Archives for: March 2012

Gore v. Olby

Current TV has apparently sacked Keith Olberman after less than a year. This has caused thousand of people to cry, “Wait a minute? Current TV still exists?! Really?!” Really.

Editorially, Countdown had never been better. But for more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally, while I’ve been not publicizing my complaints, and keeping the show alive for the sake of its loyal viewers and even more loyal staff. Nevertheless, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract.

It goes almost without saying that the claims against me implied in Current’s statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently.

Al Gore v. Keith Olberman? As someone else said on Twitter, whoever loses, America wins.

Wishful Thinking

So the consensus, even among liberals, is that Obamacare did not have a good week at the Supreme Court. It was so bad, in fact, that I heard people speculating that the Solictor General deliberately did a bad job to get it struck down.


The thinking is that if Obamacare is struck down, this will pave the way for … a single payer system. Seriously:

In the face of a total strike down, single payer probably becomes the best option. But it’s not an easy one. The hurdles to passing Obamacare were that Democrats needed to have a majority in the House, the presidency, and 60 senators. The good news to passing single payer is that they probably would only need 50 senators. (Single-payer could be done simply by expanding Medicare, a pure fiscal change that could be accomplished through a budget bill that can pass the Senate with a majority vote.)

I tweeted about the absurdity of the other night, but I thought I’d expand on that thought. The idea that striking Obamacare will pave the way for single payer is ludicrous. It is based on two bogus schools of thought that run through liberal thinking.

First, liberals are big believers in political determinism. They believe that their idea are so wonderful and fabulous that it is only a matter of time before everyone realizes it and we finally evolve into a liberal utopia. This line of thinking can be traced to Marxism, which posited that the forces of history were leading to the inevitable collapse of capitalism and the inevitable rise of communism. Just as the communists predicted that labor relations would get worse and worse until we had the inevitable worker revolution, liberals are now predicting (hoping) that our healthcare system will get worse and worse until we have the inevitable single payer revolution. All they had to do was stand back and let it happen.

But they are just as deluded as Trotsky was. First, it is not inevitable that our system will get worse without Obamacare. It is possible, if we allow competition across state lines and move people toward more consumer-controlled system, that we could turn the tide. And even it our system does continue to get worse, why would this lead to a surge in support for single payer? Why would people who have vehemently opposed single payer suddenly favor it in the wake of an Obamacare defeat? Liberals want single payer. Indeed, their biggest problem with Obamacare was that it was not single payer. But conservatives and libertarians opposed Obamacare because we saw it as leading to single payer.

The second problem with this line of thinking is that it completely misreads the political situation. To listen to the Left, Obamacare was passed over the fierce opposition of the health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and physicians. This is complete bullshit. The insurance industry favored Obamacare. Big Pharma was bought off with promises of no price controls. The doctors and hospitals were bought with promises of a permanent stay of the SGR cuts. All kinds of special interests favored Obamacare because they knew precisely what would happen: healthcare would become even more politicized. More money would flow to companies that were politically connected. Do you think Big Pharma is mad that HHS is mandating that their most expensive birth control pills be covered? Do you think the insurance companies hate it that people are being force to buy insurance? Give me a break.

Obamacare was a product of industry, a distillation of what they wanted out of healthcare reform. And they supported it heavily. They will not, however, have such a love affair with a single-payer system. Such a system will put private insurers out of business, set the stage for price fixing in all branches of healthcare and, given Medicare’s horrific finances, necessitate massive cuts in physician and hospital reimbursement. The special interests will unite against single payer just as they united for Obamacare.

At most, striking down Obamacare may set the stage for an Australian-type system where the government provides basic insurance and everything else is private. Or it may set the stage for the Ryan plan of breaking the federal monopsony that already controls half the healthcare system. But the idea that this sets the stage for single payer is pure Left Wing fantasy.

(And since we’re on this, it’s always worth pointing out that the contention that Medicare is more efficient than the private sector is bullshit.)

Big Business Liberals

One of the most amazing things about our political system is that liberals and Democrats have a reputation as being the champion of the little guy and the foe of big business. You would think their enthusiasm for eminent domain and regulatory capture would disabuse us of this notion. But it persists. And, this month, we have another illustration of why their nobel reputation is entirely undeserved.

The GOP Congress is trying, for once, to keep a campaign promise and get rid of some corporate welfare. They are fighting to shrink the transportation bill. They are refusing to renew tax subsidies unless they are paid for with spending cuts. They are targeting the Export-Import bank for closure.

And what is the response from the Left? Are they applauding this? Are they cheering it on? Are they saying, “Hooray! At last the Republicans are doing something right!” Are they glad that someone has listened to their gripes about GE’s tax bill?

Not exactly.

As Radley Balko points out, The Nation has come out swinging in favor of the Ex-Im bank, a New Deal relic that was designed to loan money to poor countries so they could buy US goods. It’s no longer needed. Our private lending industry is so huge it lends money to such unlikely people as unemployed home-owners. What the Ex-Im bank — and its counterparts around the world — really does is subsidize exports for favored businesses like Boeing and Wells Fargo. It is heavily politicized, beset with lobbyists and expensive. Eric Cantor has suggested a 13-month extension to give Obama time to negotiate with other countries to cancel their banks. I’ll take that, but it’s not necessary. I’m happy to let other countries finance uncompetitive businesses. I’m happy to let their businessmen spend their time lobbying government rather than inventing.

And the Ex-Im Bank is just one aspect of this. All over our government, people have their hands out. And it is the Left that are wailing and gashing their teeth that, God forbid, we should stop giving piles of money to politically-connected businesses. (Of course, there’s always the likelihood that this is pure partisan bullshittery, but we all know the Left are too principled for that).

You should really read the NYT article in my first link. It’s a perfect illustration of why government spending is hard to cut: concentrated gain; diffuse cost. The people who get money from Ex-Im, the highway bill, green subsidies or whatever are very interested in keeping that money flowing. But the taxpayers are only dinged for a few bucks on any particular bit of largesse so we’re not very motivated. Thankfully, for once, someone is fighting for us.

I do understand that ending these things suddenly may cause some problems and job losses. The transportation bill, in particular, is hung up in a GOP house that can’t get something out and does affect hundreds of thousands of jobs. And it’s not like we don’t need roads. But I am glad to see that these bills are no longer automatic gimmes; that someone — anyone — is starting to consider costs.

The myth is falling apart?

Think back to 2008 how we where told Obama was going to be the second coming. He was going to fix everything wrong in the world. Remember that peace prize they gave him, with so much fanfare, pomp, and circumstance, for not being Bush. Recall all that talk about how he and the left where going to reset the massive damage of 8 years of Bush’s cowboy policies had caused and instantly heal everything because he was just so damn smart and good at this stuff. Think about all those foreigners and locals that loved the “Hope & Change” meme and the promise of clean air, clean energy, clean politics, and love amongst the people of the earth.

Fast forward 3+ years. The guy has pissed on every ally’s leg and told them it was warm rain. The enemies that suddenly would see the wisdom of Obama’s ways and the new US policies are more numerous, more emboldened, and even making fun of Obama. We have had an expansion of the areas of conflict, with Obama taking his right as the executive to new heights Bush could only have dreamed off getting away with, and even had a real war for oil. The oil was for the Europeans however, but that’s details. Iran is on the verge of a nuke, Israel is frightened and thinking it has to deal with this itself, because nobody else cares, and even the Arabs are worried the US has gone insane. The economy is still a mess, but even after a trillion dollar patronage bill and 3 straight years of trillion and a half deficit spending, another $5 trillion of new debt, and the economic wonders that Obamacare portends, it’s all Bush’s fault.

Things are falling apart, but Team Obama however seems more concerned with b-ball and race baiting. At least many of the rubes are finally catching on. This guys is a far worse political animal than the one he demonized and separated himself from in order to win the last election. Must suck that despite the LSM’’s complicity people are finding out that the emperor has no cloths on and that he is not just his own worse enemy, but bad for us all.

Minimum wage, in a way even the most stupid can understand.

The concept of a living wage and a minimum wage are universally accepted on the left as great ideas. That they do not work in the real world and produce serious consequences is ignored. But now we have an example that is too easy to ignore:

The catchy Subway sandwich shop jingle involving a variety of foot-long sandwiches available for $5 doesn’t apply in San Francisco. The sandwich-making chain stopped selling the five-dollar footlongs in San Francisco due to the “high cost of doing business,” according to SF Weekly.

Signs posted at Subway sandwich shops sadly inform San Francisco patrons — we hear Willie Brown is a big fan — that “all SUBWAY Restaurants in SF County DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN Subway National $5.00 Promotions,” according to the newspaper.

Customers can still buy the sub of the month for $5, according to an employee at Subway on Market and Castro streets. Apparently, the city’s new minimum wage, raised to $10.24 as of Jan. 1, make $5 footlongs an impossible business model.

Unless you want tuna fish, which is the sub of the month. Yum.

I guess it is Karmic justice that this happens in one of the biggest liberal bastions in this country, and definitely not a coincidence, but I doubt the left will get the lesson.

It’s simple really: when government forces employers to pay too much for labor, especially labor that can be performed by a monkey because it requires no serious skills or abilities, the customer bears the brunt of that coerced transaction. The price of everything goes up, often by far more than whatever the jacked up minimum wage supposedly added to the pocket of the person making it.

Seriously, if the minimum wage/living wage concept worked, we could just make sure everyone was paid $60K or more a year for a 40 hour week, couldn’t we? Of course that $60K would not do much good, because it can’t happen in a vacuum. Once you force employers to pay out that much, they have to adjust their business model. For one, it means that less people will be employed, as employers adjust to accommodate this new burden, and then the employers will have no recourse but to jack up prices to make up the balance. And contrary to the belief collectivists have that otherpeople should just do things for the satisfaction of helping out, private sector owners will still need to make a profit too.

Only idiots that are totally disconnected from reality believe that all employers should be like government and provide non-profit make-work jobs that pay a living wage to everyone. That government can only do what it does now because it is taking a whole lot of money away from those that actually are being productive and actually have to make a profit to justify the effort to the owners, and that they constantly are trying to take more to feed the ravenous unproductive machine, gets ignored.

Seriously, is it so hard to understand that if everyone making at least $60K a year, the cost of living adjustment needed to accommodate this burden, suddenly makes the necessities that used to cost $X a month, now cost $10X? Don’t even start on luxury items. This logic is not that hard to work through.

I guess San Franers can now envy the rest of us for being able to get them $5 footlongs, while those of us that understand economics and the way the world works can laugh at their stupid move to have such a ridiculously high minimum wage. The fact is that someone ALWAYS pays for the free stuff the collectivists believe they are due.

More of the same.

Looks like the house voted on the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plan, and went down in flames.

The Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction plan went down to a crushing defeat in the House late Wednesday night in a vote that damages the one bipartisan proposal that just a few months ago had seemed like a possible solution to the country’s debt woes.

The 382-38 defeat, with just 16 Republicans and 22 Democrats voting for it, marks a bad end to what began nearly two years ago, when President Obama tapped former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, to lead a deficit-reduction committee.

Their report has popped up in every deficit discussion since then, but had never gotten a vote in either chamber until this week, when opponents prevailed.

“This doesn’t go big. This doesn’t tackle the problem. This doesn’t do the big things,” said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the Budget Committee. “You can never get the debt under control if you don’t deal with our health care entitlement programs.”

I am with Ryan on this. It was a gimmick, and an obvious one at that, anyway. Not enough cuts, and then decades from now, which means never, and more of the insane jacked up deficit spending for the foreseeable future. Color me unconcerned. There is array of hope though.

The debate came as the House worked its way through its fiscal year 2013 budget plan, which Mr. Ryan wrote.
The Bowles-Simpson plan was offered as an alternative on the chamber floor.

Minutes earlier, the House also defeated Mr. Obama’s own budget, submitted last month, on a 414-0 vote arranged by Republicans to embarrass the president and officially shelve his plan.

Glad to see that go down in flames, and then unanimously. Then again, even if it had passed, Harry Reid, who has made sure the Senate would not produce any budget document that then could be used to show how insane the spending of the last 3 years under the democrats has been, by preventing a bill from being passed for just as long, would have just ignored it anyway. No big loss I guess. However, it seems there was an alternative.

The House also defeated an alternative offered by the Congressional Black Caucus that would have included $4 trillion in additional tax increases on top of those Mr. Obama proposed, and used that money to boost spending on domestic programs. That plan was killed 314-107.

And it went down in flames too. More people, I bet mostly democrats, voted for it than the Obama disaster of a bill, and then, I bet, because it was more spending and more taxes. We are so screwed.

Watch Your Tweets

Once again, I am so happy I live under the umbrella of the First Amendment:

Liam Stacey, a student who mocked footballer Fabrice Muamba on Twitter after he collapsed during a match, was jailed today for inciting racial hatred.

Stacey, 21, provoked revulsion with comments made while the Bolton Wanderers star still lay on the pitch.

The 23-year-old midfielder was left fighting for his life after suffering a heart attack during an FA Cup tie on March 17.

Horrified fans watched live on TV as he fell to the ground during the quarter-final clash at Tottenham Hotspur.

Police were inundated with complaints as members of the public reported the student’s comments.

Last week he admitted inciting racial hatred when he appeared briefly at Swansea Magistrates’ Court and today he was jailed for 56 days at the same court.

You can see his tweeets here. There’s not really a question that they are racist, sexist, offensive and stupid. However, “inciting racial hatred” is a stretch at best. No one was going to start a race riot over his tweets. They offended people. And while I noted last week that there is no universal right to not be offended, the government of Britain clearly thinks that there is.

(H/T: Poosh)

When Pilots Attack

Holy shit:

A JetBlue Airways Corp. flight was diverted Tuesday after the captain was locked out of the cockpit for “erratic behavior,” then ran up and down the aisle and banged on the cockpit door before being subdued by passengers, according to the Federal Aviation Administration and accounts from passengers.

The FAA said in a statement that the co-pilot locked the captain out of the cockpit after becoming concerned with his behavior. A person familiar with the matter said the captain was attempting to flip switches in the cockpit that shouldn’t have been flipped.

Locked out of the cockpit, he became enraged, said Mr. Antolino and another passenger, Grant Heppes, a 22-year-old marketing director from New York who was sitting near the rear of the cabin. Mr. Heppes said he watched the captain run up and down the aisle before hearing banging on the cockpit door, “and the co-pilot came over the loudspeaker saying, ‘Do not let him in. Restrain him.’ ”

Mr. Antolino said he and three other male passengers then restrained the captain, whom he described as “a big, strong guy.” who “put up a good struggle.” During the tussle, the captain shouted that Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan “are going to take us down,” Mr. Antolino said. “He had a delusion that something was going to happen. And then he suggested everybody say the Lord’s Prayer. Then that was it; we just tackled him.”

There’s plenty of cell phone video out there where you can hear him ranting and raving.

You know what? I’m encouraged by this. This is about the worst situation we can imagine: a pilot losing it. And … once again … it was the ordinary Americans — the-copilot and the passengers — who dealt with it.

For all our security theater, all our pat-downs of wheelchair-bound three year olds, all TSA’s boasting about catching explosives on their second attempt, we are our own last best line of defense. We see this over and over again: the heroic passengers of United 93; the passengers who caught and subdued the shoe bomber; the passengers who stopped and subdued the undie bomber; and now the passengers on Jet Blue.

You can keep your multi-billion dollar security industry. I’ll put my faith in my fellow Americans.

And now for some relevant news

With the media and all the politicians on the left in a frenzy about poor Trayvon Martin and that racist white Hispanic dude that killed him in cold blood going on, you might be missing that the Obamacare health insurance mandate was being debated by the SCOTUS today.

Early in the arguments, the veteran justice cut to the heart of the debate over the so-called individual mandate — which was the focus of Tuesday’s hearing — asking the federal government’s attorney to explain what constitutional power the government had to force all Americans to obtain health insurance.

“Can you create commerce to regulate it?” Kennedy asked Solicitor General Don Verrilli.

That question addressed the key issue about whether Congress exceeded its regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government the power to pass laws governing economic activity among the states. Verrilli said that’s not happening with the mandate; rather it is a regulation of a pre-existing health care marketplace.

Later, Kennedy described the law as unique and said the mandate “is different from what we have in previous cases — and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

He acknowledged the Court normally gives Congress the benefit of the doubt on laws that it passes, but in this instance there was a “heavy burden of justification” necessary for supporters of Obamacare to prove its legal worth. He also wondered about what limits to federal power would be in place if the court signed off on law.

Look this argument is simple to deal with in my mind. If the government can tell you that you HAVE to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty for not doing that, then they can tell you that you have to do whatever else they want too. This isn’t like states mandating car insurance where you can simply opt to not drive a car and hence you avoid that cost. You are being told you HAVE to buy it, and for now, if you don’t you are going to pay a fine of some kind. Today that fine is small and the usual big government suspects are trying real hard to pretend that there is no assumption of criminal behavior that goes along with that penalty, but that’s bunk. And you are definitely a criminal if you don’t pay. Once they can tell you what to do they can penalize you and criminalize you into buying healthcare too.

Look, it now is obvious to me that Obama care was set up to allow a bunch of assholes in black robes to add more and unmitigated power to the big government machine. If that fails the next goal is to force an unholy alliance between government and the insurance industry that will allow government to inflict irreparable damage that will forevermore break the ability of a private health insurance industry to provide coverage. And when they get that it opens the door to single payer system government would control that the left has always wanted.

The only way the people get spared this road to hell is if this thing gets squashed dead and voted away. I am afraid that we have been had however. It may take a couple of decades, but they are hell bent on having government control health insurance, access to health insurance, and by default people that will have no other recourse. The people at the DMV will then have power over life & death. Tyrannical government by degrees. We are screwed. Lets hope this thing dies in the SCOTUS, but then lets get real active to stake Obamacare in the heart, cut off it’s head, and expose it to sunlight so this vampire dies for real.

“We are from the government and we are here to help you.” Run for your lives people.

The Trayvon Martin case revisited – Part 2

One of the commenters posting on my previous Zimmerman – Martin shooting aftermath post had this comment to make:

Zimmerman’s injuries do not automatically exonerate him of any wrong-doing, and by pursuing Martin for zero justifiable reasons,

Oh, how wrong did the poster get this, and I am talking big-time wrong. Granted, if you got your facts only from the LSM you would believe that Zimmerman was told to stand down by the authorities, disobeyed that order for what clearly looks like a want to start a confrontation, and then because he was a racist, and went looking for a chance to shoot someone. So we can forgive people that are not aware of the details. In fact, I am convinced this story is being hyped to help the democrats and Obama deflect attention from the real problems we have going on right now. The bad economy, the problem with Iran, gas prices, the SCOTUS review of that constitution shredding Obamacare travesty. You name it, a ton of horrible things are being crowded out by a manufactured crisis that lets the left again go back to the tried and true racial narrative they so rely on to make the country look evil, and then engender the usual emotional appeal from the idiots that vote for them. But the facts that Zimmerman did nothing wrong are out there. It’s just that the LSM is avoiding them for a reason. Lets take a look at them.

From what I am finding out, despite the LSM’s best attempts to cover it all up – they are ignoring the evidence they don’t like- Zimmerman had good reason to follow this kid. This neighborhood had been experiencing a lot of trouble with burglaries. A lot. And in every case the perps got away because the response time of the authorities was too slow or the criminals cleared out before being detected. And that’s why they had the watch to begin with. They where trying to be proactive.

If you have only gotten your information from the LSM you would also believe that Zimmerman was told not to do something by people with the authority to do so, and that he chose to violate that order, went after an innocent kid, and hence he should be considered the aggressor. This seems to be massive bullshit when you get the facts. And yeah, you could argue that a sensationalized story about racial tensions sells more paper, but that would be attributing nobler motives to the media than what I truly suspected was the main driver behind this pack of lies. Duke Lacrosse case anyone? I suspect that it’s the narrative more than the need to sell papers.

Where to begin with the details of this story? First off, I again want to stress how the LSM has manipulated this story from the get go. As others have already pointed out, the photos of this man, Trayvon Martin, are from when he was 12 and intentionally used to make him look cute and harmless. I have a feeling that more recent photos wouldn’t do any of that. Obama sure as hell wouldn’t be claiming em as a long lost child of his. The fact is that Martin is 17, is 6’ 2” tall, a football player, a self avowed gangbanger, has been in trouble with the school and the law, not once but on numerous occasion, and was staying in this community because of these troubles in his past, was all glanced over and covered up. Martin was no innocent victim, but definitely a dangerous hoodlum with a definite chip on his shoulder. That’s not speculation: that’s information that is out there but not being carried by the LSM.

And what about the LSM’s initial characterization of Zimmerman as white, despite the fact that the police report clearly identifies Zimmerman as Hispanic? Seriously. Red flags anyone? Can you imagine we didn’t have the internets and bloggers carrying the story from the local media so we could actually find out the LSM was selling us a massive shit sandwich nationally? When you find out Zimmerman is Hispanic, has tons of black friends, and in general is a nice guy, it gets harder to sell the race crime narrative.

Then we have the whole phone conversation between Zimmerman and 9-1-1. There are so many distortions of this call that it is mind boggling to me. Start off with the fact that Zimmerman was not talking with the police, but with the 9-1-1 dispatcher. Huge difference between that and what the LSM reports. I have no doubt that the LSM reporters purposefully chose not make this distinction so they could then help create the illusion Zimmerman violated a direct order from someone with authority. The fact is that a 9-1-1 dispatcher has no authority to tell Zimmerman what to do: a dispatcher isn’t a policeman, as the LSM stories have claimed, while Zimmerman was doing his duty as a neighborhood watchman. That distinction alone should be enough to kill that angle of the story.

But the LSM setup and distortion of what happened between Zimmerman and the 9-1-1 dispatcher doesn’t end there. What is even more frustrating to me is that when the dispatcher told Zimmerman not do follow Martin, this was because Zimmerman had told the dispatcher that the suspect he was following in his car had bolted between two houses, in what clearly looked like an attempt to get away, and considering the history of how many times burglars had gotten away in the past, he was not going to have any of that, if he could avoid it. The LSM has conveniently left this crucial detail out, which the police report clearly states, and it paints a completely different picture of why Zimmerman is following Martin. The whole “He was a cowboy looking to get off some shots and a racist to boot” bullshit is much harder to sell when you have these details.

Then there are the witnesses and their reports. It’s obvious from their account that Martin was definitely the aggressor – he had the upper hand and was on top of Zimmerman – and Zimmerman responded with force after a struggle and while fearing for his life. There even are reports that Zimmerman was trying to get away from Martin before the altercation ensued. I have even heard, and they are unsubstantiated rumors I want to point out, that Martin had struggled with Zimmerman over the gun, which had been holstered, and that during the struggle shots had been fired. The bruises and broken nose Zimmerman incurred sure prove he was beat up by Martin in the process of whatever was going on. I admit I have no details on Martin’s state other than he was shot. But considering how the LSM has been reporting this, I find it highly doubtful that there were bruises on him indicating he was jumped and they simply didn’t report them. Common sense dictates that most of the “what if” scenarios, at least the credible ones, give Martin the upper hand and identify him as the one meting out physical punishment.

The issue that remains is who started it. We might never find out. Could it have been Zimmerman? Sure. However, considering all I know about Trayvon Martin now, despite the LSM’s attempt to obfuscate the facts I need to add, I find it completely plausible and far more likely that he accosted Zimmerman for daring to follow him. Martin considers himself a gang banger. That’s his profile and image, not my take on it. Why would he let some punk ass honkey like Zimmerman give him shit? He didn’t like being followed, and even if he had not been up to anything bad, this ticked him off.

Heck, beating up that idiot white boy dissing him also gives him street creds with his gangbanger homeys. Or maybe he was up to no good and figured he wanted to make sure he got away. All he needed to go off was Zimmerman talking to him or grabbing his arm. The police sure as hell must have believed this the far more credible scenario because they would have arrested Zimmerman otherwise. I know the usual race mongers are saying the police was racist about this, just didn’t care, had a black dead guy they could blame, and moved on, but I find that hard to believe.

Bear in mind that one of the things that remains a mystery to many people is why it took Martin’s relatives a full 3 days to contact the cops and hence claim his remains. That sets off all kinds of red flags for me. Are they used to this sort of behavior from him? Did Trayvon run away before? Did they not see the commotion and the police inside the gated community and wonder WTF was going on? Something is off here.

I am convinced now, after learning some of these details that the police found and documented, and which convinced them of Zimmerman’s story of being truthful, that the attempt to blame the authorities and pretend they didn’t do a good enough investigation will also backfire on these people. They take these things real seriously. If even one thing had been off I suspect they would have arrested Zimmerman pending further investigation. They did no such thing.

My guess is that the LSM will keep these flames stoked for as long as it can to help the left push the narrative and avoid talking about the real bad shit they are doing. In the mean time one man is dead and another will suffer for that death. But I will be real surprised, knowing what I do now, if we find out that this wasn’t just a case of a kid fancying himself a dangerous thug misjudging the situation and getting killed. A tragedy for sure, but not as tragic as the media firestorm and the reason I believe is behind it.

The commenter concluded their post with the following:

As always we await the judicial process to do the best it can (we hope) to figure this out.

I sure hope we get some of that, but these days and with the current media I doubt that’s gonna be the case.