not care very much about even its principles and warnings, would turn out to be so incompetent when they start trying to identify unenumerated rights. They need to know a lot more than they do and have a lot more circumspection, but the relevant moral philosophy is clear, and shows the right answer, if we follow it.

Ideally we should seek to articulate the maximum equal liberty implied by the inalienable rights of the Declaration, but if it is adopted as a legal protection it should be adopted by amendment.  In very limited fashion and only when necessary it might be legitimate to use the inalienable rights of the declaration to help discern the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment. What the courts should obviously never do is proclaim unenumerated rights that go directly against the maximum equal liberty implied by the Declaration, as the Supreme Court has done by conflating tolerance and approval (direct and indirect interests) in its Obergefell decision.

Indications are that the Court, after wadding tolerance and approval together, will next get the priority between tolerance and approval backwards

It isn't just that gay marriage, not even considered legitimate by any but a tiny fraction of politicians just five years ago, is now asserted to be required, it is that everyone whose religious beliefs bar them from participating in such marriages are now under threat of compulsory participation.

This is the subject of the Walker's last facebook paragraph, and the powerful statement from Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Both promise to vigorously enforce all existing state legal protections for religious freedom so that constituents will not face legal liability for refusing to be personally involved with gay marriage, a concern that has been raised by a wave of suits under state-level pro-gay-marriage laws, and a concern which SCOTUS pointedly failed to allay. As noted by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
Kennedy, who brought up the topic, could have written explicitly that houses of worship and individuals have a First Amendment right not to participate in these ceremonies. That issue has been raised on a number of occasions in the courts. The absence of any such language sends a very disturbing message on religious freedom, in this and many other contexts.
Without understanding the lexical priority of direct over indirect interests, and the lexical priority of tolerance over approval that derives from it, the Court going forward will have no basis for getting this priority right, or even recognizing that a distinction between tolerance and approval needs to be made. Indeed, given all they have gotten wrong, we can be pretty sure that the follow-on questions are going to be decided just as egregiously.

And so here we are, where support for the tiny minority of homosexuals, who are utterly dependent on the tolerance of society, has been transformed into a political-legal war of extreme intolerance for those who do not approve of their relationships. It is a complete inversion of the necessary priority of tolerance over approval, led now by the Supreme Court of the United States, and if it is not reversed it is going to destroy this country, which had until now been the leading light of liberty in the world. Suddenly we are looking more and more like just another fount of unprincipled illiberalism.

As so often happens, Justice Thomas is the only one who gets the basic issue right

Thomas's Obergefell dissent does not make the distinction between tolerance and approval but he does makes a closely related distinction, noting that protected liberties have never been taken to include rights to government provided entitlements, as the particular emoluments of legal marriage status (and the government provided stamp-of-approval), can properly be classed.

Tolerance (liberty) takes absolute priority over all other concerns, be they claims of entitlement or demands for approval.

Statement by Grant Starrett on the Obergefell v. Hodges decision

Grant Starrett, now running for Congress in Tennessee, also has a nice statement on the Supreme Court's terrible decision:
If we desire to live in a constitutional republic, we ought to start recognizing its boundaries. The Constitution has power because the sovereign American people affirmed a particular interpretation at the time that its language was passed. I challenge the notion that any drafter of the 14th Amendment, much less the Framers of the Constitution, possibly imagined, in their wildest dreams, that what they were writing would require that every state give marriage licenses to same sex couples. Unfortunately, five unelected lawyers have overridden the will of the 80% of Tennessee voters who approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing traditional marriage. I fear the vast implications of activist judges, unmoored from the original meaning of our Constitution, imposing their agenda through reinterpretations of our founding documents.
Exactly right, and together with the Obamacare decision (Burwell v. King) where the Court now asserts the power to rewrite any law so as to better suit the law's stated objectives (the very core of legislative activity), the Court has deligitimized itself in a way we have never seen before.

Justice Scalia says of the Obamacare decision (which interpreted-away the fully intentional limitation of subsidies to state's that created their own Obamacare exchanges):
This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.

Loving v. Virginia and the untangling of liberty rights from marriage over the last 50+ years

If there is no right to approval, or to receive society’s stamp of approval via state sanctioned marriage, why did the Court in Loving declare that:
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. 
The California Supremes made a similar declaration in 1949, eighteen years before Loving, when they struck down California's ban on interracial marriage:
Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.
These declarations were not unreasonable in their time. In 1949 access to the institution of marriage was very much a liberty interest of couples because sex outside of marriage was illegal in pretty much every state of the union. That is, the law did not tolerate those sexual relationships that the state did not approve via the institution of state sanctioned marriage, and things were not much different legally in 1967.

Those were the bad old days, before the nation made so much progress in enforcing toleration for non-approved relationships, but with the Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down the criminalization of homosexual sex by the State of Texas, there has no longer been any criminalization of adult sexual relations outside of marriage anywhere in the United States. That removes most of the individual liberty-rights aspect from marriage, leaving mostly the approval aspect.

Established liberty of contract eliminates most of the other liberty issues surrounding marriage. Unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples (or groups) can agree by contract to pretty much any sharing of income and property that they want, including terms for dissolution. Such contracts may have been off the table when the relationships themselves were illegal, but now that they are legal, these contracts can be entered.

There are some weighty other complements to marriage, like the ability to adopt, but there are good reasons why society might not want to allow homosexual couples to adopt. Adoption is certainly a strong interest, but it involves third parties that keep the issue from being a matter of right for couples who may want to adopt. Thus relational liberty rights are pretty much all protected outside of marriage now, leaving not much exclusively to marriage except for society’s stamp of approval.

It was never technically correct for the courts to say that there was a right to marriage. There was a right to the liberty interests that were once bound up with the institution of marriage, liberty interests that have since been separated from the institution and protected independently of marriage. One can understand the earlier courts' conflation of marriage with liberty rights, given that marriage and liberty rights were in fact tied together within the marriage laws and within the whole society's understanding of marriage at that time, but that conflation belongs to the past. The liberty-rights aspect of marriage—the ability to live together and be intimate and make a life together—has already been secured without couples having to be married, leaving mainly the social approval aspect of marriage as the exclusive domain of the married.

This situation is recognized in Justice Scalia's argument that marriage is not a freedom at all but a restraint on freedom (his argument #7 here). This is in fact the situation today. There was a time when the liberty to have sexual relations and to live together as a couple was tied to marriage, but now marriage confers no liberties that are not available to the unmarried, only obligations and restrictions.

History thus proves that marriage and liberty rights are not necessarily tied together, and that to be accurate they should have been separated by the Loving and California courts. Marriage itself was never a right. The only rights at stake in these cases were the liberty rights that were at that time bound up with marriage, but have since been separated from marriage.

The second problem with the earlier cases, especially Loving, is that their invocations of marriage as a “basic” and “fundamental” right do not actually do any work. Loving was fully decided by the simple principle of equal protection, which applies the same whether the law in question restricts a right or grants a privilege. It didn’t actually matter in Loving whether anyone has a right to marry. Once the state allows some male-female couples to marry it must allow any adult male-female couple to marry, absent some compelling state interest, such as the avoidance of genetically transmitted disease. The invocations of a right to marriage were completely unnecessary in these cases and hence moot. They are dicta masquerading as acta.

Thirdly, marriage was certainly not recognized as a basic individual right until very recently. For most of recorded history, including Western history, an offspring’s freedom to marry was very much subject to parental authority, at least until the offspring had gotten beyond the normal marrying age, and religious authority was also in play. If a given marriage violated church principles then it would not be performed. These may have been matters of private choice, outside of government control, but that does not mean they were matters of individual right.

So Loving and California were not just putting forth flowery dicta masquerading as acta, they were putting out historically inaccurate dicta. The individual liberties that they were proclaiming as historic and fundamental were in actuality liberties that were receiving legal protection for the first time, under the handy excuse of the need to equally protect these supposedly longstanding liberties.

It was a nice trick, and was part of the advance of individual liberty in intimate affairs, which was a wholly legitimate objective, and with the decision in Lawrence v. Texas was fully achieved. But to take the next step, as the Court just did in Obergefell v. Hodges, and demand approval for what is finally being tolerated, is to turn this whole advance of liberty on its head.

We are now back to the bad old says where only what is approved is tolerated, except now approval is not determined by majority rule but by a small minority, the keening demands of 4% of the population, backed by five unaccountable loose-cannon ideologues in robes. 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?