I always wanted to say that, LOL.

Having posted a couple of things today, I was actually just about to log off for the afternoon and take care of some errands when I ran across this.

From PJ Media:

Remember the Trayvon Martin brouhaha? The MSM almost universally concluded that George Zimmerman both stalked and then murdered Martin in cold blood. Many commentators ignored any evidence to the contrary. The geniuses at Slate.com even had a reporter go to the Florida community where Martin was shot and interview some women who claimed to see Zimmerman shoot him in cold blood. They said that Martin was never on top of him and had not been banging Zimmerman’s head on the ground at all.

Now, the Florida district attorney has released 67 CDs of evidence, and made them available to the press. ABC News has for once done the MSM proud, by headlining their story with a bold conclusion: “Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman’s Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting.” The network report states:

Two police reports written the night that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin said that Zimmerman had a bloody face and nose, according to police reports made public today.

The reports also note that two witness accounts appear to back up Zimmerman’s version of what happened when they describe a man on his back with another person wearing a hoodie straddling him and throwing punches.

In addition, Trayvon Martin’s father told an investigator after listening to 911 tapes that captured a man’s voice frantically calling for help that it was not his son….

So what’s going to happen next?

So the district attorney, true to her word at the time of the Zimmerman arrest, told the press that she would be guided by the evidence alone. Now, the only remaining issue is the argument that the prosecutors will evidently make: If Zimmerman had not followed Martin and instead taken the advice of the police to stay put, nothing would have happened and Martin would not have been killed.

But clearly, Zimmerman’s claim that “that he shot Martin in self-defense after the 6-foot tall, 160 pound teenager knocked him to the ground, banged his head against the ground and went for Zimmerman’s gun” is apparently true. It is also true that Zimmerman’s face was bloodied, that his nose was broken as he said, and that previously unreleased photos of the back of his head show severe lacerations.

The witness report released has the witness saying the following:

“He witnesses a black male, wearing a dark colored ‘hoodie’ on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches ‘MMA (mixed martial arts) style,’” the police report of the witness said. “He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass.”

From the left, whose goal is not justice but merely to fry Zimmermen, there’s the argument…

…the argument that the prosecutors will evidently make: If Zimmerman had not followed Martin and instead taken the advice of the police to stay put, nothing would have happened and Martin would not have been killed.

Could have, would have, should have vs “it’s what it is.”

My prediction is that the prosecution will try Zimmerman nevertheless, and try to build a circumstantial argument that had he not followed Martin, things would have been quite different. Of course, the defense will undoubtedly argue that Martin could have waited for police to arrive, not attacked Zimmerman, and explained that his father was visiting friends in the community and that he had only gone to the store to purchase candy. Whether the jury will still find Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder because he followed Martin is your guess.

The main point is that all those who jumped to the conclusion that Zimmerman had attacked Martin because he was black, and that it was a racially motivated crime, have some apologizing to do. Slate, which ran the summary, should apologize to its readers for the previous story I referred to at the start. Their post today does not link to their own past coverage, which I have been unable to find with a Google search. Will Bruce Springsteen also apologize for reviving his song “American Skin(41 shots)” and dedicating it to Trayvon Martin? And what about Rev. Al Sharpton, who was down in Florida for days revving up the crowd, and acting as if a 1940s-style lynching had occurred, while practically leading a lynch mob himself? And will Spike Lee apologize for making public what he thought was the address of Zimmerman’s family, so people could harass them and threaten them? Don’t hold your breath.

Let’s hope that the rest of the media follows ABC’s lead and acknowledges the truth rather than perpetuating the lie they helped cultivate to begin with, trashing an innocent man…

Let’s hope the court does, as well…

Alabama is certainly less bloodthirsty toward than the party of Obama.

From One News Now:

A wrongful death case in Alabama calls into question Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

On Friday the Alabama Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, according to Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, because it allows an individual mother to bring a wrongful death complaint on behalf of her unborn child — even though the baby could not have lived outside the womb at the time the infant died.

Well!

The ramifications here?

“… The concurring opinion by Justice Tom Parker goes through the historical as well as the legal precedent to show that Roe v. Wade’s viability standard is ill-conceived and ultimately does not apply, but should eventually also be overturned,” the Liberty Counsel founder explains.

Parker wrote that “Roe’s viability rule was based on inaccurate history and was mostly unsupported by legal precedent. Medical advances since Roe have conclusively demonstrated that an unborn child is a unique human being at every stage of development.”

One can only hope that this means science, the thing the left falsifies, bastardizes, revises and politicizes, then points to in order to advance political objectives, has once again turned around and returned to bite them where the moon doesn’t shine.

Maybe, just maybe, this decision will set a precedent that will (hopefully) lead to the overturn of Roe vs Wade. If so, we can naturally expect a brutal fight from the left side of the aisle, their communist media allies (Times Corp, other usual suspects) weighing in heavily with the routine chorus of lies and half truths where science is concerned.

If the truth somehow prevails (I say “somehow” because it all too often doesn’t in today’s liberal dominated atmosphere), perhaps all those “unborn” children slated for murder in the future by “progressives” will be spared, their right to live protected by a deep sixing of R vs W.

That is significant, says Staver. “It clearly shows that viability — the ability to live outside the womb — is just a medical, technological issue and has nothing to do with the dignity of the human being,” states the attorney. “[It says] that the human being is a human being from the moment of conception and should be treated as such through all stages of development.”

Friday’s Alabama Supreme Court ruling in Hamilton v. Scott was unanimous. Three other justices joined Judge Parker in the concurring opinion.

Take that, baby killers!

…I was kind of tied up yesterday and so, since key aspects of the below described affair have been sources of outrage to me, both as an advocate of justice and an American, since two dedicated Border Patrol agents were railroaded into prison by a scumbag in Federal Prosecutor’s clothing.

The allegasd {Seth’s note: Obvious misprint, mispelling or typo of “alleged” — disgraceful editing} Mexican drug smuggler shot by Border Patrol agents as he tried to dodge arrest in 2005 will appear in federal court in El Paso, Texas, on Friday afternoon.

Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, 27, was arrested Thursday on a drug smuggling offense at a U.S. port of entry. A federal grand jury handed down a sealed indictment on Oct. 17.

Aldrete was granted immunity in 2005 in exchange for testifying against ex-border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

The two Border Patrol agents were sentenced to 11 and 12 years, respectively, for shooting Aldrete as he tried to sneak about million dollars’ worth of marijuana into the country. He was shot in the buttocks while running toward the Mexican border.

Right, the mutt was granted immunity by a legal representative of the United States Government, whom, unless he was on the payroll of a Mexican drug cartel, profoundly stupid or peaking on pure L.S.D. (actually, to be fair, I believe Sutton was kissing up to The Boss, who is paradoxically pro-homeland security and pro-an open border with Mexico at the same time), knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that he was calling to the witness stand a career criminal whose resume included felonies in at least two countries, including the U.S., to testify against and decimate the careers and futures of these two agents, Ramos and Compean, destroying their families at the same time.

I seem to recall, however, that while the testimony of felons (other than those willing to convict themselves — often with immunity to prosecution though more often a reduced sentence) as an incentive to testify against their own organizations or comrades is considered admissible, the same does not apply to those of questionable background in other circumstances.

I mean, giving official creedence to a drug smuggler who is testifying against a couple of people whose job is to catch and arrest them is beyond the absurd.

Aldrete now faces two counts of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, one count of conspiracy to import a controlled substance and one count of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute.

The alleged offenses happened between June 1, 2005 and Nov. 30, 2005, which is when the government gave Aldrete a pass to enter and exit the country unsupervised, primarily to get medical treatment for his bullet wound.

Aldrete and his co-defendant, Cipriano Ortiz Hernandez, conspired to import and distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana on Sept. 24, 2005, and again on Oct. 22 and 23 that same year, according to the charges. (The second alleged offense happened after Aldrete was granted immunity from prosecution in return for his testimony against the agents.)

I don’t know how anybody else feels about this (though I have a good idea where the sane are concerned), but this whole Aldrete immunity thing, to my way of thinking, makes the DOJ look pretty foolish. They grant immunity to a Mexican drug trafficker in exchange for his testimony crucifying American law enforcement agents and he uses the immunity as an opportunity to smuggle more drugs.

Sutton also is prosecuting the Aldrete case. He has been blasted by advocates of the border agents for not bringing charges against Aldrete sooner.

“I have repeatedly said that if we obtained sufficient competent and admissible evidence against Aldrete, we could prosecute him,” Sutton said in a statement. “Members of my office have worked closely with agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration for many months to investigate Aldrete’s alleged involvement in drug trafficking.”

At a Senate hearing this summer on the border agents case, Sutton was non-committal in answering questions about the October drug offense by Aldrete. Some senators pressed Sutton to explain why Aldrete was allowed to enter and leave the country in the run-up to the border agents’ trial.

Advocates of the border agents also have complained that the Aldrete’s alleged October drug smuggling did not come up at the trial of Ramos and Compean.

So Sutton is reneging on his deal with Aldrete, if not in a letter-of-the-law manner, in a “sorry, pal, but you’re cooked… My career is more important than honoring any agreements I make with criminals.”

What a sleazeball this guy is! He sells out both sides in order to further his own career. This is as contemptible an excuse for a…

At any rate, the entire article is here.

There has been no excuse for GWB not pardoning Ramos and Compean without reservation.

Truth to tell and actually a repetition of what I expressed among my earlier posts on this situation, I actually believe that a mere pardon wouldn’t be anywhere near enough.

1. The two agents should be pardoned and reinstated, with all accumulated and earned seniority, to their jobs, and receive all retroactive pay.

2. They should be compensated by the gov’t for all their legal fees and,

3. They and their families should be restored, via full taxpayer expense, to the exact same situation (homeowners with X mortgage debts, etc) that they were in prior to the screwing they received from their own government, the one they served.

What these two guys are being screwed for, coming right down to it, is thinking on their feet.

When a bunch of bureaucrats who’ve never been in danger are empowered to make the rules for those who work in danger, this is what we get.

Fun example: Over 30 years ago, in the early stages of my security career, I worked undercover on the wharves in New Orleans (not that it’s applicable, but my CW was a Colt Python). This was not the same kind of post as the lobby of an office building or whatever, it was a perpetually violent situation. Whenever the job got exciting, both the New Orleans Harbor Police and U.S. Customs were also involved.

As a UC, I held supervisory authority over our uniforms on the wharves, and as such had to deal with management contact.

At one such meeting, I was actually told by a company founder/owner, concerned about liability, that the new policy was that should anyone pull a weapon on me, I should “shoot it out of his hand”.

After I was done laughing, I said, “I have a better idea. How ’bout if I call time out, call you and have you come down and shoot the gun out of the guy’s hand!?”

My point here is that when you hire and train people to protect you, you need to allow them to handle situations as they see fit…you know, think for themselves, as they’re there and you’re not, and you have to back them up.

If I were a U.S. Border Patrol agent, knowing that the Bush Administration condones prosecuting agents for doing their jobs, I would quit. There are too many other ways to serve our country without being punished for doing what we were told we were hired for.

MSNBC.com does a feature every week called This Week In Pictures, in which people can vote for which is to become “best picture”. and I received an email from blogger friend Old Soldier today directing me to have a look at those photos entered for the week of 17 - 24 August.

Old Soldier pointed out two of these entries, one, among the top two for first place, being a mother and child saying good-bye to the child’s father as he is leaving for Iraq, titled, An Officer and My Daddy, another, that was apparently down at the bottom, vote-wise, was titled These Colors Don’t Run and depicted a Palestinian demonstrator holding up his national flag in the course of an anti-Israeli event.

Suddenly, the latter received a mega-barrage of votes that slammed it up to a total of 71,000, the abrupt increase looking suspiciously like the work of an organized group of activists.

This Week In Pictures can be found here.

We need to try and adjust this obviously organized attempt to use an expression that has become associated with the American flag to glorify a Palestinian rioter — if you look at the photo, you see that water hoses are being used to repel the Palestinian and his co-demonstrators — that is a riot response tactic — while burying a photo of an American soldier saying good-bye to his family, perhaps for the last time, as he heads off to fight for the freedom of others — by voting and getting others to vote for An Officer and My Daddy.

For further information, please visit Old Soldier.