“[N]one of these individuals deserves to have been killed, but the fact is they were co-conspirators in their own demise,” Clarke said. “They engaged in some behavior that took them to a very dark place. Things weren’t going to turn out for them and didn’t. However, how can the civil rights movement in 2014 cloak themselves around criminal behavior, people who engage in criminal behavior and say this is the face of the civil rights movement? I’ve heard people say, ‘This is a new civil rights movement.’ No it’s not. That is an embarrassment.”
“That is a desecration of the legacy of people like Rosa Parks, people like Dr. Martin Luther King,” he continued. “You know again, Condi Rice’s story – two parents, education. That’s the key. That’s the traditional vehicle for upward mobility in the United States for everybody. You got to embrace it. You got to grind it out. We’re not offering the best schools for blacks in some of these urban centers, which is a very big issue for me.”
Via The Blaze:
ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith on Friday defended Kobe Bryant’s recent remarks on the Trayvon Martin case — and openly admitted his stance would “upset” a lot of black people.
Bryant recently told The New Yorker that he wasn’t entirely comfortable with the way several Miami Heat players wore hoodies in support of Martin following the shooting. He said he doesn’t react emotionally just because a certain case involves an African-American. Instead, he explained, people should relax and wait for all the facts to come out before rushing to judgement.
As TV host Arsenio Hall pointed out during his interview with Smith, the comments sent “black Twitter” into a frenzy. Bryant later said he felt Martin was “wronged” and justice wasn’t served.
“You can’t turn around and assume or think that people from other races are gonna ever to be fair to you if you aren’t willing to exercise fairness yourself. Lay back, listen to the facts, and then accord justice where it should be served,” Smith said, explaining Bryant’s comments. “Me personally, I definitely think [Bryant] was right on point with that.”
“I know a lot of black people are going to be upset about that,” he added. “Like I’ve told you, when I give a damn, I’ll let you know.”
Referencing the infamous Tawana Brawley case, Hall admitted he “went hook, line, and sinker with an opinion” before all the facts came out.
“You have to understand, when you make the mistake of jumping to emotional conclusions and being factually incorrect, your cachet diminishes,” Smith agreed. “As a result, once you make that mistake, you don’t get to come back from that.”
I found this story very interesting. This is via Moonbattery, and is a truncated versions of these two posts:
- Part-1 Trayvon Martin – What were the last 18 months like for him?
- Part 2 – Trayvon Martin Shooting – A year of drug use culminates in predictable violence…
Here is Moonbat’s post:
We know that Trayvon Martin had marijuana in his system on the night he tried to kill George Zimmerman, and had been suspended from school for using marijuana. Some believe he was a drug dealer. You might assume his famous mission to acquire Skittles candies and Arizona iced tea (actually watermelon juice, but the media is only good at narratives, not factual details) was a classic example of a pothead with the munchies. Here’s another theory…. (links above)
The “Sage from South Central” dismantles myth of the “angelic kid” other wise known as Trayvon Martin. Couple this with Bill Whittle’s destruction of the media myth (http://youtu.be/Ebu6Yvzs4Ls)… and you have a recipe for truth to come out. See also my blog post on the matter: http://tinyurl.com/knp3sxd
For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/
This post should be combined with my previous statement about marijuana. The Washington Times notes Obama’s hypocritical actions that can be added to his “list of confusing messengers who perpetuate false notions.” Like his fiscal and political notions. They continue:
President Obama’s latest claims about marijuana are contradicted by research and official positions of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which is part of the White House. And Mr. Obama’s words have anti-drug leaders worried about negative repercussions among youth.
Mr. Obama claimed to The New Yorker magazine that marijuana is no worse than cigarettes or alcohol and he promoted state efforts by Colorado and Washington to legalize marijuana, which remains illegal under federal law.
The National Drug Control Policy’s official stance, posted on the whitehouse.gov website, says the opposite of Mr. Obama on all counts.
For example, as documented in agency reports, marijuana smoke has significantly more carcinogens than tobacco smoke.
And as reported by the government’s National Institute on Drug Abuse, adolescent use of marijuana does something that alcohol does not; it causes permanent brain damage, including lowering of I.Q.
Taxpayers have spent billions of dollars warning about drugs, often about marijuana, but these efforts were dramatically undercut by the president’s comments.
Mr. Obama might as well have rolled that money into a joint and smoked it on national television.
He told the interviewer, David Remnick, that his earlier years of prodigious puffery were “a bad habit and a vice.” Yet he doesn’t warn others not to follow in his footsteps.
The Drug-Free America Foundation responded on its blog: “His laissez-faire attitude about legalization has drug policy and prevention experts scratching their heads in confusion as to why the president will not give clear guidance…either he is seriously ill-informed about the issue or is completely ignoring warnings from his highly-esteemed advisors.”
The foundation called it an “irresponsible move for such a person in the most highly-regarded position in this country.”
Be on the lookout for the White House to remove warnings of marijuana use from its Website, such as this gem: “The Administration steadfastly opposes legalization of marijuana and other drugs because legalization would increase the availability and use of illicit drugs, and pose significant health and safety risks to all Americans, particularly young people.”
Mr. Obama, however, tried to attribute it to class warfare and racial bias — and in so doing voiced a myth that his own anti-drug people are shooting down.
As Mr. Obama stated: “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot and poor kids do. And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties. We should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing.”
But Mr. Obama’s claim was shot down by an earlier federal publication, “Marijuana Myths & Facts: The Truth Behind 10 Popular Misconceptions”.
Myth #10 is “The government sends otherwise innocent people to prison for casual marijuana use.”
In fact, less than 1% of all drug incarcerations are for simple possession or use of marijuana. And those few tend to be plea-bargains for people who actually were dealers.
Mr. Obama’s own White House website contradicts his light-hearted claims about marijuana in other ways as well. Multiple pages are devoted to describing clear dangers of marijuana, including these excerpts:
- Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects.
- Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory.
- Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia.
- Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.
Furthermore, the studies cited by the National Institute for Drug Abuse, regarding brain damage among regular adolescent pot smokers, has no parallel from alcohol. And making one dangerous drug legal is, of course, never a good reason to add another, or a third, or more.
Mr. Obama’s ramblings in The New Yorker show an effort to project an intellectual approach to the marijuana issue when in fact his was pseudo-intellectualism.
He offers up loose arguments, even discredited arguments, because he doesn’t expect serious follow-up from the media. Even if he gets it, Mr. Obama simply talks in circles, ends the questioning, and shuts that reporter out in the future.
Anyone who believes otherwise must be smoking something.
Robert Woodson, founder and president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, said if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., were alive today, he would not just talk about justice for Trayvon Martin, he would also pray for other victims of violence who are not minorities.
Via The Blaze:
Oprah Winfrey made headlines on Monday after saying that in her mind, the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Emmett Till are the “same thing.”
Glenn Beck responded on his television program Tuesday with a thorough overview of both cases, saying Winfrey’s comments are a “slap in the face to the memory of Emmett Till and anyone who suffered during segregation and the Civil Rights era.”
“These are two cases that have nothing in common,” Beck said. “I can’t think what they have in common, honestly.”
Beck began by recapping some of the details of the Trayvon Martin case, which are likely familiar to many at this point. He noted that Zimmerman, who fatally shot Martin in 2012 in what a jury recently ruled was self-defense, had multiple head injuries and a broken nose after his encounter with Martin. He also noted that both the prosecution and the defense said race played no role in the case, among other things.
Emmett Till, on the other hand, was a 14-year-old African American from Chicago who was tracked down, then mercilessly tortured and murdered after flirting with a white woman.
Beck told the story in detail, explaining how Till was visiting relatives in Mississippi when he was killed, and how his mother initially didn’t want him to go on the trip. He spoke about the “racists” who knocked on the door where Till was staying late at night, “demanding to see the n-word who did all the talking,” before kidnapping the child.
“Does this sound so far like the Zimmerman case at all?” Beck asked. “Doesn’t to me.”
Also this AMAZING article from the Weekly Standard entitled, A Tale of Two Trials, points out some of the false narratives in the media (an interview with the author, Charlotte Allen, via Dennis Prager follows):
….That was the small stuff. Here is a list of some of the more significant discrepancies between the facts of the Zimmerman case as they emerged in the Bizarro World of outside-the-courtroom commentary and the facts that the jury actually heard:
Zimmerman “stalked” Martin. This was a favorite media meme, typified in a CNN column by Miller Francis: “Was . . . Martin justified in . . . defending himself when this stranger, an apparent stalker, approached him in a threatening manner?” The trial evidence showed merely that Zimmerman briefly ran after Martin while making a 911 call to the police about a suspicious person he saw wandering between some houses in the complex, which had been hit by a wave of burglaries, at least two involving young black men. According to statements Zimmerman made to the police after the shooting, Martin then approached him as he was returning to his car. It should be noted that Zimmerman was legally carrying, under a concealed-weapon permit, the gun with which he shot Martin; a neighbor interviewed by Reuters in 2012 said he had bought it to fight off a periodically loose pit bull that was terrorizing his wife.
Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. The media picked up this allegation from the prosecution’s affidavit of probable cause filed on April 12, 2012. “It cannot reasonably be disputed that the incident that left Mr. Martin dead began with ugly racial profiling,” NBC News legal analyst Lisa Bloom wrote for the New York Times on July 15. NBC had creatively edited the tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call to make him look fixated on race, leaving out the part where the dispatcher asked for a description. Judge Debra Nelson, who presided over the trial and who was not known for her sympathy for the defense, pointedly barred the use of the term “racial profiling” during opening statements or at any other time. Racial profiling would have been a tough charge in any event to sustain against Zimmerman, who was half-Hispanic, with a Peruvian mother and a black great-grandfather. (The New York Times’s response to the revelation that Zimmerman wasn’t quite the Aryan that the press had initially characterized him as was to dub Zimmerman a “white Hispanic.” Campos of Salon called him “a more or less white man.”)
Zimmerman disobeyed a police dispatcher’s order to stay inside his car and instead embarked on a vigilante quest for Martin. That’s what nearly every newspaper reporter and TV network in America said during the year or so leading up to the trial. “Wannabe cop” was a favorite epithet. As the recording of Zimmerman’s conversation with the dispatcher, Sean Noffke (together with Noffke’s testimony at trial), revealed, Noffke had merely said, “We don’t need you to do that,” when Zimmerman was already out of his car. And judging from the rhythm of Zimmerman’s breathing on the recording, he stopped pursuing Martin a mere 13 seconds after Noffke issued his advice.
Zimmerman provoked the conflict with Martin by confronting him about what he was doing on the premises, effectively nullifying his claim of self-defense. Andrew Reinbach, a blogger for the Huffington Post, wrote on July 16: “It can certainly be argued . . . that Mr. Zimmerman provoked the attack that prompted him to use deadly force against an unarmed teenager who bested him in a fistfight.” (The “fistfight,” according to Zimmerman’s statements to the police, corroborated by the testimony of witnesses at the trial and gunpowder evidence on Martin’s shirt, consisted of Martin’s sucker-punching Zimmerman to the ground and pounding his head into a concrete sidewalk while on top of him.) That Zimmerman started it was one of the prosecution’s theories, but Judge Nelson, rejecting the idea that Zimmerman’s questioning of Martin could amount to provocation, refused to allow a jury instruction on provocation—so it was never an issue in the courtroom trial.
Florida’s generous “stand your ground” law allowed Zimmerman to prevail on a claim of self-defense that would not be permitted in other states. Florida—like the majority of other U.S jurisdictions—does not require someone to retreat if reasonably possible rather than use deadly force against a real or reasonably perceived aggressor who threatens death or grave bodily injury. Florida also—unlike the majority of other U.S. jurisdictions—allows people to use deadly force merely to defend property under some circumstances, such as a home or car invasion. But as Stephen P. Garvey, a professor of criminal law at Cornell University, explained to me in a phone interview, the “stand your ground” doctrine under any interpretation simply wasn’t an issue in the trial, because Zimmerman didn’t draw his gun until it was impossible for him to retreat. As Garvey says, “This is a very bad case on which to base your thoughts about important issues such as racial profiling or the duty to retreat.”
Here are the numbers of TOTAL dead between the Iraq and Afghan wars, combined:
Should I mention that under Obama, many feel race-relations have gotten worse… but worse than that, I hear people (media and Democrats) say all the time “if the ‘roles’ had been reversed in the Trayvon Martin case, the outcome would have been different.” This is provably false. First, let us see what the Prez said:
I agree, the outcome would have been totally different, Eric Holder, Obama, the Justice Dept, the staff and reporters at MSNBC and CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and the like, would have all ignored the case.
But we do have an example of a case that was exactly reversed:
Not to mention that in Florida, the “stand your ground law” helps protect blacks from being victims of crime themselves:
All this contributes to a massive problem that only exists in the minds of the Race Hustlers.
- Frustrating! Liberalism Distorts Evils and Exchanges them for Moral Goods (Isaiah 5:20)
I thought of the classic ending of the 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers when I watched the pointing at the Breitbart crew:
- Brandon Darby gets verbally attacked at a July 21,2013 Trayvon rally organized by the New Black Panther Party and Quanell X. The Occupy contingent recognized Darby while he was on assignment for Breitbart News. (Via Breitbart)
It is worse than a liberal-progressive radical lying… the Media knew that she was separated from the Zimmerman portion of the protest and clearly on the New Black Panther side of the line… yet, they still painted her as with the Zimmerman crowd. Here is the early reporting from the blogs about it, via Gateway Pundit:
That looked incongruent with the other reports from the pro-Zimmerman side. The NY Daily News, based on reporting from The Houston Chronicle, identified her as Renee Vaughan:
One woman in the Zimmerman group held a sign that said, “We’re racist & proud.”
Austin resident Renee Vaughan echoed the sign’s ugly sentiments by yelling, “We’re racist. We’re proud. We’re better because we’re white,” at the Martin group as they passed, according to the Chronicle.
The act to smear the Zimmerman supporters as racists with a leftist plant worked as the photo and comment was picked up and spread worldwide.
Renee even has her photo linked to a far left environmental website.
Breitbart points out all the places where this person was touted as a genuine Zimmerman protestor:
…The Houston Chronicle’s Jayme Fraser wrote of the woman pictured above: “At one point, Renee Vaughan of Austin mocked protesters by chanting, “We’re racist. We’re proud. We’re better ’cause we’re white.” The language of the article was somewhat clumsy, allowing other media outlets to jump to the wrong conclusion.
The New York Daily News’ Philip Caulfield used the following caption for the above photo, from the Associated Press: “A George Zimmerman supporter holds a sign during a counter-demonstration of activist Quanell X’s group march in the River Oaks community in Houston on Sunday.” He also wrote: “One woman in the Zimmerman group held a sign that said, ‘We’re racist & proud,'” distorting the Chronicle story significantly.
The UK Daily Mail repeated the error, reporting that the sign was held by members of the pro-Zimmerman group in Houston, portraying it as a form of racist backlash against the New Black Panther Party march.
Democratic strategist Tara Dowdell then took to Fox News’ Hannity to repeat the false accusation, using the “racist and proud” sign story to push back against video evidence of intolerance at pro-Trayvon Martin rallies.
Well, Sean, do some people show up at protests with their own agenda? Absolutely. That happens all the time. There was a pro-Zimmerman rally in Texas where a woman showed up with a sign that said “Racist and Proud.” And that was in the newspaper today. So certainly there are people who show up who behave badly at protests, and that’s not something you can really control for.
Gateway Pundit concludes she was a “leftist plant” who intended to trick or otherwise deceive the media. As the interview reveals, however, she was quite honest and open about her intentions and what her sign meant. She also located herself quite clearly on the Trayvon Martin/New Black Panther Party-supporting side of the demonstration (this video shows the two sides were clearly separated and distinguished from each other).
[WHICH THE MEDIA SHOULD HAVE PICKE-UP!]
The reason the media simply picked this up as true is that it has a narrative it believes to be true — that is, the Zimmerman case was over race… and Republicans are racist. Ergo, ad hoc — and all that jazz — the sign must be true… PLUS, it is in Texas! Double-Jeopardy, it must be true. Renee Vaughan has since apologized: