In the video, and in the article, the local law enforcement again repeat the mantra she was “lucky” and it is best to avoid confrontation/contact with attackers.   However, does anyone consider that the “avoidance principle” is exactly what empowers these attackers to escalate their activity?
Two teenage boys, one 16 and one 18, grope young Ms. Dang, and let’s say she just took off running, what do you think these boys will do next time?   While I certainly agree that a person should never put themselves knowingly in a position of danger, once that danger is encountered I do not subscribe to automatically thinking the best option is to engage the “victim” mentality.
Obviously Ms. Dang was prepared, and well trained, to defend herself.   Why should she be diminished, or even admonished, from the capacity to do just that “defend herself”?
Many people mistakenly believe one of the roles of government is to protect them from physical harm.   However, this is not the case.  One only has to look up the concept of “affirmative duty” to understand what the Supreme Court has defined as the role of any government entity in regard to protection of citizenry; both at Local/State and Federal levels.  In short it can be encapsulated as: (more…)

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Any attempt to justify the firing of Sanford Police Chief, Bill Lee, in any form other than admitting it to be self-serving political interest, and short-sighted racist appeasement, is political correctness run amok.     You can’t pick up that turd by the clean end, period.
If you have followed this case, and actually read the accompanying research, you would admit as such with intellectual, albeit uncomfortable, honesty.  Chief Lee is being cast aside, blamed, ridiculed, obfuscated and sacrificed in the same manner, by the same people, for the exact same reason, as those who attack George Zimmerman himself. (more…)

Remember the video we posted earlier in the month.?   2-J’s announcing his new objective to march on Gun Shops.

Well, apparently the first shot-at-it didn’t go too well for team 2J’s. (more…)

Repost By Request: Let’s see if we can even begin to summarize all of these interwoven connections that form the Trayvon Scheme Team agenda:

It begins with Tracy Martin reaching out on February 28th to his sister-in-law attorney Patricia Jones, she in turn contacted Benjamin Crump from Parks and Crump law firm in Tallahassee. Crump contacted Tracy Martin February 29th and took the case March 1st.
Chasing that initial “contact angle” takes you into another insane web of interwoven associations. So I’m skipping it, but you can READ IT HERE.
Crump then contacted Orlando Attorney Natalie Jackson to begin the process of formulating the offensive strategy. Natalie Jackson is a Seminole County NAACP board member and serves as a member of the Legal Redress Committee. In addition Natalie Jackson’s mom, Francis Oliver, is a major activist and historian within the NAACP.

Natalie Jackson and Benjamin Crump hire Media Communications expert Ryan Julison, who Jackson had previously worked with on the Sanford Sherman Ware case where they were able to extort leverage financial restitution from the son of a former Sanford Police Lieutenant; the son’s name is Justin Collison, and he was charged with beating Sherman Ware. In addition to money paid to Sherman Ware, Collison, the grandson of a very wealthy former federal judge, also paid off the NAACP. Ryan Julison ran the media campaign to support Ware.
While Julison went about pitching the racist white George Zimmerman murdering the innocent Trayvon Martin to the media, which he did very effectively, Benjamin Crump got in touch with his former cohorts from the Martin Lee Anderson case; namely Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and National NAACP President Ben Jealous. (more…)

The Supreme Court held in United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1881) that “in an indictment it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished.” Vague wording, even if taken directly from a statute, does not suffice.

(Via Legal Insurrection) Perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman raises more questions of prosecutorial overreaching  – Prosecution misleadingly edited transcript
Florida prosecutor Angela Corey has come under withering criticism from Alan Dershowitz for overcharging and leaving out important details in the Affidavit of Probable Cause filed in connection with the charge of Second Degree Murder lodged against George Zimmerman.
Corey allegedly responded by threatening to sue Dershowitz and Harvard.  This appears to be part of a pattern when she is criticized. (more…)

Spread The Word

When you see that justice is measured, not by due process, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to invoke your sixth amendment right to due process, you need to obtain permission from men who rebuke the constitution – when you see that justice is determined by those who leverage, not in law, but in politics – when you see that men get power over individual liberty by graft and by scheme, and your representatives don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption holding influence and individual liberty so easily dispatched and nullified – you may well know that your freedom is soon to perish. 

Yet will you rise in opposition? – Will you stare boldly toward the evil glare of political corruption? – Or will you allow the fear of cultural Marxism to replace your resolve for justice?

The Supreme Court held in United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611 (1881) that “in an indictment it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished.” Vague wording, even if taken directly from a statute, does not suffice.
For the next 24 Hours we are asking every patriot within reach of this message to contemplate the value of their liberty; and if capable of commitment, to stand bravely amid the face of great adversity and pledge hope, or more, to the Zimmerman Defense Fund.

*representative imagery 

AVAILABLE BY CLICKING HERE

This is far less a consideration of Shellie and George Zimmerman, this is about YOU.  For in as much as they wait tentatively behind the bars of injustice, there but for the grace of God we may stand in their stead. 
Shellie has one person in whom she can trust, his name is George; and George has but one person in whom he can trust, her name is Shellie.   Between them lay the machavellian construct of politics over principle, and power over personhood.  Please consider your support. (more…)

Apparently we, as in every non-black person in the United States, are being warned by both the Congressional Black Caucus and President Obama that “Race” is the only important distinction of our republic.
Here are two articles citing both a warning from the CBC that if George Zimmerman is found not guilty there will be riots, and simultaneously from President Obama that he has “black voters backs“.
Gee, whatever happend to a post-racial America and those “purple states” he spoke so fondly of?

 “I think a ‘not guilty’ verdict is extremely problematic in 2012,”  – Angela Rye   

That’s an odd statement.   Why only problematic in 2012?  Think about it….
WASHINGTON – Race riots could ensue if George Zimmerman — the shooter in the Trayvon Martin case — is found not guilty of second-degree murder by a Florida jury, the Congressional Black Caucus’ executive director allowed yesterday.

“I think a ‘not guilty’ verdict is extremely problematic in 2012,” said Angela Rye, the Executive Director and General Counsel for the Congressional Black Caucus. She said, “I don’t know,” when asked what would happen in the event of an acquittal. “I know that folks have talked about race riots — I don’t know that.
I think that we live in a day and age where people are educated enough not to do that. I know that his mother and his father have asked for peace, peaceful solutions, not repaying evil for evil, so I’m not sure. I think it would set us back . . . there’s no value to racial violence or any other kind of violence.” (more…)

Critical Thinking – Yesterday I posted a video  and CNN story that hit the “national news” of a Step-Father in a fenced back yard, with a baseball mitt, and a belt, and a young boy, with a baseball.
The video was not posted just to “stir emotion”…..  It was posted because there is a critical aspect to the Trayvon Martin case that people are overlooking.  Well, most people.    Bear with me.


Like the Trayvon Martin case, yesterday’s video, which drew the ire of many TreeHouse participants, was/is a media narrative.   The media narrative was “Step-Father beats Step-son for dropping ball while playing catch“.   That was the substance of the media construct, and it included a nice u-tube video to support it. (more…)

The following is a new article written by Jeff Weiner and picked up by The Los Angeles Times regarding Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law.   Over the next several days I am going to put together an outline for further discussion/investigation/research on the various entities with expressed interest in defeating the Stand Your Ground law and how they have come together.   However, for now here is what Ryan Julison’s Orlando media pal has put into the media fray 
ORLANDO, Fla. — The nation’s fixation on the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has led many to question whether an impartial jury could be found for the trial of his killer, George Zimmerman.
But it’s possible a judge, not a jury, will decide Zimmerman’s fate. Zimmerman says he fired in self-defense, and many expect his lawyers will eventually ask for an immunity hearing under Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law.

Often described as a “minitrial” in which the judge serves as jury, such hearings are unlike other criminal justice proceedings. (more…)