Video: Zimmerman's Bond Hearing; a must-see

This video starts with George Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, grilling the state investigator - Dale Gilbreath - who signed the probable cause affidavit. At several points, Gilbreath - in addition to looking like a bureaucratic lackey - comes across as being a foolish lemming for putting his name to an affidavit that is reminiscent of that of a kindergartner with finger paints.

Welcome to the media circus spawned by Al Sharpton. Gilbreath may end up being more of a casualty than Zimmerman.

Un-be-leeeev-able.

Zimmerman may have upper hand in Court for several reasons

The Al Sharptons of the world may have gotten what he wanted when George Zimmerman was arrested and charged with second degree murder but in addition to there being significant issues with the affidavit, Zimmerman may have more than one chance to prove his innocence. First, if you haven't seen it, the first video below is Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz shredding both the State Attorney Angela Corey, who decided to bypass a grand jury and charge Zimmerman with second degree murder. Here is a copy of the affidavit (via TalkLeft) Dershowitz is referring to.

Via MediaIte:



Notice that Dershowitz says that Corey has a lot to answer for by submitting what he calls an irresponsible affidavit. He seems quite adamant that the judge should throw it out, in part, because any second degree murder charge typically comes with a grand jury concluding that there is no reasonable doubt of the crime taking place. Dershowitz says this affidavit doesn't even meet the threshold of probable cause.

That leads us to the judge assigned to this case. Her name is Jessica Recksiedler and she came forward this week to express concern that she may have a conflict based on the fact that her husband works for an attorney who Zimmerman had reached out to prior to settling on the one representing him now.

Via Breitbart:



Well, hey, that's no conflict at all when compared to Justice Elena Kagan's conflict with Obamacare and she hasn't recused herself, but I digress.

Anyway, it's impossible to know what Recksiedler is thinking about how the case will proceed but according to the Tacoma News Tribune, Zimmerman will have the opportunity to ask the judge to rule whether the killing was justified. Due to the Stand Your Ground law, he will be able to do this with nothing but upside.

One area that sets Florida apart is the next step Zimmerman faces: With the police and prosecutor having weighed in, a judge will decide whether to dismiss the second-degree murder charge based on "stand your ground." If Zimmerman wins that stage, prosecutors can appeal. 

But in another aspect peculiar to Florida, if the appeals court sides with Zimmerman, not only will he be forever immune from facing criminal charges for shooting the 17-year-old Martin - even if new evidence or witnesses surface - he could not even be sued for civil damages by Martin's family for wrongfully causing his death.

"You get even more protection than any acquitted murderer," said Tamara Lawson, a former prosecutor who now teaches at St. Thomas School of Law in Miami. "This law seems to give more protection than any other alleged criminal could dream about."

If Zimmerman can't convince the judge of his innocence, he still can use "stand your ground" to convince jurors.

Conversely, there seems to be a degree of downside for Recksidler. If she finds Zimmerman guilty and a jury acquits him, what will that say about her motives and her politics? It's one thing to be overturned by a higher court but it's something else entirely to be overturned by a jury. If she finds Zimmerman not guilty, she could find a bunch of unfriendly feet on the front lawn of her home and a U.S. Attorney General - Eric Holder - who has already sided with Al Sharpton, not likely to help.

The main reason for Zimmerman's advantages as a defendant has to do with the 'Stand Your Ground' law in Florida. This law has been the quintessential straw man for gun control fanatics on the left. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is already using it for political advantage, as are a slew of other Democrats (Bloomberg is an IINO - Independent in Name Only).

That leads to this interesting little factoid. Did you know that two very prominent Democrats signed similar legislation when they were Governors? DHS Secretary and Obama lackey, Janet Napolitano, signed a 'Stand Your Ground' law when she was Governor of Arizona?

Via Breitbart's AWR Hawkins:

...on April 2nd, I had a post on Big Government that highlighted how former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, used her Current TV show to lambaste Stand Your Ground laws, and to blame Republicans for the existence of such laws in the first place. However, as I showed, the dirty little secret is that Granholm signed Michigan’s Stand Your Ground bill into law in 2006.

Now it’s been discovered that an even more prominent Democrat, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, signed Arizona’s Stand Your Ground bill into law while governor of that state in 2006. And it’s important to note that Napolitano didn’t sign the bill half-halfheartedly, rather, she even countered anti-gunners’ opposition in the signing.

I just can't help posting this video whenever I find it so totally relevant. This is one of those times.

Trayvon Case: Carefully Orchestrated Media Conspiracy?

Why did the mainstream media wait for an entire month to "break" the Trayvon Martin story? Is "wait" the wrong word? Did the media need that much time to plot a strategy to, in unison, further a narrative in order to guarantee enflamed racial tensions? That question must be answered honestly; it also warrants being asked because of what we now know factually.

No one should scoff, especially in light of the video recently released by Breitbart. It includes a segment on Al Sharpton's involvement in the manufactured Tawana Brawley rape story in 1987. In that video - circa 1992 - Sharpton actually explains how he manipulates the media to his advantage. It also features an interview with a former Sharpton colleague who deserted the notorious race-baiter after it became obvious to him that Sharpton intentionally lied about the Brawley case.

The Tawana Brawley case establishes intent.

Fast forward to today. NBC news is caught intentionally pushing the narrative that feeds Sharpton's nefarious premise, relative to the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. That narrative is that a racist white male hunted down and shot a young black male.

Via Washington Post:

NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the “Today” show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC:

“We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.” 

Great news right there. As exposed by Fox News and media watchdog site NewsBusters, the “Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black. 

Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

Zimmerman: 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. 

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic? 

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Here is video of an exchange between Fox's Sean Hannity and Brent Bozell in which the aforementioned discrepancy is discussed. Bozell is particularly and visibly disgusted by what NBC did. In fact, it is a bit interesting that all of this - including the video below - was posted to the Washington Post's blog.



Ok, so did Sharpton and his gaggle of race-baiters all need to help the media get on the same page so that there would be a common narrative all would echo? Is that why it took so long for the media to pounce on the story? Again, I refer you to the video posted by Breitbart.

Moreover, it's important not to forget that the mainstream media - almost universally - posted disingenuous, dated, and inaccurate photos that seemed to serve the same purpose. Again, if this was orchestrated, it would take some time to pull off.

First, here are the photos released of Trayvon and Zimmerman that only served to further what appears to be an attempt by Sharpton to "manipulate" the media. Note that the photo of Trayvon is four years old and shows him as a happy young boy. The photo of Zimmerman is a 2005 mugshot.

A more realistic and current juxtaposition of the two would be something like this:

Additionally, none other than Barack Obama inserted himself into this case when he made the point that if he had a son, "he'd look like Trayvon."

It's time the media either realizes it's been had and comes clean or continues to remain complicit in a propaganda campaign designed solely and intentionally to enflame racial tensions for some larger agenda.

One more question that needs to be answered: To what extent is the Obama administration involved in this media manipulation?

h/t Sipsey Street

Video: DHS Head Janet Napolitano says Targeting Muslim Men is 'Not Good Logic'

I don't know what's more amazing, the fact that Janet Napolitano said focusing our efforts on Muslim males is 'not good logic' or that someone in this very liberal environment asked her a question about it. Try watching all the way through if even possible. You are watching a woman in Napolitano who is making every effort not to identify that which she is charged with protecting Americans from - the real enemy. This is beyond disgraceful.

Via GWP:

NEW REVELATIONS MIGHT FURTHER DISCREDIT GATES' ACCUSATIONS OF RACIAL PROFILING

Taking the side of Henry Louis Gates these days is shaping up as a losing proposition. His advocates (and even Gates himself) are using tactics that show it as well. As an example, rather than choosing to debate the actual incident, they choose instead to engage in arguments about racial profiling in general.

Now one of the arguments that Gates defenders tried to use in support of him could be getting debunked. Accusations that the woman who phoned in the alleged break-in was driven by race because the two men breaking in were black appear to be false.

The Boston Globe reports:

The woman, identified in a police report on file in Cambridge District Court as 40-year-old Lucia Whalen, saw the backs of both men and did not know their race when she called 911, said Wendy J. Murphy, a Boston lawyer from New England School of Law. Whalen phoned police, Murphy said, because she was aware of recent break-ins in the area.

In fact, according to Cambridge police Commissioner Robert C. Haas, not only was Walen unable to identify the men because their backs were to her but when pressed, she actually guessed that one of them was Hispanic.

In an interview at police headquarters last night, Haas said “it was very clear that she wasn’t sure’’ what the men’s race was. He also said that when the dispatcher questioned Whalen for more details, she told police she could only guess about the race of the two men. “She speculated . . . that one might be Hispanic.’’

This reality should be easily verified by listening to the 911 tape.

Kinda makes sense for the Gates apologists to move on to a more generalized discussion, doesn't it? Yet another one of their claims is ringing hollow.

If I could communicate a message to Whalen at this point, it's: BEWARE THE ACORNS!

"An Acorn doesn't fall far from the tree."
- Barack Obama, October 2008

h/t to Drudge