Page Nine

Black Teenage Murderer

The lamestream media told you:

"AP, SARASOTA, Fla. 3/28/12 - A Florida teenager received a life sentence Wednesday after a jury convicted him of first-degree murder in the shooting deaths of two young British tourists last April, a case that generated blaring tabloid headlines in the U.K. press.

"The two men were vacationing in Sarasota and spent an evening drinking when they got lost and walked into a housing project where Shawn Tyson lived. Details of their deaths have gripped the British news media. Tabloids there have written stories saying the men were 'slaughtered' in a Florida 'ghetto.' "  The U.S. "news" media have refused to call a ghetto a ghetto in a long long time, according to sources.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In a stunning coincidence, two 17-year-old black Florida teenagers have been involved in homicides. "What are the chances of that," asked one observer, who denied racially profiling the story. Even more remarkable, is that one teenager got enormous press in England for murdering two British tourists, but got almost no attention here.

The other black teenager, six-foot-two-inch varsity-football-player Trayvon Martin, who was killed in what may have been a successful self defense against a failed felony assault on a stranger, has dominated U.S. news domestically for months and is likely to continue doing so.

It was unclear at press time why a black teenage murderer, who got no help from Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, would get scant press coverage, when a dead black teenager who looked angelic in his baby pictures, would get so much more attention.

Criminals Switch -- Blades

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing, unless you live in the U.K. --
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9024711/Knife-crime-rises-by-ten-per-cent.html

National police figures show the number of robberies involving knives rose from 13,971 in 2010 to 15,313 last year, despite the overall number of crimes recorded by police falling by four per cent to 4.1 million, figures showed today.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In a report that surprised no one in the U.S., crime with knives has increased in Great Britain, which has a virtual ban on firearms for the public. Handguns are essentially impossible to obtain, and long guns for hunting are strictly controlled and constantly monitored.

The report by the Telegraph, pointing out a decrease in overall crime, didn't refer at all to the criminal switch to knives, with guns so much harder to obtain. They also failed to point out that, with a population of 62 million, the chances of being a victim in a knife or other crime is only 1 out of 15, not very good for a nation touted as safe thanks to its gun-free approach to fighting crime.

According to the report, "Chief Constable Jon Murphy, the lead for crime for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said... 'This has been driven by a rise in robberies of personal property and police forces will want to focus actions on tackling these offences and offering crime prevention advice.'" We can only hope that they're crime-prevention advice is, like, really really good.

Self-Defense Poor House

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Florida has a self-defense law the rest of the nation needs badly.

If you "win" a self-defense court trial you're put in the poor house by the "justice" system. Costs can typically run into six figures. Do you have that kind of money? Kiss your house goodbye. That's not a win. And that's not justice by any rational definition.

If you prevail in a self-defense trial, which basically means the state should never have charged you at all, and you did their job by stopping or eliminating a violent felon, the state should be liable for your legal bills. The idea that you deserve a medal or a parade is too radical for the moderate Uninvited Ombudsman.

"Loser pays" is not some wacky new principle of law. It is a well established and just practice in civil cases. Not only does it make you whole again -- and this is key -- it is a serious deterrent to the state to go after you in the first place. It would eliminate many of the marginal attempts to incriminate people for defending themselves against truly bad actors.

Two states already have such protection, Washington and Florida.

Arizona, which constantly comes up with the best gun laws in the nation, should be next. I'm working on it. You should too, for your state.

Killer's Rights Defended?

The lamestream media told you:

"SAN DIEGO - A federal court is being asked to grant constitutional rights to five killer whales that perform at marine parks - an unprecedented and perhaps quixotic legal action that is nonetheless likely to stoke an ongoing, intense debate at America's law schools over expansion of animal rights," according to the Associated Press. http://tinyurl.com/7zs66cr.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, is accusing the SeaWorld parks of keeping five star-performer whales in conditions that violate the 13th Amendment ban on slavery... PETA relishes engaging in the court of public opinion, as evidenced by its provocative anti-fur and pro-vegan campaigns.

The plaintiffs are the five orcas - Tilikum and Katina, based at SeaWorld in Orlando; and Corky, Kasatka and Ulises at SeaWorld San Diego. Tilikum, a 6-ton male, made national news in February 2010 when he grabbed a trainer at the close of a performance and dragged her underwater until she drowned. PETA's five-member legal team spent 18 months preparing the case.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Any questions remaining about the U.S. justice system's legitimacy, and willingness to stray from the bounds of reasonable jurisprudence, were put to death today with the acceptance of a slavery lawsuit defending animals -- that belongs instead in an obscure philosophy journal, but I repeat myself.

In days when the justice system would cling vigorously to real law, a case like this would have been summarily dismissed, its perpetrator lawyers disbarred, and the legal community in need of oxygen for laughing so hard. A simple question or two from the bench would have served to sever the nonsense and ridicule the monstrous assault on American courts.

"When did your clients retain you for this action counselor?" "What are your clients' goals?" While those questions expose the silliness, the followup would deserve punishment: "Are you saying your clients don't even know you've decided to represent them, and have not agreed to be party to this suit?" And of course, "Do we need an interpreter for this case, and what language should that person speak?" The courts no longer entertain such inquiry, no matter how bizarre a case they face. In common terms, that's malfeasance, grounds for removal from office, with prejudice.

One of the unwitting so-called plaintiffs committed murder but has not been charged. The parties remained silent on whether the murder charge would apply, if the whales are granted 13th Amendment anti-slavery human rights. The Founding Fathers could not be reached to see if they expected wild animals to be covered by the Bill of Rights or Constitution.

Crime Plunge Mystifies

The lamestream media told you:

Violent Crimes Plunged by 12% in U.S. in 2010.
Pete Yost, beat reporter, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - "The number of violent crimes fell by a surprising 12 percent in the U.S. last year, a far bigger drop than the nation has averaged since 2001, the Justice Department says. Experts aren't sure why. The expectation had been that crime would increase in a weak economy with high unemployment."

"The drop dwarfs the 3 percent decline the nation averaged from 2001 through 2009. More than 80 percent of the decline was attributed to a 15 percent plunge in simple assaults, which accounted for nearly two-thirds of all violent crimes in 2010.

"It is clear the decline in violent crime is part of a long-term trend that began in 1993. From then through 2010, violent crime declined by a whopping 70 percent: from 49.9 crimes per 1,000 persons age 12 and older to 14.9 per 1,000 in 2010.

"The 'Victimization Survey' figures are considered the government's most reliable crime statistics because they count crimes reported to the police as well as those unreported. The government has found that only about half of all violent crimes and 40 percent of property crimes are reported to police. Because the survey is based on interviews with victims, it gathers no data on murder [think about that for a moment]. But murder is by far the least frequent major crime; 15,241 were reported in 2009."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

With familiar open-mindedness, the "news" media and its experts can't for the life of them understand why crime might be dropping. They've considered and discarded every imaginable reason, save the "unmentionable" one -- the American public is increasingly armed on the street. What is the only one reason millions of America carry firearms daily? To deter crime. Ahh, that'll never work.

Having regained the right to bear arms, with the permission-slip and Constitutional Carry programs that have swept the nation (except Illinois, yet), the drop in crime surprisingly coincides with proliferation of the discreet-carry permit programs. Florida got the ball rolling in 1987, but it wasn't until the early 1990s that a tsunami of states joined the plan, and crime "coincidentally" plummeted.

Not one official even hinted that this significant cultural, sociological and pragmatic change existed, let alone mattered. There my friend, in a nutshell, is the grotesque bias of the media, displayed on a platter.

All the empirical evidence points to an armed populace as a deterrent to crime. Though there is little doubt in the minds of the armed half of the nation, with experiences to boot, there is nothing but doubt, and terror, in the minds of the hoplophobic left and its media denizens. After every expanse in freedom on the right to bear arms, the left imagines gloom -- projecting their own internal insecurities and fear, detached from reality. None of the projections materialize, and crime drops, but they continue with the projections, invulnerable to the pure white light of day and the facts before their eyes.

Every person who owns a gun understands it is a crime deterrent. Many don't presume, they know first hand. The only significant difference in the balance of power between criminals and the public in the last bunch of years is CCW. Why on Earth would the pundits who designed and created the data for this finding ("crime drops") fail to speculate that the armed citizenry had something to do with it? Why indeed.

In other news, the 20 crimes on the federal books in 1790 have grown to more than 4,500 today, according to the latest research in the Wall Street Journal. Worse, many no longer require "mens rea," or intent to break the law, a bedrock of protecting the innocent. So even if you act honorably, you can be convicted of unknowable offenses. Sentences for all sorts of crimes have increased, and mandatory sentences for minor infractions are increasing faster than the money supply.

And what's with this "Victimization Survey"? How victimized does the government want us to feel? Isn't this a "Committed Crime" survey? Or "Crimes Against the Public" survey? Aren't these now "Reported Crimes"? Whoever named this thing "victimization" needs reeducation camp. How many of the "victims" prevailed?

Obama Spins Gun Yarn Expertly

The lamestream media told you:

Mr. Obama has a message for us about the Tucson atrocity, in the Tucson newspaper editorial section.

"But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence...

"Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it.

"Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

"The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In a nearly perfect use of Alinsky's principles (Rules For Radicals, the socialist play book for modern times), Mr. Obama has reversed the reasoning of both sides in the gun debate, exactly 180 degrees. It is a stunningly clever manipulation of language, for manipulation of thought.

He ascribes to gun haters (what he now coins as "gun-safety advocates," a term you can bet you'll start seeing from the Brady clan) all the values that gun-rights advocates hold, and tells the haters it's something, "you need to accept" such as "gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection."

Then he tells gun-rights advocates they need to accept what the haters believe: "gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson."

That last statement is demonstrably false, despite his earlier assertion that, "we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence." The drug-gang members, illegal immigrants and poverty-stricken victims of government policies who live in bad neighborhoods are a tangent to the American Family. These people don't die in your neighborhoods, and are not victims of guns. They are victims of demographics, geography, poverty and socio-economic conditions no one wants to look at hard. They include a large portion of suicidal elderly who have become destitute, are in pain and have no recourse in a disintegrated medical system, and a moderate number of individuals who are depressed without adequate support.

See the maps and data in Gunshot Demographics, to learn the truth. Find out how, "The Bad Part of Town" and failed social policies are used for sinister attacks on the right to keep and bear arms,
and help justify the law enforcement world and its budgets.
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm

Rangel Wrangles Redemption

The lamestream media told you:

Twenty-term congressman Charlie Rangel received serious ethical censure from his fellow members of Congress. Representing the historic New York area known as Harlem, and recently re-elected despite the ethics charges, the 40-year veteran will not be expelled from Congress, which would have been the most harsh penalty he faced.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Proving once again that the so-called justice system is stacked to favor the ruling elite, a proven long-term crook will not be arrested or jailed, because he is well-connected member of Congress. Any member of the public caught hiding income and failing to pay taxes, especially over an extended period of time and in at least high six-figure amounts, as Rangel did, would face loss of assets and long prison terms.

Rangel, who represents and has basically failed to improve the historic poverty-stricken festering pesthole known as Harlem for more than 40 years, received a public slap on the wrist. At least, say his critics, he had $2 million dollars sucked out of him by lawyers who failed to get him off completely. The money actually belonged to his contributors, for use in campaigns, so he really didn't lose anything, unless he had plans to spend the money on himself, which is unknown.

In late breaking news, Rangel is now seeking to have his sentence reduced. The sentence amounts to being publicly confronted on the floor of Congress with his violations. He seeks to have the charges presented without having to stand there and listen to them. No actual punishment like prison or fines are involved.

Should SB1070 Be Secondary to... SB1108?

Crime Control vs. The Bill of Rights

by Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce


The entire world, driven by news reports, has fixated on the enormous illegal-immigrant invasion Arizona has suffered under for years.

The invasion had previously been ignored, a news-media black hole from which little information escaped.

The catalyst for the attention is my bill SB1070, empowering our law-enforcement agencies to deal with the invasion. We passed it because the federal government is aiding and abetting the invaders, instead of stopping them and defending the nation against a flood of biblical proportions.

But SB1070 is a simple criminal statute, enacted to treat symptoms of a harmful crime -- sneaking into our nation to commit felonies, leach off our successes, eat out our substance. A different law, SB1108, for which I am equally responsible, is the more important act.

SB1108 is no simple crime-control law. It repeals outrageous infringements to the Bill of Rights, reinstating wholesome fullness to the right to keep and bear arms. The media however, driven by a nearly fanatical racist miasma, blindly focused on the immigration-crime law -- finding racism where none exists -- at the expense of even noting the strengthened Bill of Rights, despite a packed news conference for SB1108.

Civil rights were reborn here on the same day the anti-invasion bill took effect, but this was ignored. While reporters cried racism, “Constitutional Carry” restored fundamental civil rights to anyone on the planet who enters Arizona legally. We've extended these rights to all people of Earth.

The God-given right to protect family, property and yourself from physical harm has been accepted since civilization's dawn. Our Founders ensconced it in the Constitution. This was uncontroversial and well understood, a deeply rooted basic human right until recently, when forces of darkness began attacking truths we hold to be self evident.

Arizona now enjoys more robust protection for the right to arms than anywhere on Earth. How could media pundits miss that? In times recently past, a law that frees every decent adult on Earth to carry a gun with no prior permission would have precipitated a national uproar.

Are the media just tired of crying wolf? They screamed about imminent blood-in-the-streets when Arizona's gun-permit law passed in 1994, but nothing ever happened (and they never apologized).

They convulsed recently, anticipating wild-west mayhem when gun bans in National Parks were repealed. Nothing happened (not even remorse for the fear mongering).

When Arizona's restaurant gun ban was lifted a year-and-a-half ago, we endured fantasies about impending homicidal frenzy from “shotguns in nightclubs,” but it turned out that breakfast at Denny's or lunch at Applebee's remained tranquil. No correction has been issued or is expected.

So should the media pay attention to a law that restores our rights, instead of one that hampers criminals?

Does it really matter that states nationwide now seek and are clamoring for Constitutional Carry for themselves?

So what if Arizona frees its women to put handguns in their handbags, go about their business, and return home without fear of arrest? The bill's chief advocates, the Arizona Citizens Defense League (azcdl.org) spent five years reaching this point. Americans are carrying guns but no one's getting shot? Who cares?

Most of all, why tell people that government's exit from the enforced-training regimen is a business-stimulus plan?

Private enterprise has launched the TrainMeAZ.com campaign to promote “a culture of marksmanship” and gun safety to every resident. This is Arizona -- learn to shoot straight. Marksmanship matters. Teach your children well. Why cover that, even if it is going up on billboards statewide?

Constitutional Carry and the TrainMeAZ campaign have ignited a firestorm of entrepreneurism, and rekindled a burning desire to restore the nation of marksmen our Founders envisioned.

I personally urge America to examine what we've done with Defensive Display, Castle Doctrine inside and outside the home, Burden of Proof, Specious Lawsuit Immunity, Firearms Freedom Act and more. Emulate the freedom of spirit thriving in the Grand Canyon State. Visit and experience life as a free adult, not a ward of the state. You may not want to leave. And if you do, you'll take the spirit of freedom home with you.


Russell Pearce is the Republican State Senator from Arizona legislative district 18 and author of the anti-illegal immigration bill SB1070, and the Constitutional Carry law for firearms, SB1108, neither of which are controversial in point of fact.

SB1070 Training Revealed

The lamestream media told you:

Crazy racist madmen in Arizona are pushing a racial profiling campaign that forces Gestapo-like police to stop anyone brown on the street and demand ID papers. This is a hopelessly Nazi perversion of the American system, and if you have a shred of decency you will boycott these hateful lunatics. Show them that Hispanics promoting La Raza and Aztlan, who sneak into America through great hardship, are decent migrants seeking a better way of life, who deserve support, kindness, welfare, amnesty and free medical care.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

I got to watch the entire police training video for enforcing SB1070, Arizona’s anti-illegal-immigration law.

Pretty much everything you’ve heard in the “news” about this law and its enforcement is completely wrong. A court temporarily put a hold on a few aspects of the law, but the law is in effect and unlike the media, that doesn’t prevent me from examining what the law actually does.

First -- Reasonable suspicion is not an arbitrary meaningless phrase that can be used to justify anything, as reporters have repeatedly repeated. From Black’s Law Dictionary, the gold standard for such things:

“Reasonable suspicion. Such suspicion which will justify police officer, for Fourth Amendment purposes, in stopping defendant in public place, is the quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious man under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand. It must be based on specific and articulable facts, which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant intrusion.”

Despite “news” reports, reasonable suspicion must be based on facts, they must be specific, they must be articulable (you have to be able to say what they are, they can’t be vague feelings or hunches), and they must be sufficient to make a prudent and cautious person infer something criminal is happening. Failure to meet those conditions would be grounds to deny the legality of the officer’s actions, and bring on a world of hurt for the offending officer and the person’s entire department.

Suicide Absolves Guilt?

The lamestream media told you:

AP--CHICAGO--Illinois Rail Chief Dies In Apparent Suicide By Train. “The executive director of Chicago's Metra commuter train service died of an apparent suicide... Pagano, 60, was on paid administrative leave at the time of his death after Metra began investigating claims that he received an unapproved $56,000 bonus... two written notes were found... 'We have no reason to believe there's anything criminal involved in this,' County Sheriff Nygren said,” according to reporter Caryn Rousseau.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

An official is forced out of his job, at least $56,000 is in question, in a town like Chicago where that could be the tip of the iceberg, this (and whatever else may be at play) is enough to move the guy to kill himself, and the Sheriff says there's nothing criminal suspected? And the reporter doesn't ask any of the obvious questions, she just runs the quote? And the reporterette keeps her job?

True, suicide isn't criminal because you can't pin it on the guy (unlike assisting a suicide or attempted suicide), but couldn't they at least charge him with graffiti, or defacing the front of a train with human remains? Any word on where the 56 grand went, or if that was criminal, or if there was something more that could move a guy to kill himself? Will taxpayers get their money back? Oh, Alan, how can you be so insensitive to a person's misfortune, and the terrible reporting that goes with it...

In other news, a medical examiner announced on Saturday (6/14) that former ABC news anchor Ted Koppel's son, who was found dead in a stranger's apartment, died of a lethal combination of alcohol, heroin, cocaine and a variety of prescription drugs. According to the wire service report, police had said "no criminality was suspected," although heroin and cocaine were, at far as is known, still illegal. The "news" reporters asked no followup questions, or if they did, they went unreported.

Gun possession and use, even when perfectly legal, is typically portrayed as if heathen miscreants living in compounds are heavily armed, but fraud suicides in Chicago and illegal drug overdoses by children of elites are reported as nothing criminal. Go figure.

Pagano, suicide, Ted Koppel