You have to wonder if these politicians even hear themselves. Particularly ones who say things like Barack Obama.
On Friday, in response to the George Zimmerman acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin, Obama stated if a “white male teen” were involved, “both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”
Of course the outcome would have been different. If George Zimmerman had been accused of murdering a white male, the case would never have received the attention it did. Zimmerman would have been acquitted, and he would have gone home to live out his life, instead of facing mob threats and open-ended investigation and persecution by the federal Justice Department.
The only reason the President of the United States is even talking about Trayvon Martin is precisely because he was black, and because he was killed by a man who was not black.
You have to understand the unstated code here:
If a black person is killed by a white person, it’s racism. The facts of the case are irrelevant or, at best, secondary.
If a white person is killed by a white person, or if a black person is killed by a black person – well, it’s newsworthy in the local neighborhood or community, but that’s it.
Ditto if a white person is killed by a black person.
According to the code, it’s only racism when a black person is killed by a white person. Once you know that much, you’ve heard all you need to know: It’s racism.
Obama’s comments seem absurd, unless you decode them by the unstated doctrine of the racially correct establishment who rules most of our federal government, and virtually all of our media and academic culture, at this time.
The defeat of racism was supposed to lead to a color blind society. A color blind society is one where murders – while tragic, and necessary for the judicial system to investigate and prosecute – are not automatically considered racially motivated crimes.
Obama and his Attorney General will go after “stand your ground” laws. Would they go after these laws if a black man had killed a white man, using the law as justification? Of course not. If they were so against these laws in the first place, they wouldn’t have waited for the death of Trayvon Martin to oppose them.
In the 1970s, I recall hearing the term, “racism in reverse.” The concept referred to the fact that just as whites could irrationally hate black people for their race alone, it was likewise possible for black people to irrationally hate white people, for their race alone.
With the advance of political and racial correctness in the 1980s and 1990s, the term “racism in reverse” fell out of favor. Actually, the term “racism in reverse” was never accurate. It was redundant. Racism is racism. It’s racism whether a black person elevates the subject of race above justice or facts, or whether a white person does it.
Obama’s attitude in this matter is, by any objective definition, racist. Racism refers to the elevation of race above other, more relevant factors. I haven’t heard anyone in the NAACP offer proof or evidence that George Zimmerman was guilty. It’s not like the O. J. Simpson case, when there was compelling DNA evidence to prove Simpson’s guilt. No matter. Simpson was black, and to use evidence to convict him of killing a white man and white woman was racist. Similarly, to elevate evidence above the facts that Zimmerman is not black, and Trayvon Martin was, is likewise unthinkable and racist, according to the “code” mentality.
It’s all about the code.
Of course, we have to remember that Obama is a politician first. The hard-line anti-white racists—the people who run organizations like the NAACP—are looking to Obama to bypass the criminal justice system and simply convict Zimmerman at the federal level. They hope to get around the impossibility of double jeopardy—convicting someone of a crime after they have already been acquitted—by arbitrarily and selectively using “civil rights” laws. They’re counting on Obama to deliver, and the Constitution/rule of law be damned.
This might even be too much for Obama, who has also implied in some of his comments that people must accept the verdict of the court who acquitted Zimmerman. So in order to appease the lynch mob types who place racial correctness over normal rules of criminal justice, Obama is making these absurd and “personal” comments about his feelings of empathy for Trayvon Martin. Those who criticize Obama for his comments will be condemned as “inflammatory” and, of course, “racist.” Obama will be praised for his comments, and considered the coolest guy around, yet again. The double standard lives and thrives in what passes for twenty-first century civilization.
Mob rule and racist sentiments are always irrational and wrong—no matter who is guilty of them. Even when it’s a black President of the United States.
Dr Michael Hurd
Latest posts by Dr Michael Hurd (see all)
- Bill Nye: The Tyrant Guy - 2016.04.20
- Europe Sacrifices Free Speech for Political Correctness - 2016.04.10
- Bill Clinton Exposes The Hypocrisy Of “Black Lives Matter” Protestors - 2016.04.09
- Acts of War in Europe: Brussels Takes Another Hit From Radical Islam - 2016.03.22
- Trump Is Not Responsible for Violence Against Him - 2016.03.16