Why? Because he’s too “white”.
Alinsky's second chapter, called Of Means and Ends, craftily poses many difficult moral dilemmas, and his 'tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends' is: 'you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.' He doesn't ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He is much more devious; he teaches his followers that 'Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.'...
"'The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems,' and 'organizations must be based on many issues.' The organizer 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.'"
.
And, these are the same exalted, ‘I’m smarter than conservatives’, liberal thinkers who are convinced they can pander to the Muslims for love just like the do to the NAACP and th New Black Panties.
So all that innocent until proven guilty doesn’t count anymore in the Obama regime of things?
These kinds of people are the reason that we’re headed for CW-II.
They start messing with the constitution and they’re targets.
Period.
That's the constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Without the context of this statement we can't make a judgement about whether it's correct.
The presumption of innocence is a legal concept, and applies in a court of law. It does not apply to the general public and our own private opinions about a case.
If the writer was saying that he was not entitled to a legal presumption of innocence in the eyes of the law, then clearly he was wrong. If the writer was suggesting that we the public have no obligation to assume innocence until the legal system decides the case, then he was right.
Just as we are not required to pretend that Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson are innocent just because they were acquited, we are also not required to suspend judgement of an accused before trial. It might be better to do that, but there's no entitlement to a presumption of innocence in the eyes of the public. Only in the eyes of the law.
Technically, they’re right. There is no explicit constitutional right to be presumed innocent. While that right can be inferred from the Sixth Amendment (and elements of the Fifth and Fourth as well), it is not spelled out. Presumption of innocence (and burden of proof) are legal doctrines that have arisen out of common law and established precedent. As you point out, they must be universally applied if one is to claim “due process” has been served.
WTF...didn't that BLOGGER ever read the constitution??? I guess if a black shot a white....he would be innocent.
Stupid Liberals love to make things up!!!
Florida should give a medal to Zimmerman for saving them a bunch of taxpayer dollars. The thug-in-training Trayvon was on his way to becoming a guest of the state prison system.
Why no link to that website?
Liberalism is a mental DISEASE!