Thursday, July 25, 2013

Innocent Blood

The trial is over, the verdict spoken, and now, every day, the sights and sounds of that awful moment, that moment when a single shot rang out, and a young man lay breathing his last as the lifeblood drained from his punctured body, will ever remain, etched for all eternity in the psyche of that man who pulled the trigger, and released the bullet that went crashing into flesh, rupturing the heart, and ending life.
            There was a cry of anguish, a much debated cry.  Some said it was Zimmerman’s cry they heard; some said it was Martin’s, while others said they did not know, or were not sure.  But could it be that the voice was none of the above?  Could it be that what was heard was the voice of innocent blood crying from the earth unto God for vengeance?
            When Cain killed his brother Abel, no one saw him; no one that is but he who never sleeps nor slumbers.  So who accused Cain? No one; but the innocent blood already seeping into the earth cried out; for blood is life, and the life of man is in the blood; and the blood of man is made by God to reside in the veins not the earth.  So it cried out unto God.
            I suggest that Martin’s blood cried out to God; and God will require it at the hands of Zimmerman.  For it is written, “Your blood of your lives will I require at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.  Whoso sheddeth man’s blood by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God made He man.” (Gen. 9: 5-6) 

            The day of reckoning may sometimes be postponed, and may appear slow in coming; but always does come when the King of Kings sits on His throne of judgment.  

Rev. Dr John S Weekes

Tuesday, July 23, 2013


Salvation cannot be dispensed, and cannot be obtained by the distribution of opiates or sugar coated candy drops. The only way to salvation is by way of the cross through acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior. There is no other means, and no other mediator. “For he that calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”  This means and can only mean that a person must do three things, namely:
                1              Confess (acknowledge) he is a sinner,
                2              Conclude that he needs to forsake his sin
                3              Call upon the name of Jesus, and ask him to save him.
                Now this is where the Preacher comes in; for Scripture poses these pertinent questions.
                “ How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in    him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom 10:14)
                As preachers called of God, it is our solemn duty to preach the untainted word and be instant in and out of season.  Sin is not a popular topic.  That is why so many preachers find it more profitable to talk about tithes and offerings than about sin.  But that is not what God wants or calls His preachers to do. There’s more sin in the world all around us than anything else.  We can try to ignore it, but it just will not go away.
                The three deadliest sin in America today are Sodomy, debauchery, and butchery. And while we try to dress them in gay and gorgeous costumes, sin like cancer is eating away at out bodies, our souls and our consciences, and leaving us nothing but empty and decaying skeletons.  The bells of liberty make a deafening din; but through it all there is still the sickening sin.   

Rev Dr John S Weekes
Pastor/Founder, Gateway to Heaven Church

July 22, 2013   

Charles King in the Times of the Antichrist

The British Royal Household, the people of Britain, the Commonwealth, and the rest of the world, are celebrating a new birth; the birth of a young child, great grandchild of the reigning Monarch, Elizabeth II.
                The child born a day ago is yet unnamed; but he is earmarked to be the third in line to ascend the British throne; but before him stands his own father William, and his grandfather, Charles the Prince of Wales.
                But will the young child ever inherit the throne? The answer says me is highly unlikely; for if he does it would more that likely be at a time when kings and kingdoms wouldn't matter.
                The Queen is 87, and judging by the longevity of her forebears, her mother lived for over a hundred years, there is every reason to believe that she too will live and reign until she herself is at least one hundred.
                However, I wonder about the mental health of the Queen.  Constitutionally, she is a mere figurehead.  Her role is purely symbolic, parading back and forth as head of the Commonwealth and the Nation; yet her unifying and symbolic influence cannot be denied. Of great importance is her duty to sign legislation before it becomes law; but she does have the power of veto which admittedly she has not exercised in a long time.
                Notwithstanding, I question her mental health because the queen of the sixties and seventies would not in my view have given her Royal Assent to a bill legalizing gay marriages.  But she did, and one wonders if she even knew what she was signing, or if she did, if holding on to her position as Queen and continuing to receive her Royal Lists were more important to her than principle.
                Be that as it may, age wise, and the possibility of “novus actus interveniens” excepted, the Queen could be at least a hundred years old before she dies or retires.  The Prince of Wales, that bull frog, that grumpy old man her son, is now 64, and although I do sincerely wish that he never ascends the throne, chances are he will, by which time he will be 77 years of age.
                Will Charles abdicate in favor of his son William?  I don’t think so.  To my mind, he is a rude, selfish, surly and offensive individual, whose only purpose in life is to become king. If it appears that I don’t like him, you would be right.  I was never fond of his demeanor; but what clinched it for me was his gross insult and disrespect towards my daughter.
                While my daughter was attended university, it was announced that Prince Charles was to visit.  The young ladies decided to present a bouquet of flowers to him and the lot fell upon my daughter to make the presentation.  And what do you think, His Royal Highness, Prince Charles, said to my sweet innocent daughter? “Who put you up to this? You little buggers will get up to anything.”  Now was that a nice thing for a Prince of the Realm to say to a young lady?  Would any gentleman say such a thing?
                My daughter and I were very close; but she was so embarrass that she never told me about it until many years had passed.  An American client of mine had seen the article in a New York paper, and seeing the name, thought the young lady in the picture might have been related to me.  So he cut it out and sent it to me.  I kept it in my wallet until one day when my daughter and I were together and I suddenly remembered the clipping.  “Oh that she said with disgust, as she deflated my pride by recounting her experience.
                Anyway, Charles will eventually become king around the year 2026 and within five to ten years thereafter, the most dramatic and momentous event in the history of mankind will take place; the Rapture.  It will be a time of Jacob’s trouble.  It will be a time of unprecedented, lawlessness, unrest, hunger, famine, murder, rape, wars, and confusion. Charles and his Royal household will go into hiding.  There will be no throne to occupy.
                However, assuming I am wrong about these predictions, and assuming that Charles, too, lives to be a hundred, it will be 2049 before his son William, the newborn’s father will be eligible to inherit the throne.  And should he too, reign for his full term of a hundred years, it will be 2082 before the young prince the third in line will be eligible to sit on the throne, plus or minus 10 years, or 2072.

                But in my vision for the future, I see, Charles on the British throne in the end times; the times of the Antichrist.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

In A Few Words

In a few words, everyone seems to be blaming the Trayvon Martin verdict on the "stand your ground law." The truth is, racial bias, not the law is the problem. Looked at logically, Zimmerman was the aggressor. He went after Martin with a gun. The intention to kill has to be inferred since that is exactly what he did. If Martin had initially stood his ground, he could have killed Zimmerman under the law. But he retreated as the common law required. When Zimmerman caught up with Martin, he was in law still standing his ground. If he had killed Zimmerman, he would be still within his rights; but Zimmerman killed him, making Zimmerman, the aggressor without any legal defense. Call it racial bias, hatred, whatever; but that is what needs to be addressed primarily.

Monday, July 15, 2013

Justice for Trayvon Martin

Zimmerman v Martin
A White Washed Jury
In A White Washed Trial
The Jury has spoken, says the President; but the question is has justice spoken?
            I have heard a number of biased and prejudicial pronouncements on both sides of the racial divide, and I have no intention of adding any further fuel to the fire; but I do think that a lot of questions remain to be asked, and answers provided.  One outstanding question of course is, has justice been served?  George Zimmerman was arrested, tried and set free.  So is that the end, should it be the end of the matter?
            First of all, a brief rehash of the known facts and circumstances that gave rise to this nationally debated matter would be in order.
            On a certain evening, Trayvon Martin was in a certain neighborhood.  His ordinary place of residence was in Miami, Florida, and he was there in Sanford visiting his father. 
            On that evening he had done a little shopping and was returning home when he was spotted by George Zimmerman, who apparently took objection to this black boy in his neighborhood. He reported the boy’s presence to the police and was told to leave him alone. 
            Zimmerman was not satisfied; so armed with a gun he decided to go after Martin and having accosted him shot him dead.
            Clearly only Zimmerman and Martin knew exactly what happened immediately before the fatal shot was fired. Martin is dead and Zimmerman alone was left to say what happened or did not happen.
            Clearly Zimmerman could have taken the position, “I caught him and shot him dead,” or “I got into an altercation with him and the gun went off accidentally,” or he could say, as he eventually claimed that Martin attacked him and he stood his ground and shot Martin because at some stage his life was in danger.
            Now, it would seem to any level headed, conscientious, justice-fearing person, that once the report was made to the police, the proper course would have been to arrest Zimmerman and then go about gathering evidence, and see where the facts led them. But contrary to all rules of common sense, and investigative procedure and precedence, the police acted as judge and jury, and decided not to arrest Zimmerman. But not only that it is asserted that the police went further and aided and abetted Zimmerman by providing him with a defense to murder, by either with his consent inflicting superficial wounds on him or advising him, and or helping him to inflict those wounds on himself. 
            It is already well documented that several hours elapsed before the dead boy’s family was informed, and it is averred that they used that time in preparing his defense of self defense.  But in any event as has been said above an impartial police would have at least arrested first and investigated after.  This was not a report of a battery or a stolen car.  A young boy, some body’s son had been killed.
            Nationwide public protests forced the police to make an arrest, and after a year, and much public interest, a trial was put on.
            Let me say here and now that in my view, it was nothing more than a mock trial, a farce.  I must confess that armed with this belief, I did not attend, and I did not listen to all of the evidence; but I must say that such as I listened to or saw, cemented my earlier opinion that it was a trial of appeasement rather than a trial in pursuit of justice.
            Firstly, I confess that I did not know that a murder trial could be conducted with only six jurors deciding.  That’s a farce in itself.  When in 1791 the sixth amendment to the Constitution was passed, the framers would have said, certainly not, to any suggestion that a jury of one’s peers could be 6, the standard at that time being 12 good men and true.
            When the amendment spoke of an impartial jury they meant 12 men who had no interest in the case except that of doing justice.  The provision for an impartial jury would suggest that they must not be biased and should represent a fair cross section of the accused’s peers from within his community.
            I would contend that 6 jurors do not represent a sufficient cross section.  12 Jurors was the accepted norm; and although I have seen that number reduced to 9 in non capital cases in small communities for logistical purposes, 6 is unrepresentative of the letter and spirit of the amendment. 
            In addition, women were not qualified to sit on jurors or to vote at the time of the passing of the 6th amendment.  So that would constitute a further reason why one may argue that the spirit of the amendment has been violated.
            Another peculiarity with the jurors is not only the number 6, but 6 white women.  Could 6 white women be said to be representative of Martin’s Peers? But oh yes, Zimmerman not Martin was on trial and 6 white women were representative of Zimmerman’s peers.  True but that is my point exactly, justice for Martin should have been on trial too; his freedom, his life, his death, were on trial, and he aught to have been represented.
            Secondly, the few times I listened in or watched, I was utterly disgusted with what I saw and heard.  Where is the prosecution, where is the judge? I proclaimed more than once.  The defense was having it all their own way.  I heard a witness on the stand, not an expert witness, being led by the defense to give evidence by drawing conclusions and inferences, and state opinions that only the jury in a criminal trial is allowed to draw or state. The Prosecution did not object and the judge did not intervene.  At that moment I told a friend of mine this is a pantomime.
            Thirdly, the prosecution never at any stage, advance a sensible theory of its own, concerning the events surrounding the shooting.  What they did was to build the prosecution around the defense’s false claims. When, therefore, I saw prosecuting counsel on the floor playing with the defense’s dummy, I sometimes couldn’t quite determine which was counsel, and which was the dummy.
            Obviously, apart from pleading guilty, what was Zimmerman to do if he wanted to escape punishment for his crime?  He had to come up with a defense and self-defense was the only one available to him.  And to construct self defense he had to construct a fight, which it would seem even the prosecution naively went along with.
            My own construct is that Zimmerman chased and caught up with Martin and gun in hand, asked him to lie flat on the ground. Martin lay on his back, terrified and started to scream. Zimmerman sat on top of him and grabbed his shirt. Martin reached up to grab hold of Zimmerman whereupon Zimmerman shot him.  All of this time, Martin was yelling and screaming for help and or mercy. That is why the evidence shows that once the fatal shot was fired the cry for help stopped.
            This is in fact such a simple case of murder, it is not funny.  The Defense say there was a fight.  So let us examine that further.  A man is stalking you with a gun.  You run, and he follows you. You try to hide and he comes upon you. He points the gun and you spring at him as your only fair chance, after a short scuffle he shoots you. The gun did not go off accidentally, he shoots you. What exculpates him? Could he then claim he shot you because you fought back, when he hunts you down with intent to kill you?
The one element that the prosecution would have to prove in this scenario would be the intent.  What Zimmerman intended to do when he went after Martin.  If I were prosecuting this case, that would have been my one main concern.  If there was evidence from which the intent could be reasonably inferred, I would nail him. If not I would still have a second bite at him for a lesser charge of manslaughter on the basis that he was performing a dangerous act the natural consequence of which caused the death of Trayvon Martin.
            Fourthly, I must be clear that apart from my objection of having 6 white women try the case, I do not impeach their verdict based on the weak way in which the prosecution presented its case.  I am led to question whether they were just acting, white washing or doing their incompetent best.
            I listened to the whole of the O J Simpson case and concluded that the defense was brilliant particularly because the prosecution was so hopeless. I also watched most of the Tracy Anthony case and determined that both the prosecution and defense were bungling, and that the defense did not win, as much as the prosecution lost. In both cases, the juror’s verdict was the proper one having regard to the way the evidence was presented.  In the premises, I cannot fault the jury in this case either.
            Fifthly, I really was not impressed with the role the judge played. She appeared to have given the defense a whole lot of leeway to introduce prejudicial evidence as well as opinion evidence, for instance the evidence about crimes in the area committed by black men.  How does that feature into a reason for shooting an innocent black boy?  As counsel for the defense I would never introduce such evidence as a skilful prosecutor could cause it to backfire, as it tends to show racial profiling, a fact which I hope the Federal Prosecutor will take into account in its future determination to charge or not to charge with a Federal offence.
            Those facts notwithstanding, I would have thought that the prejudicial value of the “crimes in the neighborhood evidence committed by black men,” was inadmissible and irrelevant in addition to the fact that its prejudicial value far outweighed its evidential value, unless its admission was for exactly that purpose.  Someone suggested that the judge smiled broadly when the verdict was read.  But who am I to say when or why, or what amuses a judge that should cause a smile?              
            I regrettably conclude, therefore, that justice was neither done, nor manifestly appeared to have been done in the case of the death of Trayvon Martin.
Rev Dr John S Weekes

July 15, 2013.

Monday, July 1, 2013

Murder Pure and Simple

A Case of Cold Blooded Murder
Irrespective of any issues of black or white, or any other irrelevant ways the truth may be shaded, or divided, Zimmerman’s slaying of that youth Trayvon Martin was cold blooded murder pure and simple. 
            Accordingly the ongoing trial of Zimmerman for second degree felony is nothing but a farce, an exercise in futility being acted out to assuage public outcry and anger.
            True I was not there.  I am not an eye witness to the crime; but surveying the known facts, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened on that fatal day.
            There was a young boy going about his business and not interfering with anyone.  Whether he had previously taken drugs, a school dropout or otherwise, none of those things has anything to do with the fact that he was murdered.
            There on the other hand was a grown man with a gun.  He took offence to the fact of the very presence of this young man in his neighborhood.  He decided to chase him out or kill him. He approaches the young man gun in hand.  The young man begins to run.         “Stop,” he shouted, “or I’ll shoot.” 
            The young man stops running.
            Zimmerman, gun still in hand walks up to the young man. 
            “Lie on the ground, hand behind your back.  No lie on your back, so I can see your ugly face,” Zimmerman further ordered.
            The young man began to cry for mercy. “Don’t kill me,” he pleaded.  “Don’t shoot me.”  But Zimmerman pulls the trigger.  The young man is dead. 
            Zimmerman runs to his house and calls his father.
            “What do I do daddy?  I just shot a black man”
            “What happened,” his father asked.
            He told his father what happened,
            “Go bang your head against a wall and plead, you were standing your ground.”
            “What do you mean, daddy?”
            “Say you were attacked by that young ruffian and you had to shoot him.  Leave it to me I will talk to the police.”
            We know that Zimmerman was not arrested initially.  His Daddy saw to that.
            If you think the foregoing is fanciful, consider these facts.
            We know that Zimmerman had a gun.  He saw the youth afar off.  If he decided to go after the youth, would he not go gun in hand?  When he approached the youth, he would have seen the gun.  Would Martin rush an older bigger man who had a dun drawn on him?
            How did Zimmerman, if he is to be believed get on the ground? How did Martin get on top of the gun touting Zimmerman?
            To believe Zimmerman’s account, one would have to be both bigoted and irrational.
            Accordingly, I assert that Martin’s killing was murder pure and simple, and cannot be construed in any other way?
            Will a jury find Zimmerman guilty of even second degree murder?  The odds are against it.