On Friday, The president finally gave his reaction to Zimmerman being found “Not Guilty”.
Here are some of the statements he made:
“Few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed,” and “I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different,” Obama stated.
Let us stop right here for a moment. Since the beginning of the Zimmerman case, the president, the media, the NAACP, and many others have touted race as being an issue if not the SOLE issue in the case and they seem to believe that America is just as racially bias as ever. This logic construes that if a white male had been killed by a non-white male, then the killer would be found guilty. Wrong. There is a similar case from 2009 where the killer was far more aggressive than Zimmerman. In that instance Roderick Scott, (a Black Male) was found “Not Guilty” of killing a 17 year old white male (Christopher Cirvini).
The above argument also implies that a white male killing a young black male will automatically be found “Not Guilty”. Again, this premise is untrue. There was a case in Wisconsin where a 72 year old white male (John Spooner) killed a 13 year old black male (Darious Simmons). The jury found Spooner “Guilty” a few days after Zimmerman was found “Not Guilty,” yet the media focused only on Zimmerman the Hispanic guy.
Lastly the the Presidents mind frame is that Zimmerman profiled Martin, this implies that most young black males wear hoodies while modeling themselves after thugs. This is highly untrue. In Lancaster, a young Black male (Temar Boggs) led the rescue of a little white girl. In other words, Tamar patterned himself not after a thug but rather as a Hero. Now that we have debunked the presidents mind frame from above, let us move on to his next statement.
The President also said Friday that, “Trayvon was me 35 years ago.” This is quite possibly the most outlandish statement about the case so far. It is one thing for the president to compare his potential non-existent son to Trayvon; and yet quite another to compare himself to Trayvon. Why? Because the President is half-white. Therefore, if the president is comparable to anyone in the case it would be Zimmerman, who is also half-white (well maybe not quite half-white). To say the president is black, is to say Zimmerman is Hispanic. To say Zimmerman is white, is to say Obama is also white.
This is just another effort by the President to further his agenda. I personally believe it is an effort to distract Americans by having them argue among themselves; while in the process missing the fact that on the same day, a retiring IRS lawyer began to entangle one of Obamas appointees into the congressional investigation of the IRS regarding its recent abuses of power. Look back to his comments on the murder trial of an abortion doctor (the Gosnell case) where he said, “I can’t comment on that because its an active trial.” If thats his reasoning , then why did he comment on the active trial of Zimmerman by comparing Martin to his non-existent son?
When you look at the presidents record the answer is clear. Take a look at our list of Obama’s comments that we’ve compiled above.
When it comes to Abortion, U.S. Soldiers dying, or Border patrol agents dying, the president isn’t as eager to talk. He even goes as far as to say he has “no comment” or giving his “sincerest apologies” to Afghanistan’s leader.
When it comes to school shootings, racial profiling, or the Zimmerman case, the president becomes so open that he sheds a tear or eagerly schedules a beer summit. You remember that one, right? Where Professor Gates said their task must be to foster sympathy among Americans about “the daily perils of policing on the one hand, and for the genuine fears of racial profiling on the other hand.” Although Obama had invited Crowley and Gates as part of what he called a “teachable moment.”
At the time of the incident, Gates had demanded an apology from Crowley and called him a “rogue policeman. After Obama’s “acted stupidly” comment, Crowley said that, while he supported the president, Obama was “way off base wading into a local issue without knowing all the facts.” Sound Familiar?
Yes, there are times when the President is loose lipped when he should be remaining silent, like when he commented on the sexual assault cases in the military (an encroachment upon military law) this in turn has led to countless cases being dismissed with the defendants and Judges citing “Unlawful command influence” (AKA Obama) as the reason. If the President isn’t artificially drumming up racial controversy nor selectively commenting on events that further his agenda, then perhaps he just needs to upgrade his teleprompter to Obama 3.0?