Friday, 18 May 2012

DAN ABRAMS KNOWS BETTER THAN THIS

Ken Berwitz

Dan Abrams - lawyer, legal analyst, son of famed constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams - certainly should be expected to understand the most rudimentary principle in US law - innocent until proved guilty.

So how could he possibly have said this, on last night's ABC Nightline show, about newly released documents relating to the Trayvon Martin killing?

"There's a lot in these documents that seems to help George Zimmermans defense team. But let's remember: Trayvon Martin was still shot and killed by George Zimmerman. And so even if Zimmerman was on his back, even if he was losing a fight, he still has a lot of explaining to do and is going to have to prove that Trayvon Martin was the initial aggressor."

With all due respect to Mr. Abrams, whom I usually have great respect for, what the hell is he talking about?

George Zimmerman does not have to prove a thing.  The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin within Florida's definition of second degree murder - which is what prosecutor, Angela Corey, has inexplicably charged him with.

To remind you, Florida's definition of second degree murder is "when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life".

Can Dan Abrams, or anyone else on planet Earth, show me how the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was George Zimmerman's state of mind when he shot Trayvon Martin? 

-Virtually every newly released piece of evidence supports Zimmerman's account, including, most significantly, pictorial proof that he was beaten exactly as he said he was.  The only person near him was Trayvon Martin, so who do you suppose administered the beating?;

-At least one eyewitness says that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him "MMA" (mixed martial arts) style;

-And this is before we get to the common sense factor that if you are about to kill someone with depraved indifference to human life you probably will make an attempt to force the victim out of clear sight on the street where anyone might see it happen, and you probably will not call 911 first to clue them in about it. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  If Angela Corey had gone after George Zimmerman on, say, manslaughter, which, in this case, would define either as "an act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person", or "engaging in "culpably negligent" conduct that resulted in the death of another person" she might - might - have had a shot at a conviction. 

It would be quite a stretch, since, as shown above, this case reeks of reasonable doubt.  But given the racially charged climate created by hustlers like sharpton, farrakhan, the new Black panther party - and Rep. Frederica Wilson, whom I have been remiss in not mentioning as a first-tier race hustler in previous blogs - it was at least somewhat feasible. 

But second degree murder?  Other to kiss the rings of the racists - always a wild card when lowlifes like the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph are involved - there is no way.

If Dan Abrams happens to read this, I welcome him to tell me where I'm wrong.  Because I can't see it.

Dan?


THE NEW YORK TIMES: WRONG ON WRIGHT

Ken Berwitz

The New York Times has a ridiculous editorial this morning. 

I admit that is hardly anything new.  But this one is about a subject I blogged on yesterday - jeremiah wright - so I thought I would put it up and show you what I think they got wrong (which is plenty).

First off, here was my take on whether wright should be an issue in this year's presidential election:

My take on this is that, in 2008, attacking Barack Obama's association with wright would have been a terrific strategy, because it would have defined him to voters.  Now, in 2012, it is poor strategy because Mr. Obama's awful record on the economy is far more important to voters.

Please note that at no time did I suggest there was anything improper or unfair about Mitt Romney's campaign using the 18 years Barack Obama spent in jeremiah wright's church.  My only point was that, 3 1/2 years into his presidency, Mr. Obama is better defined by his record as President than his association with wright and since his record is awful, that is what Mitt Romney should attacking him on.

Now let's get to the Times.  Here is its editorial, in rust, with my comments in blue.  Please read it through and decide for yourself who is making more sense:

Editorial

 

Racial Politics, 2012-Style  Nice.  Before readers see a word of the editorial they already know it is about racism and the word Republicans immediately follows, of course. So it starts.

 

For many Republicans, the belief has never died that President Obama is a secret revolutionary nurtured on black liberationist theology. Mr. Obama spent 18 years in the church of a proudly self-described Black liberation theologist.  What do you think he was nurtured on? Right-wing Web sites are littered with this nonsense how is it nonsense when the head of the church, jeremiah wright, defines himself as a Black liberation theologist?  , and the Fox News host Sean Hannity regularly tries to tie Mr. Obama to the clearly racist views of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Er, excuse me.  If even you guys are admitting that jeremiah wright is clearly a racist, and Barack Obama spent 18 years in his church, was married in it, had his children baptized in it, contributed countless thousands to it, and called wright his spiritual mentor, OF COURSE the two were tied together.  Is there something wrong with you?  Even Mitt Romney suggested in February, on Mr. Hannitys radio show, that Mr. Obama listened too much to Mr. Wright.  You think he didnt?  You think staying in a racist church through almost two decades of racist sermonizing wasnt too much?  How much racism is ok with you?  30 years?  40 years?  Give us your best estimate.

 

In 2008, Senator John McCain refused to make this divisive tactic part of his campaign against Mr. Obama. But, in a more coarsened political atmosphere, the rise of unlimited money has made it possible for a wealthy person to broadcast any attack while keeping a distance from it. McCain should have done it.  As Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg reported in The Times on Thursday, Joe Ricketts, the billionaire founder of TD Ameritrade, worked with Republican strategists to prepare a $10 million ad campaign suggesting the presidents governing philosophy came directly from Mr. Wright.  Ricketts denies it was anything but a proposal.  But, for the sake of discussion, suppose you are right and he was going to do it.  Why would it not be reasonable to connect Mr. Obamas governing philosophy with the philosophy of his spiritual mentor?  (Theres a question Ill never get an answer to.)

 

After the plan was disclosed, Mr. Ricketts said he was not interested in socially divisive tactics and the ads would never run. (Mr. Romney also repudiated the proposed attack.) That suggests Rickets reconsidered only after the plan was disclosed.  In fact, he said he never agreed to it in the first place.  But Mr. Ricketts is quoted in the proposal as saying that if the nation had seen an ad featuring Mr. Wright, theyd never have elected Barack Obama. The proposal suggests Mr. Ricketts gave his preliminary approval.  I agree that suggests he would have been amenable to the campaign.  But a) we still dont know for sure one way or the other, and b) in any event that is not what he said, it is what you are saying.

 

The proposal was prepared by Fred Davis, who made and paid for a Wright ad in 2008 but couldnt persuade Mr. McCain to run it. The good Reverend and his inflammatory influence have never been packaged in the proper attention-arresting way with sufficient resources to truly drill it into Americas consciousness, his proposal said.  I agree completely that wrights inflammatory influence has never been presented in an effective way i.e. a way that might overcome mainstream medias herculean effort to protect Barack Obama from having to answer for his association with this racist.

 

To do that, Mr. Davis proposed showing a clip of Mr. Wright saying God Damn America, then saying the nation should have known that Mr. Obama would come up with terrible ideas like the stimulus and health care reform because of notions drilled into him by his old pastor. To defuse the inevitable attack that the ad is racist, the proposal suggests hiring an extremely literate, conservative African-American as spokesman and narrator.  Thats what I would have done too.  Advertising campaigns, political and non-political both, use reassuring spokespeople all the time.  Democrats do the same all the time as they should, for the same reason.

 

Its hard to imagine why the plans authors believed it would change opinions about Mr. Obama. Americans know him well and most know he is not a left-wing radical. But thats the kind of drivel money buys these days.  Barack Obama is in political trouble today in large part because his agenda is left wing radical.  I do acknowledge, however, that this may be hard to understand among an editorial staff which appears to think of left wing as middle of the road.

 

Since 1976, individuals have been able to spend without limit on independent ads, but rarely did so because their names would have had to have been attached. By setting up a super PAC under the post-Citizens United rules, Mr. Ricketts avoids having most viewers make the connection to him and his businesses, including the Chicago Cubs. This ad may never appear, but the dozens of super PACs can be counted on to find other ways to pollute the campaign.  Sometimes it is pollution.  Other times it is information voters should be considering before casting their ballots.  You dont seem to distinguish between the two not surprising, since it is in your interest to have the final word on what voters do and do not find out and PAC advertising is horning.

Ken Berwitz MTA - I say that Mitt Romney should be running against Barack Obama's record. That has nothing to do with the issue of whiether he is legally able to be the President of the United States. No President in this country's history has taken office with less known about his past than Barack Obama - and less effort by mainstream media to fill in the gaps. This not only is disgraceful, but may have resulted in the election of someone whose presidency is specifically unconstitutional. Is that ok with you? (05/18/12)

Zeke ..... ..... @ Mr. / Ms. MTA (as the case may be) ..... ...... ..... Could you explain exactly why Obama & Co spent millions in legal fees fighting any attempt to view his original birth records. .... .... ..... Why didn't he merely show the d&#m thing ? .... ... .... And, what about his academic records, and the other documents (Social Security, Selective Service ..... ....) .... what's the big secret ? ..... .... The "most open and transparent administration"? .... .... I think not. ....... .......... ........ (05/18/12)

MTA You say that Obama should be judged on his record, but you don't mind dragging up that birth place thing over and over. (05/18/12)


CRYING WOLFE IN ARKANSAS (AND TEXAS TOO)

Ken Berwitz

Was President Obama embarrassed in West Virginia, when a primary opponent named Keith Garrett Judd - born in California and currently serving 17 1/2 years in the Beaumont (Texas) Federal Correctional Institution, got on the ballot - and got 42% of the Democrat vote?  

Well, yes.  But very little, because Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media gave it one-day-and-out treatment so the sheeple would forget about it as soon as possible.

But what if there were a second, even more egregious embarrassment in a state primary - this time from a real candidate?  Not good.  Which leads us straight to John Wolfe, Jr.

John Wolfe, Jr. is an attorney from Tennessee.  He is on the presidential primary ballot in Arkansas, which will be held next Tuesday, May 22 - and in Texas's May 29th primary as well.

This, in and of itself, wouldn't mean very much.  Fringe candidates are lurking around in every presidential election. 

Except....

....a Hendrix College-Talk Business poll  was just conducted in Arkansas' fourth congressional district, and shows Mr. Wolfe with 38% of the vote, to 45% for Mr. Obama.  That puts him in striking range for this district

In fairness, Arkansas' Fourth is hardly Obama territory:  John McCain won it 58% - 39% in 2008.  On the other hand, its congressperson, Mike Ross, is a Democrat.   

I have seen no other polling for Arkansas, so I don't know if Mr. Wolfe's popularity (or, more exactly Mr.Obama's unpopularity) extends to the rest of the state.  But if it does, this is going to be another huge embarrassment.

And if Wolfe does well in Arkansas, how many votes, even if they are no more than protest votes, will he accumulate against President Obama in Texas? 

At some point even Mr. Obama's Accomplice Media are going to have to make something of this.

Stay tuned.  I guarantee both the Obama and Romney camps will.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!