Trayvon Martin, Racism, The Stand Your Ground Law And Michael Dunn. No Comparison Whatsoever.

One can do a search on my blog and see how vigorously I defended George Zimmerman’s right to defend himself against Trayvon Martin.

I was of course called a “racist” by the incredibly racist left for doing so, as someone reading the comments can see.

George Zimmerman was physically attacked.  Only the most rabid ideologue fool refuses to acknowledge that Zimmerman was on his back getting beaten with Trayvon Martin on top of him “MMA style” raining down blows on a man who had already suffered a broken nose and serious abrasions to the back of his skull.

Liberals are fascists who do not want ordinary people to possess the right or capability to defend themselves.  Period.  On top of that, liberals are racist race-baiters who demonize white people and who have no compunction whatsoever to alter reality to make themselves victims.  Thus George Zimmerman became a “white Hispanic” to eradicate the fact that he himself is a racial minority.  And Trayvon Martin became an innocent ten-year old in the news accounts rather than a 6’3″ thug who already had had numerous encounters with the law and who by his own accounts was already glorifying in violence.

The case was a “no-brainer” from the outset.  And liberals proved that they are brainless ideologues who refuse to accept the real world in their steadfast determination that George Zimmerman be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for daring to defend himself rather than placing all his trust that Obama and the State would defend him.  The ONLY reason the case even ever went to trial was because Democrats are rabid fascists.

The Michael Dunn case is entirely different.  And pathologically rabid liberals might be surprised to learn that I am very firmly on the side of the car-full of black kids who got shot rather than on the white man who shot them.

Michael Dunn, unlike Zimmerman’s defense, is citing the “Stand Your Ground Law.”  Again, pathologically dishonest Democrats made the Zimmerman case all about that “Stand Your Ground” law even though Zimmerman’s defense NEVER cited it.  And the reason that Democrats hate that law so much is that, again, they are fascists whose demons inhabiting them start twitching hysterically the moment an ordinary person is deemed to have the right to stand in any way, shape or form or to protect himself in any way, shape or form.  And that is especially true – in the Democrat age of “Never bring a lawsuit against a black” – when race is involved.

George Zimmerman is Hispanic.  Not a “white Hispanic” as the racist, bigoted, socialist and frankly evil New York Times branded him.  Either acknowledge that Zimmerman is Hispanic, you jackals, or for the sake of any kind of honesty whatsoever STOP CALLING OBAMA AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT WHEN HE IS ONLY HALF AFRICAN-AMERICAN.  But the fact of the matter is that Democrats are hypocrites without any kind of shame, honor, decency, integrity or virtue whatsoever.  So Obama gets to be the first black president and anybody who doesn’t like Obama’s policies is a “racist” by definition while Zimmerman becomes a “white Hispanic” with the sole emphasis on his being “white” and therefore guilty.

But let’s get back to Michael Dunn.

Here’s the basic account of what happened:

Mr. Dunn, a middle-aged white man, allegedly opened fire on a car with four black teenagers in it at a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station. The boys were apparently blasting music, and when Dunn asked them to turn it down, they responded angrily. Dunn has said he felt threatened and thought he saw someone point a gun at him through the back window, so he opened fire. No gun was found in the boys’ car, and none of the witnesses to the altercation noticed a gun.

Here’s another:

The day after last Thanksgiving, Dunn was in good spirits when he attended his son’s wedding at a historic home overlooking the St. Johns River in Orange Park, a quaint Jacksonville suburb.

But after the wedding, Dunn got into a parking lot dispute with teenagers at a gas station that ended with a 17-year-old dead and Dunn charged with murder.

Police portray the South Patrick Shores resident as an out-of-control gunman who became enraged over loud rap music booming from a nearby car, grabbed a 9mm pistol from his glovebox and fired two volleys into a Dodge Durango containing four black teens. The gunshots killed Jordan Davis and narrowly missed two other boys.

Dunn told detectives he acted in self-defense after he heard threats and thought he saw Davis raise the barrel of a shotgun above the SUV’s rear passenger window. No gun was found, police said.

Here’s the thing that makes Michael Dunn guilty:

Asked by detectives why he didn’t report the shooting by calling 911, he said he planned to drive Rouer home to Brevard County in the morning, then confess to authorities.

By 4:25 a.m. the next morning, Jacksonville police had obtained an arrest warrant and contacted the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, looking for Dunn. A witness at the gas station had reported his license tag number.

He was arrested by deputies at about 10:30 a.m. at his condo, then taken to police headquarters in Viera for a videotaped interview with two Jacksonville detectives.

Wearing a yellow short-sleeved collared shirt and striped shorts, fidgeting and wiping his hands on his knees, Dunn related his side of the story – but neither detective bought his version of events.

Rather, they said details of Dunn’s story didn’t match those at the crime scene. Neither the surviving boys nor independent witnesses at the gas station said Davis had a firearm or tried to exit the SUV – in fact, one of the boys later said Davis couldn’t have exited a rear door because the child locks were engaged.

“If there was a shotgun coming up at you, we would expect you to do what you did. The problem that we have is, there is no shotgun. That’s the bridge that we’ve got to get across,” a detective told Dunn.

“You keep dwelling on this shotgun as if there’s one at the scene. If there was a shotgun, a BB gun, any type of gun at the scene – hell, if there was a water gun that was black that looked real at the scene. …” the detective said.

This case is NOT about race, any more than the George Zimmerman case was ever about race.

Democrats pathologically despise the Constitution or the United States and our founding fathers, unless and until these great men are perverted into deists and atheists in radical abandonment of actual history and unless and until their words are “fundamentally transformed” by liberal judges into a grotesque mockery of anything they ever actually intended their words to mean.  And the words that Democrats hate only slightly less are Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words from his “I have a dream” speech:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Democrats hate those words.  They hate the idea that the content of one’s character should matter.  They want it to be exclusively about the color of one’s skin.  And if you are black, you are by definition a “victim” and if you are white, you are by definition a “racist” and a “bigot” and “privileged” and therefore guilty of whatever crime Democrats want to scapegoat you with.

I think of the character in the great movie, “The Ten Commandments” named Nathan.  Because he is the epitome of the Democrat Party.  Like Nathan, DEMOCRATS are the real party of slavery.  Democrats literally fought the damned Civil War to keep slavery while Republicans fought to liberate the slaves.  The Ku Klux Klan that rode like a living cancer after that Democrat War constituted the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party who persecuted blacks and white Republicans while their fellow Democrats undid everything Republican president Abraham Lincoln tried to do in his Reconstruction Act.

I’ve documented this before, so I’ll quote myself.  Who are Democrats?

The Democrat Party under Woodrow Wilson actually RE-segregated the US Military and government service (after Republicans had de-segregated them and allowed blacks to serve).  The Democrat Party in 1924 was SO completely dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that the Democrat National Convention was called “Klanbake.”    The Democrat Party under FDR and their New Deal was rife with racism and unions and Democrats used it to prevent blacks from getting jobs.  The Democrat Party continued to be THE Party of hard-core racism for the entire history of the republic.  The racist horror story of “Mississippi Burning“ was OWNED by Democrats from the Governor right on down.  In fact, the state Democrat Party in Mississippi was limited to whites only.  And the fact is that a FAR higher percentage of Republican Congressmen and Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.  Democrats were the Party of keeping the black man down until they cynically – incredibly cynically – saw that there was another way to keep exploiting black people to keep them on their plantation and keep them down.

The cry of Democrat blacks today is “Give us welfare or give us death.”  But the two amount to the same thing as blacks have given in to bitterness, hopelessness and a spirit of entitlement rather than trying to actually fulfill the American Dream for themselves.  You can either wait for your damn check to come off the work of other people or you can go out and work your ass off to make your world and your kid’s world a better place.  And because of the Democrat Party, blacks have pursued the former and abandoned the latter.  These are people who have fallen prey to the belief that whitey is out to get them and there isn’t any hope of a fair deal – so why try?  And the only reason that is true is the same Democrat Party who told them that are the very same white people who have actually been the ones keeping them down with promises of welfare for nothing forever.

Or read my slightly different account here about who the Democrats are:

We know that FDR was a racist bigot who detested black people and allowed labor unions to exclude blacks from work that they desperately needed to survive the darkest days of America.

The question as to why black people have in recent years chosen to celebrate and support the party that put their ancestors in the chains of slavery, fought a vicious Civil War to keep them in those chains, invented the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party to keep blacks who had been freed by Republicans in subjugation, resegregated blacks under the tyranny of “the father of the modern progressive movement” also known as the racist white supremacist Woodrow Wilson, was still so racist in 1924 that the Democratic National Convention of that year was called “Klanbake,” allowed black men to go untreated with syphilis so researchers could study the progression of the disease (the Tuskegee Experiment) throughout the entire FDR presidency, was largely THE party of racist discrimination through the 1950s, and then only passed the Civil Rights laws with the overwhelming supporting votes of Republicans, is a mystery that I will not attempt to explain.  I have no idea why black people as a culture allowed Democrats who had subjected them to one form of plantation allowed Democrats to bait and switch them into a different form of plantation (the welfare plantation of institutional generational dependency).

Or for more modern facts, read my account here about who Democrats are:

Now, of course, you run into the irony that it was that Grand Old Party that freed the slaves, and fought a bitter war to free the slaves against the Democrat Party that was fighting just as bitterly to keep black people in the chains of human bondage.  But that’s beside the point in the Democrat narrative.

Harry Reid is also on the record admiring Obama as a:

‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’

Maybe it’s because Obama was half white, but Harry Reid nevertheless praises Obama for overcoming that stupid negro dialect.  And being light-skinned is a huge bonus for Harry Reid.  “Whiter is better” when you’re in the party of “the White Man’s Burden.”

Bill Clinton wasn’t quite as happy with the man who was stealing his white wife’s rightful place as leader of the free world.

Bill snidely told Ted Kennedy,

“A  few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

I know, William Jefferson.  That’s back when southern Democrats like you had a different way of keeping black boys in their proper place.

Senator Robert Byrd, a distinguished “Exalted Cyclops” and “Kleagle” of the famous Democrat-created Ku Klux Klan, was on the record as once saying:

“I  shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by  my side …   Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory  trampled in the   dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved  land of ours become   degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the  blackest specimen from  the  wilds.”

Ah.  There’s that depiction of blacks as being in that long-way-from-being-human I earlier mentioned.

And:

“The Klan is needed  today as never before and I am  anxious to see its  rebirth here in West  Virginia and in every state in  the nation.”

When Bill Clinton honored fellow Democrat Robert “Exalted Cyclops” Byrd, Clinton said:

“He  was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He  was  trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have   done…”

Well, as long as he was just a Democrat trying to get elected, then ANY racism or racism is fine, isn’t it, Hill Billy?

And you can read here for the massive, hypocrite double-standard that Democrats lived by when it comes to “race.”

Liberals are liars and haters.  And worst of all, they are true moral idiots.  “Democrat” stands for “Demonic Bureaucrat” as they seek to advance two interests: Satan’s love for 55 million murdered human beings in the abortion mills and the worship of homosexual sodomy, plus their determination to replace the God of the Bible with “the State” and make GOVERNMENT our God and Savior while increasingly marginalizing and even criminalizing the worship of Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible.

So what’s this Michael Dunn case about?  I already stated it above.  It is about a guilty man – and I don’t frankly give a damn WHAT color he is – who fired ten shots into a vehicle with kids inside and claimed he was being threatened with a gun when nothing even remotely resembling a gun was found at the scene.

It’s about this question: do you have the right to stand your ground with a gun?  You’re damn right you do – and again, I don’t CARE if you are white or black or Hispanic or Asian or whatever.  Do you have a right to whip out a gun after confronting somebody and then start shooting at them when they are no real threat to you?  You’re damned right you don’t.

Michael Dunn ought to be convicted for his crime of shooting at those kids and for murdering one named Jordan Davis.  And if Michael Dunn were black and the kids were white, he should be every bit as convicted.

And I say that as a conservative and a Republican rather than a racist liberal Democrat.

 

Mainstream Media Lynching Of George Zimmerman Pretty Much Confirms Everything I’ve Said About Both Liberalism And ‘Journalism’

Keep in mind that the mainstream media (CBS being the primary culprit) posted video of George Zimmerman being arrested and claimed that there were “no apparent injuries” to Zimmerman.  And all the screeching liberals then stated as fact that George Zimmerman was a cold-blooded murderer, etc, etc.

It didn’t matter that it was a giant load of crap.  The liberal media is to “truth” what the sun is to “cold”; neither has so much as an iota of the aforementioned qualities.

There is no question that this picture obtained by ABC was taken by the officers at the shooting scene:

This simple FACT was obvious from the very start in the police report:

“While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.”

No apparent injuries George Zimmerman’s bleeding head!  But there’s nothing wrong with being wrong as long as you’re serving as one of the faithful attack dogs for liberalism and political correctness, is there.  Which is why their blatantly obvious act of biased and deceitful reporting is simply whistled away.

One of the other things that was interesting that came out today was just how incredibly “Hispanic” Zimmerman looked:

In spite of everything the media did to try to cover that up so they could make him “white” – and therefore destroy him as a “racist bigot”:

Exhibit A: “Martin, who was black, was on his way to a convenience store in a mostly white gated community when George Zimmerman, who is white, shot and killed him after a disputed altercation.”  — Gwen Ifill, PBS “Newshour” anchor

Exhibit B: ABC deliberately altered the George Zimmerman booking photo to make him appear “white”:

THIS was the effect that the media was trying to create in doctoring/altering the photo to turn George Zimmerman into “whitey”:

It would have been a lot harder to fabricate if George Zimmerman had been Hispanic instead of the “pussy ass cracker” the mainstream media propaganda mill made him into.  It’s wrong to hate on Hispanics, of course, but every self-respecting liberal despises whitey – especially if that liberal is himself or herself white.  Self-hating whitey has been a requirement for liberals since Karl Marx came along and showed the left how to properly self-hate:

There were also great Jewish philosophers who suffered from an aggravated confusion over their Jewish identities. Karl Marx is perhaps the most extreme example of this. It is curious to note that both his mother and father were the offspring of rabbis. Marx’s father, who became a prominent Russian Jewish lawyer, converted to Protestantism because of an edict prohibiting Jews from being legal advocates. In Marx’s own materialistic interpretation of the world, he found no place for a valid Jewish experience. In his essay “Zur Judenfrage” (“About the JewishQuestion”) he wrote:

“What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money…Out of its entrails bourgeois society continually creates Jews.” [Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 11, pp. 1071- 1074]

How ironic that Marx’s view of his own Jewish people became a view of Hitler, who boasted of his anti-Communism.

And of course there was nothing “ironic” about it: Nothing would have made Karl Marx happier than to find out that somebody was “inspired” by his writings to put 6 million of his fellow Jews into gas chambers; just like nothing would make a white liberal happier than having his own race marginalized and demonized in a “multi-cultural society.”  The liberal mind is a diseased mind; and self-loathing is the fruit of a diseased mind.

Exhibit C: The New York Times infamously labelling George Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic” in defiance of their very own “political correctness” and in frightening similarity to the Nazi Mischling laws of the 1930s that attempted to categorize how “Jewish” one was:

Mr. Zimmerman, 28, a white Hispanic, told the police that he shot Trayvon in self-defense after an altercation. The teenager was walking home from a convenience store, where he bought iced tea and Skittles, when he was shot once in the chest.

Let’s try that: Mr. Obama, 50, a white African-American, lied to the American people again today…

Nope.  Sounds pretty damn racist. 

The Washington Times puts a lot of the mainstream media propaganda shenanigans together:

I see that the New York Times let us know the dastardly George Zimmerman was a “white Hispanic” – and the Times seems to have put an emphasis on “white.” However, it did not tell the general public that Mr. Zimmerman is a registered Democrat.

Now we learn that the NBC News department left off the question from the police dispatcher asking Mr. Zimmerman the race of the person he was following, Trayvon Martin. Why was that omitted? In both cases, the omissions seem to have been made only to support the developing narrative that mean, white George Zimmerman is a racist.

How could the New York Times make the distinction that he was white? And leaving out the question from the dispatcher as to the race of the person being followed made it appear that Mr. Zimmerman could have been targeting Trayvon for his race. By now everyone must know that ABC News also got to take a few shots at Mr. Zimmerman. When broadcasting a video of him, ABC conveniently covered the back of his head with a banner on the screen. After receiving many complaints, they removed the banner, and then you could see it appeared that Mr. Zimmerman had some kind of cut on the back of his head. Dare I ask again why this happened? Was the object to tell this story, or was it to hide the truth?

Then there’s the crap they pulled with Trayvon Martin by bombarding us with pictures of a smiling little twelve-year old boy:

Instead of what he really looked like at the time George Zimmerman saw him:

Let’s try that with another sweet-faced and obviously innocent guy:

Charles Manson was a charming young kid who couldn’t have done anything wrong and that picture proves it.

And of course the same mainstream media propaganda machine that pimped pictures of a twelve-year-old and clearly “innocent” Trayvon Martin rather than showing him for what he was when it MATTERED  (the night of the shooting) simultaneously used a booking photo from the worst moment in George Zimmerman’s life.  And then doctored it to frame him even FURTHER in the court of public opinion.

ALL of the mainstream media has been convicted for obvious bias and deceit.

NBC despicably altered the 911 call audio to deceitfully make it appear that George Zimmerman was a racist who was out to emphasize that Trayvon Martin was black:

The Today show’s segment, which included an ellipsis on screen to indicate omitted text, ran as:

Zimmerman: ‘This guy looks like he’s up to no good …’

Zimmerman: ‘He looks black.’

The full conversation ran as:

Zimmerman: ‘This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.’

Dispatcher: ‘OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?’

Zimmerman: ‘He looks black.’

NBC literally tried to explain that this was just some perfectly innocent error, that some engineer somehow accidentally happened to inadvertently erase the dispatcher’s voice and it was all just completely innocent.  And only a diseased liberal mind would accept that “explanation,” just as only a diseased liberal mind would try to fabricate “evidence” to falsely turn a man into a “racist” to begin with.

In the same way, CNN “enhanced” the 911 audio to “prove” that George Zimmerman was a racist bigot who said – and excuse the language here – “fucking coons” during the 911 call.  BUT IT WAS A LIE:

Recently, CNN enhanced audio of George Zimmerman — the man who shot Trayvon Martin — to try to determine if he did, in fact, use a racial slur while calling police on the night of the shooting. Back then, it sounded like Zimmerman might have used the phrase “fu**ing coons,” and his critics have cited it as evidence of a racially-motivated attack. But now CNN has enhanced the audio again, and the reporter is casting doubts that the term was used.

(Related: ‘This Is for Trayvon’: 6 Youths Attack 78-Year-Old Man in Alleged Racially-Charged Attack)

“It certainly sounds like that word to me,” Gary Tuckman said when the audio was first enhanced. But after the latest enhancement, he’s not so sure:

“Now it does sound less like that racial slur. … From listening in this room, and this is a state-of-the-art room, it doesn’t sound like that slur anymore. It sounds like … we‘re hearing the swear word at first and then the word ’cold.’ And the reason some say that would be relevant, is because it was unseasonably cold in Florida that night and raining.”

The audio expert agreed it sounded like “cold,” and said the new method gets rid of a lot more background noise but doesn’t change the voice or words.

Sorry we fabricated evidence to turn you into a racist and incite pretty much the entire black community to want to murder you and your entire family, George.  Our boo-boo.  Sorry we helped destroy your life and all.

A further lie that I have heard reported over and over again is that George Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon Martin after he was instructed to stop.  The evidence simply does not support that; rather, it supports Zimmerman’s account that after being instructed to stop following Martin he got a final address and then began heading back to his truck:

From the call released by the Sanford Police:

At 2:07, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher, “He’s running.”

At 2:09, you can hear a car door open and an alarm begins that is undoubtedly the “door open, keys in ignition” warning on Zimmerman’s truck.

At 2:13, you can clearly hear the car door slamming shut, and the alarm stops.

At 2:17, Zimmerman’s voice wobbles and he starts breathing heavily into the phone, indicating that he has started running.

At 2:22, without any prompting other than the aforementioned noises and breathing, the dispatcher asks “Are you following him?” to which Zimmerman responds, “Yeah.”

At 2:26, the dispatcher says, “Okay, we don’t need you to do that,” to which Zimmerman responds, “Okay.”

Zimmerman proceeds to give the dispatcher his name. Then he says, “He ran.”

Zimmerman can still be heard breathing into the phone until about 2:39, at which point the heavy breathing stops entirely, a mere 13 seconds after the dispatcher asked him to stop following. A very calm and collected Zimmerman then proceeds to give the dispatcher his own information, directions and a description of his location for another 1 minute and 33 seconds.

The difference between someone running while on the phone and not running can be heard quite clearly, and I encourage readers to listen for themselves.

There’s another reason to believe that Zimmerman stopped following Martin: After he gives the dispatcher his personal address, at 3:35, he says, “Oh crap, I don’t want to give that all out. I don’t know where this kid is,” meaning he is worried Martin might hear where he lives. If Zimmerman doesn’t even know where Martin is, would it even be possible for him to still be following Martin at this point? Would it even be possible for him to have continued following Martin after hanging up the phone — a full two minutes after he first got out of his car and a minute and a half after he fully stops breathing heavily — unless Martin came back and revealed himself?

It was a mistake for Zimmerman to leave his car in the first place. But while the audio may not decisively prove that Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the dispatcher asked him to, it is very strong evidence that he did, especially when coupled with his testimony to police the night of the incident. But that isn’t even the point.

The point is this: With no witnesses stating that Zimmerman defied the dispatcher’s wishes and continued following Martin and no evidence to suggest he did, how did the idea that he pursued Martin after the dispatcher told him not to become a universally recognized, undisputed fact?

That it did is a testament to Al Sharpton’s ability to manipulate the media — and the media’s willingness to be manipulated.

The eyewitness in this case has almost completely confirmed George Zimmerman’s account of what happened that night:

But one man’s testimony could be key for the police.

“The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,” he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as “John,” and didn’t not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman’s claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

“When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point,” John said.

Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.

Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting

The police report that night also corroborates Zimmerman’s account:

According to the initial police report, Zimmerman, 28, told police he was screaming for help and that no one would help him. The report also said Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and the back of the head.

Officials said in the report that Zimmerman’s back appeared wet and that he was covered in grass.

Nevertheless, there is widespread reports from the same biased and dishonest and slanted sources as did all the OTHER crap reporting that the cry for help could not have been George Zimmerman.

This is the liberalism and the news media propaganda that I have been describing for four years now.  It is evil; it is based on lies and pure distilled deceit on a daily basis.  And the more “established” and the more “elite” the media is – The New York Times, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC – the more dishonest and biased it is.

Liberals might respond and say something like, “But it was those liberal media that corrected themselves.”  I’ve got two responses: the first is that the only reason the leftwing propaganda corrected their own lies is because honest media confronted them with their lies and forced them to make the corrections.  For example, in the case of NBC fabricating the 911 audio to remove the dispatcher asking Zimmerman to identify Trayvon Martin’s race we find:

NBC News issued an apology today for the way it edited a broadcast of a conversation between George Zimmerman and a police dispatcher before teenager Trayvon Martin was killed.

Last week Fox News did a report in which it presented ‘before’ and ‘after’ versions of the call. NBC had broadcast the edited exchange on its flagship ‘Today’ morning show.

NBC News launched an investigation after the Fox report. ‘During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret,’ NBC News representative Lauren Kapp said in a statement on Tuesday.

If Fox News hadn’t been there to report the TRUTH – and liberals HATE Fox News FOR reporting the truth – that story would have never been refuted or corrected.

My second response is that opening the barn door after the horses have burned to death doesn’t exactly save the horses.  This gets to Mark Twain’s famous quip that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.  The media have got EXACTLY what they wanted: they have poisoned the country against George Zimmerman and flamed the fire of racist hate in the black community which largely continues to believe ALL of the above now-documented lies.

The judge frankly ought to dismiss this case and tell the black community – which is already beyond outraged after all the lies they have been told – that if they want to go after the people who are to blame for the case being thrown out, they ought to go after all the pseudo-journalists from the mainstream media who guaranteed that George Zimmerman could not possibly receive a fair trial.  Furthermore, even the left agrees that there is absolutely no way whatsoever that this case – having been so exploited by both Obama and the left – is going to end in a conviction.  It will be a referendum on guns, on Obama, on what Obama’s son would have looked like, on the stand your ground law, on race, on everything but what it SHOULD have been on.

Any possibility for true justice died in this case the day Barack Obama cynically exploited it: