Last week, a 13-year old white boy in Kansas City was doused with gasoline and set on fire by two black teenage boys who told him, “This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.” But there was no sympathetic statement from the president, no calls for a nationwide soul-searching, no rioting in the streets, no media circus, no $10,000 bounties offered by the Black Panthers for the assailants, no speeches by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Just a burnt, frightened child who the media ignored because the racist attack on him couldn’t be exploited to advance a liberal, racially divisive agenda.
In the case of Trayvon Martin, shot by a hispanic neighborhood watchman volunteer in an incident which is still raising questions, the Democrats and media were determined not to let this crisis go to waste, especially if it could be explioted to stoke racial divisions and advance leftist ideology.
Founded by the late Derrick Bell, critical race theory is an academic discipline which maintains that society is divided along racial lines into (white) oppressors and (black) victims, similar to the way Marxism frames the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines. Critical race theory contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently the nation’s legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid. As Emory University professor Dorothy Brown puts it, critical race theory “seeks to highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective but designed to support white supremacy and the subordination of people of color.”
Obama required his students to read Bell’s controversial writings while teaching at the University of Chicago Law School. His pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, was a proponent of Bell’s ideology. Since Breitbart began vetting Obama’s associations within these ideological circles, the media has continually asserted that neither Bell nor his theory were radical or racist.
Withe the tragic death of Trayvon Martin, the Democrats and media have found the story they needed to exploit in order to prove their position that America’s justice system is racially biased towards White Supremacy, just like Bell’s “Critical Race Theory” asserts, and that Obama is not a radical or racist for subscribing to this ideology.
So far, blame for the incident has been cast on Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, the Koch Brothers, and even the hoodie Martin was wearing. Obama said that America needs to do some “soul searching” about the supposed racist guilt of our society, remarking, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin.”
“What the President said in a sense is disgraceful. It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background. Is the President suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn’t look like him? That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot. It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been White or if he had been Asian American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American. It is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.”
Many Americans were puzzled when Obama publicly criticized a white policeman for his arrest of an intoxicated, belligerent black professor named Henry Louis Gates, Jr. in 2009, saying that Sgt. James Crowley “acted stupidly,” weighing in on the incident without even knowing the full story or having been directly asked about it. When all the facts were known and Crowley was shown to have been following correct procedure, Obama attempted to patch up his bruised “post-racial” reputation by inviting the two to meet for a “beer summit” at the White House.
But the racial bias of the Obama administration became even more abundantly clear as Americans observed Critical Race Theory put into action through Eric Holder’s Justice Department. First, the case against two Black Panthers who had been caught on tape clearly intimidating white voters was inexplicably dismissed. Then, Holder made it official DOJ policy not to investigate civil rights cases in which white victims claimed discrimination from black perpetrators, saying that whites hadn’t “suffered enough” to understand discrimination. Then came the Obama administration’s attack on Arizona’s law against illegal immigration, which strengthened the state statute to match federal law. The Justice Department decried the law as racist and discriminatory. Most recently, Holder has gone after every state which has passed a law requiring voter ID to prevent fraud, claiming that such policies discriminate against minorities. Democrats have even smeared voter ID laws as a “poll tax” and compared them to “Jim Crow” laws. The Obama administration is obsessed with race and views almost every newsworthy event and law through a racial prism.
Knowing the Obama administration’s racially biased track record, it’s not surprising that the President has once again inserted himself on a pending investigation without all the facts, saying America needs to do some “soul-searching” because of the shooting of Trayvon Martin. If there was any doubt that Obama is a strong adherent of his mentor Derrick Bell’s “Critical Race Theory,” and defaults to the automatic assumption that blacks are victims and whites are oppressors until proven otherwise, his behavior over the past few days should remove all doubt.
President Obama’s emotional siding with Trayvon Martin in the Rose Garden Friday, hailed by some as a moment of leadership on race relations, is an egregious abnegation of duty that could help lead to race riots and further deaths.
Obama Friday expressed sympathy for Trayvon and said if he had a son “he’d look like Trayvon.” Obama’s comments gave the highest official imprimatur possible to a variety of people who are attempting to create mass protest in response to the tragedy.
Speaking just as the 20th anniversary of the Rodney King riots approaches, Obama has now aligned himself with these forces.
And yet the facts of the case are not clear and, as our readers have pointed out, local reports currently being ignored by the media indicated that Martin’s shooter, George Zimmerman, was being beaten by Martin after being attacked by him, and was screaming for help when he shot him.
This doesn’t mean that Zimmerman is innocent. He acknowledged following Martin, and it could be Martin was the one acting in self defense, or that he perceived himself to be in danger. The point is, we don’t know. If Obama has new information, he should share it. Otherwise his job is to calm the situation, not throw in with those who want to ignite it.
Like Jesse Jackson, who declared that “blacks are under attack,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
Jackson predicted that the protests will continue to multiply in number and that the ranks of protestors will swell until Zimmerman is arrested.
This is exactly what is known as “mob justice.”
The New Black Panther Party is printing “Wanted, Dead or Alive” posters for Zimmerman.
Al Sharpton is on hand, insisting he doesn’t want violence. But if Al Sharpton has ever entered on a scene that subsequently became calmer and less prone to violence, I’d like to know about it.
Obama is the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and protector of the Constitution, not its chief moral authority. While it’s understandable as a black man he would have a particularly emotional stake in this, Obama must act first as president of all of us and ensure due process and, at the very least, avoid inflaming the situation.
After the officers who beat Rodney King were initially declared innocent, Los Angeles erupted in violence and there was real fear the rest of the nation was about to go up in flames as well. It could happen again. Obama, the president, may now be partially complicit if it does.