OK, the Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder just spoke to the NAACP convention. Just before this, we saw:
- The Sanford, FL police Chief decides not to charge George Zimmerman for lack of evidence
- His Department of Justice sent down folks to “persuade” the the City Fathers to oust the Chief
- With further “prodding”, Zimmerman is arrested (much to the satisfaction of the DoJ)
- The DoJ sent down members of its Community Relations Division to “counsel” community activists
- The DoJ seemingly applied pressure to the Republicans Governor (Rick Scott) and Attorney General Bondi (whom we have interviewed) to appoint a special prosecutor Angela Corey (who had also ‘been in communications” with the DoJ).
- Corey then overcharges Zimmerman, and is now coming out, withheld evidence from the Defense team (illegally, I might add)
- Put a bad strategy in place (what can you do with a paucity of evidence to support the overcharges)
- Loses the verdict, and then blithely stokes the racial fires by ignoring the jury verdict and calling Zimmerman a murderer.
- DoJ is on site, again.
So, when all is said and done, the verdict in, what does Holder say? Which, in context with the above, could be construed as opening up a Fast and Furious V2.0? Manufacturing another “man-made disaster”?
Race was not an issue in the courtroom when it came to the actual legal issues – the Law strictly defines murder, manslaughter, and hate crimes levels and both sides and the Judge agreed on the jury instructions as they they pertained to the legal points. Certainly race has been an issue in the court of public opinion as well as the discussion of self-defense on both sides. However, the argument of “Stand Your Ground”, valid in FL and here in NH, was NOT used during any arguments. Nada, no way, nein – it was not brought into the courtroom as part of the defense strategy. Yet, what does Holder say?
Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday strongly criticized stand-your-ground laws that allow a person who believes he is in danger to use deadly force in self-defense.
Holder said he was concerned about the case of Trayvon Martin, in which George Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges, and said the Justice Department has an open investigation into what happened.
Investigating real legal issues or just more of the same [racial] politics that has been has been his hallmark over the years? And being a Progressive, these words demonstrate that he believes people must rely on The State to defend them (or should just be left defenseless, as he certainly knows of the Supremes’ decision that police do not have an obligation to defend us as individuals). We must all be under the legal rule that retreat is the only recourse.
But he added: “Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods.”
Just like his boss, Obama, who is trying to redefine the basic tenets of our social contract (i.e., the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution). Expand the concept of self-defense? That is, as the Founders believed via the second Amendment and rapidly becoming more the norm than not at the State decision level, that Natural Law declares that the first duty and Right of a Sovereign Citizen is to be able to defend themselves. It is only because of the Progressive movement, aided by Democrat spawned Jim Crow laws, that this Right was diminished in the first place. For me, this time in US history is just a refurbishment of what was ours all the time – greedy power-driven politicians had merely tarnished and covered this Right over.
It is not a sensless expansion of something that did not exist before – it is reasserting a Right that was always there. Face it, with the lawlessness of Holder, his boss, and the rest of the Administration, this is just one more signal of a regime that has Totalitarian leanings.
And makes the best of a man-made crisis – especially one that those men have ginned up themselves. Fast and Furious was all about setting up a crisis by which gun control could be put into place. Perhaps this was the goal after all and a small town tragedy was seen merely as another version of the same thing – to render us less dependent on ourselves.
BTW, I would love to see the butt from whence he pulled this nugget:
The attorney general said the country must take a hard look at laws that contribute to “more violence than they prevent.”
Last time I knew, 2-3 million time a year, someone being confronted by an aggressor has made the incident go away merely by showing a gun (or if that fails, refusing to become a victim by having to use it).
Oh, and this:
Attorney General Eric Holder has called Martin’s death unnecessary and has promised the DOJ will work to “alleviate tensions, address community concerns and promote healing.”
Funny – I thought it was to uphold the laws, not a perverse “heal the planet” type mission. I also thought thought that this would be a local issue, not a federal one.