It’s Thursday, April 12th, 2012….and here’s The Gouge!

Zimmerman Charged with 2nd-degree Murder

 

“Positive energy”? “Continue to pray….for our prosecution team”?  Seriously, is this a prosecution or a prayer meeting?!?  And if the latter, where are the prayers for the accused and HIS family?  As for Ms. Corey’s appearance, demeanor and less-than-breathless oratorical skills, is there any doubt she’s using her 15 minutes of fame to grease the skids for run at higher political office?

Meanwhile, FOX News‘ Andrew Napolitano explains the significance of the 2nd-degree murder charge:

Here’s the juice: it’s obvious from her appearance and extended remarks Corey, like the Reverends, is interested not in justice, but publicity.  And her public pandering notwithstanding, the moment Corey charged Zimmerman, her entire team’s only goal became not justice, but convicting George Zimmerman of the crime with which he’s been charged.

As for our observations regarding Corey’s personal motives, they have nothing to do with the charges; only the way in which she conducted the media circus she used to level them.  Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence will now be determined by a jury of his peers, and we’re bound to abide by their decision.

For some reason, should the jury return a “not guilty” verdict, we doubt the Reverends and the “Black Community” will exhibit the same restraint.

And since we’re on the subject of potential mob violence….

Union workers in Detroit talk of Wisconsin-like battle over potential loss of bargin rights

 

Detroit lawmakers have agreed to use financial advisers to straighten out the city’s finances, which has unionized workers vowing protests like those in Wisconsin should their bargaining rights be eliminated in the solutions. “Get ready,” a union member told Fox News Channel. “This is going to be a huge battle. This’ll be just like Wisconsin.”

Detroit didn’t have much choice in signing the April 4 consent decree, considering it was unable to pay its bills and on the brink of bankruptcy. “Right now our deficit is at $193 million,” Detroit Councilman James Tate said. “We have a long-term debt of over $12 billion.”

….When the auto industry had to cut jobs, many people left the city. Unemployment was up and revenue was down. What was once a population of two million is now down to roughly 700,000. But “the city is still operating as if it has two million, and it can’t afford that,” one state staff member said.

Gee….what are the unionistas gonna do, burn the city down?  Sorry fellas, but 51 years of Dimocratic government….

….beat you to it.

Next up, it’s the Saul Alinsky Memorial “If You Can’t Argue The Facts, Destroy The Messenger” segment, courtesy of the WSJ‘s Dan Henninger:

Demolishing Paul Ryan

The Left launches on warning against any challenge to its ideological fortress.

 

With the presidential battle begun, the Obama campaign has revived the Cold War nuclear strategy of launch on warning. At any suggestion that a conservative idea might be threatening its ideological fortress, the American left now launches ICBMs of rhetorical destruction.

So it was after the Supreme Court’s hearings on the Obama Affordable Care Act, which put in jeopardy the federal command to buy health insurance. After the president green-flagged the assault, the Supreme Court’s “legitimacy” was in play. The Roberts Court, wrote one blogger, is “on trial.”

On current course, House GOP Budget Chairman Paul Ryan himself may exhaust their entire thermonuclear arsenal before November. Once again, the Campaigner in Chief threw the switch himself, calling the Ryan House budget “social Darwinism,” “a Trojan horse” and “antithetical to our entire history.” Rev. Samuel Rodriquez of the Hispanic Evangelical Association said the poor would be “budget-war collateral damage.”

On Tuesday, Mr. Ryan pushed back. In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, he said that in fact the Catholic Church’s “social magisterium” had informed his House budget. One goal of that teaching, he said, is to prevent the poor from staying poor. Nor, he added, should individuals become lifelong dependents of their government. (As G. Trevor, Lord High King of All Vietors observed earlier today, the Dims mantra seems to be, “Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, you can take all his fish and give them to those who don’t want to be bothered having to fish!”)

Just as the left thought the regulating reach of the Commerce Clause was beyond serious challenge, it long ago decided that none dare question the moral case for public spending. That social Darwinism speech Barack Obama is giving now in defense of federal programs isn’t merely a public-policy statement. It’s a Democratic encyclical. Paul Ryan’s ideas are worse than wrong. They are heresy.

Within the hour of the Ryan CBN interview, the blogospheric left went ballistic. “Ryan is shilling for the Catholic Church,” said Democrats for Progress, folding in another recently identified group of ObamaCare heretics. And: “Mr. Ryan has drunk the libertarian Kool-Aid.” A pro-spending religious coalition, the Faithful Budget Campaign, emailed, “The differences in what the organized religious community is calling a Faithful Budget and what Rep. Ryan refers to could not be more stark.”

What Mr. Ryan actually said is worth quoting, because it should revive the debate over the proper relationship between individual citizens, including the poor, and the national government:

“A person’s faith is central to how they conduct themselves in public and in private. So to me, using my Catholic faith, we call it the social magisterium, which is how do you apply the doctrine of your teaching into your everyday life as a lay person?

To me, the principle of subsidiarity . . . meaning government closest to the people governs best . . . where we, through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities, through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community, that’s how we advance the common good. By not having big government crowd out civic society, but by having enough space in our communities so that we can interact with each other, and take care of people who are down and out in our communities.

Those principles are very, very important, and the preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenants of Catholic social teaching, means don’t keep people poor, don’t make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life. Help people get out of poverty out onto a life of independence.“

Subsidiarity—an awful but important word—attempts to discover where the limits lie in the demands a state can make on its people. Identifying that limit was at the center of the Supreme Court’s mandate arguments.

The first major use of subsidiarity as a basis for public policy was in Pope Leo XIII’s famous 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum” (though the word itself doesn’t appear). Leo was seeking a way to protect the dignity of human beings caught during those years in the tension between unfettered capitalism and unfettered government. “The State,” he wrote, “must not absorb the individual or the family.” Arguments over where the balance sits have raged since.

The American left thinks this debate is settled. (You know….like the “science” of anthropogenic global warming; more on that later!) So, for example, any hint of Supreme Court dissent from settled doctrine justifies questions about its “legitimacy.”

Paul Ryan insists the debate isn’t over and that its locus is the federal budget, which isn’t just numbers. The budget is the national government’s formal justification for the scale of the demands it makes now and unto eternity on the nation’s citizens.

This is the debate Barack Obama hopes mockery and rhetorical carpet-bombing can kill before the fall campaign. It’s only a guess, but I’m betting his opponent is looking forward to forcing the president to come up with a better argument for establishing a government in the U.S. that is subordinate to no one.

If you truly can tell a lot about a man by his enemies, Paul Ryan is OUR kind of guy….though we still believe Marco Rubio’s the ONLY choice as Romney’s running mate.  Ryan can best serve the country and Conservatism by campaigning for Mitt….and remaining in Congress.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch with the Man Who Would Be Leader of The Gang That Still Can’t Shoot Straight, Fred Barnes suggests….

We Still Haven’t Seen Romney’s A-Game *

To defeat the president, he’ll have to perform at a higher level than he did in the primaries.

 

* To which we reply, WSAHHN!!! (We Sure As Hell Hope Not!!!)

 

With Rick Santorum’s exit, Mitt Romney’s path to the Republican presidential nomination is clear. But his road to the White House is hazy. To defeat President Obama and capture the presidency, Mr. Romney will have to make significant changes in his campaign.

He’s already improved his campaign in important ways. For a Republican, the usual strategy has been to run as a conservative in the primaries, then move toward the center in the general election. Mr. Romney has done the opposite, starting in the center before gradually latching on to conservative positions on taxes, spending, entitlements, social issues and foreign policy.

He’s better off for having become specific. Sticking to generalities, as he once did, made him look evasive and shifty. And Mr. Romney no longer relies on his business background as his chief talking point. His résumé alone wasn’t enough to qualify him for the presidency. (Unlike B. Hussein’s, which should have DISqualified him!)

Now there’s no turning back. He’s embraced the election as a stark choice between right (him) and left (Barack Obama). After winning the Wisconsin primary last week, he said the president has “spent the last four years laying the foundation for a new government-centered society. I will spend the next four years rebuilding the foundation of an opportunity society led by free people and free enterprises.”

His first task is to secure the Republican Party’s conservative base. Mr. Romney would be foolish to think that fear of Mr. Obama’s election to a second term is sufficient to galvanize conservative support for him. It won’t be.

Mr. Romney is the favorite of conservative elected officials, but he trailed Mr. Santorum, and occasionally Newt Gingrich, among conservative voters in the primaries. He desperately needs the Republican grass roots. They’re as important to him as the liberal Democratic base is to Mr. Obama. They’re the ground troops in any GOP presidential campaign.

“If he loses four, five, six percent of the conservative base, that’s the election,” says former Reagan White House official Gary Bauer. “We’ll lose Virginia, Missouri and North Carolina.” Mr. Bauer, like dozens of conservative and tea party leaders, has qualms about Mr. Romney.

Some of their misgivings were eased by Mr. Romney’s adoption of strong conservative positions. After initially issuing a bland 59-point economic plan, he proposed a 20% across-the-board cut in individual income tax rates. Mr. Romney also backed both the 2013 budget and the Medicare reform plan drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee and the GOP’s leading thinker on domestic policy.

There are other ways to rally conservatives. One is to elicit Mr. Santorum’s endorsement as soon as possible.Promising to help reduce Mr. Santorum’s campaign debt would spur this process. Another is to persuade conservatives that he will run against Mr. Obama as aggressively as he has against his Republican rivals—and especially not balk at attacking the president because of his supposed likabililty, or because of fear he’ll be accused of racism.

The Republican convention in August offers three critical opportunities to woo conservatives: the platform, the choice of a vice presidential running mate, and the acceptance speech. “I see those as ways to attractively present your conservative ideas,” Mr. Bauer says.

Mr. Romney paid more attention to conservative leaders in 2008 than he has this year. He has repeatedly been invited by, but has neglected to meet with, a group of former officials of the Reagan and both Bush administrations, conservatives all. He hasn’t accepted yet, but there’s still time.

He’s been a more effective campaigner this year than in 2008, better even than in the early stage of this year’s primary campaign. But he hasn’t quite gotten over what an ally calls the “awkward guilty capitalist stuff.” His first tax plan provided nothing for the rich because, he said, they were doing fine. The problem is that he was playing on Mr. Obama’s ideological turf.

One way to deal with his affluence is to joke about it. Clearly, Mr. Romney is no Will Rogers. But he’s comfortable when he talks about his family’s rags to riches story, as he did in his victory speech after the Illinois primary in March. So more of that is called for.

It’s an appealing story: His father, as he says, didn’t go to college and his grandfather “was a contractor and never quite made it but never gave up.” From their experiences Mr. Romney learned the “unique genius of the American free enterprise system.” “Later I helped start companies that began just as an idea and somehow made it through all the inevitable difficulties to create thousands of jobs,” Mr. Romney said. “Those jobs helped families buy their first homes, put kids through school, live better live, dream a little bigger.”

A unified Republican campaign—House, Senate, presidential candidate—also would be an asset to Mr. Romney’s campaign. Not another Contract for America or set of pledges but, as Mr. Ryan puts it, “everybody gets on the same page.”

Mr. Ryan and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, the Senate Republican liaison with the Romney campaign, are working with Mr. Romney and his aides on this. For Mr. Romney to win, they should be “talking about the same things with the same words at the same time,” Mr. Johnson says.

On one issue—immigration—Mr. Romney would be wise to move away from his harsh position in the primaries. He can’t afford to lose the Hispanic vote as decisively as John McCain—who won just 31% of it—did in 2008. According to a Romney adviser, his private view of immigration isn’t as anti-immigrant as he often sounded. Emphasizing reform of the dysfunctional legal immigration system makes sense.

Mr. Ryan, who has spent considerable time with Mr. Romney, has three words of advice: “Offense, offense, offense.” If he’s not on offense, he’ll be on defense. “Don’t be afraid,” Mr. Ryan says. “Be confident. Be on offense.”

To defeat Mr. Obama on Nov. 6, Mr. Romney must perform at a higher level than he did in the primaries. Presidential candidates—Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992—have done this before. If Mr. Romney wants to take occupancy in the White House, he’ll have to do the same.

With all due respect, we disagree with Fred on two points; first, based on his voting record as a U.S. Senator, Tea Partiers we know believe Rick Santorum to be about as conservative as Bush II.  The only positions Santorum holds which are remotely Conservative are on abortion and gay marriage, neither of which has ever been the focus of the Tea Party.

Second, by referring to the issue of “immigration”, rather than “ILLEGAL immigration”, Barnes had ceded the subject to The Obamao just as certainly as he says Romney has the issue taxing “the rich”.

We can only hope Barnes is otherwise right….and pray Romney changes.

Turning to today’s Follow-Up segment, an interesting bit of truly tortured Liberal logic from Kevin Drum in Mother Jones, courtesy of Conn Carroll and the Morning Examiner:

James O’Keefe Shows Everyone Just How Hard Voter Fraud Is

 

“No one ever does”….except of course Dimocrats!

And in Automotive News….

Study: Hybrid car owners unlikely to buy another

 

Hybrid cars have gained praise, derision and driven technological advancement since their introduction. Sales have surged on the back of higher gas prices, inspiring many automakers to focus on turning out gas-electric vehicles.

But the one thing hybrid cars may not be able to inspire is loyalty. A recent study shows that nearly two-thirds of hybrid owners decide not to purchase another hybrid vehicle when it’s time to trade in.

R.L. Polk, an automotive marketing research company, released a study this week showing that only 35-percent of hybrid owners purchased another gas-electric vehicle when trading in during 2011. Repurchase rates vary across hybrid models, with the highest percentage of hybrid loyalty going to the Toyota Prius. Removing that car from the model shows a repurchase rate under 25-percent.

Which brings us to the Environmental Moment, courtesy today of Jeff Foutch and Thomas Lifson writing at American Thinker, and further proof as to just how the “science” of anthropogenic global warming actually “settled”:

NASA rocked by global warming rebellion

 

Fifty top astronauts, scientists and engineers at NASA have signed a letter asking the agency to cease its global warming buffoonery. The global warming emperor has no clothes, and people are finally saying so out loud and in public.

Notrickzone brings us the entire letter, noting that the signers have a combined 1000 years of professional experience. Here it is:

March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
2. /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
8. /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
10. /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
14. /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
15. /s/ Anita Gale
16. /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
17. /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
18. /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
22. /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
24. /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
25. /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
27. /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
37. /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
38. /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
43. /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
48. /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
49. /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

The era of refusing to debate and insisting that “the science is settled” is over. Al Gore does not have the guts to debate Lord Monckton because he knows it is all a scam that has made him rich. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee which honored him will never revoke the prize it awarded him. But the game is up, the dam is broken. It may take years before the victory is acknowledged, but as the Bard reminds us, “The truth will out.”

The “science” of anthropogenic global warming; it’s “settled” alright….about as settled as the San Andreas Fault.  Rumors all 50 signatories on the letter to NASA are on the payroll of Big Oil remain unconfirmed.

On the Lighter Side….

Then there’s these two gems from our old friend Joe Flood:

Then there’s this from James Taranto….

APples and Oranges

 

If you’re a Supreme Court justice–and you know who you are–there’s something the Associated Press would like you to consider before you make up your mind irrevocably about the ObamaCare cases. “A possible misunderstanding about President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul could cloud Supreme Court deliberations on its fate, leaving the impression that the law’s insurance requirement is more onerous than it actually is,” claims the AP:

During the recent oral arguments some of the justices and the lawyers appearing before them seemed to be under the impression that the law does not allow most consumers to buy low-cost, stripped-down insurance to satisfy its controversial coverage requirement.

In fact, the law provides for a cheaper “bronze” plan that is broadly similar to today’s so-called catastrophic coverage policies for individuals, several insurance experts said.

The AP and its so-called experts are trying to confuse rather than clarify matters. (The AP abandon impartiality in the service of the Dimocratic Party….say it ain’t SO!) The government’s argument is that because “everybody is going to need” health care, the mandate that individuals buy insurance does not conscript people into commerce but merely “regulates” commerce in which they were going to engage anyway. This is dubious for several reasons, but here is the objection the AP now claims to be answering:

“If I understand the law, the policies that you’re requiring people to purchase . . . must contain provision for maternity and newborn care, pediatric services and substance use treatment,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “It seems to me that you cannot say that everybody is going to need . . . substance use treatment or pediatric services, and yet that is part of what you require them to purchase.”

And here is the AP’s rebuttal:

The law’s bronze plan isn’t exactly robust coverage. It would require policyholders to spend thousands of dollars of their own money before insurance kicks in. That’s how catastrophic coverage works now.

It means anyone–particularly younger, healthy people–can satisfy the health care law’s insurance requirement without paying full freight for comprehensive coverage they may not need. . . .

On the surface, the minimum benefits requirement does seem to mandate comprehensive coverage. But another provision of the law works in the opposite direction, and the two have to be weighed together.

This second provision allows insurance companies to sell policies that have widely different levels of annual deductibles and copayments. A “platinum” plan would cover 90 percent of expected health care expenses, but on the bottom tier a bronze plan only covers 60 percent. Employer plans now cover about 80 percent.

Do you see the problem here? The AP is confusing a difference of degree (coverage at 60% vs. 80% or 90%) with a difference of kind (coverage of catastrophic vs. inessential services). (Quite purposefully in our opinion.) Bronze-plan buyers would still have to purchase coverage for all the services the chief justice mentioned, it’s just that the policy is cheaper because the benefits are less.

The bronze catastrophic benefits are less, too, so that the ObamaCare policy would be a lousy deal for someone who needs catastrophic coverage but not all the mandatory bells and whistles.

MSM bias….WHAT bias?!?

Finally, in the “The Expert Equivalent of Voting ‘Present'” segment, courtesy today of Best of the Web and CNN.com, Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz really goes out on a limb:

“On the basis of the evidence currently in the public record, one likely outcome of the case against George Zimmerman is a mixed one: There may be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to indict him for manslaughter, but there may also be doubt sufficient for a reasonable jury to acquit him. Any such predictions should be accepted with an abundance of caution, however, because the evidence known to the special prosecutor, but not to the public, may paint a different picture. It may be stronger or weaker.”

Hey, no guts, no glory!  In other words, the “expert” doesn’t know any more than any random person on the street.

Magoo