“If I had son, he'd look like Trayvon.”
— Barack Obama
When members of the New Black Panther Party stood menacingly with night sticks, intimidating white voters at polling places in Philadelphia, Barack Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, turned a blind eye. Nothing to see; nothing to investigate.
But when a mouthy Harvard professor was stopped and questioned by police as he attempted to break into a home that later turned out to be his own, the President of the United States thought it was somehow appropriate for him to opine to the media that the police had “acted stupidly.” Why? Because the professor was black, of course, and the police were white. It even called for a “beer summit,” remember?
White legislators in Arizona or Alabama must be conspiring to commit racism if they pass state laws enforcing our federal immigration regulations. But a Muslim Army Major who executes innocent people in cold blood while shouting “god is great” in Arabic is just a confused loner.
Brave rebels are slaughtered in the streets of Tehran and Obama tells the world that “both sides” should remain calm. Muslim Brotherhood terrorists lead revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and Obama is all too eager to back their efforts — regardless of the consequences to the United States or our allies.
Far from being a post-racial president, Barack Obama has been the most divisive leader we have had in the last half-century. All he seems to know is that no matter the circumstances, it’s America’s fault — and furthermore, it’s white America’s fault.
Now comes the Trayvon Martin case. No one yet knows what actually happened on the night of February 26, when George Zimmerman shot 17-year-old Martin to death in a gated community in Sanford, Florida — but Barack Obama knows that if he had a son, he would look just like Trayvon. So what? How does that advance the case? How does it do anything but stir up racial animosity? Is the image in our national consciousness supposed to be that the president’s son (if he had one) would have been killed? Why would he say such a thing? Initially, he was willing to let local authorities investigate, but when a reporter shouted a question about the case, he was all too ready to answer.
Among the few things we do know is that Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, informed police the individual he had spotted appeared to be casing the homes in the neighborhood and that he looked as if he might be on drugs.
We know that Zimmerman has not been charged with anything after citing Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows an individual to use deadly force if he or she feels threatened by another person. We also know that the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world have proclaimed that Zimmerman is guilty. No trial needed. No evidence presented. No witnesses called. Just guilty.
But now an eyewitness has stepped forward who claims that it was, in fact, self defense. Apparently, the witness claims he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him. Was this the catalyst for the subsequent shooting? If so, how inconvenient for the Sharpton-Jackson-Obama narrative.
What is not known — but will be investigated, assuming the president and his race-baiting friends don’t poison the well — are the exact circumstances that led to the shooting death of Martin by Zimmerman that night.
Thanks to the circus the president has helped incite, if Zimmerman is indicted, it will be next to impossible for him to receive a fair trial. And if he is not indicted, he may have to change his name and disappear. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, our Community Agitator in Chief has helped to ensure that George Zimmerman is a marked man. That's what agitators do.