Sunday, July 21, 2013


          My previous post examined how the Obama-Holder Justice Department has reacted to the Zimmerman-Martin case as the champion and advocate of the interests of Black Americans rather than as representatives of the Nation as a whole. 

         No sooner had that piece been posted than Obama emphatically validated its theme by delivering a "surprise" Friday afternoon television soliloquy in which he repeated the same hackneyed and bogus canards regarding alleged black victimization which have been the stock-in-trade of American race hustlers for over half a century.  He continued the Administration's race-based exploitation of the Zimmerman case by invoking it as a pretext for the repeal of the numerous state Stand-Your-Ground (SYG) laws, which rightly uphold the time-honored right of Americans to defend themselves against violent predators, and by perpetuating the fallacy that the wildly disproportionate share of violent crimes committed by young blacks is somehow the fault and responsibility of the citizenry as a whole.  Obama's call for repeal of SYG laws was especially audacious, since the alternative to strengthening self-defense capacity in today's America is to place blind reliance in the protection of government law enforcement typified by Obama's politically and racially biased Justice Department.  Good luck with that.

         Obama also repeated various outright racial falsehoods in his speech, such as the claim that the death penalty is discriminatorily imposed on blacks, when in fact (as detailed in a previous post on this blog, "Two Generations of Racial Preference -- and America Still Sleeps," the opposite is true -- white murderers are far more likely to receive the death penalty than their black counterparts, as demonstrated by the annual statistics published by the Justice Department's own Bureau of Justice Statistics.   Indeed, the casual assertion of out-and-out racial falsehoods as though they were well-established truths is a specialty of this president.  As but one example, he blithely asserted that "[t]here are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store."  To which I respond:  Nonsense.  Where is the evidence for this wildly hyperbolic assertion?  He doesn't have it.  Anyone with the slightest knowledge of realities in contemporary America knows that retail and other store proprietors are so paranoid about the prospect of being charged with racial harassment for even the slightest perceived insensitivity that they bend over backward to avoid any appearance of discriminatory behavior towards blacks.  This and other similar cavalier assertions in his manipulative speech are nothing more than incendiary canards.  But, of course, no one in the mainstream media has the slightest inclination to examine the truth of such assertions, much less to call him on them.


          Like Humpty Dumpty, Obama and the media make race language mean whatever they choose.                                
           As much as people prefer to avoid the issue, it can no longer be realistically denied that Obama and Holder demonstrate a glaring pro-black bias when they persist in their obsessive preoccupation with the defensive killing of Trayvon Martin, while they callously ignore far more atrocious murders of whites by black criminals, such as the previously noted point-blank murder of a one-year-old baby in Brunswick, Georgia.  Further, their failure to give similar attention to the countless far more culpable and malicious murders of blacks by other blacks, should leave no doubt as to the race-based discrimination in their approach to criminal justice and public policy.  The obvious reason for the administration to seize upon and dramatize the comparatively rare incidence of a black being killed by a non-black (Mr. Zimmerman), while studiously avoiding any public outrage against the thousands of blacks who murder other blacks, is to perpetuate and exploit  the myth of alleged white racism in America.
                                                     * * * *
              Although the Administration's manipulative role in the Zimmerman case bears much responsibility for the division and discord that it has generated, no discussion of the affair would be complete without citing the equally insidious part played by the television, print, and electronic mainstream media in turning a routine local crime story into a veritable bonfire of racial agitation.  I will not duplicate the considerable commentary on this issue in other conservative sources, but will confine my observations to the media's grotesque manipulation of terminology to obscure truth and appeal to passion and prejudice.
               The media's insidious malpractice in the Zimmerman-Martin affair has included some of the most shameful misreporting ever perpetrated in American journalism.  The shorthand descriptions used to fix the gullible public's perception of the two protagonists have been especially egregious in their duplicity.  Like the perverse philosopher Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, the leftist media has twisted the language describing the case to convey whatever distorted racial message they "choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

                Both TV and newspaper poltroons, for example, have repeatedly and shamelessly misrepresented the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin as an armed man's attack on a "child."  Putting aside the fallacy of  calling Zimmerman's jury-validated self-defense as an unprovoked attack, the portrayal of the strapping 17-year-old Martin as a "child" is not only grossly deceptive and deliberately inflammatory, but an insult to the legions of 17-year-old (and younger) men who have served honorably and effectively as warriors in the U.S. Armed Forces. 

                Both the Navy and Marine Corps accepted enlistments from 17-year-olds in World War II (and still do), and many thousands of these teenagers (including my Father-in-Law, who was a UDT Navy diver) played crucial combat and support roles in the defeat of the Axis Powers.  Indeed, the legendary Marine Jacklyn ("Jack") Lucas – who had actually enlisted at the age of 14 without his parents' permission, claiming to be 17 – won the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism at Iwo Jima when he was still only 17 years old.  Military history alone – even putting aside such teenage freaks as Alexander the Great – confirms that 17-year-olds are indeed men, especially with regard to physical fighting capacity.  So spare us the lugubrious portrayal of Martin as some vulnerable "child."  Martin was not a child, but a physically fit young man, more than capable of defending himself and inflicting mayhem on others.  Yet the media outlets and the race-baiters deliberately perpetrated the fallacy of Martin as some kind of vulnerable waif.

                The media's Orwellian distortion of Zimmerman's racial or ethnic status has been equally  duplicitous.  From the start, the media and the race-baiters were frothing at the mouth to portray the killing as a white-on-black crime.  White-on-black murders are so relatively rare (especially in comparison to black-on-white), and yet so crucial to the left's false narrative of allegedly persistent white racism, that the media and the black political agitators were united in their determination to portray Mr. Zimmerman as a non-minority "white." 

                Yet by the standards each of those cohorts generally employ in racial or ethnic matters Zimmerman would normally have been classified as an Hispanic minority.  His mother is a Peruvian Latina, while his father is apparently a non-minority Caucasian.  Because liberal civil rights and political policy relentlessly seek to expand the "minority" community – and because it is often legally, economically, and politically advantageous to be classified as a minority – persons of such divided parentage are typically classified on the minority side. 

              President Obama, who is 50% white, emphatically and insistently portrays himself as black – but Obama is mathematically no more "black" than Zimmerman is "white."  Similarly, the extremely diverse ethnicity of Tiger Woods is considerably less than 50% black – his mother has no black ancestry and his father is a mixed-race black -- but the liberal media has always emphasized Tiger's purported blackness because that portrayal suits its narrative purposes. 

             In telling contrast, however, the liberal media (led by the duplicitous N.Y. Times) has persistently described Zimmerman with the contrived label of "White Hispanic," and deliberately disregarded his actual minority status.  Had the media honestly recognized Zimmerman's status as a Hispanic-American minority from the outset, their incendiary narrative of a white man's murder of a black "child" would have been confused and diluted.  But there is little room for such honesty when liberal journalists are on the scent of a story that can be shaped to fit their obsessive narrative of white racism.

           If Zimmerman is a "White Hispanic," then Obama is a "White Black."  Neither label makes much sense, but the media, the racial agitators, and the Administration perpetuate the distortion of Zimmerman's actual ethnicity in order to exploit the racial elements of the story.

No comments:

Post a Comment