FOX (News) is KING of THE HILL

February 12, 2014

©2014 jbjd

Ever searching for reliable sources of real news, I recently began reading The Hill, after viewing its Associate Editor A. B. Stoddard, a regular panelist on the FOX News show Special Report with Brett Baier. Generally, I found the site to be both informative and well-balanced. Perhaps this is why I was so irked by this latest experience.

On February 10, The Hill published an article by its columnist, Bill Press, denigrating the Republicans on their stance on immigration, at the bottom of which was provided this mini-bio: Press is host of “The Bill Press Show” on Free Speech TV and author of The Obama Hate Machine.

Here was my comment:

Press’ ‘article’ closes with this mini-bio: Press is host of “The Bill Press Show” on Free Speech TV and author of The Obama Hate Machine.

Inasmuch as The Hill has condescended to provide this forum to Mr. Press; it could mitigate the damages to its credibility by also including the fact, he is the former Chair of the California Democratic Party. PRESS BILL PRESS to EARN his PRESS CREDENTIALS.

Later, I viewed this clip from a February 9 segment on Media Buzz, the FOX News show which analyzes media coverage of “a wide range of topics, including technology, social media, politics, culture and sports,” in which the host, Howard Kurtz, showing ‘how it’s done,’ introduced Mr. Press both as a “nationally syndicated radio show host and former Chairman of the California Democratic Party.”

Note to The Hill: as indicated in the oath; just because it’s the truth doesn’t mean, it’s the whole truth.


Freedom costs.


January 15, 2014

©2014 jbjd

I confess: I am an abject hypocrite when it comes to my vote, especially in the general election.

As evidenced throughout this blog; I immersed myself in the factual details of the ascendency of Barack Obama into the Oval Office. Then, based on my newfound education, I vowed not vote for any Democrats for 40 years, likening this to the proverbial desert odyssey God imposed on the Jews to kill off all those generations raised within a culture steeped in idolatry, who had disobeyed His commandment to worship only Him. But, all things being equal; this means, I cannot justify voting Republican, either, because of the conduct of President George (W.) Bush, an awareness which broadsided me during a recent exchange about references to a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq.

Larry Johnson, Owner and Proprietor of the NoQuarter blog,  posted NeoCon and Conservative Alzheimers on Iraq  in which he sharply criticized Charles Krauthammer for blaming the current chaos in Iraq on President Obama’s failure to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement (“SOFA”): “What a crock of shit!” Id. He want on to correctly point out, “The Status of Forces Agreement was negotiated by George W. Bush’s people. Not Obama’s.” Id. Here was my response.

LJ, you wrote, “I am sickened and disgusted by the craven and dishonest conduct of pundits like Krauthammer.” Having missed the segment to which you referred – I usually skip O’Reilly – I went back and listened. Then, given 1) what might on the surface have appeared to be a less-than-forthright pronouncement from Dr. K; and 2) what I have found to be his history of reliability; I began to investigate. That’s how I came to realize, we are talking about 2 SOFA’s (see my comment below). Comments by your loyal opposition, Banned, inspired me to further research the facts.

No one is perfect; we all contradict ourselves, whether due to honest evolution of opinion. But based on Dr. K’s voluminous record of well-founded punditry; he has earned my ‘benefit of the doubt.’

(Note that I hadn’t even investigated the reasons underlying the horrible news coming out of Iraq until LJ attacked one of my favored political pundits! So much for being a civic citizen…)

Then, I responded to other commenters on that blog, with more information from my newly conducted research:

“Mr. Biden also predicted that the Americans could work out a deal with a government led by Mr. Maliki. “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise,” Mr. Biden said. “I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA,” he added, referring to the Status of Forces Agreement the Obama administration hoped to negotiate.”…

Clearly, VP Biden (and, by extension, President Obama) not only announced the position of the Administration, a new SOFA was necessary to stabilize the situation in Iraq; he assumed one would be negotiated. Then, why wasn’t it? Because President Obama is incapable of negotiating such an agreement. Then, having failed to negotiate such an agreement, Obama took credit for living up to his campaign promise to get US troops out of Iraq. And, he didn’t bother explaining to the country, what likely would be the devastating results of his failed attempts to finalize a new SOFA.

Remember, in the lead-up to the Iraqi war, several members of Congress, from both parties, granted provisional authorization for a use of force on the basis Iraq held weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) which could pose a threat to America’s vital interests. The resolution contained this caveat: before force would be used, all other non-combative measures would be exhausted, first. Most notable: UN inspectors would complete their work, consisting of searching for these WMD’s. Here is the corresponding (controlling) section of the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 :


    (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed 
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and 
appropriate in order to--
            (1) defend the national security of the United States 
        against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
            (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
        resolutions regarding Iraq.

    (b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of 
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President 
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, 
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make 
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
            (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or 
        other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately 
        protect the national security of the United States against the 
        continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to 
        enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council 
        resolutions regarding Iraq; and
            (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent 
        with the United States and other countries continuing to take 
        the necessary actions against international terrorist and 
        terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, 
        or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the 
        terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. 


(Note that this resolution does not directly hold the “nation” of Iraq responsible for 9/11. Indeed, it could not, given that, Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and, insofar as any nation could be said to be responsible for 9/11 then, it would be that nation in closest nexus to the actual act, which both history and the US Courts have established is Saudi Arabia. Rather, the carefully parsed wording of the resolution provides an alternative rationale to attack that country, by implying it perhaps is, or is associated with an international terrorist and terrorist organization.)

Anyway, the facts are in: we lied about why we sent our military forces into Iraq. Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq And even if only judging by the fact, FOX News hired former NYT reporter Judith Miller, in large part responsible for propagating the Bush administration’s widely believed false meme, there were WMD’s; the Republicans don’t care, this was a lie.

Again, my purpose here is not to re-litigate the reasons we initiated the Iraq war, or even to reason whether, having sparked some of the violence which resulted from our presence in Fallujah, we should have negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement (“SOFA”) before our scheduled departure in 2011 at a time the city was experiencing relative peace;  or whether such a SOFA would have forestalled the ensuing turmoil.

I only want to point out, as much as I detest Democrats in general for all things related to Barack Obama, including his failure to negotiate that new SOFA; I hate the Republicans and President Bush for getting us into that war in the first place.

I hate Vice President Cheney most of all.

At a congressional hearing examining the march to war in Iraq, Republican congressman Walter Jones posed “a very simple question” about the administration’s manipulation of intelligence: “How could the professionals see what was happening and nobody speak out?” Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, responded with an equally simple answer: “The vice president.” Id.


Freedom costs.


November 18, 2013

© 2013 jbjd

In a cravenly political attempt to obfuscate the palpable contempt many of us have unleashed at having been lied to by our elected officials with respect to elements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), lies which many of us charge were an integral part of the fraudulent campaign to sustain President Obama’s otherwise uncertain bid for re-election; several of those lying officials and their press enablers have touted this benefit of the doomed law, scheduled to take effect in 2014: “insurers will no longer be able to deny anyone on the basis of their medical history.” (Note: I took this cite from WebMD, LLC, since my tax dollars are now supporting that private enterprise to promote the ACA.

Then, adding insult to injury, these dissemblers cite this specific provision of the ACA as evidence that Republican inhumanity informs their general opposition to the law. For example, TDB writer Michael Tomasky points to a pre-ACA Republican proposal for general improvements to health care which omitted mandatory coverage for pre-existing conditions. “Oh, and get this: Under their plan, insurance companies could still have denied coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Ending that is the main point of reform, and ending that is why reform is so hard.

But since when did banning healthcare insurers operating in any state from refusing coverage because of pre-existing conditions; require federal legislation? Before the ACA, several states including Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont already prohibited such discrimination.

And since when were Republicans against such legislation?

The voters in blue Massachusetts, through the overwhelmingly Democratic General Court, endorsed legislation mandating the coverage of pre-existing conditions in 1996. And it was signed into law by Governor William Weld, Republican. This was a full 10 years before Republican Governor Mitt Romney signed “An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care” (also known as Romneycare) in 2006, and 18 years before the same mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions is triggered in the ACA. Even though, these same blue voters overwhelmingly rejected passage of the ACA, choosing Republican Scott Brown to fill Senator Kennedy’s seat in a special election, on the basis, he promised to oppose the federal law, notwithstanding as a state senator, he had voted for the state’s reform plan! Democrats flee from ObamaCare disaster but voters will find them in 2014

(For a good comparison/contrast between Obamacare and Romneycare, read If ObamaCare Is So Bad, How Does RomneyCare Survive?  )

Indeed, in “Why Obamacare can’t replicate Mass.,” liberal American journalist Robert Kuttner (Swarthmore, Oberlin, UC Berkeley) points out that Romneycare succeeded where Obamacare has thus far failed due in no small part to the fact that, in 1996, the state passed a law that banned insurers from refusing coverage because of pre-existing conditions, or “guaranteed issue.” Yes, with guaranteed issue, healthy people can wait to buy insurance until they get sick, becoming free riders while others dutifully pay inevitably higher premiums all along. But with the 2006 legislation, where everyone was required to buy insurance, including those who would otherwise be free riders; rates “dropped sharply.” On the other hand; Mr. Kuttner insists the failure of Obamacare ultimately rests with Republicans.

So who should get the blame for the greater confusion in Obamacare?

A ban on pre-existing conditions might have been national policy sooner, but the insurance industry and the Republicans in Congress were dead set against it.

Obama might have funded the affordable insurance policies with direct subsidies rather than tax credits, but that was also anathema to Republicans — not to mention the even simpler course of Medicare for all.

He might have had government write the software for rather than hiring dozens of contractors. But ever since Ronald Reagan, government’s core competence has been hollowed out.

In short, Republicans create conditions that make it impossible for insurance reform to be carried out efficiently — and then laugh at the political damage to Democrats. The mischief is not only in demonizing the program and trying to defund it after the fact, but encumbering it with clunky preconditions even before it comes to a vote. Id.

The moral here is that even when Democrats praise Republicans for the acknowledged good things they do, they appear pre-conditioned to contemporaneously pile on the blame.


Freedom costs.


August 24, 2013

©2013 jbjd

Much of the discussion of the Oklahoma shooting death of Christopher Lane, white, centers around race. According to Duncan Police Chief Danny Ford, white, Lane’s jogging route took him past a home where the 3 suspects in that shooting, were staying. That may or may not be true. Anyway, at some point, the 3 got into a car and began driving. When they saw Lane, they decided to shoot.  Lane’s race could have had something to do with his being the target; maybe this was a variation of the more traditional game of ‘polar bear hunting.‘ (Click on the link in that article, to “Thug Report.”) But I don’t think the race of the alleged perpetrators is the explanation at least with respect to why the Stephen’s County DA Jason Hicks, white, filed seemingly disparate criminal charges against the accused: James Francis Edward, Jr., black, passenger, front seat, 1st degree murder; Chancey Allen Luna, black/white, passenger, back seat, shooter, 1st degree murder; and Michael Dewayne Jones, white, driver, accessory after the fact.

Greta Susteren on FOXNews hosted a panel of attorneys, black and white, trying to figure out why Jones, who she identified was white; was only charged with being an accessory after the fact and not 1st degree murder. The lawyers all agreed that, strategically, a DA charging all 3 suspects with the maximum offense would be more likely to elicit a plea agreement from one of them, offering testimony against the other two in exchange for a reduced sentence. They said that even though Jones appears to be cooperating with authorities; they still would have charged him with 1st degree murder until the trial. Greta said the only possible way it made sense to her that Jones was charged with a lesser crime; was if he tried to thwart the shooting before it happened, for example, if he tried to steer the car away, or grabbed someone’s arm. One of her guests pointed out, Jones is the one who said, the shooting arose from boredom. I got the impression he meant to imply that, if Jones and the others wanted to kill someone, anyone, from the beginning then, contrary to Greta’s hypothetical scenario; he would still be as guilty. I suppose it all depends on the way the law is written; his attempt at any time before the killing to stop it might still result in  a lesser charge.  But what jumped out at me is Jones’ statement, ‘we did this because we were bored.’ Because it makes sense to me that he would tell this lie so as to cover up, at least initially, the real reason they were on the road in the first place.

I think Lane ended up dead because the 3 were on their way to kill Christopher Johnson and he happened to appear, first.

After the shooting, they got rid of the .22 caliber gun that was the murder weapon. Then, they drove to the home of their planned target, Christopher Johnson.

See how close the scene of the Lane shooting is to Johnson’s house?


James Johnson, black, was washing his truck in the parking lot of Immanuel Baptist Church, across the street from the house where his son, Christopher (black) lived with his mother, Sheila Haynes, black, when he got a call from Chris that the 3 teens were in a car outside the house and were going to kill him for refusing to join their gang. Mr. Johnson, knowing nothing about the shooting that had occurred a few hours earlier, called “911.” Police, already looking for the car involved in the earlier shooting based on a witness description; arrived within minutes, and apprehended the suspects. They were sitting in the black Ford Focus; a dismantled shotgun was found but no .22.

So, what were they going to use to kill Johnson?

I think authorities charged Jones with being an accessory after the fact because they believe he had no idea his compatriots would shoot Lane when all 3 set out to kill Johnson, using the .22. Once they shot Lane, they had to get rid of that gun. Jones helped them. Eventually, they resumed their murderous plan, now having to use alternative means to carry it out. Because since they hadn’t anticipated they would encounter Lane and spontaneously decide to use the .22 to shoot him; they hadn’t brought along another weapon. But so far, the only person who has focused publicly on the threat to Chris Johnson, is his father, who would later say, he learned his son’s name was at the ‘top of the list.’ Id. I have seen nothing in the press to indicate that Jones, who is said to be cooperating with authorities – he had better be, for the reduced sentence – has revealed the real purpose of the excursion was to kill Chris Johnson and not Chris Lane. And, for whatever reason, neither Ford nor Hicks has stated that Jones wasn’t in on the shooting of Lane from the beginning, despite I think this makes sense, given the criminal charges.

As to why Edwards, sitting up front with Jones; and Luna received the same charge when Luna supposedly pulled the trigger, well, maybe Edwards spotted Lane and encouraged his friend in the back, to shoot.


July 18, 2013

© 2013 jbjd

I believe that Rachel Jeantel conspired with Trayvon Martin to attack George Zimmerman because they suspected he was gay. We all know what happened next: Zimmerman ended up with a broken nose and Martin ended up dead. In Florida, this is Felony Murder. But more about that in the next post. For now, I want to further clarify why, as I identified in TRAYVON MARTIN to RACHEL JEANTEL: THE “NIGGA” is a “CREEPY” “ASS CRACKER”  I believe that homophobia gave rise to the underlying crime.

I began paying close attention to the trial of the State of Florida versus George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin, only after the disparate public response to last Saturday’s “Not Guilty” verdict. I was especially interested in the testimony of state’s witness Rachel Jeantel, admittedly on the phone with Martin at or around the time of the encounter between the 2 men.   I watched the videos, and read the transcripts. I formed an opinion. On Monday, July 15, I wrote the first article about the case, introducing my theory that the pundits – on both sides – ‘had it wrong.’ That is, the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from a hate crime, specifically, he attacked George Zimmerman on the basis, he thought the man was gay. I posited that Racehel Jeantel, his sometime friend, might have egged him on.

The article posted on Monday afternoon. Coincidentally; that same night, in the first of what would be several public appearances over the next few days, Ms. Jeantel was on CNN with Piers Morgan to discuss the trial.

Obviously, Ms. Jeantel had undergone extensive rehabilitation since her courtroom appearance weeks earlier. For starters, now freed of the encumbrance of having to tell the truth at the risk of perjury charges; she spoke so as to be heard.  Plus, Mr. Morgan coaxed her along, having either failed to do his homework with respect to the facts or, in the alternative, ignored them altogether, instead merely parroting the political perspective of his bosses at CNN.* But, in no time at all, it became apparent to me, even the professional molding by her handlers coupled with Morgan’s kid gloves had not completed the metamorphosis. Because, despite her attorney’s fixed vigil by her side; incredibly, the more she opened her mouth, the more she revealed, I was right all along.

Okay, let’s start with Jeantel’s explanation of the phrase “creepy ass cracker,” which she claimed in testimony Trayvon uttered when she asked him to describe the man he said was following him. Again, according to her testimony, that phrase was not racial. And, again, I believe her. But in reviewing the videos of her live testimony – and there are 5 hours of this – I saw that while she insisted “creepy ass cracker” was not a reference to race; she admitted the word “cracka” is a reference to race, and is commonly used in her neighborhood to describe someone who is white. So, why had she insisted “creepy ass cracker” was not a reference to race? Again, I think, because it wasn’t. Rather, it was a reference to sexual orientation. And now, weeks after that testimony, Mr. Morgan provided her (and her attorney) with a forum to launch a brand new definition of terms. Sort of.

Specifically, Morgan asks about the term “creepy ass cracker”; but listen closely. In fact, he ends up only focusing on the “cracker” part, not on “creepy ass.” “People have said that that’s a phrase used by black people – cracker – to describe a white person. Is that true?” “No!” But she had explained under oath; of course, she and her friends regularly use the word “cracka” to describe a white person. Mr. Morgan asked her to spell the word: “C-R-A-C-K-A.” Now, listen to how Jeantel sidesteps Mogan’s question about her use of the word “cracka” and, instead, redirects attention to “creepy ass.” “That’s a person who act like they a police… like a security guard who acting like… that’s why I said to them, Trayvon said, “creepy ass cracka”… and then he keep telling me, that the man still watch him…”

Summing up; “cracka” means, white person, as evidenced by the more than 30 entries in Urban Dictionary (not one of which entries refers to someone who acts like a policeman or security guard wannabe). And, in fact, Jeantel admitted under oath, she and her people use the word “cracka” in that way. On the other hand; she insisted under oath, “creepy ass cracker” is not a racial epithet. As I pointed out previously, she is right, as “creepy ass cracker” means, someone (of any race) who engages in anal sex.

Morgan asked Jeantel whether there was any doubt in her mind, Trayvon “absolutely believed” “the creepy ass cracka” was pursing him and that he was “freaked out” by this. “Definitely, I thought say might be a rapist. For every boy, every man, who is not that kinda way, see a grown man following them… would they be creeped out? So, you gotta take as a parent, you tell your child, when you see a grown person follow you, run away, and and all that. Would you gonna stand there? Are you gonna tell your child stand there? If you tell your child to stand there, we gonna see your child on the news, for a missing person…”

Wow. Clearly, through the use of this rhetorical hypothetical; Ms. Jeantel wanted to make sure the present audience grasped that the situation in February 2012 was fraught with all kinds of sexual deviate possibility. True, on the stand; she did say people in her “culture” and “community” refer to a person acting like Zimmerman as a “pervert.” And, in all likelihood, Trayvon was “creeped out” by Zimmerman’s gaze. But in contrast to her current claims, she didn’t believe he was a rapist at the time of her earlier testimony. In fact; recalling that Martin said, a man in a car was watching him, she testified she did not respond because “she did not think it was a big idea.” Trayvon repeated, the man kept watching him. Now, she testified she posited the possibility to her friend, that the stranger might be a rapist. Trayvon joked, “Nah, stop playin’ with him like that.” She said (smiling), she told him, “Okay, then, why he keep looking at you?”  (The prosecutor described this exchange between Jeantel and Martin as “joking” and she agreed with his characterization.) Looks like sometime between February 2012 and now, a joke about sexuality turned into a fear of homosexual rape. But obviously, not a bona fide fear of rape. And certainly, not a fear of rape of a “child”; after all, at the time of his death,  according to police, Martin, 17, was 6’0″ tall and weighed 160 pounds.

(to be continued…)

* For example, Morgan said his guest had lost a “great friend,” and that “nobody knew him better than you.” But as she admitted under oath, the 2 had been estranged for several years and only reacquainted on February 1, 2012, a few weeks before his death, when Martin visited his friends who happened to live in her neighborhood.  Additionally, she admitted at trial that while phone records indicated numerous contacts between her phone and his, in the form of both calls and texts; this did not necessarily represent that the 2 had communicated with each other, as others often used her phone to contact him, too.


July 15, 2013

©2013 jbjd

If the confrontation between Trayvon Martin (black) and George Zimmerman (Latino) in February 2012 had, at its root, a connection to race then, that link was the  perverse preoccupation of boys in the hood, with cementing a perceived image of their ‘hetero’ masculinity by means of pounding anyone they allege has a ‘homo’ sexual orientation.

In State of Florida v. George Zimmerman, Rachel Jeantel (black) testified on behalf of the Prosecution. Under oath, the witness would recount she and Trayvon were close friends, who had met in 2nd grade and recently reacquainted after a lengthy separation. Poignantly, she said he never made fun of her size. But Prosecutors didn’t subpoena her to testify because she and the deceased had been friends. Rather, they knew Rachel was on the phone with Trayvon at or around the time of his death and, after prolonged interactions, figured their ‘star’ witness could now bolster the state’s decision to charge 2nd degree murder by lending credence to a theory that Mr. Zimmerman sparked the confrontation resulting in Mr. Martin’s demise.

So, how did authorities know these two were on the phone, in the first place?  Well, it wasn’t because, she had told them. In fact, while her unique perspective resulted in testimony on the stand which the state ostensibly intended would paint Martin as an innocent bystander to Zimmerman’s aggressor; it would appear, left alone, Ms. Jeantel was in no hurry to obtain justice for her dead friend.

For example, Jeantel testified she learned at school on Monday, her friend had been shot the night before. Immediately, she checked her phone, confirming she had been speaking with Trayvon around the time George shot him. Nevertheless, she did not contact authorities. She had not contacted them 3 days after that, when Trayvon’s dad (black) called her to point out, she was the last person to speak to his son. One month later, in March, when someone ‘ghost-wrote’ her note to his mom (black), she still hadn’t contacted authorities. That she would fail to contact authorities to reveal from her unique perspective, a narrative which, consistent with her subsequent testimony, would exculpate (the conduct of) her friend in his death begs the question: why?

Ms. Jeantel didn’t speak to police until April 2; in the home of her dead  friend’s mother, who sat tearfully at her side throughout the interrogation!

Nor did she attend Trayvon’s funeral.  On the contrary; she later admitted to lying about being in the hospital during Martin’s funeral and lying about her age to try to avoid telling her story to Martin’s family and the public. Why did she go out of her way to avoid situations which could provide an opportunity to cast her friend as the ‘innocent’ in his death? She variously explained, “I didn’t want to see the body“;  and, she felt guilt.

When asked why she didn’t attend the funeral, Jeantel said, “I felt guilty.”

“You felt guilty about what?” asked prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.

“I found out I was the last person, I was the last person who talked to their son,” she said.


Why such guilt? Listen closely to her testimony.

Among her revelations on the stand, more than a year after that pivotal telephone conversation, were these: Trayvon said, “a man kept watching him,” and “the nigga is still following me now.” And she said, when she asked Trayvon to describe the man following him, Trayvon replied, he was a “creepy ass cracker.” She retorted, “he might be a rapist,” prompting Trayvon to chastize her to “stop playin’ with him like that.” (She would also use the word, “joke” with him.)

She maintained on cross-examination by Defense counsel (white) she thought this was a racial incident. Asked to pinpoint the thing that gave her this impression, she referred to Trayvon’s general description of the man now identified as Zimmerman. Now, Counsel specifically asked, ‘do you mean his statement, he was a “creepy ass cracker”‘? Rachel would have none of this. Indeed; she insisted the word “cracker” had no racial connotation. And she grinned while the lawyer pressed her on the meaning he would have her impute. Because, she was telling the truth.

Urban Dictionary defines the word “ass cracker” is someone who “engages in anal sex,” for example, “That wanker is an ass cracker.” In other words; Martin was only afraid Zimmerman was gay. And Jeantel encouraged his misapprehension.

The Defense attorney, referring to Ms. Jeantel’s ‘ghost-written’  letter to Trayvon’s mom, pointed out, she had omitted the fact Trayvon had referred to Mr. Zimmerman as a creepy ass cracker. Again, consistent with his assertion that, if race was a part of this case then Martin and not Zimmerman had interjected it; he suggested, by using the word “cracker” to describe Zimmerman, Martin was the one who made this about race. And that Rachel had not used this racist term in the letter to Martin’s mother because she – Rachel – did not want his mom to know these things about her son. But Jeantel emphatically rejected the suggestion. Rather, her stated reason for leaving it out was, variously, “I did not think that was important“; and “nobody asked me.”

West pressed her on what he indicated were inconsistencies between the letter and Jeantel’s subsequent depositions and testimony – in particular her recent revelation that Martin told her he was being followed by a ‘creepy-a** cracker.’

He asked her why this was the first time she disclosed that Trayvon had referred to Zimmerman in this way.

She said: ‘Nobody asked me.’

Read more:

I think that the only reason Ms. Jeantel had failed to acknowledge previously her friend, Trayvon Martin, described George Zimmerman as a “creepy ass cracker,” especially in front of his mother or father; is they, like her, would know exactly what this means. And that, had she been a more sophisticated witness, we never would have known this tragedy resulted not from a hate crime based  on race but on sexual orientation.

We may never know what role, if any, Ms. Jeantel played in egging her friend on.


April 29, 2013

©2013 jbjd

There seems no doubt the Tsarnaev brothers were on the CIA’s radar as possible terrorists, long before the Boston Marathon bombing. Still, on that basis, I cannot say whether the CIA’s failure to thwart the eventual terrorist attack resulted from its failure to follow through on those reports which preceded the bombing; or whether the failure to act was consistent with agency guidelines.

What I do know is this: in all of the major media reports which cite the CIA’s advance knowledge the brothers Tsarnaev might be up to no good, including the NewYorkTimes; I did not read that the daughter of  former CIA official Graham Fuller was once married to the uncle of the two men – you know, the one who called his nephews “losers” – and, in fact, once lived in his house. That is, until I turned to the news from another country. MailOnline

But you don’t have to take anyone else’s word for this connection; Mr. Fuller himself confirmed these facts to Al-Monitor, although, at the same time he verified the connection, he characterized rumors of a connection are “absurd.” Id.

Naturally, evidence of a relationship does not determine ipso facto cause and effect. That said; when it comes to asking ‘what did we know and when did we know it’ with respect to the Boston Marathon bombing; even the liberal bastion FireDogLake has begun asking questions. Is the Government Covering Something Up in the Boston Case?

%d bloggers like this: