GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Your Media at work

by

Speak Truth to Obama, and you get fired: Drew Johnson, at The Chattanooga Times Free Press, was fired last week because he wrote the headline “Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr. President”.

But, if it supports Obama, demented race-baiting is normal journalism: Greg Giroux, at Bloomberg, titled an article “House Republicans Set to Defy Obama Are Mostly White Men”. Seriously.

By the way, you can still find the fired Johnson’s article (with title changed) here. He cites relevant facts in a justified indictment of President Obama’s policies. That he was fired over it, is a disgrace.

ADDENDUM: That Zimmerman juror last week, who supposedly said that he “got away with murder”, was framed. She does question Zimmerman’s actions and sympathize with Trayvon Martin’s family, but:

The phrase “got away with murder” was put in her mouth…In the unedited video, [the] question is longer…and Maddy pauses twice, for several seconds, as she struggles to answer it…As she struggles to answer, she looks as though she’s trying to reconcile the sentiment that’s been quoted to her—that Zimmerman “got away with murder”—with her own perspective. So she repeats the quote…

She stands by the verdict…In the unedited video, she continues: “I know I went the right way…” [in acquitting Zimmerman]

Again: Your media at work.

Some Zimmerman links

by

Recent-ish, and I found them worthwhile:

  • Shelby Steele on The Decline of the Civil Rights Establishment. “The purpose of today’s civil-rights establishment is not to seek justice, but to seek power…based on the presumption that [blacks] are still…victimized…This idea of victimization is an example of what I call a ‘poetic truth.’ Like poetic license, it bends the actual truth…[listeners] say, ‘Yes, of course,’ lest we seem to be racist…this establishment is fighting to maintain its authority to wield poetic truth…One wants to scream at all those outraged at the Zimmerman verdict: Where is your outrage over the collapse of the black family?” – Read the whole thing.

  • A good piece from Cathy Young reviewing the depth of the Established media’s malpractice in this case, and one from Bill Whittle expressing his outrage over that malpractice.

  • Now old, but: Video of the jury reading the Not Guilty verdict. (Just to see the moment. And sorry, but there is no honest way to force Zimmerman into a ‘white’ identity; by conventional standards, he seems clearly a Latino / person of color.)

BONUS (from Kurt in the comments): Bryan Preston critiques how Obama has cast his lot with the race-baiters. “In Florida, blacks benefit from ‘stand your ground’ laws more often than whites do…[and] the president went on to acknowledge that…’stand your ground’ was not invoked in Zimmerman’s defense, [but said] we should re-examine such laws anyway. Logically, why?”

UPDATE: Zimmerman helps people, despite the nasty death threats that Trayvon Martin supporters have inflicted not only on him, but even on strangers who (say) happen to have a phone number similar to his.

Real justice for Trayvon

by

As Dan has noted, some 35 Gay Left advocate groups have signed an “open letter asking for justice for Trayvon Martin”. Justice is a crucially important value, so let’s give that suggestion its due, by considering what it could mean.

Since the groups were prompted by the Zimmerman verdict: perhaps they mean that bad things, such as imprisonment, should happen to George Zimmerman. But why would any reasonable person think that? A jury of his peers looked into the matter as intensively as any people on Earth, and found Zimmerman not guilty of breaking any laws. The jury felt that he bore Martin no enmity and saw a strong possibility that Zimmerman acted in legitimate self-defense.

We will never know, to a certainty, what happened the night Martin was killed. But Martin’s friend, Rachel Jeantel, has stated her belief that Martin must have thrown the first punch. (Also, she has stated her belief that Martin had profiled Zimmerman as a gay rapist – which, if Martin had, would make his attacking Zimmerman first an anti-gay hate crime.)

Jeantel has also expressed a belief that Martin did not mean to kill Zimmerman; that Martin would have stopped short of killing him, just in time. But Zimmerman could not possibly know that, as his head was being slammed into the concrete.

For sake of argument, let’s believe Jeantel for a moment, on those two points: that Martin did attack Zimmerman, but without meaning to kill him. Then any reasonable person must agree that Trayvon Martin did not deserve to die.

But people die all the time, who don’t deserve it. The only people who deserve death are the very few who have committed the most heinous crimes. Everyone else’s death is a tragedy, including Martin’s.

Without casting aspersions on Zimmerman, and based on the available evidence: real “Justice for Trayvon” would be if Martin and Zimmerman had both kept their lives that night – and Martin had then been arrested, charged and put on trial (perhaps in juvenile court) for the crime of assault.

It’s strange, how the “Justice for Trayvon” advocates always manage to leave out that last part.

The LGBT advocates’ letter does say:

Every person, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, must be able to walk the streets without fear for their safety.

We can agree on that. But the JfT advocates need to remember that the “every person” includes George Zimmerman – a Latino neighborhood resident who was patrolling his community to help it deal with a crime wave; not a gay rapist, and apparently, not anyone who deserved to have his head slammed into the concrete.

Trayvon the Gay Basher?

by

Well, well, well.

Last night Trayvon Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel gave CNN her first interview since testifying in the George Zimmerman murder trial.

Jeantel opened up and let loose on the murder case that gripped that nation.

She explained to CNN’s Piers Morgan how she warned her childhood friend that Zimmerman —  could be a gay rapist!

MORGAN: You felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn’t know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?

JEANTEL: Yes.

MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?

JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every — who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out?

 


-Bruce @GayPatriot

The Establishment media, race and Zimmerman

by

I’ve seen the Establishment media get certain things wrong on the Zimmerman case, repeatedly. Especially on racial aspects, and it is time to call out two of them.

First, the alleged “racial profiling”. As the New York Times put it:

The case began in the small city of Sanford as a routine homicide but soon evolved into a civil rights cause examining racial profiling and its consequences…

…said Benjamin Todd Jealous, president of the N.A.A.C.P. “…we will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed.”

Problem: The Zimmerman case has virtually nothing to do with racial profiling.

  1. Zimmerman wasn’t police; nothing he did was official.
  2. Zimmerman didn’t profile: he described Martin’s race (as “black”) just because a police dispatcher directly asked him to. Finally,
  3. If anyone profiled, it may have been Trayvon Martin, who allegedly profiled the Hispanic, neighborhood-patrolling Zimmerman as a white threat (a “creepy-ass cracker”).

Next, about Zimmerman’s race. I think race is a thoroughly stupid way to classify human beings. But, I don’t rule the world. As many know, Zimmerman’s mother is Peruvian and “Spanish was the primary language at home”. Per the same article, the family itself wanted to downplay all racial angles when all of this broke, but… clearly, they didn’t get their way. So, why does the Establishment media never simply describe Zimmerman as Hispanic?

Zimmerman is as Hispanic as President Obama is African-American (namely half, including parentage, cultural heritage/exposure, and choice of identity). Yet CNN and The New York Times weirdly call him “white Hispanic” (no hyphen), while others have used the bizarre – and possibly insulting – circumlocution “Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic”. Imagine if they called Obama “white Black”, or said “Obama identifies himself as African-American”. They never would, no matter how much Joe Biden wants them to.

Exit curiosity: If Zimmerman’s parents’ races were switched – so that he were almost the same person he is, in genetics and appearance, but happened to have a Peruvian last name – Would he have still been put on trial? Was anti-German bias at work?

FROM THE COMMENTS: In Baltimore, police investigate claims that black youths chased and beat a Hispanic man, shouting “This is for Trayvon.”

It’s difficult to say more until the claims pan out, but I’ll ask this: Obama chose to reinforce, rather than to correct, a painfully one-sided view of the Zimmerman-Martin case. Has his doing so already led to (more) tragedy? Also linked from the comments: numerous threats on the Zimmerman jurors.

UPDATE: I didn’t know about “watermelon lean”. After a commentor mentioned it a couple times, I googled around and stumbled across this year-old post at American Thinker, “What the Media Choose Not to Know about Trayvon”. It’s fascinating. It shows Martin as part of “urban America’s lost boy culture”, a culture which commits crime in disproportion to its numbers, and which the GayPatriot blog has perhaps touched on, indirectly before.

Obama: Racial Divider

by

I’ve avoided weighing in on the George Zimmerman trial, out of deference to the judicial process. But now the jury has spoken: George Zimmerman is not even guilty of a lesser charge such as assault, child abuse or manslaughter; still less is he guilty of any degree of murder. It’s official.

My sympathy, and I’m sure all of our prayers and sympathies, continue to go out to Trayvon Martin’s family for the tragic loss of their son and brother.

But I believe they “lost him”, so to speak, before his lethal encounter with Zimmerman. On the total weight of evidence, I believe that Martin was an aggressor, and I agree with the jury that it would have been wrong to send Zimmerman to prison, on the strong possibility (if not likelihood) that Zimmerman acted in reasonable self-defense.

I want to go beyond what Kurt and Roger L. Simon have said about President Obama. He didn’t just besmirch his office by taking public sides in a painful criminal matter where the utmost caution was needed. And he didn’t just lose politically (by taking the side that lost on trial), nor win politically (by revving up his base). No, it’s worse than that. Obama has lost morally by saying things in this matter that, in all likelihood, are morally wrong.

The latest would be Obama’s call to “honor” Travyon Martin:

President Obama called on the nation to honor Trayvon Martin a day after George Zimmerman was acquitted of his murder by asking “ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence.”

…Obama said in a statement on Sunday…”We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.”

Let’s be clear. Just as the weight of evidence suggests that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, so it also suggests that Travyon Martin used excessive physical force, acting in illegal, criminal aggression. (Otherwise, how could Zimmerman’s action have been self-defense – objectively?)

Physical aggression, especially that which threatens another’s life to the point where he may be justified in taking drastic action, is morally wrong. And self-defense, IF it is genuinely called for, is morally right. And “honor” ought to be given, if at all, to the person, philosophy or action which is in the right.

I really don’t believe that either party should be “honored” here. But, if one of them absolutely had to be, wouldn’t it be Zimmerman? Certainly not because he killed; but because he was – on the weight of the evidence, and as now officially determined by a jury – likely reasonable to have killed, under the law and circumstances; likely the party who was more in the right.

That President O’Pander ignores the moral implications of what the jury found (after their intensive study of the matter), and even presents the opposite to people as that which is good and true, is typical.

Tragically, it is also divisive beyond words, a terrible injury to our nation. Why? Because it sends many people in the wrong direction – with their emotions and their sense of injury inflamed, on behalf of that which is likely wrong. Honoring the wrong does not bring healing – especially in racial matters.