Obama Murders George W. Bush’s Dog In Cold Blood


Obama Murders George W. Bush’s Dog In Cold Blood

 Author:  Bruce Myron Danus Bruce Myron Danus

03skeet_image2-articleLarge

Today, Flags will be flown at half-mast. It is a day that will live in infamy. Horrible crimes have been commited all across America, yet none stands out more clearly than the fact that our “President” is a cold-blooded murderer.

1359842728_8498_barney

That’s right, “President” Barrack Obama has gone into a tribal rage and murdered Barney Bush, the beloved former First Dog. The picture above clearly shows Obama going into his crazy Sub-Saharan Tribal hunting rage and murdering Barney, fortunately, the Secret Service was able to rescue Barney away from Obama before he turned that poor animal into a meal fit for a Kenyan because we all know that Obama has eaten many dogs in the past. You can not deny photographic proof.

While this is possibly the most tragic event to have happened since the Chinese bombed Pearl Harbor, it does have a happy side to it. “President” Obama is currently working on banning all guns from the law-abiding citizens of America, allowing only illegal Mexicans and sin-skinned gang bangers/cracked coke cane and marijuanas dealers to own them. Now, however, we have proof that guns are only a problem when they are operated by the darker sub-species of humanity. Now we need to petition the Senate to ban all non-whites from owning anything that can be used as a weapon. If even the “President” of our great Country can’t control his tribal rage, and will murder an innocent creature in cold-blood, we must protect ourselves against this threat.

Senator August Weisz has already added a bill in the Idaho State Senate to ban non-Whites from owning weapons and putting ridiculously large wheels on any vehicle not made for off-roading. The rest of the Nation needs to follow his lead, or this Great Country will fall. This is the thanks that we get for bringing these types to America, giving them jobs and a place to live, and taking them from the jungles where they had to fear for their lives at every moment due to lion attacks. I guess the old saying is true, “You can take the tribal types from the jungle, but you can’t take the jungle out of the tribal types”.

We must work together to end this senseless violence and pass this new law. Join with me to ban all Non-Whites from owning weapons. This should actually be a Worldwide law, but we will need to start with America, because the rest of the World follows our lead.

God bless you all, and have a safe day.

Barack-Obama-Shooting

Anti-Choicers Admit They Want to Imprison Women for Abortion


Iowa Anti-Choicers Admit They Want to Imprison Women for Abortion
Amanda Marcotte

by Amanda Marcotte

Rep. Rob Bacon of IowaRep. Rob Bacon of Iowa

A little over a month into 2013, and one thing is absolutely certain: Anti-choice legislators aren’t going to let the damage that their war on women did to their fellow conservative politicians’ electoral prospects slow them down from competing with each other to show who can concoct the most vile schemes to undermine women’s rights. Now Iowa Republicans are flexing their muscles, trying to show that they hate the ladies even more than the forced-transvaginal-ultrasound folks in Michigan, Texas, and Virginia, or the women-can’t-think-on-weekends-and-holidays nuts in South Dakota.

Nine state representatives in Iowa have introduced a bill that would define killing a fertilized egg as “murder”.

707.1 Murder defined.

1. A person who kills another person with malice aforethought either express or implied commits murder.

2. “Person”, when referring to the victim of a murder, means an individual human being, without regard to age of development, from the moment of conception, when a zygote is formed, until natural death.

Murder includes killing another person through any means that terminates the life of the other person including but not limited to the use of abortion-inducing drugs. For the purposes of this section, “abortion-inducing drug” means a medicine, drug, or any other substance prescribed or dispensed with the intent of terminating the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that the drug will with reasonable likelihood cause the termination of the pregnancy. “Abortion-inducing drug” includes the off-label use of drugs known to have abortion-inducing properties, which are prescribed specifically with the intent of causing an abortion, but does not include drugs that may be known to cause an abortion, but which are prescribed for other medical indications.

The point of this bill is, simply put, to throw women in jail for “murder” for deliberately ending pregnancies—and quite possibly for trying to prevent them, as many anti-choicers continue to insist, despite the evidence against them, that the pill and emergency contraception work by “killing” fertilized eggs. (They work by suppressing ovulation and preventing fertilization.) The language of this is quite expansive. They’re not only counting women who reach out to legal providers for abortion as “murderers,” but also women who go online and buy drugs for this purpose. The broadness of this suggests that they may even try to snag women for “murder” for taking common rue, a herbal medication women use to kick start their period (and potentially end an unwanted pregnancy) if they’re late.

This is a dramatic shift in the traditional anti-choice approach to discussing the issue of how to handle women who seek abortion. While I personally have no doubt that many to most anti-choicers fully intend and have always intended to get to a place where women are being jailed for abortion, the official stance of anti-choice legislators and activists is generally to deny believing that nearly a third of American women should go to jail for “murder.” Maintaining the illusion of disinterest in punishing women for abortion with jail is so important that after Rep. Cathrynn Brown of New Mexico was caught proposing jail for rape victims who get abortion, she rewrote the bill specifically to avoid the accusation.

Claiming they don’t believe that women who get abortions are murderers even while calling abortion “murder” has been a huge part of the anti-choice movement for years. (See discussions about it from 2006, 2007, and 2010, for instance. There’s also this fun video that makes the rounds periodically that demonstrates how inane this little dance really is.) This giant failure of logic stems from a couple of things, but mainly because it’s well-understood that anti-choicers don’t actually think abortion is murder, and just want to punish women for sex. And jail time for sex is just going to strike most people as inhumane in the extreme. So they’ve split the difference and said they intend to jail doctors but not women—a position, that while illogical in its rationale at least made them seem slightly less malevolent towards women.

So what’s changed that some anti-choicers, in Iowa at least, are coming out and not only admitting they want a third of women to go to jail for abortion, but are aggressively pushing for it? A huge chunk of it is the result of the overall shift rightward amongst conservatives in the past few years, a shift that is increasing extremism on many fronts, such as more overt racism and, as we’ve seen in recent weeks, an absolutist stance against gun control that resists even the most common sense measures.

But it’s probably also partially a reaction to the changing landscape of abortion. The growing popularity of medication abortion plus an abundance of illegal pharmacies selling all manner of drugs online and the increasing restrictions on legal abortion have created a situation where everyone believes—even though hard evidence is elusive—that more women are taking matters into their own hands when it comes to abortion. As Ada Calhoun of the New Republic explained:

Online, however, these drugs are readily available, often via suspicious-sounding sites that make claims like: “The Affordable Abortion Pill Will Safely, Quickly Terminate Your Undeveloped Fetus In The Privacy Of Your Home, Save You Time And Hundreds Of Dollars. It Is 100% Clinically Safe, Very Effective And The Most Affordable Abortion Pill You Will Get Your Hands On For Now!!!”

Determining how many American women have had home abortions is exceedingly difficult: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not track illegal abortions. There is no blood test for drugs like Cytotec, and so such an abortion is indistinguishable from a natural miscarriage, even to a doctor. However, the proliferation of online dispensers suggests a rising demand. There are thousands of websites selling Cytotec for as little as $45 to $75 (compared with $300 to $800 for a legal medicated abortion in a clinic). Some claim to offer the harder-to-come-by Mifeprex, but may in fact be peddling Cytotec, or aspirin, or nothing at all. (Possible sources for the drugs include Mexico, where Cytotec is available over the counter, or even the United States, since it’s also prescribed here as an ulcer medication.)

The traditional anti-choice stance of blaming the provider while pretending the patient is a mindless baby machine and not a choice-making person is harder to maintain in the face of women acting as their own providers. It’s common for anti-choicers to paint an image of an abortion patient as a woman who simply hasn’t thought about it—this also helps justify waiting periods to “think” it over—and who is a victim of greedy doctors and evil feminists who are somehow tricking women (who they clearly imagine are very, very stupid) into getting abortions. But even anti-choicers with the most active imaginations have to struggle with explaining how a woman can fire up a computer, search around for black market abortion-inducing drugs, and order them without being capable of making a decision and therefore being held accountable to the laws regarding that decision.

So this is where we’re at: Iowan anti-choicers admitting they want to throw women in jail for abortion. It’s an unpopular stance precisely because it lays bare the misogyny of the anti-choice movement. Instead of dithering around with more waiting periods and humiliating mandatory ultrasounds, I sort of hope more anti-choicers start demanding jail time for a third of American women. That sort of thing can offer clarity for people who had any doubt left that the anti-choice movement is, indeed, nothing but a war on women.

Over 1,000 Killed Since Sandy Hook


Over 1,000 Killed Since Sandy Hook
By mcallisterbryant

The odometer turned today…over 1,000 murders by gun violence since Sandy Hook Elementary School 33 days ago. In the time it took for those 1,000 adults and children to die the country has begun a process of solving some of the causes of the deaths. It will be a long process.

We have, as a country done two very predictable things. First we separated into political corners…many proponents of both sides of the very hard discussion intractable in their views, unable to move forward, toward common ground in order to prevent at least some of the deaths. But this seems different. The energy and anger are coming from the very large middle of this country, those neither pro-gun nor pro-regulation, having little or no opinion on the 2nd Amendment or gun control. This shift in public opinion is fueled by the anger that in the past year our restaurants, workplaces, malls, churches, theaters, and schools are not as safe as they were…as they can be.

Second to that, we have seen a media frenzy take over much of the flow of information on gun violence, gun control and the 2nd Amendment. The good of it is that we have at our fingertips hundreds if not thousands of facts to present our case…the bad is that the frenzy has contributed to the division that will impede success in slowing down deaths.  Politicians have, for the most part had to stand up and defend their long held position…many funded with tens of millions of dollars spent by the lobbyists at the NRA or Gun Owners of America.

And yesterday, the last day of sub-1,000 murders President Obama released the results of VP Biden’s month long research group to look at options. And so, we look to the next step…Presidential Executive Actions designed to spur research, to define privacy within the Affordable Care Act to allow mental health considerations to be shared with those who now approve purchases of guns for buyers at gun shops across America, to streamline and strengthen the on-line NICS system that verifies buyers, to provide a mechanism to pay for security in schools that request them, to refocus law enforcement to enforce the myriad of laws that are currently on the books.

And further, submitting proposals for legislation to Congress so that they may consider new laws for returning the Assault Weapons Ban, regulating the capacity of magazines, and closing of loopholes in the current way firearms buying and selling is administered.

One month, 1,000 murders, a plan…the journey down the long road to finding and executing a successful set of solutions to the national problem of gun violence has begun. In the next year America will either reach out a hand to help save some of those who will die from gun violence or they will simply turn away because it is against their beliefs. The 12,000 who will die and 250,000 injured in this next year are watching.

Everyone is watching.

Serious Think Piece On Guns and Pro-Gun Nutjobs


Serious Think Piece On Guns and Pro-Gun Nutjobs

Posted by Rich  Abdill

A casual hobby.

We’re  going to talk about it.

We’re going to talk about it because our thoughts and prayers are not enough.  They were not enough after Columbine (15 dead), or the Amish schoolhouse (6  dead), or Virginia Tech (33 dead), or Tucson (6 dead), or Aurora (12 dead), or  the Wisconsin Sikh temple (6 dead), and they are not enough now that another 28  once living, breathing people have been added to the tally. To offer only  thoughts and prayers is to say “Well, that’s a damn shame. Sure hope it doesn’t  happen again.” We have done this every time. And every time, it’s happened  again. So we’re going to talk about it.

We’re going to talk about guns.

There shouldn’t be a requirement to wait a certain amount of time before we  can talk about guns. The time to talk about food safety is after an e. coli  outbreak; the time to talk about preparedness and global warming is after a  hurricane socks New York, which is usually not socked by such things. Those are  appropriate problems to talk about because they are problems right freaking  then, and if the time to talk about guns isn’t after some guy uses one to  kill 20 little kids, when is the time?

It isn’t disrespectful to try to learn from the deaths of those 27 innocent  people, or from the 28th guilty one, who is only one of thousands of people who  used a gun to kill himself this year. It would be far more insulting to look at  their deaths and shrug, and hope maybe people get less unbalanced.

If Adam Lanza’s mom hadn’t owned those guns legally, Lanza would not have  been able to take them into that school and massacre those children — after he  killed her. The same goes for so many crimes of passion that could have been  avoided if an angry person hadn’t had easy access to a killing machine. Maybe  they’d find a gun anyway. But so far, they haven’t had to.

Anyway, we’ve been saying this stuff for a long time, so let’s try to figure  out how anyone could possibly justify America’s gun problem. Let’s just go  through one by one, starting with what’s probably the most common justification:

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Sure, and Apache helicopters don’t kill people, but we cannot have those  either.

It’s a true thing, sure, that “people kill people.” It is not a coincidence,  however, that when people kill people, they kill them with guns. Guns  are so, so good at killing people. Pretty much the only thing they’re good at,  really, other than being mafia paperweights. People are always going to kill  people, sure. But the system we have now is set up to let them, in the name of  Freedom. We can seriously justify what happened in Newtown by saying it just  comes with the territory of having a well-regulated militia?

Defenders use this line to explain that America does not have a gun problem,  it has a murder problem, and they quickly break out the old canard  about how guns kill people like spoons make people fat. Many of the people who  say this are not, as they say, “murderers,” but just regular folks who own guns  and do not use them to kill kindergartners. But these people are wrong.

Spoons are not the only way people get fat. In fact, some of the best ways to  get fat (cheeseburgers and never standing up) have nothing to do with spoons.

Guns, however, are startlingly unlike spoons. Guns are not just one of many  tools in a killers arsenal. Guns are more than just coincidentally AROUND when  buildings full of people are killed — they are the single most determining  factor in how efficiently they are killed.  How many people were merely wounded  in Newtown yesterday?

If you want to kill people really quickly, and with the least amount of  effort, you buy a gun. Yes, you could buy a knife, or a heavy rock, but the most  effective method of mass murder is available in many places from the same stores  where you go for soccer balls and sweatsocks.

If someone goes on some kind of spree with a knife, like they keep doing in China, that is still bad. But when  a Chinese guy uses a knife on 22 people, they all live.

Mass-shootings happen because it is easy for mentally unstable people to get  guns. Shouldn’t we at least pretend to stop them? The biggest move in  federal gun legislation since Columbine was that we let an assault weapons ban  expire. Though Obama promised better gun laws, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence  says he’s been worse than Bush. Sure, they’ve got an agenda, but the  point remains: We need gun control. Lots of it. It stinks that the crazies have  ruined guns for the rest of us, but they definitely have.

Yes, making it harder for the crazy folk will also make it harder for the  sane folk to kill them, but that argument is wearing very, very thin, since the  sane folk are not really doing a very good job at protecting people. That  argument also leads nicely into the next defense of guns:

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

“What will we DO?” say the gun-folk. “Good people with guns defend society  from bad people with guns!”

It sounds like a great argument, until you realize that the good people with  guns are awful at defending society from bad people with guns.  Mother Jones put together a big, terrible list of all the mass-murders of the last 30 years, and not a  single one ends with, “And then a person with a concealed weapon killed the  shooter before the shooter could inflict any more damage.” None. Zero. One  “witness” in Miami killed a shooter back in 1982, but only as the shooter was  running away.

This, of course, is not viewed by gun enthusiasts as an argument for gun control, but against it. Like this statement from Larry Pratt, executive director of the  Gun Owners of America:

Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands.  Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no  adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This  tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The  only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can  slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a  gun.

The best way to prevent gun violence in Newtown would have been to give  teachers guns. This is not a fringe idea — the GOA boasts 300,000 members. And it might not necessarily be an  incorrect idea, either: It isn’t hard to imagine a teacher stepping into the  hallway during the massacre and planting a bullet between Lanza’s eyes. It feels  good and just to think about. We’re conditioned to feel good thinking about it —  it’s how all the good action movies end.

So yeah, maybe gun control stopped teachers from shooting Lanza. But is that  really the system we want to have? An arms race with criminals and the insane on  one side, and the innocent on the other? Those with a vision of guns in schools  have a vision of America as a never-ending Mexican standoff. It’s a barbaric  proposal unmatched anywhere else in the civilized world.

Plus, again, if guns are supposed to be protecting people, they’re doing a  lousy job. Not doing any job, really. It might feel good to have a Glock on your  hip and imagine all the wham-bang good stuff you could do, being a hero and  whatnot if a lunatic shows up on the bus or in the deli, but the reality is that  you would be the first person to do that since they replaced hitching posts with  parking lots. It just doesn’t happen. The good guns aren’t doing us any good.

This, though, refers mostly to mass shootings, where the perpetrator in the  vast majority of cases obtained the weapon(s) used legally, likely at least  partially due to mass-shootings being a person’s first and last crime.

What about people who have guns to protect their homes, or to defend  themselves from other kinds of crime? This leads us to yet another defense:

Guns prevent crime.

Maybe it’s not fair to say guns are bad because they don’t prevent all mass  shootings. Maybe they’re bad at that, but really good at preventing other  crimes, like robbery. If this is the case, that means more guns would mean more  safety, no? The United States has 310 million guns. How many  more guns do we need before all the robberies stop?

Handgun production has more than doubled since 2005 and there have been 16 mass shootings this year. This is the  cost of gun freedom. How many mall shootings, and hospital shootings, and school shootings, are there going  to have to be, before we decide that maybe we aren’t safer with more  guns?

Speaking of crime, research from Harvard suggests the “good guys” are  sometimes guilty of it too:

Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported  self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the  respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had  described the event honestly from his own perspective…

We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate  than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as  well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially  undesirable.

“Socially undesirable,” in case it wasn’t clear, means a gun use that isn’t  defending yourself from a criminal. And the rest of the words there mean people  who actually use guns, by and large, use them to act like dangerous, militant  bullies.

It’s a good thing that many gun owners don’t have to use their guns. But if  the ones that do are using them to menace neighbors and settle disputes (lookin’  at you, Jovan Belcher, you dead bastard), who is that helping?

The Belcher case, in which the Kansas City Chiefs linebacker escalated  routine American domestic abuse into routine American gun violence and killed  his girlfriend with his pile of guns, is another example of the dangerous  situation we’ve put society in: Maybe something terrible happened to Belcher’s  brain. Maybe all the football damaged the part of his head that told him not to  kill people. Maybe it wasn’t all his fault. But it doesn’t matter, because he  had a bunch of guns anyway. The guy could have bought any gun he wanted, and  when he got mad, he used one. Just like anybody else with a few hundred bucks  could.

But no matter how many horrifying scenes we’re forced to confront, and no  matter how many parents are splashed on front pages crying in parking lots for  their dead children, there will be another defense that absolves gun-rights  advocates of guilt:

It’s my constitutional right.

“There’s nothing we can do! It’s in the Constitution.” It’s a shrewd  move, because it places blame for the American gun problem on the founders,  instead of on the people furthering the problem now. But that’s a broken  argument too.

That something is (possibly) enshrined in the Constitution does not mean it  is invincible to change. Let’s not forget that abortion is a constitutionally  protected right, eh? We’re still allowed to argue about that.

The Constitution is good at stuff like this. We’ve amended the thing 27  times, to fix the issues our founding fathers, in all their 18th-century wisdom,  fucked up beyond comprehension. Women couldn’t vote, black people were 3/5ths of  a person (and couldn’t vote), presidents could be reelected in perpetuity. Hell,  the path of presidential succession wasn’t codified until 1965, after we needed  it a bunch of times. (Mostly after angry people killed our presidents… with  guns.)

And when an amendment like the 18th comes along and takes away our beer, we  have the power to bring along an amendment like the 21st, which gives it back.  Because one thing the Constitution does get right is the opening line: “We, the  People.” Like Charles Pierce wrote Friday, our commitment to each other is the driving  force behind our self-government, and when self-government stands by and watches  Americans shoot each other in the face, we have failed each other.

So no, the constitutional argument against gun control is not good enough. We  have a commitment to society that is above blind faith in 220-year-old dogma. We  took away slavery. We can regulate guns. Providing for the common  defense doesn’t only apply to drone-striking terrorists, and if we can repeal  the 18th Amendment, we, the people, can certainly temper the bloody effects of  the Second.

Some people will die, if their guns are taken away and they can’t defend  themselves. But how many people would be saved? If taking away guns from the  public makes gun deaths go down overall — and it would — how would someone argue  against it? That it violates an American ideal, a notion that people should have  that line of personal defense? It’s not good enough, if people are dying,  senselessly, every day, to preserve that right. If “making sure less people die”  is not preserving the general welfare, that section of the Preamble means  nothing.

We have been trying it this way — the gun way — for a long, long time. We  have armed everyone equally, in the hopes that the good deeds will outweigh the  evil. On days when everyone with guns behaves themselves relatively well — and  there are a woefully small number of them — it’s a position that can slide. But  on days when New York City has to send a portable morgue to an elementary school, why, why,  why can’t we try it the other way?

Religious Fanatic Slaughters His Family in Moscow


Religious fanatic slaughters his family in Moscow

Religious fanatic slaughters his family in Moscow. 48563.jpeg

The Moscow police investigate the triple murder, which was committed in Eastern Birulyovo on the southern outskirts of Moscow in the evening of November 19th.  The crime was committed in less than two weeks after the massacre in the office of a pharmaceutical company. Igor Televinov, 40, who could possibly be a mentally unbalanced religious fanatic, first killed his nine-year-old son, Alexander, and then six-year old daughter, Anna. Afterwards, the man killed his mother when she came back home from a walk. The man stabbed the three victims to death. Apparently, the victims could not show any resistance, Life News said.

After the murder, the man took the time to write a note, in which he asked to sell the apartment and bury the children with this money, the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper wrote.

The man wanted to kill himself in the end, but he also had to kill his wife first. When she came home from work, he met her on the doorstep and said that he had already sent his mother and children to heaven. The man offered his wife to follow them: he slashed the woman’s throat and face with the same knife.

The wounded woman somehow managed to escape from the apartment. All covered in blood, she rushed into her neighbor’s, shouting: “Lock the door!” The women called the police and an ambulance. The wounded woman was taken to hospital, her life is out of danger.

Having entered the apartment, where the tragedy occurred, law-enforcement officers, doctors and investigators saw the following picture. The bodies of the two children and their grandmother were lying in pools of blood. All the victims had their throats slit, their hands were folded crosswise on their chests, the little girl and the murderer’s mother had icons and burning candles put in between their fingers. The dead boy had an icing lamp in his hands, Vesti reports.

The man was arrested; he tried to show resistance to police, apparently staying in an inadequate condition. A criminal case was filed into the “murder of two or more persons” and “attempted murder.”

The man was unemployed. He was sick, he began to gain weight and would rarely go out. His wife worked in a barbershop. The woman was spending much of her salary on medications for her husband

Jewish Right Wing Extremists Suspected of Extorting Tupac Shakur


JDL Suspected Of Extorting Rapper Tupac Shakur, Others, FBI Says

Tupac Shakur

The legacy of Rabbi Meir Kahane continues. The FBI has released files on the murder of rapper Tupac Shakur, revealing that the Jewish Defense League (JDL) was suspected of “extorting money from various rap music stars via death threats, including Tupac and another performer, Eazy-E.

Files show FBI suspected JDL of extorting Tupac

Jewish Defense League threatened famously murdered rapper, provided bodyguards for hip-hop stars, according to released FBI documents.
By LAHAV HARKOV • Jerusalem Post

Tupac Shakur

The FBI has released files on the murder of rapper Tupac Shakur, revealing that the Jewish Defense League (JDL) was suspected of “extorting money from various rap music stars via death threats, including Tupac and another performer, Eazy-E.

“The scheme involves (name redacted) and other subjects making telephonic death threats to the rap star,” the files, declassified this week, explain. “Subjects then intercede by contacting the victim and offering protection for a fee. The victim and their family are taken to a ‘safe haven’, usually a private estate, and are protected by gun-toting body guards associated with the Jewish Defense League.”

After the victims were brought to the “safe havens,” the JDL would allegedly “convince the victim they have worked a ‘deal’ out…and the threats cease. The victim then pays the subjects for the protection services rendered and resume their normal lifestyle with no fear of further death threat.”

An unidentified source identified Eazy-E as a target of the JDL’s extortion before he died from AIDS. Another source, from within the JDL, “had also reportedly targeted Tupac Shakur prior to his recent murder in Las Vegas, Nevada.”

Tupac was shot four times in Las Vegas in September 1996, and died several days later. The circumstances surrounding his murder remain unclear.

George Zimmerman Charged With Second Degree Murder


BREAKING: George Zimmerman Taken Into Custody, Charged With Second Degree Murder

Win McNamee / Getty Images

A new chapter in the Trayvon Martin shooting saga opened up earlier today when it was reported that George Zimmerman was going to in fact be charged in the wake of the Trayvon Martin killing. We were told that Special Prosecutor Angela Corey would hold a press conference stating the charges being held against George Zimmerman. A few hours later, we learned that George Zimmerman was in fact taken into custody in Florida, but Special Prosecutor Corey refused to release the whereabouts.

Prosecutor Corey took to the podium around 6pm and remained as patient and candid as she could.

Here are some key statements made by Special Prosecutor Angela Corey during the MSNBC live televised News Conference held at the state attorney’s office in Jacksonville, Florida :

The team with me has worked tirelessly to find answers to Trayvon Martin’s death.” Adding,We prosecute on facts and we will continue to seek the truth”

“Today, we charged George Zimmerman with Second Degree Murder

It seems a second-degree murder charge in Florida carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and it’s ordinarily charged when there is a fight or other altercation that results in death and where there is no premeditated plan to kill someone.

“Mr. Zimmerman is indeed in custody and I will not tell you where. “

“We do not discuss the information involved in a case”

Mr. Zimmerman turned himself in and was subsequently arrested on the capias that was issued”

On the issue of it being a whopping 45 days before an arrest was made.

“I can tell you that the investigation was in full mode and that the governor appointed us less than three weeks ago and we had to make sure we had everything proper in place in order to prosecute,” said Corey

One constant theme was why an arrest took so long and the state appeared to be deliberately dilatory in doing so, Mrs. Corey perpetually said that “we have many homicides in Florida and it takes us time to investigate them all.

In sum, after all the media outcry, all the protests, and all the rabid racism that seems to have a permanent home a Fox Nation’s blog (or at least a timeshare with Stormfront), it appears that Trayvon Martin’s friends and family can finally take solace in the fact that they are finally getting justice for the murder of their 17-year old teenage boy. But don’t think for one moment that this case is over or that its coverage will suddenly find itself buried in the blogs and back pages, as the latest Washington Post poll on the Trayvon Martin case revealed a woefully deep racial divide on the case. It’s gotten to the point where the Trayvon Martin case is the bizzaro O.J. Simpson Case with regards to race; that is, you have a white (somewhat hispanic) individual who committed a heinous crime and where all the facts thus far point to him being ridiculously guilty, yet you have people of the same race as the murderer either supporting him or undecided. Conversely, the same Washington Post poll showed that 80 percent of blacks said the shooting was unjustified.

Michael is a comedian/VO artist/Columnist extraordinaire, who co-wrote an award-nominated comedy, produces a chapter of Laughing Liberally, wrote for NY Times Laugh Lines, guest-blogged for Joe Biden, and writes a column for MSNBC.com affiliated Cagle Media. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook, Youtube, and like NJ Laughing Liberally Lab. Seriously, follow him or he’ll send you a photo of Rush Limbaugh bending over in a thong.