MAYBE ZIMMERMAN ISN’T GUILTY

I haven’t paid a lot of attention to the Trayvon Martin story just because those stories don’t interest me all that much and, based on what I had seen, it looked like a slam dunk case of a stupid red neck shooting an innocent black kid.

I thought it was just a matter of time before he’s arrested, brought to trial and convicted.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson showing up has become a cliche and, no pun intended, they’ve become white noise.

They make a nice living looking for racists under every bed and have no credibility as far as I’m concerned.

It was a given that they would take this case and point to it as an example of how black people have no access to justice in America.

Kind of like their open minded approach to the  Duke Lacrosse rape case.

So, their involvement didn’t make me any more likely to believe that Zimmerman should be in jail.

Based on what I had seen, I had convicted him in my own mind.

But, it turns out that there is a witness who says he saw the whole thing and that Zimmerman did act in self defense after he was attacked by Martin.

Maybe the witness is a racist Zimmerman sympathizer and a liar.

But it’s also possible that the cops think he’s telling the truth.

It would probably be a good idea to let anybody but Al or Jesse sort it out.

 

 

GREATEST SPEECH IN AMERICAN HISTORY

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

One of the best books I ever read is called “Son of Thunder.”  It’s about Patrick Henry. I learned that this wild man was about so much more than his famous one liner.

He gave this speech 237 years ago today.

Without a teleprompter.

Back to the LibertyOnline Index

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!


Copyright 1995-1999,Jawaid Bazyar

 

 

DUQUESNE FIRES EVERHART

Not too many people care about Duquesne basketball.

That’s bound to happen when you stink for 25 out of 30 years.

Ron Everhart did the second best coaching job in Pittsburgh sports history when, in three years, he took Duquesne from a 3-24 season to a spot in the Altantic 10 championship game.

And, despite a return to respectability, even his firing today is not that big of a deal because Duquesne basketball just doesn’t matter that much.

Everhart was the first coach in 30 years to make progress in changing that.

The athletic director says he wants a coach who can take Duquesne to the next level.

I lost count of the number of Duquesne coaches since I started covering sports in Pittsburgh in 1977.

All of them, except Everhart, found out early on that they had no chance to succeed.

Maybe we’ll find out that there were good reasons for the firing. (The transfers don’t count.)

Like that he was taking money from the faculty lounge vending machines.

But right now, Duquesne looks unbelievably stupid and on its way to being on a par with the Pittsburgh Riverhounds.

PAYTON GETS A YEAR: GOOD FOR GOODELL

Good for Roger Goodell.

He had to come down hard on the Saints or he would have zero credibility the next time he suspends a player in the interest of safety.

Sean Payton, the head coach, gets suspended for a year. That will cost him between $7 and $8 million.

The Saints also lose two second round picks.

Greg Williams got Pete Rosed –suspended indefinitely — for being the master mind of the bounty program.

Players should be suspended, too.

Payton should be fired. Unless, of course, his owner knew what was going on.

If he didn’t, Payton, Super Bowl winner or not, should be fired for the damage that he did to his company.

 

WHY DO BLACKS VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS?

One thing that Democratic politicians can count on in every election is the black vote.

Why?

Presumably because Democrats and liberals are more tolerant and  care more about the poor.

Republicans, on the other hand, are racists and care only about the rich.

Walter E. Williams is black and an economist and you can be sure he’s not a Democrat or a liberal:

“According to an American Community Survey, by the U.S. Census Bureau, the top 10 poorest cities with populations more than 250,000 are Detroit, with 33 percent of its residents below the poverty line; Buffalo, N.Y., 30 percent; Cincinnati, 28 percent; Cleveland, 27 percent; Miami, 27 percent; St. Louis, 27 percent; El Paso, Texas, 26 percent; Milwaukee, 26 percent; Philadelphia, 25 percent; and Newark, N.J., 24 percent.

The most common characteristic of these cities is that for decades, all of them have been run by Democratic and presumably liberal administrations. Some of them — such as Detroit, Buffalo, Newark and Philadelphia — haven’t elected a Republican mayor for more than a half-century. What’s more is that, in some cases for decades, the mayors of six of these high-poverty cities have been black Americans.”

 

You say, “What’s the point, Williams?” Let’s be clear about it. I’m not stating a causal relationship between poverty and Democratic and/or black political control over a city. What I am saying is that if one is strategizing on how to help poor people, he wants to leave off his list of objectives Democratic and black political control of cities. According to Albert Einstein (attributed), the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”