LISTEN to BLACK MAN THINKIN’


Re-trial Goes Much Like the First Trial, But Sadder

The basic details are not difficult:

A man saw someone he considered suspicious, called police and followed him. Eventually, he came into contact with the subject. Words were exchanged, an altercation ensued, during which the man sustained injuries. He drew a weapon and fired once. Police arrived to find the man, George Zimmerman, aged 28, bloodied and shaken, and the shooting victim, Trayvon Martin, aged 17, dead.

Police questioned Zimmerman that night, gave him a lie detector test the next day (he passed), and determined there was not probable cause for an arrest.

In the 16 months that followed: the FBI concluded race played no role in the shooting; and Florida’s governor appointed a special prosecutor who bypassed a grand jury to charge Zimmerman with 2nd-degree murder. That decision was criticized by a legal expert as potentially criminal, and special prosecutor Angela Corey was indeed later criminally indicted for falsifying the arrest warrant and complaint against Zimmerman.

At trial, prosecution witnesses supported Zimmerman’s self-defense assertions, including a black legal professor, who explained, under cross-examination, that injuries are not required before a person might legally act in self-defense.

Despite all this, people were shocked, SHOCKED, at George Zimmerman’s acquittal on July 13th.

So, those who insisted Zimmerman be tried in a court of law, despite a weak case, changed venues: the court of public opinion, bound neither by the rules of evidence, nor any need to speak truthfully. So, how is that coming along?

The day after the verdict, there were demonstrations from New York City to Los Angeles, Chicago to Oakland, Milwaukee to Miami, and elsewhere protesting Zimmerman’s acquittal.

Also on the day after the verdict, the NAACP and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network (NAN) called for the Department of Justice to file federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman. Attorney General Holder told NAN, “If we find evidence of a potential federal criminal civil rights crime, we will take appropriate action, and at every step, the facts and law will guide us forward.” One can only wonder if those facts will include the 2012 FBI report which found no evidence of racism, a hate crime, or any civil rights violation by George Zimmerman. One prosecutor is already criminally indicted for corruption in the charging of Zimmerman; could an overzealous Attorney General Eric Holder become the second?

Perhaps sensing the initiative slipping away, the NAACP’s Hilary Shelton appeared on Sean Hannity’s TV show (July 18th) to assert that Zimmerman “stalked, assaulted, and” shot Trayvon Martin to death, and to criticize Stand Your Ground laws. However:

    1. There is no proof that Zimmerman stalked Martin.
    2. The evidence presented and the verdict imply Martin assaulted Zimmerman, and
    3. Stand Your Ground was not part of Zimmerman’ defense.

President Obama’s post-verdict statement gave way to a July 19th race speech in which he said, “Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago.” Whether Obama sought to unite the nation or curry favor with the black Americans he normally ignores is hard to say. However, this is not: 2 days after the speech, a national poll showed Obama’s disapproval rating higher than George Zimmermans’s.

Then, there were the July 20th 100-City Trayvon rallies, with turnout far less than expected, though that was hard to glean from most news coverage.

Even the Congressional Black Caucus chimed in, with members expressing support for an economic boycott of Florida to protest Stand Your Ground laws, and looking to revisit gun control in the wake of Martin’s shooting. However, Congress generally cannot revise state laws, and the good ship gun control already sailed away…empty.

So, the public “re-trial” is going much the way the state trial did, and for the same reason: those arrayed against George Zimmerman have more passion than proof. However, regarding Martin, more proof emerges that may generate a different passion.

First, the Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea…actually Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. Those are 2 of the 3 ingredients needed to make “lean“, a street drug, which requires the codeine in prescription cough syrup, or Dextromethorphan (DXM), available in over-the counter cough syrup like Robitussin. Martin’s Facebook page showed him seeking codeine to make more lean, before being told Robitussin’s DXM would also work. When abused, DXM can cause aggression and paranoia. Of course, all this is circumstantial until Martin’s autopsy report revealed liver anomalies, consistent with DXM abuse.

Then there is Alicia Stanley, Martin’s former stepmother who gave an interview to CNN at the beginning of the trial. She said she did it so people would know, “I exist…”

Why would that matter? Because it is she, not Sybrina Fulton, with whom Trayvon Martin lived, from age 3 until 2010. During that time, there is no evidence of the truancy, drug use, theft and other issues that prosecutors fought to keep from a jury.

To the point; it is less a matter of what Martin’s improper behavior was than when it started and, perhaps, with whom.

However, Alicia Stanley, the woman who raised Trayvon Martin, became an inconvenience: told to “get in where you fit in” at his funeral, and waited more than a year after Martin’s death before seeking the recognition some would say she has earned. By contrast, Sybrina Fulton waited less than a month before seeking to profit from trademarking “I AM TRAYVON” and “Justice for Trayvon”.

Sadly, a young black man died, shot in self-defense by a “soft” man with “a hero complex.” Unfortunately, that is not all that is sad. Trayvon Martin’s innocence began to fade in 2010, through events over which he had no control. By February 26, 2012, Martin was a troubled kid, by any measure: doing poorly in school, committing petty crimes, and a drug user who had already sustained internal organ damage and was at a 7-Eleven, procuring the ingredients for his drug of choice, jones’in’ for another high. Viewing the store security video in that light is heartbreaking:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvwhGVWAdjI[/youtube]

No matter why Martin was out that night, this tragedy might still have occurred. However, no one’s child should be out at night like that…ever. Somehow, we came to focus on Zimmerman, and lost the bubble on that.

The “Glazing” of North Africa

This is Mohamed Bouazizi:

Mohamed Bouazizi

He was an anonymous Tunisian fruit merchant until December 17, 2010, when local police confiscated the 26-year-old’s weighing scales, keeping him from working. Angered and humiliated, Bouazizi went to the governor’s office to retrieve his scales and was ignored. After shouting in the middle of the street, “How do you expect me to make a living?”, he then did this to himself:

Bouazizi Ablaze

Bouazizi’s suicide set off protests that brought down Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, who had ruled for 23 years. The “official” story was the protests were responses to unemployment and a lack of economic freedom, and the Arab Spring “movement” spread to Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen; pretty much across North Africa and the Persian Gulf. By May 2011, only Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates were protest-free.

On May 19, 2011, American President Barack Obama gave a speech:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GZFkwtLBLM[/youtube]

With that, the “official” story was “fixed”: the Arab Spring was about “self-determination”, “governments denying their citizens’ dignity”, and was reminiscent of America’s Founding Fathers defying George III, or Rosa parks keeping her bus seat. The Arab people were demanding freedom and the march toward democracy could not be denied. However, the true story…well, look at a map of North Africa:

North Africa Map

Two and a half years after Bouazizi’s suicide overturned an Islamist government, Tunisia has: political instability and assassination, 17% unemployment, economic decline, sovereign debt downgraded to junk-bond status, another vendor self-immolation…and an Islamist government.

Algeria apparently weathered the Arab Spring well. Until militants attacked its Ain Amenas natural gas plant in January 2013, killing more than 80 people, and exposing anew the more than 2 decade-old struggle against Islamists.

The Shiite majority in Bahrain clashes politically with the Sunni minority that rules the the government. In response, Sunnis have jailed opposition leaders and relieved some Sunnis of their citizenship. Meanwhile, at least 55 people have died since the first massive protests of Feb 2011.

Jordan is less stable, as East Bank tribes grow distrustful of King Abdullah, along with a significant Palestinian refugee community, which supports an emboldened, and Islamist, Muslim Brotherhood.

Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy limits protests, but unrest in its Eastern provinces were buoyed by the Arab Spring. One expert believes the overthrow of King Abdullah is possible before 2017.

Despite his other flaws, former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi kept a lid on Islamists. However, the Arab Spring, coupled with Western intervention in Libya’s 2011 “transition” deposed Gaddafi and strengthened Islamists. They and jihadist terrorists flexed their muscle in the brazen 2012 assault on the US consulate in Benghazi.

The Libyan victory heartened Islamists in the Syrian opposition seeking to topple president Bashar Al-Assad. Syria’s president is in deep trouble, and deeply offensive to many in the West and elsewhere. However, now the only in-country option to Al-Assad is the “pick-your-favorite-Islamists” one.

In Egypt, the Arab Spring replaced a 30-year dictator, Hosni Mubarak, with another would-be dictator, Mohamed Morsi, whom the Egyptian military removed after one year. Now the military, long respected as a stabilizing force in Egypt, is on the defensive about an attack on reportedly peaceful Morsi supporters that killed more than 50. This provides a sympathetic, and not aggressive or oppressive, portrayal of Islamists who invaded Egypt’s political structure following Mubarak’s downfall: as those whose legitimate election victory was improperly voided, and as victims of political violence.

So, what does this mean?

    A) Islamists are moving toward control of North Africa,
    B) The current US president has done much to support them, and
    C) It also means the US is becoming a stench in the nostrils of those who oppose the islamists.

It started in 2009, pre-Arab Spring, when young Iranians protested the “landslide” re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by chanting US President Obama’s name in the streets, asking, “Are you with us or against us?” Their play for democracy and freedom was ignored, souring Iranians on the idea that America stood for freedom…or against Islamist oppression.

President Obama declared US interests and values at risk, without saying what they were, as the reason for intervening in Libya’s civil war, directly contradicting public statements by then Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. Obama’s policy was exposed in September 2012 by Al-Qaeda. Their 8-hour attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, during which the US president failed to defend US interests and values, came with Islamist shows of contempt, including posing for pictures,

Benghazi Attack

and raping the US Ambassador before killing him. To date, the Obama administration holds no one accountable for the attack, though leads and suspects were known since October 2012. Islamists need not fear, nor respect, the US in that country.

Islamists in Syria received the same message via Obama’s “red line” warning. First, the US president indicated the movement or use of chemical weapons in Syria would make him rethink opposition to US involvement, but then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton re-drew the line to allow movement but prohibit use. Then Israel, Great Britain, Russia, France, and the UN all confirmed chemical weapons use in Syria, Obama backtracked further, acknowledging a “small amount” of usage, and that he needed to reconsider what to do, leaving the “red line”, and respect for American resolve, in tatters.

In Egypt, Islamists are regrouping, but US prestige is not. Obama backed the wrong horse, regarding freedom, when he supported the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, who can the US support? Neither Obama nor US interests have many friends left in Egypt, if pictures are any indication:

North Africa sees Obama’s foreign policy as pro-terrorist, and Islamist terrorists are uninterested in freedom. Consequently, an anti-American “glaze” is now brushed across the region, awaiting the kiln fire of violence to make it a hard shell opposed to American interests, no matter which side prevails. If the Islamists win, then Benghazi will represent the normal regard for US interests; if freedom wins, then that the US stood with the enemy will dull Arab ears to US concerns.

Since all this was US foreign policy, does anyone believe this is unintentional?

page 1 of 1

The World of Black Man Thinkin’
ARTICLE ARCHIVES
WDFP Radio Show Archives

Welcome , today is Tuesday, April 23, 2024