In the Zimmerman trial the real action is not so much in the courtroom but in the coverage It reminded me: what do OJ, Obama and Trayvon Martin (Zimmerman trial) all have in common? Race of course, or explicit racism. Skin color … is the important thing in the end. Don’t think so?
On Monday night, coming into the home stretch for the trial, I listened to the punditry on CNN cover the day’s events. It was the usual pundits of legal eagles and defense attorneys. Famed defense attorney Mark Geragos called out a black female for her comments on the testimony of Trayvon Martin’s father. He told the frisky advocate that she was too “emotionally” attached to this case(compromised), and had referred to every prosecution witness as “elegant” in their testimony. Bingo! It was an excellent point, to which you can imagine her snorted denial. But it is a truth across the board. He also faulted her for claiming the jury was really “with Mr. Martin” — despite arguing against his own statement that it was not his son screaming. Even while denying he said it, this pundit said the jury was really “with him”. She supposedly speaks for the jury.
The irony that the jury is not allowed to decide a case until they deliberate was lost on her. What is clear is her bias, which she seems to wear on her sleeve. That is okay, as long as one acknowledges a bias and does not attempt to hide behind a phony wall of objectivity and deny it. (then it is just deceit) I admit to having a bias too, and don’t pretend otherwise — but not based on race. This, however, is only the beginning of the problems.
From the first media reports people had taken sides, namely that of the black-racist side. Yet how is it they lectured others about reaching a premature conclusion before hearing the facts? Now that the facts come out, not to Martin’s favor, they completely dismiss them. They posit how a jury relates to a witness is what matters. For instance, and Geragos pointed this out, they want to believe him credible and sympathize with anyone the prosecution uses — even if what he is saying is questionable. They postulate that the jury does too.
This is where Obama comes in
The irony is Obama commented on it at the time saying if he had a son he would look just like Trayvon. But that’s not the only similarity. From the beginning Obama ran a faith-based campaign, meaning it required a leap of faith to accept him at his word. His entire candidacy reeked of faith in him, with absolutely no record to base any of it on. Just “believe”and “yes we can”. Then came the messianic talk and halo photos.
People did believe in this unjustifiable candidate too. The reason they did, overwhelmingly among blacks, was his skin color — because he is black. The beauty was he didn’t have to say it; that was the obvious prevailing assumption. It is undeniable when you see the results. Over 93% of blacks voted for him. Since he had no record, it could not have been otherwise. He ran a faith-based campaign. Obama admitted as much in his theme “change you can believe in” — not that there was a lick of reason to believe in that change outside faith.(and a lot of it) But the point is, regardless of facts, they believed in whatever he said and there were some doosies. And suddenly it was fashionable to be so color conscious.
The narrative was that the election was historic because he would be the first black president, or the first black to get that close to becoming president. When the blacks were unified in such a degree, there can be no doubt the vote was based on race. A vote based on skin color was a justified vote. We had people proudly voting solely on race. Yet voting against him would have been racist — we all know that. The mantra was voting for him was not racism but voting against him was entirely racism. Thus, they could justify casting a racist vote because it was supposedly voting against racists.
If you can buy into the left’s rationale on this then you can buy practically anything. So a person wants to believe something true despite willingly ignoring the truth. And it was all about belief, but it was also all about race and racism. Plus it was projecting anyone else as a racist. He still employs that psychology via his organization, now a front group for him, that asks “are you in?” It persuades you to be “all in”. Never mind what “in” and “all in” means or involves; whatever strings are attached; whatever it requires you to believe.
All that psychology applied to OJ, and now applies to Trayvon Martin as well. (or against George Zimmerman) Because OJ was black and a star, they denied facts to the contrary. But in overwhelming evidence, they did not just dismiss the facts, they believed it wasn’t true anyway. The same way they would not believe things are true about Obama, facts be damned. And they won’t believe the negative about Trayvon either. Even showing he jumped and assaulted Zimmerman, they believe otherwise. Then they believe Martin is the victim at all costs, even if shown otherwise. Truth doesn’t matter, belief does. And they are determined that belief will carry it. It is surreal. It is as if they stepped into an alternative reality that is based entirely on their belief and perception of it.
They wanted to believe OJ’s defense at all costs. When they refused to accept the prosecution or facts, they demonized them (some of them are still victims of that) They denied evidence to the contrary. Given facts and truth, they just asserted he was innocent or framed. Anyone would have to willingly ignore that mountain of evidence, which is what they did. Then just keep repeating he is innocent and that he, not Nichole and Ron, was the real victim. They wanted to believe and they did. Once they believed, it became a matter of ignoring anything to the contrary. Sound familiar?
Along comes Trayvon Martin. From the beginning, the intent was create an image of a little boy with Skittles in one hand and ice tea in his other, skipping home from the candy store — potentially to do his homework. Turn Zimmerman into the villain who just had it in for him. Everything Trayvon did was justified while nothing Zimmerman did was. It would not matter anyway because Trayvon is an innocent little victim, even if he sat on Zimmerman beating on him, he was a poor victim. But also a victim of racism to boot. Interestingly enough, Trayvon called Zimmerman “a creepy ass cracker” on the phone. But who cares, they want to believe?
On OJ, we all know those circumstances. It was easier to believe the glove was planted along with the blood evidence than accept reality. The detective was a bigot and racist. Prosecution was out to get OJ. So they tried to alter reality. They could dismiss anything otherwise. Once you get to that level, you can deny any truth. Once you believe that, you can believe anything and will.
How many more events or circumstances do we have to see to validate the same scenario? Its seems we could keep doing this indefinitely and keep getting the same results.