Keep Ignoring This Particular Problem Until It Swims Up and Bites Us … Again

Shooting At Washington DC Navy Yard Reportedly Leaves Several Woundedmass_shooters

The MSM (and liberals with Twitter accounts) resorted to the typical template with last week’s Washington DC Navy Yard mass murder shooting:

First, get the facts completely wrong, even the person’s name/identity … Just be first with the dirt
Second, continue to push the lie(s) because it fits the gun control agenda
Third, barely, if that, correct the error(s)
Fourth, still push the blame on the gun, even if it is not the gun used
Fifth, find somebody else to blame (always first blame the NRA, then the GOP and/or “Bible-thumping Second Amendment law-abiding Americans)
Sixth, stupidly and wrongly blame the TEA Party/conservatives/”rightwingers” (even though some of the recent shooters have been democrat/liberal-leaners … and Obama and gun control supporters)
Seventh, (“He played video games? Thank Gaia!”) Blame the video games!
*Eighth (continued below the fold), completely ignore the fact that almost all of the mass shootings are happening in “Gun Free Zones” … Yes, even military bases

You see, it is never the shooter’s responsibility, or their history of mental illness and its occasionally volatile medications. It is always a deflection of responsibility and blame and condemnation of the gun(s), the Second Amendment, those who persist in defending the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, the other political party, violence-based entertainment, global warming/climate change…

However, while we are grasping at blame cards, Ann Coulter does find a viable source of blame that absolutely does connect with the mass murderers in America over the last four decades:

There’s been another mass shooting by a crazy person, and liberals still refuse to consider institutionalizing the dangerous mentally ill.


But Alexis couldn’t be institutionalized because the left has officially certified the mentally ill as “victims,” and once you’re a victim, all that matters is that you not be “stigmatized.”

But here’s the problem: Coddling the mentally ill isn’t even helping the mentally ill. Ask the sisters of crazy homeless woman “Billie Boggs” how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs living on the streets of New York City. Ask the parents of Aaron Alexis, James Holmes (Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooter), Jared Loughner (Tucson, Ariz., mall shooter) or Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter) how happy they are that their sons weren’t institutionalized.

Tellingly, throughout the last three decades, the overall homicide rate has been in free fall, thanks to Republican crime policies, from 10 per 100,000 in 1980 to 4 per 100,00 today. (You might even call them “common sense” crime policies.) But the number of mass shootings has skyrocketed from 4 per year, between 1900 and 1970, to 29 per year since then.

Something seems to have gone horribly wrong right around 1970. What could it be? Was it the introduction of bell-bottoms?

That date happens to correlate precisely with when the country began throwing the mentally ill out of institutions in 1969. Your memory of there not being as many mass murders a few decades ago is correct. Your memory of there not being as many homeless people a few decades ago is also correct.

But liberals won’t allow the dangerous mentally ill to be committed to institutions against their will. (The threat of commitment is very persuasive in getting disturbed individuals to take their medicine.) Something in liberals’ genetic makeup compels them to attack civilization, for example, by defending the right of dangerous psychotics to refuse treatment and then representing them in court after they commit murder.


In the decades since the deinstitutionalization movement began, more and more people kept being killed as a result of that movement — including the deinstitutionalized themselves. According to Torrey, between 1970 and 2004, the mentally ill were responsible for at least 4,700 murders in California.

Liberals will pretend to have missed the news that the Washington Navy Yard shooter was a paranoid schizophrenic. They refuse to acknowledge that the mass murder problem — as well as the homeless problem — only began after crazy people were thrown out of institutions in the 1970s. They tell us crapping in your pants on a New York City sidewalk is a “civil right.” They say that haranguing passersby on the street about your persecution by various movie stars is a form of “free speech.”

Only after a mass murder committed by a psychotic with a firearm do liberals spring to life and suggest a solution: Take away everyone’s guns.

Read in full

Read more

“Not Guilty” in a Court of Law … “Guilty” in the Media and the Street


Saturday night the jury, after 3 weeks of trial testimony and 11 hours over 2 days of deliberation, found George Zimmerman “Not Guilty” in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Late in the afternoon the jury sent a question to the trial’s Judge Nelson, for clarification on the ‘manslaughter’ charge. The media, who had set aside all other news, to be sure, since the jury was handed the case began the back and forth speculation over what said jury was contemplating. Even their request of the judge had the judge and both sides of the case wanting clarification of the jury’s query of the charge. It was a good chance the jury had easily discarded the second degree murder charge regarding the evidence (or lack there of) relating to Zimmerman’s actions that night, and were seriously examining the evidence’s relationship to manslaughter qualifications as read to them from the 27 pages by Judge Nelson. After a short couple hours more the courtroom filled with everyone involved in the controversial trial to hear the final verdict. The prosecution’s charges against George Zimmerman did not fit, so they must acquit. So let it be written. So let it be done.

The jury in the George Zimmerman trial sat for three weeks through the weak and vague evidence of the prosecution against George Zimmerman. They will discover, as they get caught-up on the outside news after being released from sequestration last night, the prosecution finagled a manslaughter option at the last minute when they had to face the fact they had no 2nd degree murder case against Zimmerman and hoped to play on the all-women jury’s emotions so they would settle on a compromise of manslaughter … cutting the baby in half. I would love to hear the jury members’ reactions when they realize the prosecution had even tried to get presiding Florida Circuit Court Judge Debra Nelson to allow a 3rd degree murder and child abuse option. Nobody can tell if any members of the Zimmerman murder trial jury will come forward for television interviews. They are not obligated to. Given the rage and death threats in the street over Zimmerman’s acquittal nobody can blame any of the 6 female jurors if they wish to protect themselves and their families by remaining anonymous. But you have to wonder if the identities of these six jurors will be safely kept, considering this media’s ability to bribe and poke until a leak is flowing.

Ahhh … The American mainstream media…

It has to be noted who was directly responsible for spinning this case from the start. It was the MSM. Even George Zimmerman’s defense attorney took the MSM to task, and in their face, in the post-verdict press conference. They clearly had an agenda every step of the trial in painting a half Hispanic man as “white” to spin Zimmerman with a racial/racist motive, and portraying his actions that night as against the law … from leaving his vehicle – to following Trayvon through his own gated community – to legally owning and carrying a gun – to defending himself when he was being physically attacked. While the prosecution kept bringing up these details in the trial the perception being presented, also by the media, was that Zimmerman had broken laws all through that tragic night through his actions. While they might have been unwise, they were not illegal.

The fallout from this trial will be the manipulation by mob rule in even forcing the state of Florida to take the case away from local authorities and take it to trial. Yes, mob rule. The demonstrations (and death threats) from the professional race-baiters, the complicit media, and even the interloping of Obama and some democrats in the Congress. All of this designed, encouraged, and fueled by the MSM to make that horrible night into something it was not.

For your consideration:

“KUHNER: The media lynching of George Zimmerman: A tragic death was spun to fit a racial narrative”

“Guilty Until Proven Innocent: How the Press Prosecuted Zimmerman While Stoking Racial Tensions”

“Dershowitz: Zimmerman Prosecutors ‘Should Be Disbarred’”

“AP Reporter on Zimmerman Verdict: ‘So We Can All Kill Teenagers Now?’”

MSNBC: “Sharpton: ‘Slap in the Face to Those Who Believe in Justice in This Country’ …’Atrocity … A sad day in the country.’

“NBC Incorrectly Claims Zimmerman Jury Is All White”

Read more

Why didn’t restrictive gun control laws save the victims of Newtown?

I don’t know about you, but in my opinion the left’s immediate rush to politicize the tragedy in Connecticut, the ensuing media frenzy, and their manipulation of good law abiding citizens rightful grief, emotionality, and confusion disgusts me.  Before the facts of the crime were clear, before the correct perpetrator was identified, before Newtown parents knew whether or not their children were safe, the left and the MSM made gun control the issue.

The best response I’ve read about this debacle is by Thomas Crown at Red State.

Question One in Our National Conversation:  Why Did Gun Control Fail the Families of Newton

It is sickening that we have to discuss this with the dead not all buried, but such is our fallen world.

Were we a decent society, we would allow the parents of Newtown to grieve before we started talking about taking away guns. We are not a decent society, and the ghoulish, deranged left is once again trying to use a tragedy as an opportunity.
So, as they begin their ritual descent into bathing in the blood of children about whom they wouldn’t care were they just inside the birth canal, let’s have the “conversation” about pretending away the Second Amendment they want. Because they want to change the law, the burden of proof lies on them; so here is the first question they must answer:

Why didn’t restrictive gun control laws save the victims of Newtown?

I don’t believe that we should be making domestic policy based on anecdote or on a single event. No system is properly tested in a single instance. The proof of a policy is how it performs over time — after hundreds or thousands of events. But gun control proponents do not agree. Piers Morgan, Michael Moore, Rupert Murdoch, and many more seem to believe that the vicious and evil killings in Connecticut prove the need for more stringent gun control measures. They race to change the law in the wake of tragedies because they know that they long ago lost the policy debate and that cooler heads will reject any such regulation absent the immediate aftermath of a tragedy.

A lesser-noted detail of America’s current demographics is that in the midst of an awful economic downturn, violent crime is falling. Americans recognize that gun crimes have continued to trend down as more law-abiding citizens have gotten access to firearms. So having failed to fool the people into signing onto their policies, they pretend that their ideas have been ignored — rather than considered and rejected again and again — and they call for a “national conversation,” a term of art the Obama Administration has embraced since the beginning that translates into American English as “agree with me, or I’ll regulate it anyway, democracy be damned, you idiots.”

Defenders of the Bill of Rights ought to welcome that debate, one that we’ve been having for every year of the roughly four decades I’ve drawn breath on this planet. (We keep having it because the Left, like the Roman legions, refuses to admit defeat until they win.) After all, we can and will win one more time if the sense of the American people (also known to its opponents as “the gun lobby,” “the Israel lobby,” and so on) is allowed to prevail. But if we are to discuss the value of gun restrictions, we first need an explanation from gun control advocates of why their ideas failed the victims in Newtown.

As noted above, according to the Brady Campaign, Connecticut has the nation’s fourth-strongest gun laws. The sale and possession of so-called assault weapons are banned under state law. As noted above, the state empowers judges to remove guns from those who constitute a threat. The state earns high marks for gun dealer regulation, reporting of lost or stolen guns, background checks, permit to purchase, child safety, and earns the maximum score on guns in public places.

So here’s the challenge for gun control advocates: explain why you failed the people of Newtown. You cited Connecticut as a national example. You said its laws “reduce risks to children.” You gave no state a higher rating for keeping guns out of public places — like schools.

And a criminally insane man stole legally-owned guns (owned under Connecticut’s regime) after being denied their legal purchase, broke in through a window, and killed children and adults — adults who were not armed to shoot back, and so died unable to save the children who also died.

You want this one event to be a national test? Fine. Why are there 20 children dead when the state of Connecticut did what you said they should to keep their people safe?

Once you answer that question, we can get this conversation underway.

Read the entire post here.


Open letter to the directors of all accredited media in La Habana

Dear Sir or Madam:

We write to you worried about the police and paramilitary harassment denounced from Banes, a small town in the Cuban province of Holguín, by Reina Luisa Tamayo. She is the mother of Orlando Zapata Tamayo the prisoner of conscience who died on 23 February after a prolonged hunger strike that up to its tragic and fatal outcome had little coverage in the international press.

Every Sunday, we receive, mostly through phone interviews broadcast by the US-based Radio Martí, the same report from Reina Luisa describing how she is beaten, insulted and how [the government directed mob] prevents her from going to the town’s church to pray for her son and the health of all Cuban political prisoners still in jail. The repressive organs of the Cuban regime also impede her to visit her son’s tomb.

It is surprising to us that despite the wide coverage dedicated to Cuban topics, your organization has not reported on this. We know of the limitations to movement within Cuba, but we also understand that any foreign reporter has the means and resources to travel to the Eastern part of the island and give an eyewitness report of what happens there, in front of Reina Luisa Tamayo’s home.

We do not wish to tell the media what they should do, but to share with you our concern for the life of a woman who has lost her son in unjust circumstances and is clamoring for the world’s help to avoid more deaths.

We, the promoters of the #OZT: I accuse the Cuban government Campaign that demands the unconditional and immediate release of all peaceful political prisoners in Cuba and the respect of all Cubans’ human rights; write to you because we know that the international press in Cuba not only bears witness to what happens there, but can also help prevent and stop harassment incidents like those suffered by the Ladies in White in March of this year.

We would also like to know if there is any kind of legal hindrance or of any other sort that prevents your reporter in La Habana from traveling to other regions of Cuba.

We thank you in advance for your reply.


#OZT: I accuse the Cuban government Campaign

DIRECCIONES DE MEDIOS DE ESPAÑA: ( en “asunto” poner “mensaje para BBC Mundo)

Esteban Beltrán- Director Amnistía Internacional – Sección Española
Dirección Secretariado Estatal
Fernando VI, 8, 1º izda.28004 Madrid España
+ 34 902 119 133
+ 34 91 310 12 77 (información general)
+ 34 91 319 53 34
Correo- e info@es.;
Para Asociarte a Amnistia Internacional:;

En español abajo/In Spanish below

Read more