Saturday, July 20, 2013
Now, if that part is true, what does it mean when Obama says it could have been him 35 years ago? What could be said is that white people want to do that to HIM.
Now, if you were to just correlate that with all the scandals surrounding this administration, then maybe you can see where this is going.
The left can't win legitimately, so they'll cheat. What they are seeking is exemption from the rules. If Obama broke the law, he must be held accountable. But, by claiming that the accusations are racist, he can avoid being held responsible for them and escape punishment.
In other words, the left is up to its old tricks. They are telling the GOP to shut up.
Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, discusses the background, evidence and reality of the George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin situation.
His conclusion is that the politicians are dividing us against each other. in which I agree. We have this ridiculous claim of a racist trial to distract us from the Benghazi, IRS, and NSA scandals. The controversy is ginned up and phony, which is intended to help Obama and the Democrats to not only survive the scandals, but to profit from them.
Martin may have been whacked out of his mind and going down fast. If Zimmerman didn't get him, something else would have, and soon too.
Bill Whittle examines the death of Trayvon Martin and trial of George Zimmerman. Is the acquittal of Zimmerman one of the great civil rights injustices of our time? Find out.
But that is what the character played by Jack Nicholson does. He gives his enemy the information he needs in order to destroy him. Frankly, I don't buy it. The Colonel would be smarter than that. He opponent may not be clever enough to get him to tell the truth.
Running with confidence sounds oxymoronic. But the purpose of being able to defend yourself is not to fight, but to fight only when absolutely necessary. The purpose of karate is not to deliver a crippling blow, but only enough force to stop the attack. So, to run with confidence means that you are not running for fear for your safety, or worse, in abject fear, but in confidence that you know that you can handle yourself if the need arises.
The purpose of stand your ground is not to turn our streets into the wild, wild west. If need be, one can leave a situation, but not out of fear that they will be prosecuted if they do not. For there may be a reason for staying that's legitimate. Forcing a person to flee isn't always the right thing to do. Just as beating the hell out of somebody- just because you can - is the right thing to do.
Zimmerman didn't have to go where he did, but he had the right to be in a common area in his own neighborhood. As for whether or not it was a good idea, well, I think it wasn't. But I wasn't there and I didn't live in that neighborhood. I didn't see what he saw. It is too easy to say something critical if you weren't there.
None of this means that he did what he did out of racial animosity, but that is what he was accused of doing.
This kind of thing may happen a lot in our society, but every situation is different. Every person is different. That doesn't give you the right to make false accusations just because something similar may have happened in the past. That seems to be the excuse. But it is not a very good one.
I guess the irony of that goes over people's heads.
Moore pushes socialism, but he is a rich capitalist himself.
"Do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened?"
Actually, that is a very, very good question. Here's why. Martin punched Zimmerman for the very same reason that he gave in the question. So, does Martin have the right to punch Zimmerman because he was followed and he felt threatened? The answer should be HELL NO. So, if it is wrong to punch Zimmerman out for following him, it is certainly wrong to shoot at him.
But the question may be seen as a threat. He may be inferring that this court outcome now gives blacks the right to shoot if they feel threatened in similar situations. That would be the wrong lesson to learn from this. The lesson should be to refrain from violence if at all possible and that includes hitting people. Because if you hit someone it can escalate into something much worse.
Of course, he could have said that all of that better, but he didn't.
When he said that Trayvon could have been himself 35 years ago, well, does that mean that he would have punched Zimmerman?
Why put this video up? It shows a couple of black people in Judge Judy's show who exhibit the trait of entitlement. That's what's running rampant through our culture today. Look how hard she has to work in order to get the truth out them both.
Judge Judy says here that she's sending the tape of the show to Congress. You know what the reaction of that would be? She would be accused of racism, that's what. Is that a fair charge? No. She illustrates her point with her questioning. Her motive was to get at truth and demonstrate what kind of problem we have in our society with this kind of behavior. But instead of getting acknowledgment of what's wrong and a promise to correct the problem, we get a counter accusation. The counter accusation is only meant to obfuscate, not to enlighten.
I don't know if that happened, of course. I don't know if Judge Judy sent the tape to Congress and got that action. But I am pretty sure that if she did, she would have gotten no meaningful response. So, I am probably wrong about the response, whatever it was, but I am not wrong about how Congress is responsible for this kind of behavior in our society. They are encouraging it. But they will never acknowledge their part in the problem and if confronted with the accusation, they would probably pull out their typical accusation of racism for those they wish to silence. In other words, they aren't interested in the truth.
Oops! I shouldn't put up videos like this. Instead, I'm going to take it down and link to it.
video was here, now its gone....................................................
Friday, July 19, 2013
If Martin's death was typical of what is happening, then I say stand your ground is needed.
From what I can gather on this, black people seem to think they have a privileged status in this society, which includes committing violence if they feel wronged in some way.
Stand your ground is necessary to stop aggressive use of force against people who have a right not to be attacked.
Jackson and the rest of the left can do whatever they want. This type of pressure must be resisted no matter how much it hurts.
But if you are liberal, you probably won't. Or, you will read it and come to a different conclusion.
Read it anyway. Then ask yourself this question: how would that story have turn out if you got your way and the right to self-defense was disallowed?
You know what? I don't think the left believes its own bullshit. They are merely hoping that their opponents fall for their bullshit.
This problem is not local to Detroit. It is in fact in evidence everywhere from Detroit to Chicago to California to Okaloosa County Florida.
Amen to that. If there's anybody awake out there, that is.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act approved of the concept of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty allowed the people of the territories to decide amongst themselves on the institution of slavery in their territory. It seemed fair and democratic. But the result was disastrous. It destroyed the Whig Party, created a new party ( the GOP ) that was plainly hostile to the South, which led to the Bleeding Kansas mini civil war that was to determine the status of slavery in Kansas.
It looks like the GOP is making the same kind of mistake that Stephen Douglas made. They want to appear to bow before the public will and approve a really bad idea under the aegis of popular opinion. However, if it appears that the public finds the GOP hoodwinked them into approving the bill, and the Democrats double cross them by going around it, the GOP will lose its ass and maybe its very existence. That scenario is a analogue of Bleeding Kansas. As settlers streamed into Kansas so as to affect the outcome of the election, so could history repeat itself. The temptation to flood the voting rolls will be too much for the Democrats to resist. If such happens, the war could be on.
The result could be unpredictable. If the GOP goes away, the mood of the rest who are still conservative, just may get nasty. This could lead anywhere. The talk of secession should not be taken lightly. Nor should the talk of a constitutional convention. If these politicians keep playing around, they just may put the entire country at risk. Is that what they want?
We already have red and blue states. We already have racial politics. Compare those with the North and South just before the Civil War. Do these politicians really want to repeat the history that started a national conflagration?
Intellect is then mobilized to justify the backsliding tendencies of the will, as if in a rerun of the historical debate between two great Medieval theologians, St. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus. Aquinas argued that intellect determines truth and the will carries out the appropriate actions. Scotus held otherwise; the will bloweth where it listeth, and the intellect assembles the arguments to support its appetitive pursuits.My impression of the zeitgeist is that the left means to grab you by your balls, a la Nixonian reference. That is, after such a grab, your heart and mind will surely follow. ( Chuck Colson, if memory serves.) Conservatives should point out that the will must remain free, otherwise, the will definitely can be persuaded to go where the body takes it. To quote something I read once about torture: "You'll say anything if a blowtorch is stuck up your ass."
As long as the will is free, the "appropriate actions" can be based upon truth, upon which justice can be based. There can be no justice if there's no truth. Justice without truth is like a day without sunshine.
(sorry couldn't help the turn of phrase )
Republicans need to find out how high the scandal went and why, exactly, it went there. To do that they'll have to up their game.comment:
But their track record is spotty at best. That's the Democrat's greatest hope. And the country's greatest misfortune.
Without disclosing too much personal information, let's just cherry pick out the most salient features.
As everyone knows, the economy tanked in 2008. The story I heard pretty much shows the nature of the problem. A small loss turned into a much bigger one. That reminded me of leverage. In fact, it was a real life example of how damaging leverage can be once its opposite -- de-leveraging --- gets going.
I wrote about economic leverage before with respect to my trading in currencies. I was trading at 100 to 1 leverage. That is, for every dollar I put in, the trading system allowed control over 100 dollars.
This story was a personal story like my own.
Leverage may sound wonderful, but it is very, very risky. Even slight moves against your position can wipe you out. But as long as everything goes according to plan, you can make plenty of money. Unfortunately, things don't always go according to plan. When that plan goes awry, bad things start to happen.
It is a like an avalanche. An avalanche can start with just a few rocks, but once those rocks loosen up other rocks, there is a type of chain reaction that results.
Another example is dominoes. If the dominoes are set up so that one falls, it causes others to fall, then a chain reaction occurs when all the dominoes will fall.
So, leveraging and de-leveraging is like putting up all your dominoes, and an inadvertent mistake begins setting off the chain reaction that knocks them all down.
The thing that allows leveraging in the economy is debt. The thing that knocks down the dominoes is when debts can't be paid. That's what happened in 2008.
So, when I heard that small losses caused huge losses down the line, I understood completely what had happened in the story I heard. De-leveraging in the broader economy caused a lot of ruin amongst individuals whose own dominoes got knocked down as the dominoes kept on falling along the line.
The economy is sitting on massive amounts of debt. That debt supports our illusion of prosperity. Once those debts start to fail, and that is inevitable, the dominoes will fall. It will lead to the ruin of just about everyone. The politicians in all their wisdom, have brought this to pass. In order to shield us from our own mistakes, they have compounded the problem by making it much, much bigger.
It may take the wisdom of Solomon to avoid a catastrophe. Better hope that there is one out there, because if there isn't, we are in heap big doo-doo, kemosabe. This administration does not inspire confidence on that count.
If I am not mistaken, a finding of not guilty in a court will grant immunity to any attempt at a civil suit. Since Zimmerman was already tried in a criminal court, a verdict of not guilty should grant immunity to any civil suit that may subsequently arise under Florida law.
That's my take. The discussion in the article is a bit technical, but he does simplify it a bit. Read the whole thing.
Today we have asked the Attorney General of the United States to personally take action to permit Microsoft and other companies to share publicly more complete information about how we handle national security requests for customer information. We believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees our freedom to share more information with the public, yet the Government is stopping us. [emphasis added]comment:
One has to wonder why the government, meaning Eric Holder, should object to information released about national security requests made to private companies. It looks like they are hiding something from the public that they would rather that we not know---such as the scope of the information and what the government is doing with it. Meanwhile, they are gathering information about the public that is unreasonable and thus does not conform with the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.
It is unreasonable because there is no probable cause for suspicion. It is unreasonable because the search is all-inclusive. Everybody is treated as a potential terrorist. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
This is police state kind of stuff. It needs to stop.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
The answers the question that Politico was asking with respect to what happened to the Benghazi investigation. The survivors got an offer they couldn't refuse.
Hey, if the Democrats can stonewall this long enough, people will forget about it.
I wanted to like this movie, you see. Our world is a lot like what this movie was supposed to be about. Our world, meaning the US, is falling apart at the seams. Shifting back to the movie, this aforementioned world was supposed to be falling apart because John Galt was "stopping the engine of the world" with a capitalistic strike. Atlas was shrugging because of the unrealistic demands of a socialistic government was crushing him with burdens that were killing him. Atlas was the force that made everything work, his absence meant the world must fall apart. Atlas was saving himself and letting the world sink into ruin. He relinquished any responsibility for its demise and put his own needs ahead of the others. In other words, the world can go to hell. The individual comes first.
I liked that concept when I first read the book. I have come to a different opinion today.
Trouble is with this concept, I have come to believe that that's pretty much why we are in the mess we are in. Here's why: There has to be a sense of self not only in an individual, but in the group in which he belongs. Man cannot just live for himself. For if he does, his world will cease to exist. What better way to describe what is happening to the West and the US these days. It's every man for living for himself and himself alone. This is true even when it may seem otherwise. Even if it is vehemently denied by those who practice socialism.
Once again, that doesn't mean that the message is all bad. For there is a philosophical underpinning to individualism, as depicted by Rand's philosophy, that will allow a society to exist as a society. That society based upon the concept of free exchange. It eschews compulsion of the collective in favor of a free exchange of values-for-values from individuals. Such a society could exist as such, but does not exist today in the West or in the USA. For the rather extreme individualism is what leads to such phenomena as same-sex marriage and abortion. Society must procreate in order to survive the end of a generation. In the kind of society that we have now, the individual will not want to do that for he must give up something of himself for that to occur. Thus, the society dies out.
When John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural, "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country", he was expressing the obligation of the individual to his community. That sense of obligation is very tenuous in our culture now. Perhaps a lot of it died in Vietnam.
Unfortunately, that part of the message, if it exists, gets lost in this flawed presentation. It is assumed to occur by itself with Rand's philosophy, evidently. This notion of what it takes to make a nation wasn't developed in the movie nearly enough, so you really don't know if there is an adequate explanation for how that can occur.
The movie also has other perhaps more obvious flaws. I really didn't believe that actors nor the plot. If the world is falling apart, then why do so many things seem to work so well? Sure, there are things that fall apart, but you don't see this affecting overall conditions like you know they must in order to accept the premises. Your suspension of belief just doesn't get suspended enough. Not to mention that some of the actors just were not good enough. For example, I didn't believe the performance of the guy that Jim Taggart ( Dagny's brother ) hires to take Dagny's place when she decides to go on leave. He couldn't pull off the character. Besides that, I really didn't like that lack of continuity from the first film. Too many new actors and actresses.
There should have been a ton of artistic license in this movie in order to make it work. Instead, it sticks too closely to the book while the book is way out of date. For example, there aren't many passenger railroads today in the US. There were when the book was released in the fifties. That pretty much makes it implausible, and then you have another failure in your suspension of disbelief. That problem could have been solved by just making the movie follow the book a lot more loosely and perhaps that would have allowed the message to survive.
But the message gets killed by a flawed movie and that's a shame.
Now, here in Houston, protesters shut down a freeway. Looks to me like a possible Reginald Denny like beating. In fact, if this was a plan to do anything like that, this would be a way to do it. A person would stop because they don't want to hurt anybody. That would be used against them in order to make the person who stopped into a victim. Moral: don't stop.
You really have to have rocks in your head to pull a stunt like that. Especially in Houston. Do you really know what could have happened? People could have refused to stop and somebody would have been hit and probably killed. Maybe, since it was a mob, it would have been a lot of people getting killed or injured. Then a riot, most likely. Or, somebody carrying a gun would have shot the people who were attacking the cars after they had stopped. And a riot. Moral: if you stop, you may have to shoot. But if you have to shoot, better have a lot of ammo. If you want a lot of dead people, just pull a stunt like this.
Why did it take a 16-year-old intern to raise an obvious and important question that the White House press corps should have asked days ago?
The question: What is the Administration doing to protect George Zimmerman?
The answer: Ridiculous question!
Press response: Don't bother the king, little boy!!!
The GOP never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This could have scuttled Obama's agenda if Reid carried out his threat and the GOP carried out theirs.
The best thing that could have happened if the GOP shut down the Senate after Reid's nuclear option was that immigration reform could not have received a vote. Obama really wants that. Of course he does. It ( immigration reform ) could cement his hold on power forever.
- The Zimmerman trial aftermath. There are those who cite the trial itself, but that was a minor thing. The main thing to note is that it is spreading around the country. I noted the incident here in Houston, which is bizarre, because the protesters blocked a busy freeway. It seems to me that if you block a busy freeway, you mean trouble. You have to get in front of cars that are going at highway speed. If you do that, somebody could get hurt or killed.
- The Obama Scandals. The latest is the revelation that Christine O'Donnell's tax files were compromised. She ran for the Senate in Delaware in 2010. She was a Tea Party favorite. It is reminiscent of what happened in Illinois when Barack Obama first ran for the Senate. Obama is said to use those type of tactics in order to eliminate opponents. His opponent in that election could have been Jack Ryan, who had his private records compromised and released to the media--- probably intended to discredit him. It worked.
- The Snowden affair. It's bad enough that the NSA is spying on ordinary Americans, but the zeal in which he is being pursued is reminiscent of how the Obama Administration connections to crack downs on whistle blowers in the past.
- The Obama Administration's connection to the Zimmerman trial in Florida.
- The media's distortion of the facts of the Zimmerman trial.
- The failure of the media to attach Obama's name to ObamaCare, now that ObamaCare is becoming a political liability. They are now calling it the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
- Don't forget that the administration went after the AP. That gets back to the crack downs on whistle blowers!
He's getting help, but once his position is sealed, his supporters are expendable. Witness what happened to Zimmerman, who voted for him. Doesn't matter that he's partly black and self-identifies as an Hispanic. Doesn't matter that he dated a black girl, and tutors black kids. Doesn't matter that the FBI couldn't find any evidence of racism. All that matters is that it helps him politically.
Another example would be blocks of voters, like those who voted for him in 2008. I am referring to seniors who thought that Democrats were their friends. Well, why would a friend use your Medicare in order to fund ObamaCare? If this hurts you or anyone you know, well, that's Obama telling you he doesn't need you anymore. Thanks a lot, suckers!
Of course Obama can go after his enemies. But the way he acts, anybody can be his enemy. That includes those who supported him in the past. If he can go after Zimmerman, he can go after anybody.
This business with the civil unrest is because of Obama. You may notice that he really doesn't do anything to stop it. He is actually stoking it. He is after a political payoff of some kind. Perhaps he would even like a general breakdown of law and order so that he could declare martial law.
Then he would be dictator.
“‘Mr. Zimmer had difficulty accepting the fact that Men’s Wearhouse is a public company with an independent board of directors and that he has not been the chief executive officer for two years,’ the board said in a statement.
George Zimmer better watch himself. These loons may confuse him with Zimmerman and attack him.
Police arrested one man (Donald Dickerson) and ticketed two others. They are all accused of punching the family.The family is white, and there were injuries. This is the shit that the media stirred up and the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons of the world are fanning the flames for this. It's likely to get worse until ...
Wow. This happened in Houston. I am very familiar with where this happened, too. I could have got caught up in that, but I wasn't at work yesterday. Won't be at work today, either. My foot is acting up.
Anyway, these people are supposed to be peaceful, but they grabbed that women's arm as she tried to go around the mob. I could swear that they are trying to provoke an incident so as to make this situation far worse than what it already is.
Thanks a lot, Mr. President. You have been a great help here. Nice to know how much our country has gotten better since you arrived in the Oval Office.
What a bunch of assholes.
People might object to my language there. These people were blocking access to a hospital. They were blocking access to a place where people had to go because they have no choice. They picked this spot deliberately to provoke an incident. You don't block freeways. This freeway is the way to get to the Medical Center here in Houston. These people were only trying to get treatment for their daughter.
This didn't happen yesterday. Since I worked the day before, I could have gotten caught up in after all. I just heard that it happened the day before yesterday. Maybe even earlier than that.
African Rap Star with $2.5 Mil Mansion Tells African-Americans to Move Back to Africa | FrontPage Magazine
When the gravy train derails, maybe they'll want to go back.
The gravy train will derail because there's nothing to keep it on track. It needs virtue to stay on track and that don't live here anymore.
I recall many years ago something that a Clinton Administration official once said of the United States. I don't remember who it was, but he said that there won't be an America in the future. I took that to mean an expression of an intention, not a prediction.
Frankly, I don't give a damn what people might think of this. That it is a bit of craziness from yours truly. I call them the way I see them and this is what I see. Betrayal and treason at the highest levels of our government. Not only the president, but all of them, Congress and the Supreme Court. There isn't enough goodness left to stop the evil that is going to happen.
The GOP will betray and pass "immigration reform". Who are they betraying for their personal gain? The rule of law and those who support it. (That's for starters. There's a lot more betrayal here than meets the eye.) The illegal immigrants broke the law by coming here. The GOP faction that supports this so-called reform is going to reward the lawbreakers for their lawlessness. The Democrats will be the beneficiaries and will destroy the GOP and the rest of it that remains true to the Constitution and the rule of law. They are doing it for personal gain regardless of all the high-minded excuses they are giving for their betrayal.
This is how the nation of the enlightenment will end. Betrayal will lead to its destruction.
Well written as usual.
What worries me is that this won't change anybody's mind. The society is dividing itself up into what will becoming warring factions. Reason will not determine the future of this nation.
As Ayn Rand once said, America is the nation of the enlightenment. That is no longer so.
The enlightenment was an era in which reason was exalted over brutish emotions. It looks
like we are heading back towards savagery.
If Trayvon Martin were not a young black male, he would be alive today.comment:
Here we go again. Evidently a lot of this is being driven by emotions and not facts. Jackson seems to believe that white guys never get stopped for looking suspicious. White guys get better treatment just for being white.
Frankly, I don't buy it. It doesn't have to matter even in terms of age, either. I've been challenged several times by police and one time by a civilian when I was doing absolutely nothing at all---but the ones suspicious thought that I needed to be checked out. Yet, I was doing absolutely nothing illegal at all. Just my presence in a location was enough to stop me and ask what I was doing there. Yes, it is annoying. But it isn't cause to hit anyone, as Trayvon Martin did, and I didn't.
Crime is a reality in our society. Actually, there's way too much of it. Just because a lot of black guys end up in jail doesn't mean that they were unfairly treated.
We have a welfare system that encourages people not to work and this is a factor in some young men growing up the wrong way. This is more a factor in crime than what Jackson is talking about. Young men and young women used to be better behaved and this is true for all races. It is the left wing in this country that has ruined the family and substituted the state as a father, which is what is missing so often in broken homes today. The left is responsible for this and it is Jackson himself who is a member of this party.
Jackson wanted a kangaroo court for Zimmerman. He wanted a jury of black folks who were lied to and provoked into thinking this was a racist who gunned down an innocent boy. The evidence tells a different story, yet Jackson doesn't accept that. A black jury thus empaneled would certainly have convicted him of second degree murder without even the slightest evidence of racism at all.
Zimmerman's history showed no racism. The FBI has already investigated it. There's nothing to see here on that issue. Jackson is just agitating and he looks like a racist himself making unjust accusations without any basis in fact. He looks like Bull Connor in black, ready to lynch Zimmerman for the crime of defending himself.
In the antebellum South, a black slave was prohibited from defending himself. Is that what it has come to in the US? He is inciting a mob the same way that a white racist would have done to a black man in the Jim Crow South. In fact, a lynching may happen anyway, judging by the threats Zimmerman is receiving.
Jackson is a bad influence. A bad apple. He is telling black people that their problems are caused by whitey. This is a vivid example of how that ends.
Rather than examining how Martin became a juvenile delinquent who could have done exactly what Zimmerman claimed he did, he wants to have a Grand Inquisition to investigate what doesn't exist. Bad things happen sometimes Many times the fault lies within oneself. The best way to improve a situation is to look in the mirror. I can tell you that this white guy was just as soon not have to worry about crime and becoming a victim of it. It has happened in my own life. I've been wrongly accused too. I know how that feels. It is not a perfect world, but the best way to start improving it is one person at a time and that person is always looking back at you in the mirror each morning when you shave and brush your teeth.
Someone who is a "reverend" ought to know that because it is in the Sermon on the Mount.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.comment
That's where most of the new jobs are coming from. Fewer full time and more part time employees.
Some recovery, huh?
Published on Jul 6, 2013
Mark Halper delivers a thorium year-in-review at the Thorium Energy Alliance's 5th conference, in Chicago on May 30th 2013.
Mark Halper writes for The Guardian & CBS SmartPlanet.
Ted Cruz says that the GOP preserve the right to surrender in the future. These guys take the cake for natural born stupidity.
That needs to be clarified. I'm not calling Cruz stupid. The GOP is infested with idiots, but Cruz isn't one of them.
It is good that Morris can see how the government has been turned into agent of ginning up racial grievances for political advantage. Why can't he see that it is a really bad idea to reward that by approving the immigration bill?
He has bought into the racial grievance premises that the Latinos believe that we hate them because we won't approve the immigration bill. That's just not necessarily so.
Clearly something needs to change, but why isn't that happening?
Perhaps the computer revolution has been so dazzling that folks think that this is representative of all technology, but nuclear technology has been stuck in a relatively backwards state.
AK: I would hope so. Granite-based HREE deposits can be quite treasure troves of other minerals: niobium, tantalum, uranium, even thorium. There are lots of little cash registers in these deposits. If they can be extracted and marketed profitably, they could add substantially to the revenue from the same amount of ore. That is nothing but great for the bottom line.
Interesting to see that this is getting some attention outside of the thorium energy alliance circles.
My impression is that it isn't a big of a problem as is hinted at here. But there may be a lot more to this than I know.
Dave Farber, “Grandfather of the Internet,”...When I asked Farber if U.S. citizens need to worry about the U.S. acting like Big Brother, he replied, “Yeah.”comment:
I thought this program was killed, but government programs are the nearest thing to immortality that we will see on Earth, said Ronald Reagan. I'm referring to John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness program. Poindexter was involved in Iran-Contra scandal in the eighties.
How do you get rid of such a thing once it gets established?
Even took a black girl to the prom.
Somehow this became a case of white privilege.
These people are nuts.
Got this video from the Barnhardt site. You know, we really have let this happen to us. Too much cowardice and complacency out there. The Zimmerman case is a prime example. Government is failing and is now resorting to extreme measures to keep itself in power.
Mr. Anderson! You disappoint me.
Sentencing guidelines are about the same for manslaughter as for second degree murder. If I am reading it right, then they went after a harder to prove charge which would have netted them only slightly harsher punishment. That makes little sense, unless you want to lose.
Corey became involved when the prosecutor originally on the case resigned after the furor over his refusal to prosecute. The governor appointed Corey to replace him.
Guess what? Florida was a swing state in 2012. Without Florida, the Romney could not win. Racial politics can get out the vote in a key state.
This thing was ginned up in order to help Obama win reelection. There was no evidence to prosecute. Unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that this was not self-defense, there's no grounds for prosecution. There simply wasn't enough evidence. What evidence that did exist might have gotten them a conviction anyway if they pursued the lesser charge of manslaughter. Suspicious.
The governor and prosecutor wimped out. The governor is a republican. Don't know about the other guy. They may have a stand your ground law in Florida, but they got "tail between their legs" politicians, particularly on the gop side.
The gop is derelict in its duty to defend the republic. The democrats are abusing the law for political advantage. Not a good combination.
So I came across this item called "lean". It turn out to be made out of stuff that is partly prescription drugs and partly everyday drink items that mask the medicine taste.
Martin had Skittles and Ice Tea on him when he was shot. Could this been the ingredients for a version of lean?
Martin's troubled history was not mentioned at the trial. He was frequently characterized as an innocent kid.
In the book Outrage, which was about the OJ Simpson case, former prosecutor Bugliosi said that the state is obliged to provide exculpatory evidence if it exists. Now, if there was evidence to support Zimmerman's contention that he was attacked, these bits of information may have been helpful and relevant.
Yet even with this suppression, Zimmerman won anyway. The case was weak.
Herein lies the heart of the faux murder trial just concluded in Florida. It was phony as a three dollar bill and now we get into the payoff---the whole point of this charade.
Those who want to defend themselves against a deadly attack are paranoid, says Derrick Jackson, the author. It is a loosely used word which describes unreasoning fear. Perhaps that could have been demonstrated in the trial, but no evidence was offered to support such a claim. In fact, the evidence suggested otherwise. But all this concern is just a figment of your imagination. We are all just a bunch of trigger happy scaredy cats.
So, now we are all putting ourselves above the police? The verdict gives a license to kill, he wails. Woo-hoo! Time to go kill me up some black sobs, huh? Yeah, all of us paranoids out here just can't wait to arm ourselves and go out there and kill all these poor innocent little black boys just minding their own business coming home from the store, or so they want us all to believe. Zimmerman called the police. He was waiting for the police to come and meet him. He was cooperating with the police. He wasn't putting himself above them.
Vigilantism wasn't vetted as he suggests. It wasn't even discussed in the trial. The thing that was discussed was race. The race card got played and it came up a joker. The joker wasn't wild so it didn't do them any good in winning this trial, so now we get to play another game here in the aftermath--- politics.
Zealotry is in the eye of the beholder, it seems. While he condemns zealotry in Zimmerman for shooting Martin, he fails to see it in the prosecution. While there may have been an opportunity to explore a lesser charge to discover some legally plausible means of convicting Zimmerman, they pursue the completely barren avenue of racism. But a lesser charge would hardly suit their political purposes, now would it? A third degree charge, or manslaughter case just doesn't get the juices flowing like a good, old fashioned race card. Bigger stakes were anticipated. As the acquittal raked in their chips, here comes the next game of shutting down gun rights and the right of self-defense.
We are treated once again to the spectre of gun violence as an excuse to grab our guns. Yet the trial didn't even attempt to get at the real issues of the case. It wasn't the guns, it was the people involved.
If Zimmerman made a mistake, he should pay for it. But that has to be established in a court. If it can't, do we abolish the courts because they don't give us the results we want? Do we go over the courts with mob rule and a dictatorship because the people cannot be trusted to handle force properly? If the people can't handle force properly, we have no basis for self-government. Do we really want to go there?
If the jury was wrong, the people are wrong. The jury is the buffer between the people and the state. If the people are wrong, what other recourse is there but overwhelming force of government in the hands of the elite?
We should not want irresponsible and unreliable people to handle guns. We should also not want irresponsible and unreliable government officials who can't or won't conduct a proper trial. Then it can be determined accurately as humanly possible if Zimmerman did the right thing or not.
This trial was serious business. The aftermath could be worse. At least try to get it right. We may not get an infinite number of chances at this.
Citizenship isn’t the big dealbreaker issue...what they really want, namely quick legal status before any new enforcement measures must be in place
Why not avoid the trap and not give citizenship nor quick legal status? Certify that the border is sealed and then get on with legalization. But here's the problem
They’d immediately forfeit the big prize they were supposed to win by caving on immigration–the Latino vote.comment:
The problem is in accepting the left's premises. How about defending their own premises, assuming they actually have any? I always thought the conservatives were about the rule of law. That's the premise at stake here. The Gop is ready to reward lawlessness in favor of being liked for not being racist. Sorry, that didn't work in 1986 and it won't work now, either. The Latinos like the big government liberalism. The Gop ought to be defending that and not allow any advantages to the left because they abandoned their principles and started accepting the left's racial premises.
Mark Levin talks about how the political party that was once invested in slavery and segregation is now invested in racism...comment:
Click on the audio to hear Levin. He says that the Gop has lost its way. Agreed. The Gop has accepted the racial premises of the left with its consideration of the immigration bill. Could the silence also be an acceptance of the racial premises in evidence in the aftermath of the Zimmerman trial? Where's the Gop response to Obama? If there's silence, an aggressor is likely to consider it to be acceptance. How can silence and acquiescence be a proper response to what is being attempted here?
Now, I'm not an expert on all the facts of the case, but this attorney gets key facts wrong. That's troubling in and of itself. That is, an attorney can get something so far wrong and still be allowed to practice law. After an article like this, proceedings should begin that would disbar this attorney, if in fact, he is an attorney.
For a moment, I thought--- should I link to this article? Well, that is a question. Because my own inner peace was returning as I woke up only to be disturbed by something like this again. So, I have to inflict this upon anyone reading this if I were to link to it.
But this blog is going to be about truth and the article in question is evidence of a certain truth. Clear evidence for a candid mind. So, I will link to it here. Behold the evil therein if you dare disturb your own peace.
This attorney clearly twists the record. No doubt about it. I saw the sworn testimony in the trial itself. The police dispatcher clearly denied that he ordered Zimmerman back into his car. He denied this because of potential legal liability. He could not have ordered Zimmerman back into his car anyway, at least according to my understanding. He is not the police, but a civilian. He can't order anybody around at all. Yet, that is what this attorney claims. Even if the dispatcher was the police, he clearly testified that he couldn't order Zimmerman back into his car. The testimony was all under oath in an open court. It was not disputed by the the prosecution, according to my recollection. What he did do was to suggest that Zimmerman not follow Martin. That should be very, very clear from the record.
Now, somebody may say that is splitting hairs, but the difference was enough to protect the dispatcher from any liability, as he clearly testified under oath in a court of law. This is a fact that the attorney should appreciate. Also, did this attorney actually listen to the testimony? Did he not hear this testimony?
He claims that there was overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor. He does not cite any testimony that indicated any such thing. If anything, the testimony indicates the reverse. Martin had no marks on his body that indicated anything other than his being the one who was doing the hitting. There are pictures of Zimmerman with a bloody and swollen nose. If Zimmerman hit Martin first, there was no evidence of this. But there is clear evidence that Martin hit Zimmerman. If there's no evidence of physical injury to Martin, how could Zimmerman be the aggressor?
This attorney claims that Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin. Stalking in the legal definition means a pattern of behavior over a period of time. It would take a longer period of time than the few minutes that elapsed in the incident in order to establish the legal definition in order for this term to be used in a legal context. Perhaps he meant it in the generic sense then? Then he must meant that Zimmerman planned to kill Martin all along. If so, in the legal sense, that would be murder in the first degree. This wasn't even an issue in the trial, as this was a murder two trial. Neither was stalking an issue in the legal sense. His use of the word "stalking" then, has no legal meaning here. Yet, he is using the term and he is an attorney. The only conclusion of that you can reach is that the attorney is using the word for rhetorical effect. For it had no legal meaning in this case.
He hints a bit that Martin was only defending himself. This is very hazy here, but after reading this over a few times, he seems to think Martin had the right to defend himself from Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following him--- which he terms as "stalking". So, let me get this straight here. This attorney seems to think that a black man has the right to hit anybody that he thinks is threatening to him even if that threat has not been physical up to that point. He requires that Zimmerman to vacate the premises even though Martin was there too. In other words, this "attorney" claims that a non-physical act of following warrants a physical response just because of being offended. This is not self-defense. This is aggression masquerading as self-defense.
He demands that Zimmerman remain in his car, but Zimmerman has as much right to be in his own neighborhood as Martin does. He claims self-defense for which he cannot cite any evidence of physical aggression by Zimmerman. But evidently, he admits that Martin hit Zimmerman. He has implied it in this article. He has implied it without indicating anything from the record that shows any harm being done to Martin at all, except to his overweening sense of entitlement to his own space, which isn't exactly exclusively his, but shared space throughout the community.
He then veers off into Stand Your Ground territory that once again wasn't even a factor in this case. The law could not be invoked because it was irrelevant. It was irrelevant because the facts indicate that Zimmerman had no option to flee. He was on the ground because Martin knocked him to the ground. You would think that the "attorney" would be a little more careful about his facts.
To top it all off, he demands some sort of action by the President that would rectify the miscarriage of justice that he claims here. He can cite no authority to do this, but he does cite history, yet he gets that wrong too. He equates the trial with the Dred Scott decision. The Dred Scott decision openly stated that blacks had no rights that white men were bound to respect. But nobody claimed this in the trial. Again, he can cite no evidence at all of any such thing.
Besides, it took a war to erase the Dred Scott decision. So, does this attorney realize what he is saying? Does he want Obama to declare war on Florida? Does he want Obama to order the military into Florida and bring it back into the Union? Does he really believe that Florida has just returned to the antebellum Southern Confederacy? Just exactly what he expects Obama to do is not stated, but he wants Obama to do something.
As for doing "something", Obama could warn that inciting a riot cannot be accepted. He could mention that the FBI has already investigated and found no evidence of racism. He could point out that Florida law has not been declared unconstitutional and there is little that can be done according to the US Constitution itself, nor the laws. For there is a clause in the Supreme Law of the Land which forbids trying somebody for the same offense twice. If the prosecution gets it wrong the first time, that's it. Even a civil suit in Florida cannot be pursued because of the immunity conferred by the acquittal to any potential liability in a self-defense case. That's Florida law. Just exactly what is Obama supposed to do about that?
The only thing I can conclude is that this "attorney" wants Obama to break the law in order to rectify a miscarriage of justice which he cannot show from the official record. He cannot be serious unless he wants black people to get even angrier as the failures mount as Obama can legally do nothing. Therefore, he must want civil disorder. Now, there has been a Civil War once before in our history. But the war was necessary in order to restore order to the Union which had broken down. If it is civil disorder that he wants, just exactly what is his intention that he should provoke it? Instigating civil disorder is one thing that should not be tolerated in an attorney. An attorney is considered to be an officer of the court. An officer is there to keep order, not to break it. For attempting to instigate civil disorder, this attorney should be disbarred.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Hey, it would be peace and light and love all around. Kumbaya, baby!
Everybody in the world was supposed to love us again. What happened? Don't they know that Obama won the Nobel Prize? Don't they know that he's The One?
Why isn't everybody just happy, happy, happy? I thought he was going to solve all our problems and we would all live happily ever after.
The left has to have racial animosity in order to keep their troops in line. They need the hatred to sustain them. Without hatred, they cannot exist.
I think they are trying really hard, as hard as they can, to stir up mutual racial animosity.
The best way to handle this is not to give them what they want. Hatred, that is. If what they are really after is money, Bernanke can be very accomodating.
You can accept this if you wish, but I don't.
Was it Martin because he was on the wrong track. Or was it Zimmerman, because he should have known better?
It isn't worth turning the country inside out over it.
Two decades ago, I researched the assassination of President Kennedy after the Oliver Stone movie JFK. Prior to that, I wasn't too interested in it. But that movie changed that. The results of the research pretty much decided me that Stone is a propagandist and this was a well-crafted piece of propaganda that was intended to help the Democrats in the 1992 election. It gave me a very negative opinion of the Democrats who kept defending this piece of trash.
This Zimmerman business reminds me of that. Some of the "leaders" like Jesse Jackson and Sharpton are probably doing more harm than good for their own people. This makes black folks look pretty bad in my estimation. You have to worry about the future of the nation when people act like this.
It is not as if there may not be a valid complaint against Zimmerman. But the way this was pursued almost guaranteed the outcome that we see now. I think the outcome of a not-guilty verdict was probably planned and executed so as to use it for political advantage.
Now, as I mentioned from the beginning of this post, I haven't researched this carefully. So the following is a bit speculative.
I think Zimmerman kept going after he was advised to stop following Martin. I think he went to the point where there was a corner that Martin went around that made it impossible for Zimmerman to see him. Zimmerman went to that point, in my opinion. Martin was hiding, just out of view. It was dark enough so that visibility was hampered to the extent that Martin could jump out of the darkness and confront Zimmerman suddenly. After that, "nature took its course". That is to say, if there was any chance of this being a crime, it was a crime of passion. More likely though, it was a mistake by both parties and that mistake got out of hand.
For I can imagine a scenario where Martin decided to "kick ass" and struck Zimmerman because he felt angry for being followed around. Once the fighting began, Martin had to realize when he saw the gun that he might be in a lot of trouble if Zimmerman decided to use it. At that moment, he may have reached for Zimmerman's gun, and that's when Zimmerman may have beat him to the punch, so to speak, and shot Martin.
This was a civil suit, at best. There's just no way to proceed on criminal charges because there's no way that all the facts can be known with the certainty required for a criminal conviction. In a civil suit, all you need is a preponderance of evidence. It may have been possible to get that, but the irony is that the criminal trial may have obviated that possibility. This may not have been an accident.
What better way to prove that a system is unjust than to deliberately make it fail, and then accuse the system of being fundamentally unjust. It is being ginned up in order to generate civil unrest. The purpose of this could be sinister.
It doesn't help when conservatives allow themselves to be baited into this and fail to respond intelligently.
We are being played.
As a bit of clarification, the part above where Martin went around the corner, was based upon a diagram or picture of the layout of the place, and where Zimmerman was parked in relation to that. It is in the shape of a "L", but upside down and turned the other way. Zimmerman was parked beyond the end of the extreme right bottom part of the "L". Martin disappeared where the "L" goes vertical. In other words, the spot in which the fight took place was near the 90 degree junction of the "L". This would be the spot where Martin could disappear behind the dwellings. Of course, this was well-known to Martin and Zimmerman both, as they were residents in that neighborhood.
The distances were far enough that Zimmerman couldn't have covered the distance to the junction in the time he was on the phone and was advised not to pursue. In other words, I think he continued to that spot despite being advised not to.
This article is a bit overwrought at times, but I think this quote is quite descriptive of the state of the nation today:
"During my professional life it was Soviet Russia that persecuted truth tellers, while America gave them asylum and tried to protect them. Today it is Washington that persecutes those who speak the truth, and it is Russia that protects them."
Guest Post: The Criminals Have Seized Power
Monday, July 15, 2013
For a long time, I questioned whether the turning of Anakin Skywalker's to the dark side was believable.
There's one possibility---that the Emperor was exploiting Anakin's guilt over the death of Master Windu and the intensified guilt for the death of Padme. But before the death of Padme, the killing of the "younglings", which followed the death of Windu, sealed his transformation to evil. You can see the Emperor displaying a sly grin while the newly christened Darth Vader exclaims "no!" when informed that he was the cause of Padme's death. All through his transformation, Vader's bondage would have required him to be blind to his being manipulated into it.
The Emperor was truly evil, so that part is believable.
I realize this is only a movie, but what makes a movie good is how well it can "suspend disbelief" by making it a realistic as possible. If you don't believe a character, you won't accept the movie. The commentary on a number of movies that I've watched shows how concerned they are that their characters and scenes are believable. The extent to which they are believable is the extent to which the movie will be judged.
Then I look at Democrats and I notice how they are good at whipping up guilt and exploiting it. It's evil. Somehow, there must be a way to stop it.
The FBI found no evidence of racism. How can the DOJ proceed with a case?
What are they going to do, trump up something out of thin air?
They already blew their best chance.
Their reputation wasn't hurt by the tv station, as stupid as it was. This only makes things worse.
Zimmerman could make a lot of money for what they did to him. This is nothing but spite and greed masquerading as justice. These people didn't give a rat's rear end about Martin.
"The moral claims advanced by generations of black leaders - claims that eventually touched the conscience of the nation and turned the tide toward civil rights for all - have now been cheapened by today's generation of black "leaders," who act as if it is all just a matter of whose ox is gored."
Thomas Sowell Asks "Who Is Racist?"
Read the whole thing. For it is not all complementary of Zimmerman.
Just for the record here, there is no attempt to white wash anything. It is a critique of the system and how it is failing us. This finding should have been included in the trial as it might have helped understand what happened that night. If it was included, excuse me for my error. I don't think that it was as other evidence was excluded as well.
It only goes to show that the second degree murder charges were groundless. The only way to have proceeded with this case would have been as a manslaughter case. Since the case resulted in an acquittal, the prosecution has no one to blame but themselves.
As I wrote in that post, she could not possibly believe that the same standards would apply to herself as she applies to those she disagrees with.
But isn't that the way liberals generally act? Don't they have the attitude that if you disagree with them that they have the right to punish you? Don't they have the tendency to act as if they have the right to tell you to shut up? Killing you for displeasing is a sure way to get you to shut up for good.
Liberals are dangerous for our democratic institutions. Liberals may be physically dangerous becuase they seem to think that Martin had the right to beat up Zimmerman for following him. Liberals are dangerous to our tradition of self-defense because they don't seem to think Zimmerman had the right to defend himself from a deadly threat.
The only defense for this attitude is that they must not believe that Zimmerman was threatened with murder. For if they actually do believe in self-defense, their objection has to be based upon some objective fact. But what could that be? Does anyone really believe that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating the hell out of him and yelling for help too? Are you kidding me?
Therefore, liberals are lying their asses off about the facts of this case, or they are in some type of pathological state that makes them truly dangerous. It's hard to tell if they really believe some of what they are saying sometimes. This needs to be sorted out and discovered if it is true or not, for if they are truly dangerous, we are definitely headed for big trouble here.
It's scary that even one juror thinks following someone, getting in a fight w them and then killing them is "self-defense"
Does this girl think that there is a right to beat someone up just because you are angry with someone about something? How would she feel if her tweet was considered offensive and used as an excuse to beat her up? The principle is just the same as what she seems to be defending here. Evidently, she has no understanding of this, or she is just tweeting this for effect.
In other words, as the professor implies, she's full of shit.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Amongst who? PETA folks?
Congress Is Less Popular than Cockroaches, Lice, Root Canals, Colonoscopies, Genghis Khan, Communism, King George
They may hate Congress, but they love their own CongressCritters. Usually, they are returned to office with large majorities and done multiple times. Some of these are in office for decades, as everyone well knows.
According to Sharpton, Martin did "nothing" wrong. The word "nothing" is pretty definite and all encompassing. Evidently, Sharpton believes Martin was just walking home and Zimmerman plugged him without any cause whatsoever. When somebody says "nothing", it must mean exactly that and not be some hyperbole that substitutes for what actually happened.
There's a screw loose in there somewhere. Send him somewhere where it can be found and fixed.
Just wanted to add something here. Sharpton is trying to hype this again. More political exploitation coming up.
M-DSPD Cover Up – The Curious Case Of Trayvon Martin’s Backpack With Stolen Jewelry and Burglary Tool…
It was that Robles article, and the outlining of the Miami-Dade School Police Department’s report on a Trayvon Martin incident from October 2011, that kicked off an internal investigation by M-DSPD Police Chief Hurley against his own officers to find out who leaked the police report.comment:
I heard something about this, but here's the full story. Some people have been following this rather closely, but not me. It looks rather amazing to me how much stuff got suppressed in the media as well as in the trial.
Nevertheless, even though Martin was no angel, nobody has the right to shoot him. Even if he was a serial murderer, there is no right to shoot him.
All the more reason to believe that the case was converted into an black-white thing and people got drawn into the politics of the thing. The truth is the first casualty of war and make no mistake, this was a war. The war will go on.
"The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin."
He said what needed to be said---"calm reflection".
But it doesn't help to "widen the circle of compassion and understanding" to legitimatize race hustlers who are exploiting this case. There is also the question of whether or not Martin should be honored at all. For what, exactly?
Also, this hasn't got anything to do with the "tide of gun violence". The right of self-defense has a long tradition in this country. This is no cause for reflecting upon the possibility of amending or changing that in any way, shape, or form.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, it has been said. If he had said only that, I may have praised him for it. He didn't say much, but about half of it should not have been said at all.
Ann brings out a fact I didn't know about. Martin was caught with stolen goods after being followed when somebody recognized him and called 911. He was caught near his own neighborhood after a burglary had resulted and a laptop was stolen, amongst some other things. He was caught with the laptop.
If that came out in the trial, how would it have looked? It looked bad enough even without this information.
I don't know what is on the mind of the left when they brought this case. Do they really believe that they can pull this off? It seems to me that the only things on their side is fear, ignorance, and hate that they foster themselves.
The strategy, therefore, is to swamp the country with non-white peoples and then to turn them into left-wing client groups. This has worked pretty well for them so far, but they are not satisfied with that. No sir, they want total victory right now. Hence, the immigration bill.
The white liberal groups are calling the shots now, but this need not be the case in future years. Since the left is so interested in self-immolation, there simply won't be enough of them around in future years to keep up with their current position. They'll die off like everybody does, but without an heir. Unless you count the non-white populations that they are courting now. The white liberal's days are numbered, but liberalism will live on as long as things remain as they are now.
In order to court the non-white vote, they are stirring up a lot of racial hatred. What may have appeared at one time to be an honest attempt at justice has now turned into the very thing they used to be fighting against. Or claiming to fight against. They self-hating liberal whites may wish they weren't white, but their biology can't be changed. Their mortality cannot be denied, either.
But these self-hating lefties may not realize that there's a problem with their imagined future for their non-white heirs. What if their economic policies just won't work? More importantly, what if their economic policies don't work before their heirs can take power? For the left's heirs really only care about the money the left brings to them. If there's no money, then there's no love to keep them together. This is a marriage of convenience only. I am pretty sure that the Hispanics and the Blacks don't like nor respect the liberals at all. They are more religious and family oriented than their white "friends". They have better morals and they will survive while their "benefactors" die off. But if said "benefactors" can no longer deliver the goods, the deal could be off.
The best strategy for the conservatives is to stick to their guns. Both literally and figuratively. Literally in the sense of gun-control. The worse thing to do is to give up the right to keep and bear arms. As for figuratively, the Bill of Rights must be defended. Limited government and free enterprise must be defended. If these are abandoned, then there is nothing to sell the non-white peoples but the same failed policies that the left is advocating. Once those policies fail, and they will, the non-white populations will turn on both liberals and conservative whites. That outcome can be avoided if the attempt to make the case that limited government and free enterprise works in all colors.
The left needs the Zimmerman trial to whip up racial hatred so as to keep their own positions of power. The right only seals that doom if they agree with the left that the only thing the conservatives want is to maintain racial superiority. For if they accept the premises of the left, they will only hasten the fall of the Republic. There'll be no one left to care about it enough in order to defend it.
Meanwhile, Obama tunes up his violin while "Rome" burns. The left in the media and the administration set off this fire by lighting the match. Their fondest hope is for a big conflagration, and a subsequent capitulation by enough squishes that their plans for destruction will be complete.