Jodi Arias Trial -- More From the Prosecution and My Questions For Jodi

The prosecution has methodically taken down Jodi's claims, exposing them as more lies.

They have effectively proven that if Travis was shot first he would not have been able to continue grabbing at her or have the ability to do anything that could be perceived as being a continued threat. He was alive when he was cut across the neck; this act was clearly done before the gunshot.

Travis did not have any images of women or other inappropriate content on his computer.

Travis did show Jodi affection in public. A friend of Travis testified to this while supplying the court with a video and picture as his proof.

Jodi made three purchases at a gas station, each of which was for gas specifically. The amount of gas purchased would have required her to have three gas cans, not two. Furthermore there is absolutely no record of her ever returning a gas can to Walmart. She specifically claimed on the stand that she, "never signed anything" but this is a requirement for returns at Walmart, as is a requirement for any retail store I've ever been to.

The license plates on her rented vehicle, one being completely removed the other being affixed  upside down,  were explained by Jodi with two different stories. First she told the police officer that she thought her friends were playing a prank on her. Then she tells the jury that she knew it must have been some "skaters" who were snickering by her car as she left Starbucks. Two completely different stories, both of them are obviously lies.

Jodi did not stand on a shelf to retrieve a gun that Travis did not own. Jodi took the gun from her grandparents' home where she was living. This .25 caliber just so happens to match the caliber that went through Travis' head.

Jodi's continued claims of being in a "fog" are illogical. Most people do remember things after they talk about them. Apparently the self-described, genius Jodi seems to have less memory pertaining to the murder. Surprisingly she can only recall the beginning of the incident where Travis is attacking her and where Travis is chasing her.

Travis does not have any pattern of domestic violence in prior relationships.

In a nutshell, Jodi obviously planned this murder and did practically everything she could to cover-up her involvement. She continued to lie and make up stories. When all else failed she pulled out the self-defense card, still refusing to reconcile facts that do not match her latest story.

I am anticipating the close of this case but it seems some more expert witnesses will be called by both the defense and prosecution. We are being told that closing arguments will begin on Thursday.

In a fantasy world Jodi would tell the truth. Just for entertainment purposes, I have come up with some questions I would like her to answer.

Q: Jodi, you have claimed that you are a photographer but in the pictures that you took the day that Travis was killed, the photos are mainly dark, out of focus, and do not look professional. Can you explain why?

Q: Why is there no record of Travis ever owning a gun? Since you have been proven to be a liar, why should anyone believe that you didn't steal the .25 caliber gun from your grandparents? This same caliber was used to shoot Travis in the head.

Q: If you were scared to go on a camping trip with some male friends to the point where you felt you needed to purchase a gun for protection, why would you even consider going in the first place? Why should we not believe that this was anything other than telling us you are willing to kill again?

Q: What happened to the rope or twine you claimed Travis tied you up with? Did this event ever actually occur?

Q: Why did you move back to California if you seemed to have no interest in cutting off communication with Travis?

Q: In your interview with detective Flores you said you thought Travis had found a woman he would like to marry. If this is what you honestly believed, and you knew that you would be an instigator of problems for this relationship if you carried on with him, why would you still continue making contact with him?

Q: There is no proof anywhere that shows or even suggests that you were afraid of Travis or that he was making demands of you. Why do you feel you were abused? Please provide proof that supports these feelings.

Q: Your memory issues only surface when it's beneficial to you. You claim that at some point you knew you had killed Travis. If this were self-defense then why didn't you immediately just go to the police with that story?

Q: I would like for you to do a demonstration. I will have someone body slam you on tile, and then you can show us how you rapidly got up and started running. The very idea that someone got body-slammed and were magically able to escape from the grips of their attacker makes no sense.

Q: At some point you have to be aware of how your lies have hurt you and others around you. Could you please explain when and why it was you started lying in the first place? Honestly explain what benefit you've received from this behavior.

Q: You have told us that you damaged Travis' car and he merely asked for you to repay him in very small increments of 100 dollars per month. Why would this same man attack you over a dropped camera?

Q: The injury on your hand is not from the finger being broken as you claim. It is clearly a sliced tendon. Why lie about this?

Q: It's obvious you dyed your hair before going to Arizona; you purchased one gas can that was not returned and borrowed the other two; you shut your phone off; you took your grandparents' gun; you insisted on renting a car that would be considered less noticeable, you turned your licence plate upside down and removed the other, all for the purposes of being able to travel through Arizona without detection. If this isn't premeditated murder than what did you do any of those things for and why would you lie about any of them?

Q: Do you really believe your story at Starbucks explaining how your licence plates got screwed up is plausible or believable? Why?

Q: Why do you think Travis had no desire to marry you? Why carry on with someone who made it clear to you and others he didn't want to marry you?

Q: If Travis was the abuser, why was it you were always showing up unannounced at his home?

Q: In the video we recently saw, you were laying in Travis' lap while he spoke to a few people around him, telling them a story. In this video you are clearly with Travis as a girlfriend yet you are the one who appears bored, tired, and uninterested. Many people who have seen this video see your actions and movements similar to someone who is jealous of the attention Travis is getting. Can you explain why you said he was never affectionate with you in public when this is untrue? Can you also explain your jealousy for Travis?

Q: After killing Travis, you made several attempts to cover up your involvement. You even called his voice mail, left him a text, and wrote him an email. Hours after the killing you were with another man. How can you explain these actions if you never had any intent on killing him?

Q: You whine about men cheating on you.  In fact, it could be said you cheated on Ryan when you went to Arizona. You didn't tell him you were going and you lied to him about getting lost. Why is this behavior okay for you but not for other men? Would you feel the same if Ryan had done this to you?

Q:; You have expressed concern over your church's  beliefs and how you have struggled to abide by them but you never attempted to make any changes moving in a more positive direction..Why would you belong to a church where you clearly had no intention of becoming a better member by making changes in your life?

-----------------------------

Well, that's about all I have so far. Even though there really is no reason to ask a pathological liar like Jodi any of these questions, it sure would be interesting to discover the answers were she ever to tell the truth.

Let's hope tomorrow is going to be the beginning of an end to this trial. I pray the jury makes the right decision.

I found this interesting video that was posted on http://jodiariasisabutcher.com/ 



Another reason I do not believe her when she says Travis was abusive to her has to do with her immediately running into the arms of Ryan, right after the murder! Abused women who finally get away are not interested in even looking at another man, let alone fully trusting another man, and they especially do not want to be kissing on them. From my own personal experience and from other women I know who have suffered at the hands of a violent male, battered women/victims of domestic violence become extremely apprehensive about getting involved with another man. It can take years for them to trust again and in some cases, never.

Again, it's just all lies and bs made up by Jodi. I truly believe she gets great entertainment from trying to fool people, even when she knows people don't believe her because she knows she is torturing people by not being honest about what happened that night. Most of all, she is torturing Travis' family. They will never know the truth because of her and this makes her pleased.

Jodi Arias Trial -- More Observations

This article has been transferred.

If you would like to read this article, please click here. 

Tucson Shooting Victim Exposes The Peaceful Side of Democrats

Just another peaceful, loving democrat. Isn't he sweet?

James Eric Fuller, 63, one of the victims of the recent shooting is showing the love and tolerance that all democrats display.

Gabrielle Giffords Is Improving

AP – FILE - In this March, 2010 file photo provided by the office of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Giffords poses …

Is is being reported that Gabrielle Giffords is slowly improving in her condition after being shot on Jan 8th by a crazy psychopath.

Obama's Message

President Obama greets Daniel Hernandez, a intern for Rep. Giffords who helped her after she was shot, at a memorial service in Tucson, Ariz.

You cannot have a tragedy without the left politicizing the event and who better to demonstrate this then the leader of all liberal lemmings, Obama. Obama went to Arizona, one of the "58 states" in his union, to deliver his "great" message to the American people.

Click title of post for article.

The article is all about how Obama was giving a message of doing things better. He says it's not discourse that caused this. So why even mention it? Why not just say nice things about the folks that lost their lives and condemn the idiot that did this? I do not understand why this man feels the need to provide such worthless commentary. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.

First he says:

"I believe we can be better," Obama said to a capacity crowd in the university's basketball arena and to countless others watching around the country.

"Those who died here, those who saved lives here — they help me believe," the president said. "We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us."

Then, he says:

Obama settled on a theme of challenging the country to have a debate that is worthy of those who died. He tapped into the raging debate about the role of incendiary rhetoric without dwelling on it. "Let's remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy. It did not," the president said.

So, what's he saying here? That debate didn't cause this but, that we need to debate better? I'm lost.

The president said it was OK, even essential, for the country to suddenly be debating gun control, mental health services and the motivations of the killer.

But then he added: "At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized — at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do — it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds," the president said.

If the discourse didn't cause it, why are you talking about it? No, it's NOT okay to talk about gun control. It's NOT okay to talk about anything that doesn't pertain to this matter. Let's focus on the victims and their lives.

This whole thing was caused by a nut job! You can't "make sense " of what a nut job does. Period. There's no logic in something like this. It has nothing to do with discourse. It has nothing to do with rhetoric. For years and years the media has put out stories, hyperbole, arguments, debate, anger, happiness, sadness, etc. you name it, and millions upon millions of people listen to all of it and, do NOT go around shooting anyone over it.

Give me a break! Why do liberals do this crap? Oh, that's right, they have a mental disorder. Look at me, I'm trying to make sense of what they are doing. Silly conservative, sickness is for liberals.

Majority of Americans Are Sane

AP – Jamie Saunders, of Tucson, Ariz., leaves a bouquet of flowers at a makeshift memorial at a local Safeway …

This just in...

...most of us are completely sane and, do NOT think political rhetoric *caused* the shootings in Arizona to occur. They even took a survey to prove it, which only further proves that the media IS insane, that they weren't able to come to this fact all by themselves.

I can't make this stuff up folks.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A majority of Americans reject the view that heated political rhetoric was a factor in the weekend shootings in Arizona which killed six and critically wounded a congresswoman, a CBS News poll said on Tuesday.

Since the Saturday incident in which Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot at point-blank range, various politicians and commentators have said a climate in which strong language and ideological polarization is common may have contributed to the attack.

Some of the analysts cited anti-government statements from the man arrested in the shooting, Jared Lee Loughner, as support for that view.

But CBS said its nationwide telephone poll found that, "57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did."

Rejection of a link was strongest among Republicans, 69 percent of whom felt harsh rhetoric was not related to the attack, while 19 percent thought it played a part.

Among Democrats 49 percent placed no blame on the heated political tone against 42 percent who did. Among independents the split was 56 percent to 33 percent, CBS said.

It said its poll of 673 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.
(Reporting by Jerry Norton; Editing by Jackie Frank)

Click title of post for article source.

Here We Go - Jerad Lee Loughner

The stories are rolling in about Jerad Lee Loughner.

First, he took a goofy mugshot. He seems quite happy, doesn't he?

I suppose this is what they mean when they say, "A face only a mother could love..." If that isn't an eerie photo, I'm not sure what one would be.

Federal officials released Loughner's mug shot, showing him smiling into the camera despite hints of a black eye.

"Yes, I am Jared Lee Loughner," said Loughner, with a freshly shaved head, when the Judge Lawrence Anderson asked him to confirm his identity.

Holding up a financial affidavit, Anderson asked the Loughner, "I can't read your signature. I know how hard it is to sign with handcuffs on. Did you sign this?"

Loughner, with a fresh bruise on the side of his head, leaned forward to look at the paper and responded, ""Yes I signed it. Mrs. Clarke did help me out." Mrs. Clarke refers to his court appointed public defender, Judy Clarke.

Every federal judge in the southern district of Arizona recused themselves from the case because one of Loughran's alleged victims was federal judge John Roll.

Source LINK. 

It is now being reported that Jerad's family was not cooperative in allowing for the FBI to have access to their home.

FBI agents working on the Gabrielle Giffords shooting encountered trouble gaining entry to the suspect's family home Monday morning.

Family members of Jared Loughner apparently had put on 4-by-4 double-thick plywood that blocked access to the front porch of their north Tucson home.

At about 12:25 p.m., agents began banging on the blockade, yelling, "This is the FBI. Let us in."

Some agents were sent behind the house, and they were able to get inside after talking to family members.

It's not immediately clear why the Loughner family had put up the blockade, but there were reports of at least one media representative who had gotten to the yard of the family home earlier in the day. Loughner remains in custody and has an appearance in federal court later Monday.

His former classmate is describing him as a "left wing pot-head." So much for those evil right-wingers.

A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as "left wing" and a "pot head" in a series of posts on Twitter this afternoon.

Caitie Parker did not immediately respond to our request for an interview, but her "tweets" in the hours after the shooting paint a picture of Jared Loughner as a substance-abusing loner who had met Giffords before the shooting. She says, Loughner described the congresswoman as "stupid and unintelligent."

We've confirmed that Parker and Loughner went to school together at Mountain View High School in Tucson and that both attended Pima Community College, so her claims of knowing Loughner seem to be legit.

Parker "tweets" that she and Loughner were in the band together and were friends until 2007 when he became "reclusive" after getting alcohol poisoning and dropping out of college.

She describes him as "quite liberal" and as a "political radical."

Below is a log of "tweets" posted by Parker beginning around the time of the shooting.

1. @antderosa it's loughner just checked my year book. less than 20 seconds ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to antderosa
2. @lakarune I haven't seen him since '07. Then, he was left wing. 25 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to lakarune
3. @noboa more left. I haven't seen him since '07 though. He became very reclusive. 27 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to noboa
4. @antderosa he had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in '06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical. 29 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to antderosa
5. @antderosa As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy. 33 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to antderosa
6. @antderosa he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class 35 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to antderosa
7. @antderosa He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question & he told me she was "stupid & unintelligent" 37 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to antderosa
8. @antderosa I can. That is him. 39 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to antderosa
9. @antderosa I went to high school, college, & was in a band with the gunman. This tragedy has just turned to horrific. 43 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone in reply to antderosa
10. Official I went to high school & college, & was in a band w/ the gunman. I can't even fathom this right now. about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhone
11. Saying Jared Laughner was the gunman. Really hoping that's not the same guy I went to HS with, really good friend. Freaking out right now!!! about 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhone
12. antderosa Arizona law enforcement official: "A person in the crowd shot back at the gunman." about 1 hour ago via TweetDeck

Here's another article I found that you might be interested in reading.

Oh, and the Arizona Sheriff is blaming Rush Limbaugh. You can't have a left wing radical do something without blaming Rush! 

The Arizona sheriff investigating the Tucson shooting that left U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded had harsh words today for those engaging in political rhetoric, calling conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh "irresponsible" for continuing the vitriol.

"The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said today.

"[Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences."

Limbaugh today railed against the media and Dupnik for trying to draw a link between the heated political climate and the shooting rampage, calling the sheriff a "fool." But Dupnik stood by his assertions.

"The vitriol affects the [unstable] personality that we are talking about," he said. "You can say, 'Oh no, it doesn't,' but my opinion is that it does."

That's most of the stories so far. 

Blaming the Right

Once we heard about the shootings in AZ, you just knew the next thing to come out of the left would be their utter intolerance for the right, and of course blaming talk radio for everything bad that happens.

Now, I don't know who this Jared Lee Loughner is but, so far, it appears as though he is a lefty, who I doubt has ever heard talk radio, let alone watch something like Fox News.

This article was brought to my attention by a friend of mine on Facebook, written by Paul Krugman (of course).

Just read the condescending attitude that comes off of this man's words, as if liberals would never engage in inflammatory rhetoric. 

The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger.

But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”

Eliminationist rhetoric? Excuse me? Has this guy even listened to talk radio? I've been listening to talk radio for well over 10 years now and, I have NEVER once heard any talk show host ever encourage anyone to go out and shoot people. Oh, wait. I did here Randi Rhodes on Airhead America make a big joke about shooting then president of the United States, George W. Bush.

Do talk radio show hosts make silly jokes? You be they do but, only a moron without a sense of humor would not know the difference but, not even in their jokes have I heard a call for violence. I do hear that stuff on the left. You bet I do. Go anywhere around the internet and you will find crazy lefties in almost ALL areas. Go to the Democrat Underground and you will constantly see people spilling their hatred of the right.

Krugman is a typical sanctimonious lefty, that loves to point to the right, without first looking in the mirror. He probably does the most vile things when he gets home at night but, is the first to complain about someone calling his precious Pelosi a naughty name.

I do not want to jump to any conclusions about who this Jared is or what his motivations were. You can see that on the very first post I made about the issue. Not only that but, I didn't even report about it right away because, I was waiting to see what else developed, what other information would become available. It doesn't matter if the guy identified himself as a lefty or, someone on the right, or a Tea Party guy. He was a lunatic. No NORMAL person does what he did. Period. I don't know any average democrats or Republicans that would act in such a disgusting manner.

As far as rhetoric, it comes from both sides and it's where you look. If Krugman wants to say it's from right wing talk radio however, I am calling BS! If you want to make accusations, that's perfectly fine but, he should do some more research and, find REAL sources to complain about, not make stuff up as he goes along.

Click title of post for full article.

Federal Judge Was Assassinated Due to Threat of Obama Agenda

European Union Times

A Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that the top US Federal Judge for the State of Arizona was assassinated barely 72-hours after he made a critical ruling against the Obama administrations plan to begin the confiscation of their citizen’s private retirement and banking accounts in order to stave off their nations imminent economic collapse, and after having the US Marshals protecting him removed.

According to this SVR report, Federal Judge John McCarthy Roll was the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona who this past Friday issued what is called a “preliminary ruling” in a case titled “United States of America v. $333,520.00 in United States Currency et al” [Case Number: 4:2010cv00703 Filed: November 30, 2010] wherein he stated he was preparing to rule against Obama’s power to seize American citizens money without clear and convincing evidence of a crime being committed.

The case being ruled on by Judge Roll, this report continues, was about bulk cash smuggling into or out of the United States that the Obama administration claimed was their right to seize under what are called Presidential Executive Orders, instead of using existing laws. The Obama administration used as support for their claim before Judge Roll, the SVR says, the seizing of all American citizens’ gold, in 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s signing of Executive Order 6102, which was ruled at the time to be constitutional.

 Click title of post for full article.

The Arizona Shootings

I am trying my best to filter all the information that is out there. I wanted to report on this earlier but, as you know, whenever something like this happens, it seems like different information is being passed on through a variety of sources. Everyone wants to get the full story but, how can you, when everyone seems to have a different story?



AFP/Getty Images/John Moore


I happened to be relaxing over the weekend when I heard the news about someone shooting a senator in AZ. Of course, this information was relayed to me from my dad, so I figured he got the story wrong somehow. He did. She is a congresswoman from AZ.

Jared Lee Loughner, is being charged with an assassination attempt on Gabrielle Gifford. He killed a total of 6 and injured/wounded 14 others. One of these victims was a 9 year-old, Christina Greene. It is being reported that the Westboro Baptist Church (remember those scumbags?), is going to be protesting at her funeral. I don't know why. Protesting a child's funeral? How low can these people get?

Click title of post for full story.

The shooting spree in Tucson on Saturday has fueled debate about extreme political rhetoric in the United States after an acrimonious campaign for congressional elections in November.

Loughner was due to appear in court in Phoenix at 2 p.m. MST (4 p.m. EST) on Monday, the Justice Department said, as reports emerged of a troubled man who had been asked to leave a local college for disruptive behavior.

He will be represented in court by Judy Clarke, the lawyer who defended Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, the federal defenders' office said. "Our understanding is that Judy Clarke is who is assigned to the case and she has accepted," said Manny Tarango, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney in Phoenix.

Investigators said they had found an envelope at Loughner's residence with the handwritten phrases "I planned ahead" and "My assassination," along with the name  "Giffords" and what appeared to be Loughner's signature.

The suspect opened fire with a semi-automatic Glock pistol while the Democratic congresswoman was attending a political meeting in a supermarket parking lot. U.S. federal judge John Roll and a 9-year-old girl were among the six people killed.

Giffords, a 40-year-old Democrat, was in critical condition after surgery, but was able to follow simple commands, such as holding up two fingers when asked, doctors at University Medical Center in Tucson said.
A single bullet traveled the length of her brain on the left side, hitting an area that controls speech. Given the devastating wound, doctors said they were uncertain about the extent of brain damage she may have suffered.
She has been put into a pharmaceutical coma but was being awakened frequently to check her progress.

"There are obvious areas of our brain that are less tolerant to intrusion," said Dr. Michael Lemole. "I don't want to go down the speculation road but at the same time we're cautiously optimistic."

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said a wounded woman, identified by CNN as Patricia Maisch, had grabbed away an ammunition magazine from the gunman as he tried to reload after shooting into the crowd. He managed to fit in another magazine but it jammed and he was tackled by two men.

So, who is this guy?  Jared Lee Loughner is obviously an unstable man but, what motivated him to go out and do such a horrible thing?

According to Hillbuzz, this Jerad may have been a liberal posting on The Daily Kos. It is NOT confirmed.

IS DAILY KOS INVOLVED IN ARIZONA MURDERS? “My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!” — eerie Daily Kos hit piece on Gabrielle Giffords just two days before assassination attempt; repeated use of word “dead” in relation to Giffords just 48 hours before she and a dozen others were fired upon. UPDATE: Daily Kos scrubs “dead to me” thread but screengrabs document everything; UPDATE: school classmates and former friends describe shooter Jared Lee Loughner as committed Leftist

 Apparently, this is his youtube page.

I don't know. I'm doing my best to find the best information but, the truth is, we just don't know for sure who this guy really is.

Arizona Beheading

CHANDLER, Ariz. (AP) - The gruesome case of a man who was stabbed and beheaded in a suburban Phoenix apartment has police investigating whether the killing is potentially the most extreme example of Mexican drug cartel violence spilling over the border.

Martin Alejandro Cota-Monroy's body was found Oct. 10 in a Chandler apartment - his severed head a couple feet away. One man suspected in the killing has been arrested, and a manhunt is under way for three others.

Detectives are focused on whether the men belong to a Mexican drug cartel, and they suspect that Cota-Monroy's killing was punishment for stealing drugs. The brutal nature of the killing could be designed to send a message to others within the cartel.

Read more here. 

Judges Skeptical of Arguments Concerning AZ Immigration Law

I'm not sure what the argument here is. The Obama administration is ridiculous. They are spending our money to fight for not doing what the state of AZ is doing on their behalf. The man should be impeached for this as far as I'm concerned.

Arizona Monday asked appellate judges to let it put into effect a controversial crackdown on illegal immigrants, saying the state bordering Mexico had to step in when the federal government had failed.


Arizona's law using state and local police to determine immigration status has become a national political issue, and the court hearing came a day before the United States votes in elections expected to sharply diminish the Congressional support of President Barack Obama, whose administration sued to stop the law.

The three-judge panel considering whether to let a temporary hold on the law stand while the constitutionality of the statute is weighed showed skepticism toward arguments from both sides, and asked questions that could open the way to allowing parts of the law to go into effect.

Click title of post to read more. 

Gaga is Now Political?

Kravitz/Getty

Well, I don't know about you but, this Lady Gaga sort of just came out of nowhere. Like the rest of her cohorts, Gaga has decided to voice her opinion against AZ's new immigration law. Does this (explicative) even know what the hell is going on in Arizona? In this country? Does she even realize that the majority of the people across the entire country support AZ? 

Stick to singing and being scantily clad because, you're 24 years old and, you don't know anything about politics.

Immigration Ruling

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has ruled that the federal government does have an argument- that the federal government immigration enforcement trumps the state law. 

Gov. Jan Brewer called Wednesday's decision "a bump in the road" and vowed to appeal. The key sponsor of Arizona's law, Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, said the judge was wrong and predicted that the state would ultimately win the case.

Click title of this post for full article.

In her temporary injunction, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. She also barred enforcement of parts requiring immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places - a move aimed at day laborers that congregate in large numbers in parking lots across Arizona. The judge also blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

I am aware of precedents where the federal law trumps state law. The problem here is that the federal government has done nothing to help states with illegal immigration. They have turned a blind eye to the problems that are being faced with a high influx of illegals.

How can the courts rule against what the people have voted on? There is nothing illegal about it, considering it's already the law of the land. This is the judiciary branch trying to legislate from the bench.You cannot make laws from the bench.

Even if the federal government wins, it's the locals that are ultimately the ones that will be expected to enforce the law. So, how can the federal government complain about a state wanting to do what should be done already? There is no logic here.

Safe Exodus For Illegals

Illegals are leaving AZ but, a group called Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), are asking for safe passage. They want illegals to leave without fear of being in trouble at the border.

Click title of post for full story.

I cannot understand the people that are working against enforcing our immigration laws. It is beyond logic for Obama and his administration to be against the voters that so badly want our laws to be enforced. What is he trying to do, other than gain votes? This is all a ploy to play to the minorities.

What these morons do not realize (I think many of them do actually),  is that they are hurting Americans as well as the immigrants. Immigrants are not protected. They do not receive minimum wage. They work for slave wages, and I would imagine, they also work in conditions that most likely do not fall under OSHA standards. If one of them is hurt, workman's comp is not available. What about who these people rent from? What if a pipe breaks? What if the landlord doesn't do anything about it? Where is the illegal supposed to go? They are second class and, are not treated the same.

By supporting illegals, you are supporting people in this country treating illegals like slaves. Let's not forget that the Democrats have always been the party of the slaves. First they wanted blacks to be slaves, that ended up backfiring, so they decided to make them volunteer slaves by telling them how much of a victim they all are. Now, they have the Mexicans. They want the Mexicans here so they can abuse them and use them. Bottom line, if Democrats* really cared, they would want immigrants to be here legally and, to be protected.

*Obviously, I am not referring to ALL Democrats. I happen to know several that are absolutely tired of illegals.

Mexico To Sue Arizona

I about fell out of my chair when I read this story. You read the title right. Mexico is going to sue the state of AZ over the recent law concerning immigration that was passed.

I'm so confused. Since when can another country sue our government over immigration policy? Who in the hell do they think they are, trying to dictate OUR immigration laws? Even though Mexico's immigration laws are similar to what AZ passed, they somehow think it's their right to sue AZ.

This has got to be a damned joke! What in the hell are we even accepting this lawsuit for? My head is going to explode!

Mexico is worried about racial profiling?! I hope they racially profiling. If you're looking for a serial killer, I hope you're looking for a white guy, since those are who typically fill that profile. If you're looking for illegals, they are typically MEXICAN in the state of AZ. It's called common sense people. If Mexico is looking for illegals, they aren't going to be looking for people that look Mexican! Why is it that some people are so hell bent on taking away common sense out of America?

Click title of post full article.