Tag Archives: George Zimmerman

Hillary Encounters Heartbreak on the Path to 2016

Clinton Global Initiative America Meetings Begin In ChicagoOriginally posted at American Thinker

We learned last January that Mrs. Clinton believes that if a person is murdered, after the fact it doesn’t matter how or why.  And while that proclamation was perfectly acceptable to the Obama Administration when it came to the deaths of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods, and Glen Doherty, we’ve come to find out that if the decedent is black, that philosophy does not apply.

Hillary Clinton has expressed more sorrow over Trayvon Martin – a troubled teen whose death a jury unanimously decided occurred because Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman was defending himself – than she did over the deaths of four Americans that took place on her watch.

At the 51st annual convention of the Delta Sigma Theta, the largest African-American sorority, Mrs. Clinton expressed sentiments that were more appropriate for the Benghazi Four than they were for ‘Justice 4 Trayvon.’

Clinton shared with the sorority sisters that when she heard that the George Zimmerman verdict was not guilty, she reacted with great “heartache.” In a 30-minute speech pandering to 14,000 African-American women, the former Secretary of State said something that should have been directed toward the families of those who died in Benghazi: “My prayers are with the Martin family and with every family who loves someone who is lost to violence.”

Clinton continued: “No mother, no father, should ever have to fear for their child walking down a street in the United States of America.”  Nor should anyone’s child lose their life as a result of the negligence of a Secretary of State and an incompetent government that abandoned four men in their hour of need while in service to their country. 

Let’s put it this way:  Hillary and Obama were in charge of keeping those men and other Americans safe, but like a drunken chauffeur given the responsibility of getting a family home safe after attending a wedding, those who trusted the limo driver ended up dead.

Now, much to Clinton’s dismay, an unbiased citizen jury considered the evidence and decided that George Zimmerman was not guilty.  As a result Hillary, who, like Barack Obama, apparently doesn’t respect a judicial system rooted in what the president called a “fundamentally flawed” Constitution, now claims she suffered “deep painful heartache” when hearing the verdict.

The question for the woman who continues down the path toward 2016 unfazed by the four bodies lying in her wake is:  Where was the “deep painful heartache” when you were speculating about why terrorist militants attacked the Libyan consulate and killed four Americans?  And why, after acknowledging it was a terrorist attack and admitting that we needed to find out “what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing,” which is “still unknown,” have you moved on to bigger and better things?

On Benghazi, Hillary, who’s “looking backwards” on Trayvon, said the following:

But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

If she should run for president, it’s important that America remember that Hillary Clinton did say that regardless of whether it was “because of a protest” in Benghazi or because a guy like Trayvon was “out for a walk” on a dark rainy night, after a person is dead, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

And if what Mrs. Clinton says is true, that in regard to Benghazi “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again,” why then would she publicly decry a trial in Sanford, Florida that did what she said needed to be done in Benghazi, but still hasn’t been done?

‘Better Angel’ Obama Incites More Turmoil

imagesOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

Whenever Barack Obama “expands on [his] thoughts a little bit,” America is in for an eye-opener, which is exactly what happened when he recently crashed a press briefing to comment on the George Zimmerman trial.

Exposing his true colors, the president extended condolences to the Martin family and completely ignored the Zimmerman family, which has also endured considerable pain during what Obama admitted was a “tragic situation.”

Much like Michelle personalizing the fatal shooting of Hadiya Pendleton in Chicago, Barack Obama took the opportunity to make Trayvon Martin’s death about – you guessed it – Barack Obama. Exhibiting the height of narcissistic self-absorption, the president, having previously suggested that he could be Trayvon’s father, on this occasion declared that he could be Trayvon Martin himself.

Barack Obama takes responsibility for nothing. So rather than censure a rap culture or a political party that has cultivated a caustic mindset in black youth, again the president sought out scapegoats for the irate response he and other race-baiters are subtly encouraging in the black community.  Working hard to make sure bad memories linger, Obama blamed “a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away” for the agitated race-focused response to the not-guilty verdict.

Obama felt obliged to mention African-American men being followed in department stores, hearing “locks click on the doors of cars” when on the street, and getting wary reactions from women who “clutch their purses nervously” when riding in an elevator with a male person of color. Mr. Obama must be unaware that being alone in an elevator with a strange man, black or white, makes most women, black or white, feel uncomfortable.

The president claimed that before he was a Senator, he was racially profiled based on the color of his skin. Seeing as how Barry Soetoro’s race is unchanged, maybe it was the cloud of choom smoke surrounding him that singled him out.

Nonetheless, sounding almost like he was proposing leveling the playing field by way of some sort of legal affirmative action, the president said that “there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws — everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws.”

Elucidating that point, the president acknowledged that African-American boys like Trayvon Martin are “disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence,” which he insinuated “is born out of a very violent past in this country.”

Before Obama implied that there was “no context” for Trayvon’s death, he did admit that the African-American community understands that “somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than…by somebody else.”

However, this was right before assuming that if a white teen was afraid of being homosexually raped by a “creepy ass cracka” and demonstrated that fear by straddling and pummeling the presumed rapist about the head, the scenario would have resulted in hugs and a beer summit.

And while everything Obama said up to that point was disturbing, what followed was downright terrifying, because whenever the president poses the question “Where do we take this?” the answer never seems to be beneficial to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

Two potential fixes: federal government intrusion in the form of Eric ‘Fast and Furious’ Holder “reviewing what happened down there,” (meaning Florida of course, not Mexico), and Obama bouncing ideas off his staff (which means Valerie Jarrett).

For starters, one suggestion is federal/DOJ intrusion into local- and state-level law enforcement procedures. Touting one plan, Obama boasted: “When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation,” which collected “data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped,” and trained police departments “how to think about potential racial bias.”

From there, he segued into condemning stand-your-ground laws and asked if America is “sending a message …that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation.” In other words, the president supports Holder’s “duty to retreat” posture which, had the Union taken that advice during the Civil War, would mean that Barack Obama might not be in a position today to be addressing such topics.

Obama mentioned his own naïveté about the “prospects [for] some grand, new federal program,” his own “convening power,” the gathering together of (liberal-minded) “business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities [like Eva “Brainstormer” Longoria] and athletes,” to contribute better ways to help “young African-American men feel that… they’ve got pathways and avenues to” become president… er…”succeed.”

America’s first African-American president then put his own historical presidency aside when he asked, “Is there more that we can do to give [young black men] the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?”

After America has spent 40 years allowing feminism to emasculate all boys, regardless of color, maybe the President should propose caring about and investing in every American boy.

Following the heaping on of guilt, condemnation, and racial polarization, the president admitted that with a racially-sensitive eye, he observes Malia and Sasha s’ relationships with white friends and has concluded that “they’re better than we are — they’re better than we were — on these issues.”

And this from a man who asked America a self-righteous question that he should’ve been asking himself: “[a]m I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can?  Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character?”

Before wrapping up his performance with his signature tactic of instantly excusing himself from the situation he’s just exploited by pretending his derisiveness was a “teachable moment,” the man with lots of ‘soul’ soullessly encouraged “soul-searching.”  However, this time, before vanishing again, the always-manipulative, always above-it-all Obama suggested encouraging the “better angels of our nature, as opposed to” what he does when he uses these “episodes to heighten divisions.”

Racial Unrest and the ‘Duty to Retreat’

imagesOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

In response to the second degree murder acquittal of George Zimmerman, pro-Trayvon Martin supporters are expressing their displeasure with the verdict by storming shopping malls and pilfering drive-in markets.The point of the “tear up the city” rallies currently taking place across America is to loudly proclaim that an innocent teenager died because he had a run-in with a trigger-happy racist itching to kill a black boy.

In honor of Trayvon, bands of whipped-up teens are “running in and out of traffic, knocking people over on the sidewalks and snatching their belongings.” And so, rather than underscore Trayvon’s supposed virtuousness, roving marauders angered over the acquittal are substantiating the validity of Zimmerman’s claim that Trayvon broke his nose, threatened his life, and smashed his head on the sidewalk.

Sadly, as criticism is being directed toward the State of Florida, the duty to quell the anger of those wreaking havoc has taken a back seat to placating the race-baiters and convincing Americans that self-defense is never a viable option.

Meanwhile, in retaliation, innocent people are being preyed upon. Hollywood stars who employ armed personal bodyguards vow to boycott Florida because of stand-your-ground laws, the New Black Panthers placed a $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman’s head, and Jesse Jackson is inciting further animosity by calling the state of Florida an “apartheid state.” Civil rights leaders such as rape-hoax perpetrator Al Sharpton and Barack “Trayvon Martin could have been me” Obama seem more concerned with perpetuating a narrative of lingering racial bias than respecting established law.

Adding to the rancor, Eric Holder’, the man ultimately responsible for the distribution of “Fast and Furious” weaponry to Mexican drug cartels and the shooting death of two U.S. Border patrol agents, is self-righteously stirring up more fury by expressing the anti-self-defense opinion that if your life is in danger, you have a “duty to retreat.”

Someone should pull Mr. Holder aside and inform him that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in the process of retreating when he was brutally sodomized and murdered.

Nevertheless, the explanation could be that self-defense is joining self-reliance as one more concept anathema in Obama’s America, because according to the chief law enforcement official of the United States, if your life is threatened, lace up your running shoes because retreat is the only acceptable option, and if Holder gets his way, the only legal option as well.

And that makes sense, because retreat from individual responsibility and self-reliance has already been pretty well established. The next logical step in the dismantling of American society as we know it would be to convince those being attacked to retreat from preserving property, life, and above all liberty. In other words, to retreat from everything that being an American used to mean.

Still, racial injustice rallies remain irrational. The truth is that tacitly encouraging lawlessness further damages the theory that Trayvon was an innocent victim. The vigilante “Justice 4 Trayvon” group unintentionally gives George Zimmerman’s story more credibility. Yet the Trayvon sympathizers who possess the authority to make a difference have chosen to allow rowdy protesters to act in a manner contrary to what they insist was Trayvon’s demeanor on the night he was shot.

Indeed, protesters behaving in a manner similar to what the neighborhood watch captain claims he encountered on the night his nose was broken and his head cut up proves that, regardless of what Eric Holder says, Americans, now more than ever, have a “duty to [refuse to] retreat.”

‘Honor Trayvon’ by Ending the Black Genocide

black-baby-2Originally posted at American Thinker

As far as the Trayvon Martin situation goes, acquittal or no acquittal, the whole event and subsequent trial is a tragedy. And Skittles and iced tea or not, 17-year-old Trayvon should never have been lurking about in a hoodie between buildings on a dark rainy night in a townhouse complex. Now, regardless of how or why this boy died, a child is dead and will never have an opportunity to grow out of the typical youthful foolishness which ultimately cost him his life.

And for every hoodie-wearing thug out there who’s now blaming George Zimmerman for Trayvon’s death, know this: the behavior of those who give good, upstanding young black men a bad name are ultimately much more responsible for Trayvon’s death than one legally-armed American citizen defending himself against an out-of-control teenage boy slamming his “crazy ass cracka” head against a concrete walk.

Instead of blaming racism for profiling a black kid strangely meandering around in the dark on a drizzly night, how about placing the blame at the feet of all the black youth, like Trayvon, whose behavior on other occasions causes suspicion to be focused in the general direction of the larger population of perfectly innocent black teenage youth?

For example, has Michelle Obama discussed who killed 15-year-old Chicago schoolgirl Hadiya Pendleton in a drive-by shooting? Of course not, because the killers were two black youths: 18-year-old Michael Ward and 20-year-old Kenneth Williams, neither of whom look anything like George Zimmerman.

FBI records show that in 2005 alone, African Americans accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in the U.S. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics cited data showing that 93% of murdered blacks had the crime perpetrated on them by other blacks. That means if Trayvon had continued on in the direction in which he seemed to be headed, based on the rate that young black males die at the hands of other black males, Trayvon’s chances for survival were, at best, a crap shoot.

Then, the day after George Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder, the President of the United States chose to stir the race-baiting pot again by intimating that America should honor Trayvon by passing gun control:

I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities.

Barack Obama isn’t one to hide his disrespect for federalism or conceal his contempt for the legal system or the U.S. Constitution. The statement Obama made reveals that his motivation was to once again gain personal political expediency from someone else’s heartbreak.

Think about it: the president sheds tears over murdered children, but it’s always attached to advancing a specific political agenda. That’s precisely why, in some circles, as America’s most radical pro-abortion advocate, Barack Obama has zero credibility when discussing lives lost to gun violence.

As far as Obama is concerned, Trayvon Martin deserves kudos for delivering a big bang for his anti-Second Amendment buck. Nonetheless, if the Trayvon controversy should miraculously cool down, in due time someone else will come along and provide still more political capital for the president.

Rest assured, if need be, Mr. Obama will move on quickly from Trayvon, just as he moved from Tucson to Sandy Hook to any number of other tragedies he’s used as political causes.

Unfortunately, based on what went on in Sanford, Florida, certain African Americans fall into the same category as the president they blindly support.

Black Americans hung up on fomenting racial unrest or buying into the victim mentality lack credibility too, because although they cry racism over the tragic loss of Trayvon Martin, who they call one of their ‘babies,’ they have shed few tears over the extermination of actual babies taking place for the last 40 years in abortion clinics all over America.

While focused on Trayvon Martin, socially liberal black Americans continue to ignore the genocide that kills thousands of black baby boys (and girls) every day, many of whom, if given the chance to live, much like Trayvon Martin might have grown up to look like the son Barack Obama never had.

Does it matter that blacks constitute only 13% of the population but account for 36% of all the abortions that take place every year? Where are the tears, protest signs, and New Black Panther demonstrations for the deaths of innocent children who didn’t break anyone’s nose or smash anyone’s skull against a sidewalk?

For perspective, 13% of the U.S. population contributed 22,000,000 of the 60,000,000 children aborted since 1973. Each and every day in the U.S., approximately 1,876 black children are aborted. And yet pro-life people are supposed to believe that the angst over Trayvon’s untimely end is based on the black community’s respect for the sanctity of life?

In her fight to save the unborn, Erma Clardy Craven, the late Minnesota social worker and author of Abortion, Poverty and Black Genocide, once shared that, “17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California; some 12-15,000 were observed to be black.” Does the president care about them? Apparently not.

While Obama is asking America to “honor Trayvon” by doing what Obama wants, we forget that none of the 15,000 black babies found rotting in that dumpster in LA got the chance to wear a hoodie, shop for Skittles and fruit-flavored iced tea, or skulk around in the dark in a Sanford, Florida residential complex.

Suffice it to say, if only liberal blacks would spend just one day shouting as loudly about the systematic slaughter being perpetrated upon millions of their babies, the angry “Justice 4 Trayvon” stance would likely be better understood by those who disagree with their choice of poster child for racial injustice.

Q For the Left: Is Sarah Palin as Smart as Rachel Jeantel?

SarahPalinByDavidShankboneOriginally posted at Clash Daily

When liberals mock conservatives, the criticism is neither based in logic nor truth. That’s why instead of debating the issues in an intelligent manner, the left chooses instead to disparage political foes. One of their favorite tactics is to portray conservatives as mentally deficient morons.

Sarah Palin is a primary target of that sort of liberal derision, for both what she says and the folksy way in which she says it. George W. Bush was also victimized by the ‘he’s dumb as a stump’ drumbeat of ridicule that issued forth from the left.

Not for nothing, but liberals worship a man who pronounced “corpsman” as “corpse man,” and as a political party are sincerely convinced that just on the basis of being liberal, they and the “corpse men” they support possess the most brilliant of minds.

That is why, if an individual who furthers the liberal cause is found to be challenged in the intellect department, rather than apply the same criticism, liberals will do anything to explain away, oh let’s say, a black female’s inability to cobble together a coherent point.

Incoherency is what brings us around to Rachel Jeantel, star witness for the prosecution in the George Zimmerman trial. Perhaps Ms. Jeantel has the potential to express herself in a clear, respectful, and articulate way, but is caught up in a low-expectation culture that has shaped her into who she is.

Still, based on her abysmal diction, contemptuous demeanor, and basic disrespect for authority, it’s hard to believe that Rachel Jeantel possesses the cerebral capacity that liberals are now trying to establish on her behalf.

Then again, it could be that Rachel “made a lot more sense than you think,” just as Time magazine intimated in an article entitled “Rachel Jeantel Explained, Linguistically.” Time actually seemed to argue that people who don’t understand Rachel are the challenged ones, not Ms. Jeantel.

Television and media critic Eric Deggans of the Tampa Bay Times described Rachael’s inability to express herself as merely a problem with “code switching,” which Mr. Deggans describes thusly:

For linguists, code-switching describes the simple act of switching between two languages in a conversation. But in today’s increasingly multicultural, multi-ethnic society, the term’s deeper meaning involves shifting between different cultures as you move through life’s conversations — choosing your communication style based on the people you’re dealing with.

Mr. Deggans even went so far as to define Rachel Jeantel’s now infamous “creepy-ass cracka” comment as nothing more than a cultural problem exacerbated by Jeantel’s inability to adequately code-switch.

Of late, the Jeantel apologist maintains that the impression Rachel made during the trial was based more on the observer’s lack of cultural sensitivity than Rachel’s intellectual “shortcomings.”

Yet when Sarah Palin, who the left still considers to be “the queen of stupid”, said the following about Barack Obama: “Obama’s Shuck and Jive ends with Benghazi Lies,” Deggans accused Palin of using coded words to mask her prejudice. Thus, it’s unlikely Deggans would have described a favorite Sarah Palin expression, “wee-weed up,” as an inability for the former Alaska governor to code-switch.

Currently Rachel Jeantel is working the media circuit, toting along a lawyer and, from the looks of things, a stylist and probably a publicist. She’s spending her days acting as the official sage of gangsta thug culture, schooling liberals such as the completely engrossed Piers Morgan on things like the difference between the N-word ending with an “a” versus the N-word ending with an “-er,” the latter of which is the racist version while the former just means “a guy”.

On Piers Morgan Live, Jeantel provided a riveting explanation that clarified how “a” and “-er” make all the difference between a honky cracker and a security/law enforcement “creepy-ass cracka.”

For a little context, Piers Morgan is the man who laughed at the vile Bill Maher making sport of mocking Sarah Palin’s and Michelle Bachmann’s intelligence. Yet Piers seemed to actually take Rachel Jeantel seriously when she enlightened her detractors by pointing out an “under-bite that made it difficult for her to speak clearly.” Rachel Jeantel, a black woman with a dental malady, encapsulates everything necessary to merit an army of sappy liberal apologists to rally to her defense.

Proving her stunning lack of understanding when it comes to homophobia, Jeantel even went so far as to publicly assert that Martin was “creeped out” by Zimmerman following him after she suggested that George may have been a “rapist.” Morgan was riveted when Rachel posed the politically incorrect, difficult-to-decipher question, “For every boy or every man who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creeped out?”

The left is so wary of the potential negative impact that might result from disagreeing with a black female representing institutional racism in the US that her poorly thought-out suggestion that Trayvon Martin pummeled George Zimmerman because he thought he was a homosexual rapist was largely ignored by the gay rights lobby in the media.

In a “CNN Opinion” article entitled “Love Her or Hate Her, Rachel Jeantel is a Star,” Jason Johnson explained people’s negative perception of Rachel Jeantel as follows: “Part of it is because she is a dark-skinned, plus-sized girl from a low-income neighborhood who doesn’t speak the King’s English. With that profile, some viewers automatically see her as non-credible and uneducated[.]”

So, does that mean that if Sarah Palin had only been born a “dark-skinned, plus-sized girl from a low-income neighborhood who [didn’t] speak the King’s English” the left-wing media, regardless of her political persuasion, would have embraced her and seen her so-called gibberish as some sort of wisdom that lesser people fail to understand?

If that’s the case, there’s hope for Sarah Palin! Maybe Rachel Jeantel can help Palin brush up on her phraseology. Then, Sarah’s folksy style of speaking wouldn’t sound so stupid to liberals, and the former governor of Alaska will be viewed by the left as being almost as smart as Rachel Jeantel.

Election Year Civility: Obama’s Tucson Memorial vs. Trayvon Martin Reactions

Originally posted at Breitbart’s BIG Government

There was a time when liberals fancied themselves the keepers of civility.  Who can forget when, after the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy, the President spoke at a memorial in Tucson where he exhorted the nation to more courteous conversation by insinuating that right-wing hate speech had fueled the brutal attack on the Arizona congresswoman?

After the shooting, in one of his typical lectures to America, Barack “Together we Thrive” Obama maintained that “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.”

More recently, after the controversial shooting death of black Florida teen Trayvon Martin one can’t help but wonder if Barack Obama truly meant those words.

Based on his reaction to the racially-tinged incident in Sanford, Florida, it seems the President’s exhortation applies exclusively to political adversaries, because lately we’ve come to find out that if dissension should crop up anywhere besides Arizona, ‘pausing for a moment’ is apparently not something Barack Obama advocates.

The truth is, when comparing the hoodie-wearing congressmen, bounty-placing New Black Panthers, terror-tweeting Hollywood directors, and a President who has lots to say about conservatives’ conduct but remains mum when out-of-control liberals behave badly, indignant hypocrites on the left have succeeded in making Rush Limbaugh’s recent improper innuendos seem relatively benign.

After the shooting in Tucson that killed six people and injured 12, the President implored a stunned nation to embrace civility, saying, “For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.”

Yet, after uttering such cogent words, Obama has chosen to remain relatively silent as George Zimmerman, the man who claims that he shot a black teen in self-defense, is pursued by an outraged lynch mob chanting “No justice, no peace.”

Even more disturbing is the fact that those shunning the assistance of law enforcement are some of Obama’s closest friends.  The group attempting to avenge a death deemed by some to be the result of racial profiling that turned into a cold-blooded execution includes the New Black Panthers, Democrat ultra-liberals like Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Al Sharpton, and Hollywood progressives like Roseanne Barr.

Famous African-American “40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks” director Spike Lee even chose not to “do the right thing.” Jumping into the fray and hoping to direct an angry mob to George Zimmerman’s doorstep to accomplish God knows what, Lee tweeted out a home address he thought belonged to the perpetrator. Spike might as well have strung a noose on a tree outside the man’s house.

The house number Lee tweeted was incorrect, but his communiqué resulted in Elaine and David McClain being driven from their home fearing for their lives. Spike Lee, a $1.6 million fundraiser for Obama’s bid for reelection, finally apologized and reached a financial settlement with the elderly couple. But thus far, the Tucson Healer has yet to utter one word about the shameful incident.

After mentally disturbed Jared Lee Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the head, Barack Obama made a concerted effort to temper the violence by promising justice, and did so while encouraging everyone to exercise measured restraint. Now, in response to Trayvon’s death, a posse with the Twitter handle @Kill Zimmerman is advertising that, without an investigation or trial, an American citizen should “be shot dead in the street the same way Trayvon was.”

Yet, the President who once challenged the nation with the words “We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future” has been eerily silent about the growing unrest surrounding the teen’s shooting.  Obama has spoken once, only to mention that if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.

Whatever happened to President Obama advising Americans to use a violent situation such as this “to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and to remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together?”

If we were listening to each other, exercising empathy and reminding ourselves we are bound together, then Attorney General Eric Holder and his Justice Department would have reacted appropriately to the New Black Panthers trying to take the law into their own hands by placing a bounty on a Zimmerman’s head and circulating “Wanted Dead or Alive” posters.

Moreover, why is President Obama, who in Tucson warned that we should never use “tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another,” stoking aggression by purposely ignoring the growing animosity toward a man who is supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty?”

At the Tucson Memorial, Barack Obama quoted Scripture and discouraged the nation from “pointing fingers and assigning blame.” Now, with an election just months away, the Keeper of Civility, desperate to renew his base, has found a racial issue to exploit and has aligned his 2012 reelection campaign with a hooded uniform that symbolizes a slain teen whose culpability in his own death has yet to be determined.

And so, not only has the President proven that his recent righteous indignation toward so-called right-wing “hate speech” is a reaction directed exclusively toward political foes, and while contributing to growing tension in a nation he’s supposed to be leading, Obama has once again managed to expose his own duplicity.

The Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case has left a young man dead, an accused shooter hiding from an angry mob of bloodthirsty vigilantes, and has caused the nation to be sharply divided again by racial tension.  But above all, what the Trayvon Martin tragedy has done is reveal to America that every word uttered by Barack Obama at that Tucson Memorial was nothing more than politically-motivated empty rhetoric.

Sharpton Calling for Civil Disobedience

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

In response to the Sanford Police Department’s failure to arrest the man accused in the shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, a local chapter of the NAACP organized a march that planned to bus into Sanford, Florida a number of Skittle-eating, hoodie-wearing protestors from other states.

According to the Seminole County chapter president of the NAACP, Turner Clayton, the intent was for the “rallies …to show support from the community and show the special prosecutor that ‘we are interested in what happened, and we’re not going to stand by and let them do something that the people of Sanford will not accept.'”  Nothing wrong with that.

However, much to the chagrin of Mr. Turner, Al Sharpton will also attend the march.  Contrary to the polite and peaceful demonstration the NAACP had planned, if local law enforcement doesn’t obey the commands of the mob and immediately arrest George Zimmerman, Sharpton has upped the ante to include “civil disobedience.”

Full-time racial agitator, part-time preacher of the Gospel Al Sharpton calls his plan “mov[ing] it to the next level” and, trust me, he’s not talking about his hairdo.

Fiercely critical of the Sanford Police Department’s failure to arrest George Zimmerman, in addition to civil disobedience Sharpton has also threatened “economic sanctions,” which could only mean Al plans to buy his hair products elsewhere.

Mr. Clayton, after learning about Reverend Sharpton’s intent, issued the following statement:

We hope that the citizens of Sanford will govern themselves accordingly. We are not calling for any sanctions, against any business or anyone else. And, of course, what Rev. Sharpton does, that’s strictly the [National] Action Network.  We can’t condone that part of the conversation, if that’s what he said.”

With that kind of attitude, maybe Al Sharpton should protest Turner Clayton too!

Either way, the civil rights activist/MSNBC talk show host promised that at the march he would elaborate on how the National Action Network plans to “move it to the next level” if the shooter isn’t promptly arrested.

Defending against the accusation that he is once again shamelessly exploiting a tragedy, Sharpton added that it was Trayvon’s family, who call Zimmerman a “vigilante,” and their legal team who requested he make public the injustice of failing to arrest the neighborhood watch leader.

Sharpton, who was already fuming weeks ago, is presently up in arms over a recently released police video taken on the night of the shooting.  In it, Zimmerman’s hands are cuffed behind his back, but despite his claim of self-defense he looks uninjured in the grainy video.

Al Sharpton maintains that without blood evidence, broken bones and a sizable head gash, the video revelations only underscore the need for Zimmerman’s immediate arrest and trial.

Even if Zimmerman’s claims are true, it doesn’t matter, because according to the reverend, “Whether he had a swollen or broken nose, neither one means he had to take a 9mm and kill someone.”

In other words, being ambushed while walking to your car on a rainy night by a tall young man in a hoodie and allegedly having your nose broken and your head repeatedly smashed against the sidewalk does not justify defending yourself with any means available.

Now Sharpton is not only criticizing the way authorities have handled the case, but also the manner in which they’ve “released information.” Thus, Al Sharpton, the king of harmful precedents, is contending that by failing to arrest George Zimmerman the Sanford police are “setting a harmful precedent.”

At this juncture, Sharpton says that “It’s not about saying Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, this is about whether there was probable cause to arrest him.”  Which is largely true.  However, with Sharpton’s biased history one can’t help but wonder – if Trayvon had shot and killed George under the exact same circumstances, would Al have then deemed his arrest racially motivated?  Is the Pope Catholic?

Whatever happened to ‘bring us together’?

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

In April 2009, less than three months after Barack Obama took office, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

The super-duper-specialized Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division prepared the document, to help law enforcement officials on every level understand, “deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”

The findings of the report did not address the threat of terrorist attacks from Muslim extremists who have infiltrated our military, our government and our neighborhoods. Instead the report clumped together what they called ‘rightwing extremists’ into a terrorist threat group that included “hate-oriented” individuals such as disgruntled ex-military personnel, Second Amendment advocates, and pro-lifers.

Also identified were individuals who could potentially pose a problem based on their concerns over the overreaching arm of federal government, the economic downturn, joblessness, the growing radical Muslim problem, and illegal immigration.  In essence, the Department of Homeland Security document was linking people with everyday anxieties to white supremacist nuts the government claimed were gearing up for violence because they resented an African-American president.

In the three-plus years that Barack Obama has occupied the office of president, he has actually exacerbated every trigger listed in the right-wing extremism document. Thanks to Obama’s policies, the American economy and job market have both deteriorated and worldwide Muslim unrest and radicalization has accelerated at lightning speed.

His handling of the war and national security and making the military a staging ground for gay issues has had a profound effect on military morale. Second Amendment rights have been threatened and pro-life taxpayers are being forced to shoulder the cost of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion. Barack Obama has pushed illegal immigration buttons on every front from suing Arizona to vetoing the state of Texas’ right to ask for identification before voting.

But above all President Obama has aggravated racial tension in this country.  His inappropriate involvement began with his impulsive remarks concerning the Henry Louis Gates incident in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Moreover, it continues to this day whenever he allows Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice to demonstrate racial partiality on issues such as not prosecuting the New Black Panther Party for threatening voters with billy clubs during the 2008 election in Philadelphia.

The DHS report said:

Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning

Which raises the question: Why would the President, in what can only be described as an underhanded and manipulative way, not to mention identical to his Henry Gates “acted stupidly” comment in both its tone and intended effect, stir the volatile racial unrest surrounding the heartbreaking shooting death in Florida of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin? It’s beyond comprehension.

The investigation into the incident has barely begun.  But if, at this early juncture, Obama has already made up his mind and if addressing senseless violence was why he initially spoke out, then why hasn’t he also condemned 20-year-old Tyrone Dale David Woodfork for sexually assaulting and beating to death 85-year-old Nancy Strait in Tulsa, Oklahoma who, quite frankly, could have been Obama’s maternal grandmother?

Instead, rather than quell the strife, Barack Obama saw fit to throw $5-a-gallon gasoline on an already raging fire by encouraging national “soul searching.” The President deliberately personalized the tragedy and made a comment that can only be described as either shockingly narcissistic or shamefully pandering when he said, “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon Martin.”

In response to Trayvon’s death Reverend Jesse Jackson chimed in saying, “there is a mistaken assumption in some corners of America that all racial problems went away with the election of President Obama. There was this feeling that we were kind of beyond racism. That’s not true. His victory has triggered tremendous backlash.”

Along with “no justice, no peace,” the words of Jesse Jackson carried with them the following veiled threat: “The indifference to this kind of pain is just going to intensify the protests.” Jackson also shared his observation that in America “Blacks are under attack.”

Well if that’s the case then 90-year-old Caucasian Bob Strait being shot in the face with a BB gun and struggling for his life in an Oklahoma hospital indicates that whites are under attack too.

Someone should inform predictable race-baiters like Jesse Jackson, shameless rally-organizer Al Sharpton, and Barack Obama that every day, regardless of skin color, innocent people are harmed in all kinds of violent incidents. If these men were responsible leaders, what they all would be saying is, ‘Let’s wait for the police to do their job and finish the investigation, and stop jumping to conclusions.’ But they won’t cuz’ they’re not.

And despite an eyewitness report that may now cast the Zimmerman-Martin incident in a whole new light, the militant New Black Panther Party is still busily stapling posters on telephone poles demanding Trayvon Martin’s Hispanic shooter, George Zimmerman, be taken by citizens “Dead or Alive.”

So, while Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano tracks down 13,000 “unsafe hair dryers” on the border and Barack Obama, in between attending $38,500-a-head fundraisers, does his small part to help stoke racial turmoil, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are openly “capitalizing, recruiting, mobilizing, propagandizing and planning potential attacks.” But so far neither the DHS nor the President of the United States have addressed the danger being posed to homeland security by left-wing extremists stirring racial unrest in America’s already unstable black communities.

 

%d bloggers like this: