Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican


Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by Frances Rice (more by this author)
Posted 08/16/2006 ET

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher."

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former "Dixiecrat" is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

Ms. Rice is chairman of the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) and may be contacted at

Thursday, July 25, 2013


"Any man who is satisfied to be fed by another man rather than by the honest sweat of his own brow should be shot."- Mark Twain

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

How Blacks Say "thank you".

Ultra short history lesson on slavery in America

Of all 1,515,605 families in the 15 slave states in 1860, nearly 400,000 held slaves (roughly one in four),[3] amounting to 8% of all American families.  So at the apex of slavery in the United States only 8% of American families owned staves and some of those slaves were owned by black Americans.  

So why do modern day blacks blame the entire white race for slavery when in fact it was white Americans who stopped slavery?  Gee, maybe they have been brainwashed by liberal politicians for political advantage.  

Black chieftains sold black slaves to Arabs. Arabs sold those slaves to slave traders. Slavery was a fact of life. Even free black Americans owned black slaves. Black Africans and Arabs made slavery possible. White Americans stopped slavery. Where is the gratitude on the part of blacks toward white abolitionists?

Monday, July 22, 2013

Special Benghazi committee

GOP leaders are coming under new pressure from conservatives to allow a House vote on legislation to form a special committee to investigate the Benghazi attack.
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) is circulating a discharge petition that would force GOP leaders to allow a vote on the House floor to form a committee to investigate events leading up to the terrorist attack last year on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, as well as the Obama administration's response.
Conservative lawmakers have been pressing for the creation of a special committee but GOP leaders have resisted, arguing existing panels can investigate Benghazi on their own.
If Stockman can get 218 House members to support his discharge petition, it would force a vote on the House floor.
Discharge petitions are very rarely introduced by members of the party that's in power.
They invariably infuriate leadership since they're a way to get around the scheduling process for bills, which is controlled by the majority leader – in this case, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.).
To promote his effort, Stockman, an outspoken freshman, will unveil on Tuesday a 60-foot-long scroll signed by 1,000 Special Forces veterans who support the select committee. Supporters tout it as the largest petition ever presented to Congress, and Stockman plans to unroll it down the Capitol's steps.
“The only way we’re going to get a clean and thorough investigation is by forcing a vote with a discharge petition,” Stockman said in announcing his petition last week.
The only Republican to introduce a discharge petition during the last Congress was Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).
Two years ago, Gohmert fought for a vote on his bipartisan bill exempting military salaries from negotiations to avert a government shutdown in 2011 after it stalled in the Armed Services and Transportation and Infrastructure committees. His discharge petition only got 30 signatures and the bill died in committee.
Gohmert was an early co-sponsor of the Benghazi Select Committee legislation and is scheduled to appear alongside Stockman on Tuesday. Former Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), who lost re-election, is also slated to appear.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders have opposed forming a special committee, arguing existing panels are doing a fine job with oversight on Benghazi.
“Four committees are heavily involved in this,” Boehner told Fox News in May after State Department officials criticized the administration's response the night of the attack.
“I don’t think at this point in time that it’s necessary. Now, we may get to a point where it is. But at this point, I think our committees are doing a very good job, and I’m going to be supportive of them.”
Some 160 lawmakers have signed on to a resolution from Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) calling for a select committee. The resolution has been stuck since January in the Rules Committee, which is controlled by Boehner ally Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas).
Wolf has said that Boehner would be “complicit” in an Obama administration “cover-up” if he does not allow for the creation of a select committee.
Wolf and Stockman did not return requests for comment.
Several senators – notably John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have also personally urged Boehner to reconsider his position after a State Department official testified that the embassy knew from the start that the assault in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Some Republicans have accused President Obama of deliberately misleading voters about the attack to preserve his national security credentials ahead of the November elections.
“I've raised it to him, I've talked to him. It's his decision to make, but we're making a big mistake by not doing a select committee,” Graham told The Hill in May. “We've communicated a lot, but we should probably do more in light of the building momentum in the House.”
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has taken the lead in investigating the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans last Sept. 11. Four other committees collaborated on an interim report in April that did little to placate Boehner's critics.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee had been scheduled to hold a hearing with a State Department official who says he was unfairly punished after the attack while higher-ups were left alone. Stockman, a member of the panel, introduced his discharge petition last week after Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) postponed the hearing until after the August recess.

Saturday, July 20, 2013

White baby murdered by black teens - Who was Antonio West?

Who was Antonio West?

Hello. Don’t recognize me? That’s OK; I understand.

My name was Antonio West. I was the 13-month old child who was shot in the face at point blank range by two black teens, who were attempting to rob my mother, who was also shot.

I think my murder and my mommy’s wounding made the news for maybe a day, and then disappeared.

A Grand Jury of my mommy's peers from Brunswick, Georgia ruled the black teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty... too bad it was me who got the death sentence from my killers instead, because Mommy didn’t have the money they demanded. 

See, my family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder wasn’t ruled a ‘hate crime’. 

Oh, and President Obama didn’t take a single moment to acknowledge my murder. He couldn’t have any children who could possibly look like me - so why should he care?

I’m one of the youngest murder victims in our great Nation's history, but the media didn’t care to cover the story of my being killed in cold blood.

There isn’t a white equivalent of Al Sharpton, because if there was he would be branded a ‘racist’. So no one’s rushing to Brunswick, Georgia to demonstrate and demand ‘justice’ for me. There’s no ‘White Panther’ party, either, to put a bounty on the lives of the two black teens who murdered me.

I have no voice, I have no representation, and unlike those who shot me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller - I no longer have my life.

Isn’t this a great country?

So while you’re out seeking ‘justice for Trayvon’, please remember to seek ‘justice’ for me. Tell your friends about me, tell you families, get tee-shirts with my face on them, and make the world pay attention, just like you did for Trayvon.

I won’t hold my breath.

I don’t have to anymore.

Stop Blaming Racism For Your Own Bad Behavior

Fellowship of Minds publishes my article "No Matter What Color You Are"

Hello Sam, I sent your article to Dr. Eowyn at Fellowship of minds blog spot. She gets visitors from all over the world including from Vatican City.
She posted it today. -  Stop Blaming Racism For Your Own Bad Behavior

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

No Matter What Color You Are

No Matter What Color You Are
We need to begin accepting that there is an underclass of people who are racist, criminal, use more than they produce, feed at the public trough, produce fatherless children, see themselves as victims, use dangerous drugs, promote prostitution, whose speech is full of vulgarities and reeks of ignorance, and hate white Americans. Gee, who could that class of people be? Do we have a name for them? Or is the name unspeakable?
 Quote from a Psychology Professor I once had;  “People are not who you think they are. People are not who they think they are. People are what they do. That is why this is called the behavioral science". Forget the labels. They are all misleading. Pay attention to the behavior. Describe these people according to their behavior and all the racist politics dissolve into the nothingness from which they came. The word "racist" was invented by democrats to buy votes.
No Matter What Color You Are:
If you participate in criminal behavior you are a criminal and you don’t deserve to be treated as an equal with law abiding citizens.
If your demographic group commits more crime than other demographic groups you will be looked upon with suspicion even if you personally are not a criminal.
If your demographic group has a large number of dysfunctional families your children will not be well adjusted nor do well in school or the workplace.
If your demographic group has a large percentage of “fatherless” children your culture is sick and does not deserve equality.
If your demographic group has a high drop-out rate for high school you are not the equal of educated people.
If your demographic group uses illegal drugs and abuses alcohol you will not be the equal of sober responsible people.
If you cannot properly read, write, and speak the language of your country do not expect equal treatment when you apply for a job or interact with those who are fluent with the primary language.
If you behave hatefully toward other demographic groups you will not be respected.
If you use more than you produce or accept handouts you are of no value to your society and cannot expect to be treated as an equal.
If your demographic group makes up 12% of the population and accounts for 49% of all homicides, and if  93%  of those murders a committed by other people in  the same demographic group, your group is pathologically violent and should not be seen as equal to other less violent groups.
If it is safer to be in the military than in your neighborhood, enlist now.  If you get through boot camp you will be treated as an equal
If you are blaming other people for your dysfunctional behavior you have serious psychological problems and don’t deserve to be treated as an equal.
Equity doesn’t come to you because of your color, no matter what it is.  Laws cannot bestow equality, no matter how much politicians will lie to you to get your vote.  You will be respected because of your behavior.  You will be equal when your behavior is equal to other people in the nation.
There are dozens of demographic studies that have not been cited above, but make the same point.  Don’t blame your color for your lack of equality.  Blame your own behavior.
The good news is that there is a way out.  You do have equal opportunity.  Change your behavior and you will leave your demographic group behind and become an equal.
 You may be right that "simple will power" is not adequate to reverse decades of social pathology. But I do know that validating pathology and subsidizing it will prevent any tactic from being efficacious. The sub culture we are discussing is sick to its core. However, the solution is available within this very same demographic group. Not everybody is sick. One of the most valuable areas of research for epidemiologists is studying those who don't get sick. How are the functional people in this demographic group behaving?  Mostly they succeed because of hard work, good values, and responsible living. And that is a universal recipe for success and is not confined to any demographic group. Those are the nongovernmental solutions that can heal a sick society. Blaming the pathology on other people is not a solution. Blaming the pathology on history is not a solution.

Rev. Sam Sewell, is Director of Best Self USA, a Pastoral Psychotherapist, serves on the faculty of Naples Community Hospital as an instructor for Clinical Pastoral Education, President of the Theological Centeer in Naples, a member of Mensa where he serves as Gifted Youth Coordinator, a U.S. Navy Veteran, and a Member of the Association For Intelligence Officers. He is a frequent commentator on mental health and religious issues. His award winning research on family issues is published in several languages. Member of Sigma Delta Chi Honor Society 
Editor's Note: White people no longer believe that they are guilty of oppressing blacks. Many whites believe that blacks should be grateful that white people stopped slavery.
Ultra short history lesson on slavery in America –

Of all 1,515,605 families in the 15 slave states in 1860, nearly 400,000 held slaves (roughly one in four),[3] amounting to 8% of all American families. So at the apex of slavery in the United States only 8% of American families owned staves and some of those slaves were owned by black Americans.
So why do modern day blacks blame the entire white race for slavery when in fact it was white Americans who stopped slavery? Gee, maybe they have been brainwashed by liberal politicians for political advantage.
Black chieftains sold black slaves to Arabs. Arab traders also raided European villages along the Western coast of Europe all the way up to Ireland and wiped out those entire villages, taking the people as slaves. They also gained white slaves from piracy.  Arabs sold those slaves to slave traders. Slavery was a fact of life in world history until white people fought and died to stop slavery.  Even free black Americans owned black slaves.
Black Africans and Arabs made slavery possible. White Americans stopped slavery. Where is the gratitude on the part of blacks toward white abolitionists and the white Union soldiers who died to stop slavery?
Editors note: I received email challenging the fact that black Americans owned black slaves. Here is a research source:

Monday, July 15, 2013

Zimmerman’s Prosecutors Should be Jailed

George Zimmerman
Like the Duke Lacrosse case, Zimmerman’s prosecutors should be jailed for withholding key evidence and for prosecutorial abuse.
Florida State Attorney Angela Corey and the three prosecutors who handled the prosecution of George Zimmerman (Bernie De La Rioanda, John Guy, and Richard Mantei) should now be jailed for these three reasons:
1) The prosecution deliberately withheld evidence favorable to George Zimmerman, just like district attorney Michael Nifong in the Duke lacrosse case.
There will soon be a hearing concerning likely sanctions (punishment) against the Zimmerman prosecution for withholding key evidence that could have helped George Zimmerman in his trial.
An employee of the Florida State Attorney’s Office, Ben Kruidbos, has testified that prosecutors withheld images from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone that shows Martin smoking marijuana, boasting about fights he’s been in, and deleted text messages regarding Trayvon’s efforts to purchase a firearm. The images and texts suggest that Trayvon was deeply involved in the gangster culture.
Kruidbos, an IT expert, testified that he delivered the 900-page report to the prosecution in January of 2013, but that the prosecution did not turn this evidence over to the defense, as required by law, until mid-June, a few weeks before the trial.
The defense was then unable to use these images and text messages in the trial because they were not given enough time to verify their authenticity.
Kruidbos said that 2,958 photos were in the report given to the defense but that his report contained 4,275 photos. Kruidbos also said that he has been told to not put specific case-identifying information into internal e-mails.
The Florida state’s attorneys office has now fired Mr. Kruidbos for blowing the whistle on them.
This is exactly the offense the infamous prosecutor Michael Nifong was jailed for in the Duke Lacrosse case — withholding key evidence favorable to the defendant. In criminal cases, both sides are required by law to show the other side all their evidence — including evidence that is exculpatory or favorable for the defendant’s case.
2) Prosecutors are ethically bound to bring cases they are near certain to win.
This was a classic case of overcharging (which happens all too often in America today).
George Zimmerman never should have been on trial for second degree murder.
There was not one shred of evidence that he had ill will, spite in his heart, or malice toward Trayvon Martin — a required pre-condition for second degree murder.
And there was not one shred of evidence to refute George Zimmerman’s story — his self-defense claim.
Chris Serino, the lead detective in the case interviewed George Zimmerman extensively. Police detectives are expert lie detectors. They know how to trip you up if you are lying.
Detective Serino was convinced, and remains convinced, that Zimmerman was telling the truth.
Serino also testified that when he played the recording of the 911 call that featured the scream and the gunshot for Trayvon’s father Tracy Martin, Mr. Martin said the scream was not his son’s.
This is why the police released Zimmerman and no charges were initially filed against Zimmerman.
The police believed, after an extensive investigation, that George Zimmerman’s self-defense claim was likely true.
Prosecutors are ethically bound to only bring cases to trial they feel in their mind they are near-certain to win.
That’s why most good prosecutors win 99 percent of their cases.
The reason this principle is important is the state has near-limitless resources to spend on a prosecution.
The ordinary citizen has very little resources.
The prosecution clearly spent millions of dollars on the prosecution of George Zimmerman.
Zimmerman’s defense must have cost at least $1,000,000.  Good criminal defense lawyers charge $300 to $1,000 per hour.  Zimmerman’s lawyers worked nearly full-time on this case for 16 months.
Fortunately for George, this was a high-profile case. Donations poured into his website from sympathetic citizens at a rate of $30,000 per month in recent months, allowing him to pay at least a portion of his legal bills so he could mount a credible defense.
Most citizens don’t have these resources.  Most citizens are at the mercy of the prosecution — either have to rely on a young overworked public defender or on a solitary lawyer with no ability to fund their own investigation, replete with medical experts, use of force experts, forensic experts, gun shot wound experts, etc.
Most ordinary citizens simply don’t have the means to mount a credible defense if the state is really out to get you.
That’s why prosecutorial discretion and restraint is such a key principle in law.
There was no prosecutorial restraint here.
Instead, this win-at-all-costs prosecution knowingly tried to twist and misrepresent the evidence (much of this evidence actually proving the opposite of what the prosecution was attempting to prove) to put George Zimmerman in prison for 30 years to life.
They even tried to portray Zimmerman’s desire to be a cop, his taking of criminal justice courses at a community college, and his starting of a Neighborhood Watch group as somehow bad things.  To them, Zimmerman getting an A in his criminal justice course at a community college was supposed to be the real “Ah ha!” moment of this trial — proof that Zimmerman was up to something nefarious.
That’s an abuse of government power and a deliberate effort to create a travesty of  justice.
This is mind-bogglingly bad behavior by these prosecutors, who are supposed to be officers of the court interested in truth.
3) The prosecution showed malice toward George Zimmerman by the way it prosecuted this case.
Prosecutor John Guy, in his passionate closing statement, told the jury to “look into your heart” and convict George Zimmerman of Second Degree Murder — which would have sent Zimmerman to prison for 30 years to life.
“Look into your heart”!?
How about look at the evidence and the law?
The prosecution had not one shred of evidence to refute Zimmerman’s self-defense claim.
So what the prosecution did was engage in character assassination and smear.
They tried to paint Zimmerman as a malicious racist and vigilante because he was heard mumbling under his breath on the 911 call that “these f——ing punks always get away.”
This statement, by the way, seems to be true. There were a rash of burglaries and home invasions in this community within weeks of this event, which was in a crime-ridden neighborhood. George Zimmerman started this Neighborhood Watch group because of all the crime.
My wife has sometimes told me “You’re an f—–ing a—hole” . . . when, frankly, I’ve acted like one.
Do I take this to mean she has malice in her heart towards me?
Do I take this to mean that she’s a bad person because she has, on occasion, used language like this?
Of course not. I take it has an expression of frustration on her part over something I’ve done or not done. She’s pissed off.
I’ll then take immediate steps to make amends, to correct my behavior.
The prosecution actually tried to send George Zimmrman to prison for the rest of his life for saying “These f—-ing punks always get away.”
The prosecution withheld the mountain of evidence that showed George Zimmerman was not a racist.
He mentored African-American kids. In high school, he took an African-American date to the prom. His African-American neighbor testified that George Zimmerman was a wonderful person who cared deeply about the people in that community, many of whom are African-American.
But the prosecution wanted to portray George Zimmerman as a bad guy by taking a single quote (“f—-ing punks”) out of context, as if that quote means anything.
The prosecution essentially tried to win this case by name calling.
The prosecution also wanted the jury to believe that George Zimmerman is a liar and therefore a murderer (an enormous illogical leap) because of inconsistencies in some of the details of his multiple recountings of the event.
In the Casey Anthony case, she was proven to be a liar. But the jury did not think this was proof that she should be executed for capital murder.
Lead Detective Chris Serino saw the same inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s stories. He saw these inconsistencies in the details as insignificant.
But the prosecution made a huge deal of these inconsistencies or what they saw as implausibilities to argue that Zimmerman is a liar and therefore guilty of murder.
For example . . .
George Zimmerman told police Trayvon banged his head on the cement sidewalk probably 25 times.
Well, obviously Zimmerman’s head was not banged on the sidewalk 25 times. He would be dead. The forensics shows Trayvon banged Zimmerman’s head on the cement maybe five or six times. But it might have felt like 25 times. “About 25 times” means a lot and it hurt and Zimmerman “felt like I might lose consciousness.”
Did Zimmerman, perhaps, exaggerate the extent of the beating he took in order to lend more credibility to his self-defense claim?
Probably. I would say almost certainly he exaggerated.
But Zimmerman’s probable exaggeration does not change the core truth of his claim and what the medical and forensic evidence shows — that George Zimmerman was taking a beating from Trayvon Martin, who was four inches taller than the soft 5′ 7″ Zimmerman.
Moreover, the only real eye witness to the event, John Good, testified that he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman delivering blows downward, MMA style. He also testified that he saw and heard Zimmerman screaming for help.
The prosecution had all this evidence, but moved forward with the prosecution anyway.
Prosecutors tried to make the case that Zimmerman is a liar (and therefore guilty) because he told police he needed to check the name of the street.  Prosecutors said Zimmerman should know the name of this street because there are only three streets in the community in which he lives.
I could not tell you, for certain off the top of my head, the names of the streets that connect to the street I live on. I cannot tell you my wife’s cell phone number because I have it on speed dial.  Perhaps George just wanted to be sure of the name of the street he was telling police.
No evidence of lying here. But the prosecution tried to blow this up as a big lie – and therefore, the prosecution suggested to the jury, Zimmerman must be guilty of murder.
The prosecution repeatedly misrepresented to law to the jury.
The prosecution did this by trying to minimize the extent of injury to Zimmerman’s head, saying these injuries were not life threatening.
But ending up with serious injuries is not necessary for self-defense.  Reasonable fear of serious injury is what’s required.
The prosecution of course knew the law, but sought to misrepresent the law concerning self-defense to the jury in order to secure their conviction. The prosecution did everything in its power to confuse the jury about what the law concerning self-defense actually is.
We expect defense lawyers to try to win their case by confusing the jury.  That’s what O.J. Simpson’s lawyers did successfully in his murder case.  But we don’t expect the prosecution to use this tactic — the tactic of creating as much confusion as possible.
The prosecution’s strategy in this case was to throw as much mud at George Zimmerman as possible, and then see if some of it sticks.  What will stick, of course, is the smearing of George’s character.  At least, some of that will stick.
George Zimmerman’s life is likely ruined.  How will he get a job?  What employer will want to become a target of an angry mob for hiring George Zimmerman?
How will George Zimmerman even be able to make a trip to the grocery store without risking being attacked?
Prosecutors are officers of the court and agents of the government.
They have an obligation to present evidence fairly, all the evidence — including evidence favorable to the defendant. Prosecutors are supposed to be primarily interested in finding the truth and pursuing justice — true justice.
Prosecutors are supposed to only bring cases if they are certain in their own minds they can win.
They are not supposed to bring cases they might win.  They are not supposed to lie or mislead the jury to win their case through over-heated emotional appeals not based in fact or law.
This prosecution presented not one shred of evidence to refute Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.
They relied entirely on emotion and character assassination on the hope that they could get this jury to hate George Zimmerman so much as a person, that perhaps this jury would convict Zimmerman of something, even if there were no facts presented to support conviction.
At the last minute, before closing arguments, the prosecution wanted to add a new charge — third degree murder, where a child dies due to child abuse.
“Child abuse”?
Trayvon Martin was 17 years old, 5′ 11″ — four inches taller and far more athletic than than doughy 5′ 7″ Zimmerman.
Judge Nelson rejected the last-minute murder by “child abuse” charge.
Of course, the prosecutors know there was no “child abuse” here. But they wanted to add that as a charge because they know “child abuse” is an explosive phrase that might cause these six moms on the jury to recoil in horror and really hate Zimmerman.
The two prosecutors spent most of their closing statements yelling and screaming at the jury, slamming Trayvon’s Skittles on the table for emotional effect.
Prosecutor John Guy kept repeating this nonsensical phrase he must have grabbed from Bartlett’s Book of Quotations: “You owe the living respect. You owe the dead the truth” — as if this phrase has any meaning at all in this case.
John Guy thought this phrase so important and profound that he repeated it at least three times to the jury.
Here’s another phrase: “When you don’t have the facts on your side, you rely on the law. When you don’t have the facts or the law on your side, you yell a lot and pound the table.”
That’s what this prosecution did. They did not have the facts or the law on their side.
So they wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to win this unwinnable case on emotion — by getting the jury to hate George Zimmerman as person — by taking his statements out of context, by twisting evidence, and by presenting everything Zimmerman did in the worst possible light, never entertaining other more plausible explanations.
These prosecutors were not interested in truth or justice. They just wanted to win at all costs. They wanted to win by misleading the court and the jury — by intentionally and deliberately painting a false picture of George Zimmerman.
This was a malicious prosecution that never should have occurred.
These prosecutors are evil people. They are evil people because they misused the machinery of government to engage in character assassination and smear of an innocent man. They intentionally withheld key evidence from the defense, the court, and the jury. They are evil because they knew they had no case but attempted to put an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life anyway by ginning up hatred for George Zimmerman in the jury.
Fortunately, the jury saw through all this.  They acquitted George Zimmerman unanimously of all charges.
But now where does George Zimmerman go to get his reputation back? (to quote President Reagan’s former Labor Secretary Ray Donovan after he was acquitted in his trial).
Like Michael Nifong in the infamous Lacrosse case, these prosecutors should serve jail time for abusing their office to engage in a malicious prosecution against a very decent man, George Zimmerman.

By Ben Hart | 7/15/13

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Women vs. Men: Who Governs Better?

Women vs. Men: Who Governs Better?

By Selwyn Duke
Every so often there's that obligatory article asking, "Are Women Superior at_____?" or "Do Women Make Better ______?," with politicians often being the focus.

Of course, the question is always asked rhetorically.  No matter the facts of the case, you'll never hear, "We examined the issue exhaustively from all perspectives, consulted with premier authorities in the discipline, collated the data, and have determined that in this endeavor, women, to employ the official nomenclature, really suck."  In fact, I haven't heard any kind of dismissal of feminine abilities in any area -- of the kind routinely made regarding men -- since a 1993 Golf Magazinepiece titled "Women can't chip."

So it's no surprise that National Journal is running a painfully long and vapid article by one Jill Lawrence titled "Do Women Make Better Senators Than [sic] Men?"  The answer is a foregone conclusion, so you don't need to imbibe Lawrence's 4,000-plus-word screed (I may pen a piece, "Do Women Make Wordier Journalists than Men?"), which bears the self-revelatory subtitle "They [women] make up one-fifth of the body [the Senate]. It doesn't look anything like parity (or America), but they believe they can do what the men can't -- namely, get things done."

Now, I'll address what's actually getting "done" momentarily, but, first, can we stop already with the "looks like America" poseur's platitude?  Here's a clue: the Senate ain't never gonna look like 'merica, pal.  The tremendous resources it takes to wage political campaigns alone ensure that we won't see John Q. Publics -- plumbers, carpenters, pipe-fitters, secretaries -- in higher (lower?) office.  The truth?  The media, which definitely doesn't look like America, notices that legislatures or cabinets don't look like America only when favored groups are, ahem, "underrepresented."  But do they ever notice the relative dearth of masons (as opposed to the many Freemasons), or even non-lawyers?  And there's an idea: get those blasted legalistic, mandate-metastasizing attorneys out of government -- whether they be male, female, or San Franciscan.

Getting back to Lawrence's thesis, she says that women exhibit "more collaboration, less confrontation; more problem-solving, less ego; more consensus-building, less partisanship. ... And there is plenty of evidence, in the form of deals made and bills passed, that women know how to get things done."  I'm sure.  With our government, heck, I think we're all gonna get done good.

Lawrence writes that more female senators "could mean less stasis," but what does government get "done," exactly?  Would less stasis mean the production of more cars, TVs, natural gas, wheat, or even Sandra Fluke's favorite product?  No, active government produces more laws, regulations, and mandates, which are virtually always removals of freedom and which hamper the private sector; it raises taxes and steals our money; and it engages in social engineering.  Less stasis means more statism. 

Let's be blunt: liberals will say that women have more political sense for a simple reason.

Women are more liberal.

And some conservatives pay lip service to the idea because of how cultural affirmative action causes them to view certain female politicians.  

It's also because my conservative brethren buy into other myths, such as the notion that women went big for Republicans in 2010.  Actually, they broke for Democrats 49-48 -- a much smaller margin than usual, but still true to form.

Now, Lawrence does acknowledge this in so many words, writing, "The issues traditionally associated with women often involve spending, regulation, and abortion rights[.]"  But she treats the leftist agenda as the default yardstick, crediting female senators with being instrumental in things such as expensive farm bills, ObamaCare, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the recent scamnesty bill, and averting "a government shutdown."  Except for the last effort, however, I can't think of one "triumph" she cites that's constitutional.  And all make stasis seem seductive. They're the kind of accomplishments that cause me to say, well, women can't chip.

Lawrence is fair to the not-fairer sex, though, writing that "some men" are "trying to make things work better"; these would be "[a]spiring deal-makers in today's Senate" such as "John McCain, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, and Tennessee Republican Bob Corker[.]"

And you put all those guys together, and you still have Low T.

Transitioning to High E, Lawrence emphasizes how "[s]ome of the strongest bipartisan relationships are among the women themselves" (that's easy when your ideology is basically the same) and also reports, "The members have thrown showers for women who are getting married or adopting children. They socialize with their families at each other's homes. They run together and discuss how to juggle a Senate career and the responsibility of raising young children."  Yes, it's the Divine Secrets of the Tax-and-Spend Sisterhood.

Look, let's cut the (I'll be sexist) male bovine.  It's well-known by the less brainwashed that women are creatures of the flock; they don't like going against the group, which is one reason I didn't think the women judging George Zimmerman would give us a hung jury (though I did predict an acquittal two days ago).  And, thank God, this time 6 Collaborating Women did the job of 12 Angry Men.  But there's another way of saying women are of the flock.

They are creatures of the collective. 

And of collectivism.

(I explain part of why this is so here.)

Of course, the common thread in all the "Are Women Better?" articles is that women just must be morally superior to men.

Except, uh, for Lois Lerner.

And Janet Reno.

And Hillary Clinton.

And Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren.

And Kathleen Sebelius.

And Susan Rice.

And the Zimmerman trial judge.

And, get the idea.

You see, there is a point almost universally missed here: whatever the sexes' characteristics in general, male and female candidates must endure the same often corrupt crucible when seeking office.  They must get down in the same mud.  They must win the favor of and be elected by the same people, who, as the saying goes, "get the government they deserve."  And who are these people?  Women have long voted in greater numbers than men, so whatever the shortcomings of politicians -- male or female -- the strongest wind beneath their wings is a feminine one.  Maybe the question we should ask is: do men make better voters than women?

But I will answer Jill Lawrence's question: no, the men are better senators.  This is because of Duke's First Rule of Female Politicians: as a rule, you don't find good women in politics.  Oh, there are exceptions -- perhaps, maybe, I suppose.  And there are good traditional women everywhere.

Just not in politics.

Good traditional women are generally at home doing the things women have traditionally done, to state the obvious.  The women you find in the bare-knuckle world of politics are almost invariably cut from the feminist stone, which is why so many have stone faces and stone hearts and part of why, to quote Lawrence again, "[t]he issues traditionally associated with women often involve spending, regulation, and abortion rights[.]"

Of course, we'll only see more women in politics in the foreseeable future.  Society will hail this as a victory, but I'll just echo an earlier article of mine and say that when women start doing what men have traditionally done, yours is a civilization of the setting sun -- and sons.  And when this is the case, it will set on our daughters as well.

Contact Selwyn Dukefollow him on Twitter, or log on to

Page Printed from:

The back story on supporters of same sex marriage.

Prop. 8 supporters try again with state Supreme Court
Say federal injunction against same-sex marriage ban does not apply statewide
(Los Angeles Times) The California Supreme Court once again is delving into the heated battle over gay marriage as it considers a request filed Friday by the backers of Proposition 8 to stop same-sex weddings.

ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of the 2008 ballot measure, asked the state high court to stop the weddings immediately on the grounds that Gov. Jerry Brown lacked the authority to order county clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

In a 50-page petition, ProtectMarriage contended that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s 2010 federal injunction against Proposition 8 did not apply statewide.

Same Sex Marriage
Clifford S. Asness supported same-sex marriage in New York, and a leadership council member for the Robin Hood Foundation.

Note: Foundation to Promote Open Society was a funder for the Robin Hood Foundation, and the Brookings Institution (think tank).
George Soros is the chairman for the Foundation to Promote Open Society.
Douglas P. Morris is a director at the Robin Hood Foundation, and a director at CBS.
Van Gordon Sauter was the president of CBS, and is married to Kathleen Brown.
Kathleen Brown is married to Van Gordon Sauter, Jerry Brown’s sister, a member of the Commercial Club of Chicago, and was an attorney for O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
Jerry Brown is Kathleen Brown’s brother, and the California state government governor.
Cyrus F. Freidheim Jr. is a member of the Commercial Club of Chicago, and an honorary trustee at the Brookings Institution (think tank).
Thomas E. Donilon was a trustee at the Brookings Institution (think tank), a partner at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, a director at the American Friends of Bilderberg (think tank), is the White House deputy national security adviser for the Barack Obama administration, and a 2008 Bilderberg conference participant (think tank).
Ronald A. Klain was a partner at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, and the chief of staff to the vice president for the Barack Obama administration.
Derek Douglas was an associate at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, and a special assistant for urban affairs for the Barack Obama administration,

Danielle C. Gray was a lawyer at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, and is an associate counsel for the Barack Obama administration

Saturday, July 13, 2013

What we need is God!

Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, May 27, 1999, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime.  What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good &evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. 

What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. 

Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him.

To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! 

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
- Darrell Scott

Do what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man's speech.