Conservatrolling Topic

[kode54]

Fuck the military, we could do without the whole lot of it.

[Jordan Ω]

Jul 14, 2013 7:58:52 GMT -5 Chromeo said:

This is a ... day that shows racism is alive and well

that goes without saying

The amount of times I've gotten pennies thrown at my big Jew nose אני אומר לך

[Pyro ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ✔]

You get two Jews together in a circle and throw a penny in the middle and watch them fight to the death.

Then you do the same thing with two catholic priests but this time throw in a small boy.

Then the winner fights Michael Jackson.

[Tails82]

paper

Just like "The Magic Negro," No Limit Nigga didn't originate among conservatives. We weren't asking who had the authentic slave blood or editing tapes Soviet-style. These are things libs use to describe themselves. Trayvon would've loved to have called himself a ghetto thug, honestly. It's cool. Shows he's street. Don't mess with him or you get your head bashed in.

Thank God someone stood up to that pot-smoking thief before he could attack/kill someone else. Thank God for the right to life and second amendment.

it's fox news alone among US news channels that leads to people who watch it being less informed than people who watch no news at all

You need to actually read things because MSNBC did terribly too. A look at the methodology would help as well. But why expect a fair shake in reporting that story, when other companies are jealous over Fox's success?

The White Scare may continue if racist minorities have their way:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323394504578605753229447968.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Feds Weigh Charging Zimmerman in Killing

The Justice Department said Sunday it would weigh whether to file federal criminal charges against George Zimmerman after his acquittal in a shooting that set off a searing national debate over racial justice and self-defense laws.

Its statement came as groups including the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union urged U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to open a federal civil-rights case against Mr. Zimmerman, the former neighborhood-watch captain who shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

Mr. Holder plans to address the Zimmerman case Tuesday when he speaks to the NAACP in Orlando, according to an official familiar with his plans.

Yet legal experts question whether such a case will be filed, given the high burden of proof prosecutors would face. They would likely have to show Mr. Zimmerman was motivated by racial hatred when he shot Mr. Martin, said Paul Callan, an attorney at Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan LLP in New York.

Attorneys for Mr. Martin's family said they are considering filing a civil lawsuit against Mr. Zimmerman, though they haven't made a decision. "We're still trying to make sense of the verdict in the criminal case," said Benjamin Crump, a lawyer for the family. "We'll be talking about our options going forward in the coming days."

Such a case would face high hurdles, legal observers say. Mr. Zimmerman can seek immunity from civil lawsuits under Florida's so-called Stand Your Ground law—something his attorney said he planned to do. "In effect, there will be no civil suits," said Tamara Lave, a University of Miami law professor. "If there is a civil suit filed, it will be dismissed, and future ones will be barred."

Mr. Zimmerman's attorneys prevailed without relying on the provisions of the "Stand Your Ground" gun-rights law, which eliminates the duty for a person to retreat in the face of danger before using lethal force. Under the measure, they had the option of seeking a court ruling, before any trial, that Mr. Zimmerman acted legally. But instead, his lawyers mounted a traditional self-defense case—one that legal analysts say benefited from missteps by police and the prosecution.

A Sanford Police Department spokesman declined to comment. Former Sanford police chief Bill Lee, who was forced out amid the furor over Mr. Martin's case, has previously defended the integrity of the officers' investigation and said the department lacked probable cause to arrest Mr. Zimmerman.

Yet race could have been a factor in the jury's verdict, Ms. Lave said. The six female jurors were all white, except one who was Hispanic. "You want to have people of color on your jury because sometimes their experience with police is something that white people don't have," she said.

I didn't know blacks were the better race, guess it'd be perfect if they ran the world. Lose a clear self-defense case, call the jury racist on account of their inferior racial qualities. Yeak okay racists.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323368704578596360026187772.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

President Obama's announcement on July 2 that he is suspending the Affordable Care Act's employer health-insurance mandate may well have exposed his actions to judicial review—even though that is clearly what he sought to avoid.

The health-care reform law's employer mandate requires businesses with more than 50 employees to provide a congressionally prescribed set of health-insurance benefits or pay a penalty calculated at about $2,000 per employee. The law was to take effect on Jan. 1, 2014, but Mr. Obama has "postponed" its application until 2015. His aim, the administration said, was to give employers more time to comply with the new rules. But it was also seen as a way to avoid paying at least part of ObamaCare's mounting political price in the 2014 congressional elections.

Whatever the reason, the president does not have the power to stop the implementation of a law. If there is one bedrock constitutional legal principle, it is that the president must "faithfully execute" federal statutes. He cannot suspend laws he dislikes on policy grounds or because he fears their political consequences.

Mr. Obama, however, has made a habit of exercising an unlawful suspending power, refusing to enforce selected federal laws, including various provisions of the immigration laws against young, undocumented aliens; work requirements enacted as part of the 1996 federal welfare reform law; and the testing accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind education law.

One key problem with suspension power—aside from the fact that it destroys the balance of power between the two political branches—is that, when skillfully exercised, it sidelines the judiciary. The Constitution requires that a party commencing litigation must have what is commonly called "standing," i.e., the party must have suffered or will suffer a legal injury that a court can redress. A determined president can head off litigation by effectively rewriting federal statutes in ways that do not create individual injuries so no party has standing.

By suspending the Affordable Care Act's employer insurance mandate, however, the president has potentially given millions of Americans the necessary standing to challenge his conduct. This is because the Affordable Care Act is a highly integrated law, with many of its key provisions dependent on each other. In addition to the employer mandate, the law also contains an "individual mandate," requiring most Americans to sign up for a required level of health-insurance coverage or pay a penalty.

The individual mandate was one of the core parts of the Affordable Care Act considered by the Supreme Court in the 2012 case of NFIB v. Sebelius, where the court upheld the statute against constitutional attack. Throughout that litigation, the Obama administration portrayed the individual mandate as an "integral part of a comprehensive scheme of economic regulation" that included the employer insurance mandate, which was intended to give millions of Americans a way of meeting their new obligation to have health insurance. In other words, suspending the employer insurance mandate prevents the individual insurance mandate from working the way Congress intended.

This is assuming the courts can do their job, and even then can we expect them to act fast enough to make a difference? Look at the BS Obama pulled with moratoriums. We can't just reverse the clock and bring back jobs.

Impeachment is seriously the best option here.

Once in court, these litigants can argue that the very integrated nature of the Affordable Care Act would make it unlawful to apply one part against them, while suspending another section. They can also argue that only Congress can determine whether, once a statute is fundamentally changed post-enactment, it should survive or fall.

This inquiry usually arises when courts, having invalidated on constitutional grounds part of a statute, must determine whether or not Congress would have wanted the valid remaining parts of the law to remain in effect. The relevant constitutional doctrine is called "severability."

As the Supreme Court noted in the leading severability case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (2006), the ultimate fate of the revised statute is decided based on the "legislative intent." In the case of the Affordable Care Act, if the courts were, for example, to determine that the employer insurance mandate is unconstitutional, the well-established severability analysis would lead them to conclude that the individual mandate (and likely the entire law) must also fall because Congress did not intend those provisions to operate in the absence of the employer insurance mandate. The president's suspension of that part of the law, therefore, should also produce the same result, rendering the remainder of the statute unenforceable.

This argument should find favor with judges who are weary of the use of suspension power that improperly aggrandizes presidential authority, diminishes congressional power, and denies the judiciary an opportunity to have its say. Courts would have to conclude that the whole statute must fall while the president's suspension is in effect. While reaching this conclusion, they might also declare the suspension itself unconstitutional. Both results would mark a significant win for the American people.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323368704578595783263740510.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

China, Mr. Cropsey argues, is on the path to overtake U.S. naval power, with little deliberation in this country about the consequences of such a development. As Mr. Cropsey warns, reducing the number of U.S. ships "accelerates the decline of American sea power, unintentionally adding strategic weight to Beijing's naval buildup, and more important, to China's rise to dominance in Asia. Politicians have not faced this basic question of strategy."

With its 286 ships, the U.S. Navy is now smaller than it was in 1917, when it boasted 342. The number is stuck, and the trend spans the administrations of both parties. We have spent heavily on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the U.S. Navy, which is central to our long-term strategic interests, languishes. Navies, unlike armies, take time to build—why the framers of our Constitution wrote of the imperative to "provide and maintain a Navy," as opposed to the need to "raise and support an Army."

"Mayday" provides an insider's view into the many ills of the Navy's planning and budgeting system. These range from low and unsteady quantities of ship orders; to the trade-offs between building a few cutting-edge ships and more ships less technologically complex; to the ever increasing "contractual, statutory and regulatory" burdens on the Navy. The latter include a requirement for new paints that emit fewer toxins in shipbuilding; compliance adds an estimated $16 million to the price of an aircraft carrier.

[Chromeo]

Fuck off Tails, you're either trolling or a racist piece of shit (maybe both?)

[Tails82]

I didn't invent "white Hispanic" nor did I edit tapes, nor did I take my stance based off what color Trayvon was. It was self-defense, anyone can see that, the police did, the jury certainly did, but the racists who threatened riots and random lynchings of white people have allowed hate to blind them.

[Chromeo]

www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/66736798

yeah, iran is totally the warmonger nation out of these two, right

[Pyro ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ✔]

I read about the Ziggerman thing. The whole problem is still guns.

But if the white guy who is really just a mexcian or something, looks like it anyway, did not have a gun, then he would not feel like a big man and go around chasing dudes.

Also if he chased him anyway he would have just got his ass kicked and then the nigger dude would have been on his way.

But of course the gun was there and killed the black dude.

So it was self defence of the black guy kicking the ass, but the mexican started it. So the ass kicking was proably self defence. So double self defence cancels out and it was just one guy beating up some dude and another guy shooting him. And he should have gone to jail.

So since there is no jail time, however the farther of the black guy should be allowed to get revenge on the mexican with the same gun used and only one bullet. If he misses then thats the end. If he shoots him then they are even, if the mexican lives or dies makes no difference there.

So in conclusion; this is just another news story that for some reasons is reportered all around the world when really it should be local news, but its not because its America and their new is apparenlty important to the billions of people around the world.

[Tails82]

If there was no gun, Zimmerman would have been killed. It was basic self-defense, no case to be made, and only became a world story because of liberal agitators.

People are asking, what if Trayvon was white/what if Zimmerman was black. It shouldn't matter in this country. But knowing the state of the Democrat party, I'll take a crack at it. If Trayvon was white, or if Zimmerman was black, there would be no case. There would've been no agitation from racists like Al Sharpton. If Trayvon was white and committed the same crimes he did before his fight with Zimmerman, he might've been in juvy, instead of getting a pass which emboldened him.

But let's look at what would happen if Zimmerman was a black conservative and the trial went forward. Libs would call Zimmerman an Uncle Tom. They would call him a traitor to his race. They would throw oreos at him. NBC would call him a "white black." And every time they put his photo on screen next to an eight year old Trayvon, it'd be digitally lightened (by the same people who edited the tapes) so Zimmerman's face would look more white.

As someone who has faith in their fellow man, when people were telling me "elect Obama or the blacks will riot," "send Zimmerman to jail even though he's innocent or the blacks will riot," I said no. Contrary to what racist Dems think, you can't just bang a bunch of bongos to rile up an army of primitive savage minorities to emerge from the plantation and do your bidding.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323848804578607712534481472.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

The Riots That Didn't Happen

In the days--really, the months--leading up to George Zimmerman's acquittal, there was so much loose talk about the danger of race riots that the absence of riots has been widely noted. " 'Urban blacks may riot when X goes wrong for them' is a perennial story," notes Slate's David Weigel, who links to old stories in a British newspaper and a conspiracy website speculating about the possibility of riots if Barack Obama loses, respectively, the 2008 and 2012 elections.

Last week the Detroit Free Press noted that two Florida law-enforcement agencies--the Broward County sheriff and the Sanford police--put out a public-service ad in which cops, teenagers and James Jones of basketball's Miami Heat urged viewers: "Raise Your Voice, Not Your Hands."

"Some awoke Sunday morning expecting to hear of overnight chaos, which was heavily hyped by the news media as a possibility--perhaps a certainty--as the verdict drew nearer," the Washington Times reports: "But that chaos never materialized, and civil rights leaders say it's a sign of progress."

As Marc Polite noted last week at Time.com, the assumption that black people will respond to an adverse verdict with wanton violence is an ugly stereotype. To be sure, it is a stereotype with a basis in history. But as Polite and Jealous both point out, it has been 21 years--roughly a generation--since America's last major race riot.

Today New York's Daily News does its best to inflame the situation, front-paging an editorial that likens Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin to half a dozen decades-old cases...But Martin's case was different in kind. He was not killed by a mob, and in none of the other cases could the killers plead self-defense. The only common thread is race. The News is engaged in an outrageously racist bit of yellow journalism, imputing guilt to Zimmerman because the color of his skin is similar to that of men who committed horrific crimes decades ago.

The News editorial reflects the perverse nostalgia for pervasive racism--and for the moral clarity and righteousness that accompanied it--that is common among liberals today. So does a somewhat more staid editorial in the New York Times, which denounces America as "a country plagued by racism, which persists in ever more insidious forms despite the Supreme Court's sanguine assessment that 'things have changed dramatically,' as it said in last month's ruling striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act."

The last recorded lynching occurred 32 years ago--11 years earlier than the last major race riots. The Supreme Court is right and the New York Times is wrong: Things have changed dramatically. If both lynch mobs and race riots are things of the past, whites and blacks alike have made enormous progress in their attitudes toward race.

www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/07/15/obama_s_economy_is_crushing_america

Big story from Forbes magazine today: "Labor unions are among the key institutions responsible for the passage of Obamacare." As you know, "They spent tons of money electing Democrats to Congress in 2006 and 2008, and fought hard to push the health law through the legislature in 2009 and 2010. But now, unions are waking up to the fact that Obamacare is heavily disruptive to the health benefits of their members.

"Last Thursday, representatives of three of the nation’s largest unions fired off a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, warning that Obamacare would 'shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.' The letter was penned," written, for those of you in Rio Linda, "by James P. Hoffa, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Joseph Hansen, international president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; and Donald 'D.' Taylor, president of UNITE-HERE, a union representing hotel, airport, food service, gaming, and textile workers."

See, these idiots?

They fought for this. They fought for the rule that said any outfit that's got over 50 employees is mandated to provide coverage. They didn't stop to think that there are creative people running businesses that say, "Oh, if we have less than 50, we don't have to pay? Okay. We're gonna convert you and you and you to part time. You only get 30 hours. That's it. That's all you get. No benefits, either. No health care. It's either that or we close the business. We can't stay up and running otherwise."

These union guys have just figured out that the 40-hour week has been shot, which they claim is the backbone of the middle class. To a certain extent, yeah. I mean, they're trying to claim that they are the backbone of America. There aren't enough union members to claim they're the backbone of anything anymore, other than the Democrat Party. But the point, nevertheless, is businesses are converting people from full time to part time and enabling themselves not to provide coverage.

Then (chuckles) their buddy Barack comes along and says, "You know what? The employers are gonna get a one-year waiver. They're not gonna have to provide insurance. But the employee is still gonna have to have insurance." So they feel a little shafted here. There's nothing they can do about it, other than complain. But they are complaining. No, it's not enough to make them support Republicans. They're complaining. They're not happy. They're just part of the growing number of people in this country who do not want anything to do with Obamacare.

We've lost nine million jobs since Obama became president!

That's nine million opportunities to advance one's self economically.

And, as the union guys just discovered, businesses are downsizing and converting people to part time. You don't build a career on part-time work. You don't even really support a family on part-time work. Not one part-time job. You start at part-time work. Now we've got people who have been full-timers for years who are being converted, downsized to part time. We hear about outsourcing and all this. The American worker is being downsized.

The American employee is being downsized, and with it is opportunity, and the wealth gap. I don't know. You want to call it the wealth gap, go ahead. All it means is the people that have theirs, have theirs. But you don't have yours. Your chances of getting yours are now reduced. That's what it means. The gap is one thing, but the opportunity to close the gap is what's really vanishing, and whether people consciously know it, they are subconsciously are aware of it...there is a general feeling of unsettledness. Whether people can get their arms around it and tell you exactly what they mean, what they know is that this isn't how things are in an America that's working, in an America that's right.

And while their economic opportunities are vanishing, they turn on the TV, and they see a bunch of BS that has nothing to do with them. They turn on the TV and they look at political leaders who seem right now only to care about 11 million people who are here illegally, and what they see is 11 million people are gonna be dumped into the society as competitors in the job market. They're gonna work for a lot less than they do.

They don't understand it -- and then the ones who do understand it, get really mad. The others are just depressed. But whether they're able to articulate it or not, they full well understand that this is not how this country used to be. This is not the way you feel when the country's working. It's not the way you feel when you are confident that you're in the right place and you've got a chance or opportunity to improve yourself.

Then they turn on the TV and they see people impugned, made fun of, criticized, if they happen to improve themselves. They see all kinds of reprobate thuggery rewarded with fame and wealth, and they see people who are well-mannered -- virtuous, perhaps, but certainly no threat to anybody -- laughed at, impugned, and made fun of. It just isn't right. There's something about it that doesn't make sense.

Speaking of all this, BlackEntertainment.com, BET: "Black Unemployment Rate Rose in June to 13.7% -- The national unemployment rate held steady at 7.6%. The African-American unemployment rate rose from 13.5% in May to 13.7% in June..." The youth unemployment rate, the unemployment rate for 18 to 29-year-olds, is 16%. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have people saying, "To heck with careers! How about just a job?"

And when they turn on the TV, they see the latest with the Kardashians and the name of their baby, or that some gay couple's now getting divorced or what have you, and they say, "What the hell?"

blog.heritage.org/2013/07/16/morning-bell-even-unions-are-turning-on-obamacare/

The unions, of course, were heavy supporters of Obamacare, but even they can’t deny its effects now.

"The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios: First, 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."

We couldn’t agree more. In fact, not only did Heritage experts predict these outcomes, but the non-partisan Medicare actuary also concluded the law would raise health costs by hundreds of billions of dollars. The Congressional Budget Office noted that Obamacare’s employer mandate “will probably cause some employers to respond by hiring fewer low-wage workers.”

Naturally, it’s on the question of solutions that we diverge from the unions.

The union leaders’ “solution” to these problems involves yet more government spending. They want to make union-run health plans eligible for Obamacare’s subsidies—subsidies that were supposed to go to people with no health coverage. In other words, increase taxpayer spending even more because of the consequences of bigger government.

If ever there were an argument to defund Obamacare in its entirety—to do away with both the spending and the costly regulations—it’s this one. The union letter accuses Obamacare of “shattering” hard-earned benefits and destroying the foundation of the middle class. In short, “We have a problem.”

The many ways liberal leaders keep marching forward, insisting nothing’s wrong, are becoming laughable. Appearing on “Meet the Press” Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that “Obamacare has been wonderful for America.” And despite the Obama Administration’s multiple implementation failures, the Health and Human Services Department just released a video yesterday proclaiming that Obamacare is “on schedule.”

Even the law’s strongest supporters aren’t buying it any more.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323740804578601472261953366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

A Jobless Recovery Is a Phony Recovery

More people have left the workforce than got a new job during the recovery—by a factor of nearly three.

In recent months, Americans have heard reports out of Washington and in the media that the economy is looking up—that recovery from the Great Recession is gathering steam. If only it were true. The longest and worst recession since the end of World War II has been marked by the weakest recovery from any U.S. recession in that same period.

The jobless nature of the recovery is particularly unsettling. In June, the government's Household Survey reported that since the start of the year, the number of people with jobs increased by 753,000—but there are jobs and then there are "jobs." No fewer than 557,000 of these positions were only part-time. The survey also reported that in June full-time jobs declined by 240,000, while part-time jobs soared by 360,000 and have now reached an all-time high of 28,059,000—three million more part-time positions than when the recession began at the end of 2007.

That's just for starters. The survey includes part-time workers who want full-time work but can't get it, as well as those who want to work but have stopped looking. That puts the real unemployment rate for June at 14.3%, up from 13.8% in May.

The 7.6% unemployment figure so common in headlines these days is utterly misleading. An estimated 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed; they are virtually invisible and mostly excluded from unemployment calculations that garner headlines.

At this stage of an expansion you would expect the number of part-time jobs to be declining, as companies would be doing more full-time hiring. Not this time. In the long misery of this post-recession period, we have an extraordinary situation: Americans by the millions are in part-time work because there are no other employment opportunities as businesses increase their reliance on independent contractors and part-time, temporary and seasonal employees.

Even the federal government payroll is turning to part-timers: In June 2012, 58,000 federal workers were part-timers. This year it's 148,000, and we still don't know how the budget sequester will play out, for many agencies have resorted to furloughs rather than layoffs.

What's going on? The fundamentals surely reflect the feebleness of the macroeconomic recovery that began roughly four years ago, as seen in an average gross domestic product growth rate annualized over the past 15 quarters at a miserable 2%. That's the weakest GDP growth since World War II. Over a similar period in previous recessions, growth averaged 4.1%. During the fourth quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, the GDP growth rate dropped below 2%. This anemic growth is all we have to show for the greatest fiscal and monetary stimuli in 75 years, with fiscal deficits of over 10% of GDP for four consecutive years. The misery is not going to end soon.

ObamaCare is partially to blame. The health-insurance law requires employers with more than 50 workers to provide health insurance or pay a $2,000 penalty per worker. Under the law, a full-time job is defined as 30 hours a week, so businesses, especially smaller ones, have an incentive to bring on more part-time workers.

These businesses' hesitation to hire is part of a larger caution among employers unsure about the direction of government policy—and which has helped contribute to chronic long-term unemployment that shows no sign of easing. Unlike those who lose a job and then find another one in a matter of weeks or months, fully a third of the currently unemployed have been out of work for more than six months. As they remain out of the workforce, their skills deteriorating, the likelihood rises that they will be seen as permanently unemployable. With each passing month of bleak job news, the possibility increases of a structural unemployment problem in the U.S. such as Europe experienced in the 1980s.

That brings us to a stunning fact about the jobless recovery: The measure of those adults who can work and have jobs, known as the civilian workforce-participation rate, is currently 63.5%—a drop of 2.2% since the recession ended. Such a decline amid a supposedly expanding economy has never happened after previous recessions. Another statistic that underscores why this is such a dysfunctional labor market is that the number of people leaving the workforce during this economic recovery has actually outpaced the number of people finding a new job by a factor of nearly three.

www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/from-generation-x-to-generation-xxx

Remember in the 1990s when the mantra from pro-abortionists was "safe, legal and rare?" That conflicting credo (How can any abortion be considered "safe" when a life is always destroyed?) has finally fallen by the wayside. As pro-women legislators across the country try to pass laws that require abortion facilities to abide by the same standards as other surgical centers, the pro-abortion movement is outraged.

After a bitter three weeks, all eyes were on Texas as the state senate finally passed a bill that not only banned abortions after 20 weeks, but also required all abortions to take place at surgical centers -- and all doctors performing them to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. But while the media was busy complaining about the non-existent "war on women," the war on civility went completely unreported.

A local television station, KETK, found that the pro-abortion crowd was prepared to rain down more than noise on pro-life legislators and demonstrators. "DPS officers have thus far discovered one jar suspected to contain urine, 18 jars suspected to contain feces, and three bottles suspected to contain paint. All of these items -- as well as significant quantities of feminine hygiene products, glitter, and confetti possessed by individuals -- were required to be discarded; otherwise those individuals were denied entry into the gallery." Other pro-aborts were seen on video chanting 'hail Satan' in an attempt to drown out peaceful pro-lifers singing Amazing Grace.

Taranto commented above: "Wow, these extremists can't even have a protest without Gosnell-like sanitary conditions."

More on Zimmerman if you care:

SPOILER: Click to show

www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/07/15/why_don_t_the_drive_bys_care_about_these_crimes

Mr. Snerdley tells me that everybody calling today is very upset, very angry, and talking about a story in the New York Daily News. "Mother, Aunt of Georgia Baby-Slaying Suspect Arrested for Lying to the Police." We have the Zimmerman case in reverse, essentially, right? (interruption) Horrific. (interruption) Yeah, we have a 17-year-old shooting a one-year-old baby, race involved. The New York Daily News has a story.

The Drive-Bys don't care.

The national media doesn't care.

I've got another story from the Marietta, Georgia, Daily Journal. "Why is Joshua Chellew Less Important Than Trayvon Martin?" Who is he? Here's the story, and this is from July 3rd of this year. "Four south Cobb [County] teenagers are in custody in connection with the beating death of a 36-year-old Mableton man on Mableton Parkway early Sunday morning. ... According to the warrant, the four teenagers are accused of starting a fight with Chellew at a Chevron gas station ... at about 1:20 a.m. Sunday.

"They repeatedly punched and kicked him, according to police. While attempting to escape, Chellew backed into the center five-lane highway and was pushed to the ground and knocked unconscious, the warrant states. They then walked away from Chellew, 'leaving him helpless,' and he was eventually hit by a car, the warrant states." They left him in the middle of the highway. Now, it's a horrible and senseless murder.

Why hasn't it received wider attention?

The story is in the Marietta Daily Journal. Oh, well, this might be why. They published a picture of Joshua Chellew, and he's a redheaded white guy. And then they published pictures of the four people that beat him up, killed him, and they are black. And so these stories... I don't understand everybody's rage. They just don't get reported. Black-on-white crime like this, or black-on-black crime, doesn't get reported. Like in Chicago.

All the massive shooting deaths?

No big deal.

Folks, I know why you're upset and angry out there, but you know why this is the case. The narrative is, "This is a slave country." The narrative is, "Black people are routinely victimized by white people. They're either killed or other horrific crimes are committed, but nothing ever happens to the perpetrators. They always get away with it. They're always acquitted," and so it's made to order. The media has a narrative or a view of what the country is, and whenever a story comes along that lets them promulgate that narrative, they do it.

The Duke lacrosse case is a classic example.

There wasn't one shred of fact in that story as originally reported. There wasn't one iota of truth. That didn't matter. It was what the media and the American left think this country is, and so that's what was reported. The Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case, same thing. It was an opportunity for the media to perpetuate that narrative. They're always gonna ignore things to the contrary. They're not gonna let the narrative be changed.

All these crimes where black thugs kill or beat up white people that don't get reported? Why? You know it as well as I do. It doesn't advance liberalism. Not only does it not advance liberalism, it exposes it for the fraud that it is.

www.nationalreview.com/corner/353455/politicized-justice-department-zimmerman-civil-rights-case-cia-interrogators-case-all

For Politicized Justice Department, Zimmerman ‘Civil Rights’ Case Is CIA Interrogators Case All Over Again

For those of us who are very proud of our service in the Justice Department – I was a federal prosecutor for nearly 20 years – there is nothing more appalling than seeing the attorney general of the United States heaping praise on, and joining in the machinations of, a race-mongering political demagogue such as Al Sharpton. As I’ve summarized before, Sharpton not only has a history of obstructing the administration of justice but was actively threatening, at the very time Eric Holder colluded with him, to “occupy” Sanford, Fla., if the state declined to file charges against George Zimmerman.

As I recounted over the weekend, after a Florida state jury acquitted Zimmerman on all counts in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Holder’s Department announced the resuscitation of its preposterous civil-rights investigation of Zimmerman. The main Obama/Holder precedent on which I’d rely to evaluate what’s going on – which is politics, not law – is Holder’s reopening, and later quiet dropping of, the investigation of CIA agents involved in the Bush-era enhanced-interrogation program.

Observe that what the Justice Department has announced is an investigation, not a prosecution. This is the same pedantic distinction Holder drew when he was caught misleading Congress in connection with the surveillance of Fox News correspondent James Rosen. Investigation is cost-free for Holder. The only one who gets harmed is Zimmerman, because he has to live in fear of prosecution, and the continued investigation means a continued spotlight which implies continued harassment by the hard Left. Holder only gets hurt if he actually tries to file charges – he will be humiliated if the grand jury refuses to indict or a jury (or the trial judge) laughs the case out of court.

Of course, there were no prosecutable crimes by the CIA and other officials – career prosecutors had scrutinized the allegations arising out of interrogations and determined that no colorable charges could be brought. Holder reopened the case anyway, continued the investigation for a couple of years, and then quietly dropped it. The advantage for our Janus-faced attorney general was that he could promise Obama’s angry base that he was actively looking into matter while simultaneously telling Congress and the media that it was absurd to accuse him of harassing the CIA (and thus endangering our security) since he hadn’t actually brought any charges. This kept the issue alive, which was politically useful for the hard-left groups continuing to campaign against Bush, but spared DOJ the humiliation of a trial on a shoddy indictment.

Expect a reprise on Zimmerman. Holder tells the Left he is aggressively investigating; but tells Congress he is just poking around in a responsible way, hasn’t really done anything in the way of filing charges, and respects the verdict in Florida. No charges get filed, but the racial-grievance industry has a green-light to continue agitating, Zimmerman endures the anxiety and expense of a continuing threat of prosecution, and we all watch the spectacle of our justice system used as a tool of racial politics and political fundraising.

As some of us warned five years ago, to confirm Holder as attorney general was to guarantee politicized justice – that, after all, is what “social justice” is.

spectator.org/blog/2013/07/15/trayvon-crime-school-miami

The February 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martion might never have happened if school officials in Miami-Dade County had not instituted an unofficial policy of treating crimes as school disciplinary infractions. Revelations that emerged from an internal affairs investigation explain why Martin was not arrested when caught at school with stolen jewelry in October 2011 or with marijuana in February 2012. Instead, the teenager was suspended from school, the last time just days before he was shot dead by George Zimmerman.

Trayvon Martin was not from Sanford, the town north of Orlando where he was shot in 2012 and where a jury acquitted Zimmerman of murder charges Saturday. Martin was from Miami Gardens, more than 200 miles away, and had come to Sanford to stay with his father’s girlfriend Brandy Green at her home in the townhouse community where Zimmerman was in charge of the neighborhood watch. Trayvon was staying with Green after he had been suspended for the second time in six months from Krop High School in Miami-Dade County, where both his father, Tracy Martin, and mother, Sybrina Fulton, lived.

Both of Trayvon’s suspensions during his junior year at Krop High involved crimes that could have led to his prosecution as a juvenile offender. However, Chief Charles Hurley of the Miami-Dade School Police Department (MDSPD) in 2010 had implemented a policy that reduced the number of criminal reports, manipulating statistics to create the appearance of a reduction in crime within the school system. Less than two weeks before Martin’s death, the school system commended Chief Hurley for “decreasing school-related juvenile delinquency by an impressive 60 percent for the last six months of 2011.” What was actually happening was that crimes were not being reported as crimes, but instead treated as disciplinary infractions.

In October 2011, after a video surveillance camera caught Martin writing graffiti on a door, MDSPD Office Darryl Dunn searched Martin’s backpack, looking for the marker he had used. Officer Dunn found 12 pieces of women’s jewelry and a man’s watch, along with a flathead screwdriver the officer described as a “burglary tool.” The jewelry and watch, which Martin claimed he had gotten from a friend he refused to name, matched a description of items stolen during the October 2011 burglary of a house on 204th Terrace, about a half-mile from the school. However, because of Chief Hurley’s policy “to lower the arrest rates,” as one MDSPD sergeant said in an internal investigation, the stolen jewerly was instead listed as “found property” and was never reported to Miami-Dade Police who were investigating the burglary. Similarly, in February 2012 when an MDSPD officer caught Martin with a small plastic bag containing marijuana residue, as well as a marijuana pipe, this was not treated as a crime, and instead Martin was suspended from school.

Either of those incidents could have put Trayvon Martin into the custody of the juvenile justice system. However, because of Chief Hurley’s attempt to reduce the school crime statistics — according to sworn testimony, officers were “basically told to lie and falsify” reports — Martin was never arrested. And if he had been arrested, he might never have been in Sanford the night of his fatal encounter with Zimmerman.

[kode54]

I do agree with you on the points of Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. While Zimmerman was a bit of an overzealous wannabe authority figure, Trayvon Martin was a thug, plain and simple. I mean, his Facebook page paints him as a drug dealer. If George Zimmerman hadn't had that gun handy, he would most likely be dead. Shooting in the chest is the most likely place he would have gotten the gun aimed in his haste while he was getting his head pounded against the pavement.

Although, technically, the whole situation probably could have been avoided if Zimmerman hadn't decided to pursue Martin against the advice of the police dispatcher.

He will have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life, because somewhere, some crazy person who believes the picture of Trayvon Martin painted as an innocent teenager out for some tea and Skittles, so rudely attacked by the White Zimmerman.

And it isn't helping that CNN has and is continuing to try their damnedest to incite race riots.

[Tails82]

This numbskull is a gift that keeps on giving

www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/07/16/rachel_jeantel_trayvon_thought_zimmerman_was_a_gay_rapist_and_trayvon_wasn_t_that_kind_of_way

Rachel Jeantel: Trayvon Thought Zimmerman was a Gay Rapist and Trayvon Wasn't "That Kind of Way"

An entirely new perspective on this whole sordid incident was provided by Rachel Jeantel last night on CNN. Everybody's been under the impression that Zimmerman was a racist, and that's why he went after Trayvon. I went to great lengths yesterday, folks, to break this down and tell you what I think this was really all about. I'm not gonna repeat that but it is at RushLimbaugh.com. Essentially, it was about economics.

You've got a bunch of people in this community that are barely hanging on. They've worked very hard to get where they are and there are all kinds of robberies and things, and they're just tired of being stolen from, and they've got a Neighborhood Watch and so forth. It's about the Obama economy. But the media and everybody has been saying since this happened, "Zimmerman's a white racist!"

You know as well as I do they've been doing everything they can to portray this as Zimmerman chasing a guy because he was black. Well, Zimmerman's the guy that got beaten up in this. Everybody forgets that. Zimmerman is the guy who got beat up. Now we know why, from a witness for the prosecution who was on CNN last night, Rachel Jeantel. Race wasn't even a factor. When she was asked to define "creepy ass cracka," and "n-i-g-g-a," it wasn't racial.

Not one definition she gave for any of these terms being used had to do with race.

"Creepy ass cracka"?

That's "a police."

"N-i-g-g-a"?

That's "a male."

You gotta say n-i-g-g-e-r to make it racist. There wasn't any race. The jury didn't deliberate race. The race aspect was totally manufactured by the media. So listen to Rachel Jeantel's answer to Piers Morgan. The question, "But you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the 'creepy ass cracka' and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man -- you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man -- was pursuing him? And he was freaked out by it?"

So Piers Morgan is asking Rachel Jeantel, "Why was Trayvon Martin 'freaked out'?" Now, everybody has been led to believe that Trayvon was freaked out because some white guy was chasing him, but let's be honest. Zimmerman's not a white guy! It was raining. It's nighttime. He's of dark complexion. He's an Hispanic. This "white Hispanic" is a media creation. There wasn't any racial component here, folks. This is what's crucially important.

Why was he freaked out by it, Rachel?

JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely. After I say, "Might be a rapist." For every boys or every man, every who's not that kinda way, see a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you gotta take as a parent. You tell a child, "You see a grown person follow it you, run away," and all that.

RUSH: Rachel, says, "He may be a rapist, Trayvon," and then she said, "For every boys or every man, every who's not that kinda way," that means who's not gay, "you see a grown man following 'em, you be creep out." So she was saying, Trayvon is straight; he's got this adult male chasing him. She's put the idea out that this adult male might be a rapist, and Trayvon "be creep out" by being chased by a gay guy...."And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there." You need me to translate that? Okay. She has put in Trayvon's mind that Zimmerman is gay. Zimmerman might be a rapist, and a predator.

I thought, when I heard this last night, that that's all anybody'd be talking about today, because this throws this thing 180 degrees out of phase. So now Trayvon Martin, who is the recipient of full-fledged, 100% victim status? It turns out could well be a gay basher, and the left has been defending him.

newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/07/16/cnn-zimmerman-prosecutor-excused-potential-black-juror-being-fox-news#ixzz2ZEFaq3iT

CNN: Zimmerman Prosecutor Excused Potential Black Juror for Being a Fox News Watcher

George Zimmerman haters throughout the media have carped and whined about the fact that there weren’t any African-Americans on the jury despite the law requiring the accused NOT the victim be judged by his peers.

On CNN Newsroom Tuesday, it was revealed that a potential black juror had been struck by the prosecution for committing the crime of being a Fox News watcher...it appears black jurors were only going to be acceptable to the prosecution if they were liberals getting their "news" from Zimmerman-hating media outlets.

Martin supporters should keep that in mind as they complain about the makeup of the jury.

www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/in-store-wars-the-empire-strikes-back

When religious liberty collides with same-sex "marriage," something has to give. And usually, that "something" is Christians' rights. In this mad dash to redefine marriage in America, many in society are so focused on giving homosexuals their way that they aren't stopping to see who gets tramples underfoot. The real victims, who include children, religious business owners, and employees across the country, have been lost in a convenient storyline of inequality and discrimination.

While the media spills oceans of ink on the perceived injustice toward same-sex couples, very few reporters are telling the stories of Christians being hauled into court, before human rights commissions, and even their own employers for subscribing to a view on marriage that -- until last year -- President Barack Obama shared! In the meantime, wedding vendors from Washington State to New Jersey are trapped in the middle, wondering why their rights are suddenly less important than homosexuals'. When did it become acceptable to sacrifice the freedoms of conscience and free exercise of religion on the same-sex "wedding" altar?

Never, if you ask most Americans. In a stunningly lopsided poll, U.S. voters universally supported the rights of companies like Masterpiece Cakes, Arlene's Flowers, Elane Photography, and others who turned down "wedding" business from same-sex couples -- and are now paying for it (usually literally). In a sharply divided country where Americans rarely agree on anything -- let alone social issues -- Rasmussen Reports found a shocking amount of consensus on the question of businesses' rights in the marriage debate. "If a Christian wedding photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage is asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, 85% of Americans believe he has the right to say no." Only 8% disagree. That's as unanimous as it gets in the polling community. Obviously, some Americans -- in their haste to redefine marriage -- haven't stopped to make the connection between the homosexual agenda and the fallout for individual liberty.

And of course, the mainstream media isn't helping. These are the stories the liberal press doesn't want to tell. Like us, they understand that it puts a real face on the threat of redefining marriage. Suddenly, this isn't just about two people that love each other. It's about peaceful, decent Americans who just want to live out their faith in their daily life. And if Rasmussen's margin, 85% to 8%, is any indication, most people would agree that same-sex couples can't have their wedding cake and eat it too.

In a telling post, HotAir's Allahpundit, a same-sex "marriage" supporter himself, sees the potential for shifting the debate in these results. "[Even] a strong-form libertarian would say that the photographer has the right to refuse for whatever reason he chooses, religious or not... The big stumbling block here for gay rights activists is that their most compelling argument to opponents no longer applies: 'It doesn't affect you' is a good solid libertarian justification for legalized marriage, not so good when it means business owners will be forced to work with you whether they want to or not."

In the case of Arlene's Flowers, owner Barronnelle Stutzman had not only served gays and lesbians -- but employed them. As her attorney points out, this was never about discrimination but participation in a ceremony her faith expressly condemns. No American -- business owner or not -- should have to violate their beliefs to compete in the marketplace. So far, the Left has done a masterful job keeping these incidents quiet. But if the media won't tell the victims' stories, we must.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324348504578609912616658012.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Senate Majority Leader Rich Trumka, er, Harry Reid held a gun to the head of Republicans on the filibuster, Republicans blinked, and President Obama and the AFL-CIO will now get their nominees confirmed for the cabinet and especially a legal quorum for the National Labor Relations Board.

Cut through all the procedural blather and that's the essence of the Senate's "deal" Tuesday over the 60-vote filibuster rule. While Democrats didn't formally pull the trigger of the "nuclear option" to allow a mere majority vote to confirm nominees, they have now established a de facto majority-vote rule. Any time Democrats want to do so, they can threaten to pull the majority trigger.

Republicans might as well acknowledge this new reality, even if it means admitting defeat in this round. GOP Senators should state clearly for the record that the next time there is a GOP President and a Democratic Senate minority wants to block an appointment with a filibuster, fuhgedaboutit. Majority rule will prevail.

Otherwise Republicans will be conceding that the filibuster remains the rule—except when Democrats say it isn't. Democrats would be able to use the filibuster to block confirmation of GOP nominees the way they did John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador during the Bush Presidency, but Republicans couldn't return the favor. Bottom line: This week Democrats killed the filibuster against executive-branch appointees when the same party holds the White House and Senate.

The good news here is that this maneuver shouldn't block the legal challenge to the non-recess recess appointments. Both the D.C. and Third Circuit courts of appeal have ruled that NLRB rulings made by those non-recess board members are illegal, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the D.C. Circuit's Noel Canning case.

Mr. Trumka and the White House now hope the reconstituted NLRB will reissue those rulings. Then they will argue to the Supreme Court that the case is moot because there is no longer any injury.

But this is wishful thinking. The NLRB no longer has formal jurisdiction over the case now that it is in the courts, a precedent that no less than Justice Elena Kagan endorsed in 2010 in the New Process Steel v. NLRB case when she was Solicitor General.

More broadly, the President has claimed a power to declare when the Senate is in recess, and he can always do so again. Thus the injury from illegal rulings due to illegal appointments could recur, which means the issue is far from moot. This is also a significant dispute about the separation of powers. If the President can decide on his own when the Senate is in recess, then the Senate's advice and consent power is essentially gutted.

[Deleted]

Jul 12, 2013 19:15:55 GMT -5 @zetta said:

See 1 and 2.

God's presence doesn't matter; he backs the authority, but does not propagate it.

Ahem.

Also, for the sake of argument, lets say the Pope totally does have the power to make new binding religious laws, or remove the existing ones.
What, then, is the problem with homosexual marriage?

It hurts no one; you just don't like it 'cause the bible says stuff against it once or twice. _{(probably in Leviticus; that's where most of your backwards junk comes from, anyway)}
The pope could, and really should, just issue a bull saying it's totally fine with the church.

Furthermore, the position supplants God's authority in entirety. If the pope said "everyone gets a free pass to heaven"... everyone would get a free pass to heaven.
Why do people go to hell? Because every pope there has ever been wants them to, is all.
Such caring people, they choose political power over the souls of untold millions.

[Jordan Ω]

Jul 17, 2013 11:08:46 GMT -5 @zetta said:

Jul 12, 2013 19:15:55 GMT -5 @zetta said:

See 1 and 2.

God's presence doesn't matter; he backs the authority, but does not propagate it.

_{(probably in Leviticus; that's where most of your backwards junk comes from, anyway)}

Oi! Respect, please.

[Deleted]

I'll respect it when it's respectable.

I mean, even among the less outright murderous stuff: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019:19&version=NIV

Seriously? This here has God commanding farmers to not grow more than one crop on a field.
You know what that gets you? Dead, when a blight decides it doesn't like your potatoes this year.

Of course, that's also part of the bible; if all your crops fail, God's probably pissed at you about something, and how can you have all of them fail if you plant more than one type?
Please, think of God, he has it so hard these days with modern agricultural techniques. >_>

[Jordan Ω]

Jul 17, 2013 13:38:50 GMT -5 @zetta said:

I'll respect it when it's respectable.

I mean, even among the less outright murderous stuff: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019:19&version=NIV

Seriously? This here has God commanding farmers to not grow more than one crop on a field.
You know what that gets you? Dead, when a blight decides it doesn't like your potatoes this year.

Of course, that's also part of the bible; if all your crops fail, God's probably pissed at you about something, and how can you have all of them fail if you plant more than one type?
Please, think of God, he has it so hard these days with modern agricultural techniques. >_>

The Kalayim, the not planting 2 seed thing means together. Like, not interbreeding crops or animals. 2 crops in the same field is fine. I don't remember why... I can find out, I guess. Get back to you tonight.