From National Review Online.

Stage One: The strange compulsion to assure us that the killer is a “right wing conservative extremist . . . ."

. . .

Stage Two: Okay, he may be called Mohammed but he’s a “lone wolf.”

. . .

Stage Three: Okay, even if there are enough lone wolves around to form their own Radio City Rockette line, itÂ’s still nothing to do with Islam.

. . .

Stage Four: The backlash that never happens. Because apparently the really bad thing about actual dead Jews is that it might lead to dead non-Jews: “French Muslims Fear Backlash After Shooting.” Likewise, after Major Hasan’s mountain of dead infidels, “Shooting Raises Fears For Muslims In US Army.” Likewise, after the London Tube slaughter, “British Muslims Fear Repercussions After Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.” Oh, no, wait, that’s a parody, though it’s hard to tell.

(Hyperlinks in original.) Go to the link to fill-in the rest of his rationale. With certain stories, it appears, The Narrative must be played out, regardless of what the facts are and regardless of how unproductive and unhelpful it might be.

Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 10:33 AM | Comments (119)
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.

*Headline changed away from the MailOnline's take to more accurately reflect the quotes in the story. --rdbrewer

That "white Hispanic" George Zimmerman was provoked. According to the MailOnline:

The witness, known only as John, told Sanford police that he saw Martin on top of George Zimmerman shortly before the fatal shot that has led to a national outcry, including a huge 'hoodie' march in Philadelphia last night.

He recounted the details to Fox 35 News in Florida.

The witness told FOX 35 in Orlando that he saw evidence of a fight between Martin and Zimmerman, which could lend credence to the gunman's claim that he was acting in self-defence.

'The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: "Help, helpÂ… and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,' he said.

Zimmerman was wearing a red sweater; Martin was in a grey hoodie.

He added: 'When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.'

And from the the Orlando Sentinel:

Police found blood on [Zimmerman's] face and the back of his head as well as grass on the back of his shirt.

It's important to note that the picture we've seen circulated that makes Trayvon Martin look like a little boy might be misleading. Reports are that he was 6'2" tall and a star football player. Apparently that picture is old, which makes one wonder whether it was selected for a reason.

I'm not saying Trayvon wasn't a wonderful guy and that this isn't a terrible case. I am suggesting that he wasn't some little kid who must be innocent simply because he looks so young and small. We shouldn't be forming opinions based upon the pictures we've seen.

There shouldn't be a rush to judgment like there was during the Duke lacrosse team case or the case of Richard Jewell, as Ace points out. And I would add Tawana Brawley to that list. (Note that race hustler Al Sharpton was involved in that one too.) Let's not push an agenda on this, okay? Forget about The Narrative.

Added: Spike Lee, who also involved himself in the Tawana Brawley case, tweeted Zimmerman's address. Nice going, Spike. Maybe someone will shoot him, huh?

Thanks to @JammieWF for the MailOnline link.

Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 08:18 AM | Comments (1021)
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

Obama may suck at most everything, but he's the undisputed gun salesman of the millenium:

Late Wednesday, Sturm Ruger said that in the first quarter, it had received orders for more than 1 million units. And despite “efforts to increase production rates, the incoming order rate exceeds our capacity to rapidly fulfill these orders,” Sturm Ruger said.

...

As an industry, firearms have barely felt the impact of the downturn. In fact, the opposite has been true.

Starting in 2008, it has grown almost constantly, fueled by economic uncertainty and never-realized worries that President Barack Obama and the then-Democratic controlled Congress would seek to rein in gun rights.

I love the dismissive wave of the hand at the end of that quote, especially in light of Fast & Furious and Sarah Brady's "under the radar" comment. "Never materialized" just means they haven't gotten to it yet.

Since 2008, I've bought ... *takes off shoes* ... yeah, I've bought a few guns. And I would've bought more if ammo wasn't so damned expensive.

Next on the list is this little beaut of a summertime carry gun.

And, speaking of Fast & Furious: the administration's latest stonewalling attempt. more...

Posted by: andy at 02:50 AM | Comments (529)
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

Whitney Houston died as a result of cocaine use and always being there for you, but mainly from cocaine use.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:01 PM | Comments (844)
Post contains 887 words, total size 7 kb.

Um, false.

Click on the link for a more likely look for her. Kind of like a snarky, spunky Sonic the Hedgehog chick.

Aliens

They have come for our boobies.

Posted by: Ace at 04:09 PM | Comments (258)
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

MF Global went $200 million into overdraft for its own firm business (its own accounts, its own profits) and I guess they didn't have the money to cover that.

So what did they do?

They sent JPMorgan customer monies, which are supposed to be segregated and cannot, of course, be used for the firm's own business.

That would count as an "involuntary loan," and if it's not paid back, and "involuntary taking." Like if I need my neighbor's car, for example. And just happen to maybe take it out a few nights a week.

And then I sold it for hookers & action figures.

Like: Theft.

This was so rank that JPMorgan wrote back for written reassurance that these funds were the firms', and not MF Global's.

MFGlobal did not write back. It ignored the letter. So, they knew what they were doing was wrong. It was not a mistake. They needed cash so they swiped some from clients. Which was then lost.

At Hot Air: Corzine claimed in his sworn testimony he "never" instructed anyone to use client funds for his own uses.

Care to amend that testimony, JC?

If this $200 million was swiped and "vaporized," I think I have a suspicion about the fate of the full $1.2 billion. Steal little, steal big. (Did I just say stealing $200 million was stealing little?)

Posted by: Ace at 03:42 PM | Comments (126)
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

I'd like to propose a new category of bias to cover this.

Merah’s motivation seems blindingly clear. Apparently not. “Mohamed Merah stands before us like an overgrown adolescent, unemployed, at loose ends, soft-hearted but at the same time disturbed and incoherent,” Tariq Ramadan, professor of Islamic Studies at Oxford University, wrote on Friday. If only the “soft-hearted” jihadist had a job and higher self-esteem. Paris-based writer Diana Johnstone, who previously wrote a book doubting the Srebrenica massacre, told an interviewer that France’s “chickens were coming home to roost” because of its foreign policy. Britain’s Stop the War Coalition, fronted by Labour Party grandee Tony Benn, argued on its website that shooting children was “the terrible and disastrous outcome of the West’s war policies and anti-Muslim racism.” The article made no mention of anti-Semitism.

While those inhabiting the left-wing fringe apportioned blame to France and Israel’s policies, many mainstream media and political figures—lazily assuming this was an Anders Breivik-style terrorist attack—blamed the violence on the rhetoric employed by President Nicolas Sarkozy’s faltering reelection campaign.

Before Merah was fingered as the killer, centrist presidential candidate Francois Bayrou argued that murders in Toulouse “had their roots in the current state of French society,” referencing recent debates over immigration. The New York Times speculated that the shootings “were somehow inspired by anti-immigrant political talk,” arguing that Breivik’s mass murder in Oslo was provoked “in some way by too harsh a debate in Norway about immigrants and foreigners.” A column by The Guardian’s former opinion page editor (and two unsigned editorials from the same paper) also implied the murders were the work of far-right terrorists, stirred to action by Sarkozy.

And now, not so much.

Now -- who knows why he did it. One cannot speak intelligently of the motivations of the clinically insane, you know. A madman's motive is madness, that's all.

The bias here is Whoopie Goldberg's favorite stupid dodge -- "You don't know! We don't know!" and variations thereupon. A false claim of perfect ignorance is used as an excuse to avoid the topic entirely -- we don't know anything about this Madman's Motives, so let's ignore them entirely.

Ooh, look! George Zimmerman! His motives we know!

(As we knew the Duke Lacrosse Team's motives for gang-raping putrescent nightrcrawler Crystal Gayle Mangum. Or we knew the motives -- wannabe cop! -- for Richard Jewel's bombing of the Olympics. )

The media is very inconsistent about when it "knows" things and when the picture is just too darned fuzzy to say anything.

And then it justifies plainly agenda-driven decisions about coverage on the basis of just not knowing enough to say.

Well, let's say, hypothetically, that we don't know Mohammad Merah's motive. Isn't that a reason we should therefore be discussing this, to ferret out this elusive motive?

Nope. It's a reason to ignore the story.

And what could be the motive here?

Well, we can't talk about that. Only British papers are reporting a crime committed in America.

Could it be that inflaming racial hatred of whites by blacks is actually not some consequence-free, victim-free pastime, but actually results in actual harm to people? Could it be that a steady dehumanization of anyone -- whites included -- as scary oppressors just might result in some people taking this seriously and acting according to what they've been relentlessly told?

Posted by: Ace at 01:51 PM | Comments (352)
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.

Not mentioned in this reporting: The clear implication that Obama is currently lying.

ObamaÂ’s top political advisers have held serious discussions with leading Democrats about the upsides and downsides of coming out for gay marriage before the fall election, a Democratic strategist who has discussed these matters directly with ObamaÂ’s campaign inner circle tells me.

You know how I said "Gutsy call?" Right, his advisers go on to spin it that despite all this polling and wargaming, Obama will make the call based on... his gut.

Those advisers are convinced that Obama will make this call based on his gut, and ultimately without regard to the fine-grained political analysis of the situation, the source says.

What do the polls tell him his gut's saying?

Posted by: Ace at 12:09 PM | Comments (245)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, the Media decided We Have To Have a National Discussion about this story.

1. I appreciate the media dubbing Zimmerman "a white Hispanic." Like the Israelis, he's now an honorary member of the Oppressive White Majority.

2. Certain local stories of race-on-race crime ignite the media's passions. Others do not.

3. Most of the time, stories like the one I just linked are not reported by the media, for various reasons. One is that, alas, black on white crime is so common as to be not newsworthy, whereas the reverse is rare and hence, oddly, makes national news.

Another reason is that such stories are, by their nature, inflammatory (no pun intended, of course).

But the media does not mind inflammatory stories when the right people are inflamed. Farrakhan, for example, states that "soon and very soon" the "law of retaliation" "may be applied."

Now, if that story about the black kids setting the white kid on fire -- while declaring "You're white, this is what you deserve" -- was excessively inflammatory, why the media rush to inflame further black on white violence?

4. The cops acted predictably and understandably in not arresting Zimmerman. Here are the facts, as they knew them at the time: Zimmerman was a law-abiding citizen who gave them lots of (correct) tips about local crime. He was helpful to the police (probably also annoying in being too vigilant -- but while such people may annoy the police, they nevertheless appreciate the help that comes with the annoyance).

He called in to 911 to report a "suspicious" character, then followed him, waiting for police to arrive. Eventually there was some violence (Zimmerman was reportedly bloodied) and he claimed self-defense.

Now, under those circumstances, the police are not going to be very suspicious of Zimmerman. If he was attempting a murder, he went about it in a strange way -- calling police to arrive at the scene of the crime before there was a crime. He had no known motive against this Trayvon Martin fellow -- they'd never met.

Why suspect a deliberate murder?

That doesn't make Zimmerman innocent -- but it does explain why the police thought he was likely innocent of wrongdoing.

5. If the facts are as the media reports them, then it does seem like Zimmerman was following around a kid who wasn't doing anything illegal at all. Then again, if the facts were as the media reported them, the Duke Lacrosse Team was guilty of violent gang-rape.

While the liberal media screams, once again, "Trust us, and forget all about our hitting the Panic Button time and time again before!," some of us would like to see what the facts really are before coming to a conclusion.

6. As a general matter, and inescapably, the law of self-defense is a very thorny thicket. The media would like to simplify the law and simply declare that anyone who shoots anyone else is guilty of murder (because they would like to ban all guns, period, and this is a cutesy manner of achieving that goal through the back-door).

But these laws are inescapably thorny and these cases are inescapably very dependent on actual facts.

At the heart of every self-defense case are a pair of related questions: Did the defendant reasonably believe his safety was in jeopardy when he struck the fatal blow? And, based on the circumstances, did the defendant act lawfully, within the accepted safe-harbors for the use of lethal force in defending one's life (or another's life)?

Facts, not ginned up racial outrage or general anti-gun animus, answer these questions.

Given what we think we know (and remember, the media has lied before): it appears that the kid was unarmed, the guy can't rely on self-defense to save his life.

Further, it appears (again, appears) that Zimmerman initiated the contact/confrontation, not the kid, so the "stand your ground" law is not even relevant in the case.

But that's how it appears, at the moment, and for a whole year the media was pretty sure that drug-addled, mentally-imbalanced nightcrawler Crystal Gayle Mangum was a pretty solid citizen and dependable witness.

We'll see how this plays.

Various inarticulate, charity-hire racists don't need a sober assessment of the facts, because their conclusions are animated by racism -- the party of the Disfavored Race is always guilty. (Even when the member of the Disfavored Race is only an honorary member of that Disfavored Race.)

Although America has brought shame to some racists, others flaunt their racism proudly.

We'll have to do something about that. What is this, the 50s?

7. The media is a full-court press to politicize this, noting that the entire Republican field has remained "silent" on this case.

Two problems: First, Obama himself remained "silent" until yesterday, when he declared if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin. (And not, for example, like the guys who set fire to the white boy.)

This happened a month ago. Obama waited a month to comment, and as late as Monday refused comment, calling it a "local" matter.

So why suddenly is everyone expected to hop-to now that Hamlet has decided it's a good issue to exploit?

Second problem: Obama is not the first candidate to address this matter. Newt Gingrich was.

So is Obama racist for failing to match Gingrich's alacrity?

8. Fantasy is a very popular genre of fiction. Fantasy is often used to explore real-world problems, but in fantasy trappings. Why is this attractive? Perhaps because the real-world problems, with real-world details, are so unattractive that many people can only be induced to engage with the subject matter if it has a certain amount of distancing from real-world details. If it's fuzzed up by fantasy. Spoonfull of sugar and all that.

The actual real-world facts is that blacks commit crimes at greatly higher rates than whites, and that blacks specifically victimize whites at far higher rates than whites victimize blacks.

And yet the media doesn't ever wish to discuss that -- it's too real, it hurts too much. It offends people.

So instead we only talk about racial issues through this fantasy lens-- the fantasy lens in which white on black crime is common and some sort of national epidemic which must be addressed immediately.

In this case, if Zimmerman was too vigilant and too paranoid, it could just be because he overreacted, lethally, to the very real problem of high black crime rates.

And while we blame him, what about the actual black criminals -- not Trayvon Martin, mind you, who appears blameless, but the actual black criminals who'd been operating in Zimmerman's neighborhood and so brought this tragedy to pass?

Shall we say nothing of them?

Probably not. Because we don't have enough layers of fantasy to make that particular problem palatable and safe for polite discussion.

The Calls: These are the 911 calls during/after the incident, not from Zimmerman, but from others.

Apparently Zimmerman was calling for help as Trayvon was beating him up.

Not dispositive, but suggestive that Zimmerman's claim -- I was in fear for my life -- is credible.

Not sure what the law would say in a case where a guy thinks he's tracking a criminal, gets into a fight with said suspected criminal, loses fight with said suspected criminal, and then shoots him.

"He's Coming Towards Me:" I'd been assuming that Zimmerman approached Martin, rather than vice versa.

But this suggests (but doesn't prove) that Martin approached Zimmerman before the deadly incident.

I don't know if this is just before the incident, though. Perhaps this approach ended, and then Zimmerman started tracking him again.

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. ...

Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

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

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring...

Dispatcher: OK, he's just walking around the area...

Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.

Dispatcher: OK... Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.

Dispatcher: OK--you said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?

Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse...

Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse, do you know what the--he's near the clubhouse right now?

Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.

Dispatcher: OK. Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.

Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?

Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.

Dispatcher: Late teens ok.

If that's right before the incident, it does suggest that Zimmerman did not initiate contact or violence.

Some will say "But Martin has the right to walk around the neighborhood!" Yes, he does. But Zimmerman also has the right to walk around his neighborhood, and keep tabs on strangers.

That would make him a busy-body and a Nosey Parker, but he too has that right.

To me the question comes down to who started the fight. If Zimmerman started it, then he can't plug a guy just because he started a fight and then got his ass kicked.

But if Martin started it, then Zimmerman can take refuge in the Stand Your Ground law.

Not sure if that's the actual law. Just seems like that's likely the law-- stand your ground would apply when you're attacked, not when you yourself attack.

Update: "He's Running." Takser points out that this 911 call has Zimmerman reporting "He's running" and "He ran."

But Zimmerman doesn't follow him at that point -- he's not breathing hard. He doesn't seem to be running himself.

If Zimmerman chased him I could understand why Martin might be alarmed. But Zimmerman doesn't pursue him. So I don't know what this says about the actual moment of contact between them.

The Law... Thanks to tmtsss.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who

1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless

a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is
in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the
use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the
assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the
assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires
to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues
or resumes the use of force.History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

So there's the law.

The issues: Would "following" count as "provoking"? I don't think so. I think that's talking about the guy who immediately, directly begins the fight.

If that is Zimmerman, he can't find safe harbor here... except for the next "unless," which declares he still might if he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

I'm not sure a beating, without more, would qualify as that. Seems to me it has to be more serious. A beating doesn't typically result in death or great bodily harm. Could. But usually doesn't.

So it seems that my first thought -- depends on who actually started the fight -- is the important one.

Posted by: Ace at 10:19 AM | Comments (945)
Post contains 1977 words, total size 13 kb.

Today, at 12 pm local time (time varies by city), the 59% are demanding freedom.

The Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate, which is being coordinated by the Illinois-based Pro-Life Action League; and includes multiple pro-life, social conservative, and religious groups, including Human Life International, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Alliance Defense Fund, and Priests for Life; have organized the "Stand Up For Religious Freedom" rallies "in defense of religious freedom and STAND UP against the Obama administration's HHS mandate at federal building in cities across the country."

Newsbusters asks if the media will cover the protests, noting, of course, they couldn't wait to cover Occupy (and before that, the "Coffee Party" that took this nation by storm, much like Air America).

I think we already know the answer.

Posted by: Ace at 08:44 AM | Comments (303)
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.