this is what is being posted around, among other things
lets point out the inaccuracies -he wasnt a cop -he wasnt in the kkk -martin wasnt that small in comparison to him -martin wasnt offering candy to him -they werent standing up what else am i missing? people are ignorant, and they push these things around as truths which make more ignorant when they believe their friends etc
It all makes sense now. GZ is a diabetic, and those skittles could have put him in a diabetic coma. The little misunderstood child was threatening GZ's life, but TM couldn't have know about GZ's medical condition. What a tragedy.
Pretty good explanation. I mean, everyone knows that being punched in the face, thrown to the ground, and having your head bashed in is the prescribed course of treatment for a diabetic coma. Come on people.
Listening to the "news" today, and I'm so furious......
It's like watching a train wreck.
Grandmothers beaten by protesters trying to take her granddaughter to the hospital for an allergic reaction. Multiple assaults with the perps yelling "This is for Trayvon".
Absolute known falsehoods repeated as mantras by "news" pundits trying to stir up more violence, more racism.
The AG calling for laws to force "retreat" legislation, even though that hos zero bearing on the Zimmerman case, except the possible interpretation that Trayvon had the right to stand his ground when he thought he was being followed.
The President ( illegally, as it turns out. Hillary was robbed........ not even counting the vote fraud proven SO FAR in the 2012 election..) calls for more gun control laws, exploiting the death of Martin for his own gain.
Those who preach hate to gain power are evil. It's almost the definition.
I just heard an interesting stat, while watching the news. Black's in Florida have used the Stand Your Ground law. More then any other ethnic group. And they have also prevailed in court, using the Stand Your Ground law. More then any other ethnic group.
Its all about The Spin. Don't tell the truth. Play on emotion. Even though SYG had nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial. They will use it to advance an agenda.
we have seen the prosecution of folks near chicago on voter fraud. There are folks working on it. Excellent. In the meantime the Arsonist-in-Chief continues to set fires. Except, the fires are now bigger, and he's setting them more often.
If you are referring to Col Wests' re-election in the Gerrymandered district OK granted. Gerrymandering his district was the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
I watched the presidential election and was shocked when the popular result was decided by 10 PM. But the difference was enough that it seems improbable that a small group did it. Oldog, the presidential election was decided by the swing states. Any state that wasn't a swing state needn't have even bothered going through the motions.
0bama "won" the electoral college by 400,000 votes spread among four of the swing states.
Think about that for a moment.
Then ask yourself: In this day and age of electronic voting, how hard would it be to steal 100,000 votes in, say, North Carolina?
Speaking of, you may remember that shortly before the pretend election they discovered that 3000 folks in North Carolina over the age of 110 are still on the voter rolls (must be something in your water...). Even more astounding, by the time they discovered this it turns out all 3000 people - yep, every single one - had voted for 0bama.
I've read from numerous sources that over 10,000,000 less people voted for 0bama in '12 as did in '08. (This number sounds entirely plausable to me, BTW). And yet, somehow we're to believe that even LESS people voted for Romney than voted for McCain?
0bama didn't need to "win" by much, only by "enough." That's really the story of his life, actually.
Ok do you really think that they will try to fix ALL of the elections?, Nope, only the ones they need to; see above.
IF The repubs/teaparty get a majority in the Senate, and keep one in the house THEN we could see the traitors removed, Agree. And it's never gonna happen. 0bama, and the folks pulling his strings, have come too far to give up now. It's now or never for them, amigo.
The "Talk,Talk,Talk" is the house is trying to do part of its job, consider that they may also be marking time unless they hold a majority in both the house and senate an impeachment will have little effect, ( think Clinton IIRC he was impeached but could not be removed ) Perhaps. I remember when Willy got impeached. Harmed him not a bit. In fact, he's as popular as ever, treated like a rock star wherever he goes.
What we have to try and do, Vote out the DEMS get the house and the senate back, THEN Demand that Obama, and Biden both be removed from office. Voting doesn't work anymore, my friend; the game is rigged.
IF you give up you give these ba$tards what they want. I may have mislead you; if so, it wasn't deliberate. I have not given up.
When Washington was at valley forge his men were huddled around small fires, sick with little or nothing to eat, some with no boots, The politicians had promised food weapons and tools, they received nothing.
They did not give up against the British Washington, Lafayette, Von-Steuben, they took a group of ragtag farmers and kicked the a$$ of one of the best armies of that time
I take heart from The history of this country, its who we are. I love hearing about the Founders; what amazing, courageous, intelligent, morally honest, tireless Patriots.
I think you'd admit, however, that by the time of Valley Forge the Founders had long since stopped talking about the abuses levied upon them by the King; they were actually doing something about it.
The obamas, holders, reids, pelosis, shumers don't get it and never will they only succeed when we let them. Dude, with all due respect, they "get it" just fine! They're not incompetent, just evil.
Succeed? Yeah, I'd say they're succeeding quite nicely. All they need is a little more "angst" in this nation, a little something extra to push us all over the edge. Hmmmm, maybe we legally lynch a white man. "But he's not actually white!" you exclaim.
Aw heck, he's close enough, especially if the mainstream media helps. The low-info voters will never know, nor will they care.
We have a perfect storm brewing in this country right now - this moment, as we speak - and it's not by accident. I'd say 0bama is succeeding quite nicely in fundamentally transforming America, just like he promised.
Then ask yourself: In this day and age of electronic voting, how hard would it be to steal 100,000 votes in, say, North Carolina? The voting machines are checked thru the day, they produce a paper record tape ( like a cash register ) as an audit trail. to prevent "tampering" the internal count must match the tape.
Yes I remember stories of abnormalities in the last cycle
I wrote Richard Burr about my concerns, and received a reply.
I understood the possibilities he did too.
Obama LOST NC.
Yeah the election could have been tampered with, Obama was declared the winner after Ohio, and it was a ward of Cincinnati that put obama back in,
On clinton before I replied I wanted to check myself, He was Impeached by the house, and was not removed by the senate, I don't know the make up of the senate at the time but 2/3 majority is required to impeach and after a trial in the senate much like a court trial I believe that the guilt must be proven. Then a president or other official can be removed.
The only legal recourse is to get zero and dopey removed from office.
It cant be done with old scarry harry in charge of the senate.
My hope is to get on board with the republican party, LEARN, and then reach out to the low effort / info voters, they have given me ammunition with all that they have done. I need to TRY I honestly wish that I could reach people half as well as you do.
If I take no action they definitely win.. Me I am not too smart but GOD made me STUBBORN so why not put it to use
If we are screwed as bad as you say we are then there are very few choices left to us.
I honestly wish that I could reach people half as well as you do. Me? Hah!
If we are screwed as bad as you say we are then there are very few choices left to us. My pessimism is based on analyzing what's going on in our country right now. 0bama v.1 was horrible. 0bama v.2 is an unmitigated disaster.
If we can't have an honest presidential election in this country - and we can't - we're doomed. I don't know how else to put it.
TILL THEN stay the course Cheers back atcha, amigo, and thanks for the pep talk earlier - you're a good man, Charlie Brown.
Yeah, I know. I was simply pointing out an example of blatant vote fraud I remembered from the run-up to the fake election.
Re: the 400,000 votes dealio I mentioned above, I was typing in a hurry because my boss (me) was bitching at me to get back to w*rk. Here's a citation for you; there are plenty more to be found on the 'net if'n you're interested:
quote:
The 400,000 Votes That Tipped the Election By Guy Benson, November 12, 2012
Broad trends and the national political undertow can't be adequately captured in any single statistic -- but if Mitt Romney had managed to push the electorate in a handful of states a few clicks in his direction, he'd be the president-elect, rather than an also-ran. Via Jim Geragthy:
quote:
Florida: 73,858
Ohio: 103,481
Virginia: 115,910
Colorado: 113,099
Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.
One of the takeaways from the numbers above is how important Florida was to each candidate. I've read it enough times, from enough conservative pundits whose words I generally trust, that the Zimmerman case became "news" specifically to energize 0bama's base in Florida in the months leading up to the election. It's an interesting theory.
0bama's overall margin of victory over Romney? Somewhere between 0.3% and 0.4%, if I'm doing my math right. Much the same as Patrick Murphy "winning" over Allen West in their congressional race, it didn't have to be much.
“If the races were reversed . . . ” This game must be played fairly to have any meaning whatsoever. If you want to “reverse the races” you must also reverse the circumstances. Thus a theoretical opposite would be something like this: A short, overweight black 29-year-old male with college experience, bourgeois aspirations and a history of community involvement spied a teenager lurking in a hoodie in a neighborhood which had had a number of recent burglaries. The teenager turned out to be 4 inches taller than he, if somewhat lighter, an athlete, a Mixed Martial Arts trained fighter, a school suspendee (after suspicion of burglary) and a hispanic gang-banger wannabe. His emails would ultimately reveal the climate of emotional, moral and intellectual poverty in which he lived. After being instructed by police dispatchers not to follow, the black male returned to his truck. He was jumped and sucker-punched by the hispanic youth, jumped on, beaten MMA style and somehow managed to fire one shot with a legally carried weapon, which, supine and injured, he managed nevertheless to remove from a holster under his own bulk. In those circumstances, would the 29-year-old black be indicted in Florida? Not a chance."
Locally, a black woman was assaulted in her driveway by a black man. Her boyfriend had a gun in the house, shot the man who assaulted her. The man ran to a neighbor's house and asked for help since he'd been shot. So this was a black on black crime that was thwarted by the legal use of a gun and it was BARELY a paragraph long article on a sidebar. An elderly white woman was stabbed in her garage by a blackman and same thing. Barely a paragraph.
Although I wonder if he's being overtly racist by only offering to send her to a "historically black" college? What college is he planning to send HIS kids to?
Is this like Obama signing off on stopping black kids in D.C. from going to the private school he sends his kids to? ( one of the FIRST things Obama did in office )
Notice these are professional protesters. Pre printed signs, Union t-shirts, etc. though most of the arrests were teens using flash mob tactics to rip off stores.
I'd like to ask the teens how much they were paid, and by who?
The poll worker in Cincinnati that was caught in election fraud, and later bragged about it, was just sentenced to 5 years in prison. It looks like she fraudulently made up to 6 votes (for example voting on behalf of her sister who was in a coma). The nun caught got a 90 day monitored house arrest.
Hopefully that sends a message. We will see if the Hamilton County results change.
Well, this is certainly an interesting development. But first, a refresher - I posted this two days ago:
quote:
DOJ solicits email tips in Zimmerman civil rights probe By Scott Powers - Orlando Sentinel, July 16, 2013
The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday afternoon appealed to civil rights groups and community leaders, nationally and in Sanford, for help investigating whether a federal criminal case might be brought against George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, one advocate said.
The DOJ has also set up a public email address to take in tips on its civil rights investigation.
Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law – who earlier in the day joined calls for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, said that later in the afternoon, she joined a U.S. Department of Justice conference call to discuss the prospects.
“They were calling on us to actively refer anyone who had any information,” that might build a case against Zimmerman for either a civil rights violation or a hate crime, Arnwine said. “They said they would very aggressively investigate this case.”
Arnwine said the call was convened at about 3:30 p.m. by Tom Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice [emphasis mine - FB], and included representatives from the FBI, and several federal prosecutors, she said. DOJ officials also said they would open a public email address so people could send in tips on the case.
This morning comes startling new revelations from whistleblowers regarding Tom Perez and DOJ:
quote:
Morning Bell: Serious New Questions on Obama Labor Nominee Hans von Spakovsky, July 18, 2013 at 7:45 am
A surprising development on Wednesday has raised new questions about President Obama’s nominee to be the new Labor Secretary.
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez is one of the nominees over whom Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) just staged his filibuster fight. As a result of the deal Reid worked out with Republican Senators, Perez was supposed to get a confirmation vote today. He cleared a procedural vote in the Senate yesterday as six Republicans broke ranks to vote him through.
Perez has faced questions about his misleading congressional testimony about his involvement in a quid pro quo deal with the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, that resulted in the dismissal of a Supreme Court case and taxpayers giving up a claim worth almost $200 million. He has refused to turn over private emails that he used to conduct Justice Department business and has refused to testify before the House despite a congressional subpoena. But apparently, that’s not all.
Now, David Weber, a lawyer representing current and former employees of the Civil Rights Division, which Perez oversaw, has sent out a press release accusing Perez of “substantial misconduct.” The employees, who are claiming whistleblower status, met with the staffs of Republican and Democratic Senators and turned over evidence of “disparate impact discrimination under the leadership of Mr. Perez.” This is significant because “disparate impact” is Perez’s favored legal theory—he has used it to pursue numerous businesses and other defendants in federal discrimination lawsuits.
The whistleblowers claim that Perez and his senior staff “began a widespread campaign” of discriminatory treatment against disabled employees as well as other employees “based on race; gender; age; and/or parental status.” The employees who opposed this discrimination were “subjected to an exceptionally hostile work environment and unlawful retaliation.” The whistleblowers include African-American, Hispanic, and female employees.
What is most startling in the allegations is the reason given for the discrimination: “the Perez actions were directed at preserving the positions of political appointees who have ‘burrowed’ into [the] Civil Rights Division through Perez’s patronage.”
“Burrowing in” is the term used in Washington to describe political appointees who have been placed in protected, career-bureaucrat, civil service positions—so they cannot be fired when an administration is over and the President leaves office, as happens to all other political appointees. Apparently, the fiscal constraints placed on his division through the budget crisis led to Perez directing his staff to “constructively terminate career staff in order to protect the political appointees from a Reduction in Force.”
The press release also says that there are 10 other DOJ civil rights officials who “have come forward as witnesses and provided corroborating information supporting these allegations.”
Attorney David Weber minces no words in saying that while Perez “has been nominated to be the protector of the American workforce,” his clients have told Congress that Perez “rampantly discriminates against its own workforce, and retaliates against those brave enough to raise their hand.”
The claims made by these whistleblowers against Perez and his senior management are extremely serious. Weber asks that Congress investigate and “hold Mr. Perez’ nomination pending investigation.” He also asks Attorney General Eric Holder to “take immediate steps to curtail the discrimination and retaliation.”
Holder has been saying a great deal in the last week about the Justice Department’s investigation [led by Tom Perez] of George Zimmerman for possible civil rights violations. It sounds like he needs to redirect that investigation into his own Civil Rights Division. [emphasis mine - FB]
If the Senate now goes ahead with a vote on Perez’s confirmation before it has investigated these shocking claims, it will have ignored its “advise and consent” role that requires it to review in-depth the qualifications—and character—of senior executive branch officers.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a former counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
Young black person grows up, works hard in school, stays away from bad influences, graduates from high school with good grades, applies to college...and gets bumped by Jeantel. Sorry sucker, you should have become a celebrity if you wanted that spot.
All the talk of race, hate crime, white-on-black, and black-on-black crime made me curious so I did a search for hate crime statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcv0311.pdf First hugely surprising statistic; 65% of hate-crime victims are white! Hispanic = 15% Blacks = 13% Now that seems strange but you have to remember that this includes not just race based crime, but also crimes based on religious, gender, sexual orientation, ect. When you take that into account isn't quite as surprising. But compare that the the racial statistics of the Offenders. 54% of hate-crime offenders are white. Blacks = 27% while the rest are "other, various or unknown."
Those are the numbers from 2007-2011. The figures for 2003-2006 are more extreme White victims = 61% Hispanic victims = 20% Black victims = 7%
White offenders = 37% Black offenders = 32%
Just the numbers from the government, think of them what you will. I'm sure that it can be used to say that hate-crime law has been twisted against minorities and that law-enforcement is using to unfairly incarcerate blacks more harshly. I just didn't expect the numbers to add up the way they did.
Edit: The rate data is interesting too. This adds the population into account. It's in the victim data but not the offender data. It makes sense that whites would be higher in percentage since they're the majority. So when you look at rates; blacks = 1.0 vs whites = 0.9. So victimhood is close, with blacks being slightly more likely to be a victim per capita. But they don't give rate data on the offender side. Someone check my math. 256,080 total crimes 65% = 166,452 crimes commited by whites white rate = 0.9 (per 1000) x=(166,452 x 1000)/0.9 = 184,946,666 = white population Did the same for black victim numbers black population = 33,290,400 These numbers are close but not 100% accurate to population data I found online. I'm using these since its the numbers they're using. If you use the same method to calculate rates of the offender data... [(53% of 256,080)/184,946,666]x1000 = 0.07 per 1000 rate of white offenders [(27% of 256,080)/33,290,400]x1000 = 2.08 per 1000 rate of black offenders ... Why does just doing the math on this make me feel like I'm being racist? IT's just numbers. If I made a mistake in the math please let me know Does this data really say that whites and blacks are very nearly statistically equal to be the victim of a hate crime (1 in 1000 vs 1 in 1111) but blacks are 30 times more likely to commit a hate crime (1 in 480 vs 1 in 14,285)????