Obama adopted, then became Trayvon

‘Travon Obama’ gives race lecture from White House

Black and white ain’t so Black and White

And the race-baiting continues.

There is absolutely zero reason to believe anything said here is being politically correct. So if you cannot stomach that, you may not want to read this, it may offend your sensitivities.

My Bullshit Meter has exploded. I knew it would at some point about this Zimmerman verdict — since the verdict is the real source of the problem now. Everyone has followed it or at least heard the story of the “child” who goes to the store to buy some candy and a drink and is shot in cold blood on the way home, just for his innocent efforts.

I wonder how many parents and friends can truly say that about someone they knew in Chicago? Just walking along and gunned down, and they don’t even know by who. There have to be hundreds if not thousands of those — through no fault of their own — murders. This one case, in Florida, does not happen to be one of those. Maybe it is fortunate for Trayvon’s parents that they have someone to blame and had their day in court. How many kids or surviving families in Chicago never had either of those?

Now, flash forward nearly a week after the “verdict”. We all heard clips and coverage, even since, about the case and the outcome. One important thing they want to ignore is where Trayvon attacked and was beating Zimmerman. (for whatever reason they do) They made it a national case way before trial, and had their storyline framed in the media.

The President even gave a remark at the onset that if he had a son he would look just like Trayvon. Now, I don’t claim to know exactly what he intended saying that, but I do know he personalized it. He also intervened in an arrest of a black Harvard professor. That was biased too – before knowing the details, he said police acted stupidly. Beer summit?

The family did post-verdict interviews and pleaded with the President to step in or intervene in some way, as well as countless others. They demanded Eric Holder and the DOJ to investigate, again, and press a civil rights case. We all know.

So the President does come out and give a 20 minute speech about it. (no questions — something Carney claimed Obama waited for all week and expected, but hadn’t received) Now he talks about it, and said his earlier remarks should also mean that could have been him 30 years ago. He upped the personalization to himself. Well, at the risk of Obama making this about himself, it is in effect what he did. Putting his DNA on it. I knew that was the intent of his first remark but he wanted to clarify it unless people didn’t get it.

In his latest rambling lecture on race in America, he rattles off a list of grievances of African-Americans regarding race. Feelings were a big part of his message. He spoke of being profiled in a store, crossing the street with locks clicking on cars, or standing next to a white woman clutching her purse. It was not lacking in typical examples.

And while rattling all these grievances off is where my bullshit meter exploded, (not fizzled… it exploded) because, as he said, we needed to add context to the issue. I can appreciate that. So I’d like to add a little bit of context — not an exhaustive one — of an average white guy. And yes, there is a context for that, too.

First though, by “context being denied “, as Obama puts it, I presume he meant denying the justifiable excuses for behavior, or denying that “experience” is causal.
Here is what Obama said in part:

Now, this isn’t to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.

They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration.

So Trayvon is a product of a violent history and poverty? There’s the unacknowledged context for it. So racism and others are to blame?

So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied.

But to start with, he repeats claims, like the commentators did, about conversations they must have with their children and those societal lessons they must learn. Educationally of course. Yes, white people have had to have and deal with some difficult conversations too. And knowing that these situations do not go away, they remain there like a scab that just won’t heal. We don’t appreciate having to talk about such issues but they are there.

So let’s put a geographic picture on it for openers. The small city or town, in rural America, where one cannot travel in a section after dark. You may walk though in the daytime, but even then it is risky. A likely scenario is someone says, “boy you in the wrong hood, what’cha doing here? Are you lost?” The message is clear this is their turf. It may not be the bloods and crypts but their turf, no doubt about it. God help you if you did break down in that section at night, you are at their mercy. (“they” meaning any opportunist)

Just crossing a main street in one section puts you on the black side. Blacks freely walk in other sections but everyone knows everything across that street is basically off limits. You have to let your kids know that. You wouldn’t send them over there unaware of the circumstances. While at the same time, avoiding that section does not make you immune to a bad encounter in the other parts of the city. (but your chances are better.)

I am not just referring to gang related problems. At night, ambulances run back and forth across that section. It’s a part of life, something you must live with. It doesn’t change. How does that make people feel? Those neighborhoods are off bounds to whites and might as well have signs on them. Anyone venturing in them would be at their mercy. Frequent shootings. I lived in a sprawling town like that at school. A block from the action as we called it. What happened there would not surprise you. Someone was stabbed while standing in front of a bar on the demarcation street. Fortunately he had a legal handgun. (he did not kill him) It was a message of the unfortunate truth.

But you never hear their concerns about that, those problems, tensions and feelings, or that history. They never mention the social problems whites deal with. You can be considered prey in the wrong part of town. How would any woman feel? The hospital borders that section and nurses had to travel back and forth at all hours. No, we did not have cell phones or GPS then. I’m thinking e GPS will catch up to say “Safety alert: you should know what part of town you are in, lock your doors, roll up your windows….and do not get out of the vehicle.”

So, let me tell you about some typical scenarios for white people. How about the life of white people and how they are forced to “feel”? How about when going into a gas station and there is a crowd of young black guys in front of the door with 40’s? Or maybe you have the pleasure of being offended hearing all the expletives they yell. And you have to explain to your children waiting in the car what is going on or why they were saying that? Or the playground being off-limits due to crack dealers. Or the unavoidable sight of men with their pants around their thighs with the entire underwear showing, groping their crotches every few minutes. Or the rap blaring expletives at deafening levels. Conversation starters for kids, or a conversation waiting to happen? Yep. I can hear the kids now, why is that?

Now maybe that doesn’t equate to walking across the street and hearing the locks click on all the cars. But I think I could handle that precaution pretty well, in context. Anyway, we are lectured by Obama to do some soul-searching. What about where whites are not dealt justice, and receive biases in courts and family courts? (Nichol and Ron Goldman) Yes it is there too. Where is that context?

Oddly enough — OR NOT — not a word from Obama about the race-baiters like Sharpton and Jackson. Not that we’d expect it. Or little about race riots spawned in California. And nothing about Black Panthers issuing a 10 thousand dollar reward for Zimmerman. Nor anything of substance about his own hometown, Chicago, where murders are practically hourly. Only a vague reference to violence over the verdict and protests.

Obama sounded like he was warning school children about violence. This isn’t a schoolyard and he is not a referee. It’s dangerous to make such casual remarks about it.

I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.

Wow, tough ultimatum. “I will remind them.” (I may have to lecture…)
Their rhetoric is: “What are we going to do about it?”, and “No justice no peace!”

And then, finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching.

How about store owners with thousands of dollars to replace signs and windows, only to wonder if it will happen again? Soul searching?

Then Obama says we ought to ask if we are “wringing as much bias out of” ourselves as we can? Give me a break. Is he? He believes that dividing us somehow unites us. Or maybe he really doesn’t believe it but that’s his formula.

If he sees any violence he will remind them? We’ve already seen acts. “Remind” who?

Speaking of “wringing out biases,” from the same guy who blamed an internet video for a terrorist attack in Benghazi, and months later says it was a long time ago. He won’t confront the unfortunate context of why those heroes died, but he’ll jump because a teenager was shot in self-defense to say, “that could have been me.”

He had no soul-searching, identity bonding to Benghazi or Fort Hood victims. No problem labeling an act of jihad work place violence. Benghazi was a long time ago.

Here’s an inconvenient racist reality for you. The Congress can’t even get basic accountability from the Attorney General on Fast and Furious without the Black Caucus crying racism and staging a walkout. Where’s the context and history for that? Better to worry about car locks clicking.

Soul searching anyone?

What a difference between Zimmerman and Gosnell

 I don’t remember the media being so concerned about the content of Sunday sermons before. That’s not usually headline coverage. Post Zimmerman verdict,  media wanted to know what pastors said, and they claimed pastors scrambled to  change their sermons.

 Okay, how many of them wanted pastors to speak about Gosnell or abortion? I don’t remember that call for concern. How much attention did they give that verdict? If the pastors did talk about it, then media and the left would accuse them of meddling in civil and political issues – since they claimed Roe/Wade is “politics”.

 Everyone is supposed to know Gosnell and abortion has no place in sermons according to the liberal left and secularists.  However, human rights? “Knock yourself out”, they only hope you will speak from the pulpits on that. Anytime, you don’t need a reason and you can weave the topic into anything. They encourage it.

 A genocide of 56 million and over 4 decades, no need to talk about that from pulpits, way too divisive. Better stick to human rights, social justice, love and peace. The courtroom seats went empty in Gosnell’s trial, but they didn’t miss a minute of this trial and ran almost non-stop coverage.

Now we know what is really important, so how many had sermons about Trayvon Martin, I wonder?

Notice the below article is Father Pfleger’s church in Chicago not the entire Catholic [C]hurch.

Catholic church protests Trayvon Martin killing

Gloria.TV – News Briefs  15/07/2013 

Father Pfleger [Photo credit]
CHICAGO (AP) — From pulpits to rallies, several black churches in Chicago joined the nationwide call for justice in protesting the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager in Florida.
The Rev. Michael Pfleger spoke out about the death of Trayvon Martin during Mass at St. Sabina Catholic Church, a prominent black Catholic institution. Churchgoers wore hooded sweatshirts, as Martin was wearing when he was slain Feb. 26. After Mass, nearly 100 people attended a rally outside the church where youth from St. Sabina performed poems and songs.
“The church has to rise up and get out of its sanctuaries and get into the streets,” Pfleger said.
Pfleger also wore the hood of his vestment robe over his head and called for racial justice. Pfleger is a white priest in charge of a largely black church, and has long advocated against violence.
During Mass in Chicago, Pfleger challenged the idea that children wearing hoodies should be treated as suspicious. One congregant held a sign reading, “We are all Trayvon Martin.”
From the U.K. photos of viiolence after the verdict

I bet there a whole lot of props they could have used for Gosnell or abortion.

UPDATE: I don’t believe or imply this is representative or speaks for the entire Catholic Church. And overall, they are very pro-life on abortion issues. There were many various churches mentioning it, as the media stressed. This is not to only single this one out.

Paula Deen debacle and the left’s economic justice

Paula is a good ol’ gal, with no offense meant. She is a personality and now a celebrity. But based on a word she used some time ago, her reputation is under fire and her job on the line, due to her own words in a deposition. I have some sympathy for her situation.

*This is not a defense of Paula, but then THIS is not just about Paula either.

Does it show how vulnerable a celebrity can be for their words? Hardly, she is the exception and not the rule. After all, look what so many celebs have said or done. It doesn’t cost them their position.

Now I am saying forgiveness does have a place. We as society should take that as one of our duties and exercise it seriously. It makes another statement about the times, the penalty for telling the truth. She’s the latest casualty.

MY question is are we going to now put corporations and sponsors in charge of ethical conduct — or society — to be the ‘culture police’? Are these guys the poster boards for ethical conduct? Should they be? Are they up for the job? Resumes anyone?

For the most part, the left advocated and justified Food Channel’s reaction, as the self-appointed race and “civil rights” police. There must be consequences for using such language, even in the past, they say. If it were anyone else would they have a different view? It wouldn’t surprise me. But this fits their political paradigm and they applaud it.

Lets go a bit further. It seems to be a double standard for the left. These are the greedy corporate titans the Marxist left loves to blame for everything from global warming, to murders on the street, to crooked politics, not to mention the human and civil rights abuses. But in this case, the left will salute a corporation for its knee-jerk reflex to fire Paula because of a word she said she used 30 years ago. (at a traumatic time)

But think about it, there are boycotts and there are “boycotts”. The Left and the LGBT lobby have used boycotts as their tool against any opposition. It goes hand in hand with their economic argument, or their social justice agenda. So they attack businesses who do not support them. For example, they are calling out corporations for having business ties or a relationship supporting Israel, based on their own political ideology.

Now what is worse: the left taking an economic position based on sexuality or a disdain for Israel, or simply keeping cultural issues in the social fabric of society – and out of the corporate board rooms? But no, can’t do that because this is how the activist left operates across the spectrum, from the board room to the public square.

Yet they want to make the corporations the cops on the beat for society? Really?

These leftists don’t like government making laws that might ban certain sexual behavior, but they are okay with using corporations as the arbiter for personal conduct? (as long as they align themselves with the uber-Left politics) What happens when businesses take positions that are not convenient or in line with their sociopolitical positions – and their ideology? Ah oh! They are treading where they ought not tread.

Sure there is room for forgiveness. I thought the left always lectured us about that?

Update… an interesting thing happened, which often does in these evolving events:
George Zimmerman’s trial began on the Trayvon Martin shooting. The prosecution’s star witness, a teenaged black girl, comes out to testify that Trayvon described Zimmerman as a “creepy ass cracker“. Asked if she thought that was a racist remark, she said “no”.

Then in the aftermath punditry — always the last word in all things ethical — debated it suggesting that was just the way they talked in her community. Oh, those double standards are rearing their ugly little heads once again. See how this game works?

But apparently she didn’t say that in her prior statements because she did not want to offend Trayvon’s mother. Okay, so you didn’t want to mention it to his mother, but you do not believe its a racist remark? Okay. The punditry concludes that’s just how people talk in that community, like a dialect. Glad that’s settled.

Anyone up for a good game of whack-a-mole?