The People vs. George Zimmerman: How's It Going To End?

In a word: Badly.

Zimmerman was taken into custody on politically motivated second-degree murder charges in the death of Trayvon Martin.  At least that's what I am hearing from Alan Dershowitz:

 “This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.” Dershowitz said that the elements that would constitute that crime are non-existent in the affidavit.

“It’s not only thin, it’s irresponsible,” said Dershowitz. Dershowitz went on to strongly criticize Corey’s decision to move forward with the case against Zimmerman.

“I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not – if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit – this case will result in an acquittal.”


And what will happen when the jury - unswayed by political motivations - returns a not guilty verdict?   Remember Los Angles, 1992?  I do:

And what will Barack Obama do?  Nothing, at first. The actions (or inactions) of New York's first black mayor, David Dinkins, during the Crown Heights riots of 1991 is the precedent that will be followed:

Mayor Dinkins hesitated to deploy vast numbers of police to stop the rioting because he had been elected as a peacemaker. During the Crown Heights Riot, Dinkins stood on the stairs of a police temporary headquarters vehicle and addressed the several hundred police officers who were there for roll call. He stated the reason he had not allowed the police to stop the rioters was that "the community needed to be allowed to vent". He stated that he did not want the police to intercede too quickly to avoid escalating the rioter's behavior. However, this strategy proved disastrous....


More on the Dinkins/Obama analogy:

...a point that was widely held that fall: that Dinkins would lower the crime rate because disempowered blacks would feel a sense of belonging. Instead, Dinkins' election fired the starting gun for a racial free-for-all and the four worst years, murder-wise, in the city's history. It was Latinos vs. whites in Washington Heights (1992), blacks vs. Koreans in a heated grocery-store dispute (1990) and, in Crown Heights, four nights of unchecked rioting by blacks against Hasidic Jews (1991).


Side note:  Since the Dinkins debacle, the city of New York - 67% Democrat by registration - has elected Republican mayors (or occasionally "independent", as is the case with Michael Bloomberg in 2010) for the last 20 years. For some, that might serve as a warning, but...

Well, Obama and his mob (many of whom are morally indistinguishable from their white-sheeted brethren save for the color of their skin) got what they wanted, for the moment.  But this will spiral out of control at some point, with some citizens fully aware that a man got prosecuted based upon a liberal political agenda, and others using a possible undesired outcome as an excuse to burn down the cities.

Neither will help the Obama re-election campaign.  Just ask David Dinkins...

Barack Obama as David Dinkins? And 2012 as 1968?

I'm taking this from a post I wrote back in early 2008....a New York Times editorial endorsement:

"What no one disputes is his most evident characteristic. America knows Barack Obama to be, above all, a conciliator. His instinct is to unify. This decency can help the country confront its biggest forseeable problems: a sagging economy and tension between the races. The two go together. Mr. Obama seems better qualified to persuade all Americans to share the burdens ahead. That's also true for another reason: race. Mr. Obama would be America's first black president - a fact likely to instill a sense of pride and participation by blacks and other minority groups."

Well, almost..  Swap out "Barack Obama" and "President", insert "David Dinkins" and "Mayor", and you have the verbatim endorsement the Times gave Clueless Dave back on October 29th, 1989.

How did things work out?  Same link:

Delicately, ever so delicately, The Times made a point that was widely held that fall: that Dinkins would lower the crime rate because disempowered blacks would feel a sense of belonging.
Instead, Dinkins' election fired the starting gun for a racial free-for-all and the four worst years, murder-wise, in the city's history. It was Latinos vs. whites in Washington Heights (1992), blacks vs. Koreans in a heated grocery-store dispute (1990) and, in Crown Heights, four nights of unchecked rioting by blacks against Hasidic Jews (1991).

No, we have't seen race riots yet, but we have seen a lawless "Occupation" that most Democrats support and that liberal mayors seem loathe to stop. An "Occupation" that is rife with antisemitism, mind you. Could we see Crown Heights redux?

Mickey Kaus goes stream of consciousnesses:

Was Occupy Wall Street on the verge of Dinkinsizing Obama? After all, one social malady Obama hasn’t had to contend with, until now, has been a rising crime rate or, more broadly, a general sense of things spinning out of control in cities–something that is almost invariably toxic for incumbents (ask David Dinkins and Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton in 1994**). But now Occupy Wall Street has provided at least a whiff of authentic 1960s semi-anarchy, and the Democrats’ attitude toward the protests has been generally supportive (or “permissive”). I remember the President who got elected in 1968. Not a Democrat. …

One Richard Milhouse Nixon, if I recollect. The scourge of the left, of the universities, and of the media.  A man mocked & parodied by the Hollywood elite, and deemed un-electable by the cognoscenti.

History is going to repeat itself, although I am not altogether sure who will play the role of Nixon this time.  What I am sure of, though, is we can thank Occupy Wall Street, and the dumb-as-dirt Democrats who couldn't wait to throw their support behind them, for making it all happen...

Obama: Dinkins, redux?

Sounds just like the type of editorial the NYT will write when ready to endorse Barack Obama for the presidency:

"What no one disputes is his most evident characteristic. America knows Barack Obama to be, above all, a conciliator. His instinct is to unify. This decency can help the country confront its biggest forseeable problems: a sagging economy and tension between the races. The two go together. Mr. Obama seems better qualified to persuade all Americans to share the burdens ahead. That's also true for another reason: race. Mr. Obama would be America's first black president - a fact likely to instill a sense of pride and participation by blacks and other minority groups."

Switch out "Mr. Obama" and replace it with "David Dinkins", and you have the editorial above as written on October 29th, 1989, as they endorsed his election as the mayor of New York City.

So we have seen this before. Kyle Smith, however, tkaes care to remind us:

Delicately, ever so delicately, The Times made a point that was widely held that fall: that Dinkins would lower the crime rate because disempowered blacks would feel a sense of belonging.
Instead, Dinkins' election fired the starting gun for a racial free-for-all and the four worst years, murder-wise, in the city's history. It was Latinos vs. whites in Washington Heights (1992), blacks vs. Koreans in a heated grocery-store dispute (1990) and, in Crown Heights, four nights of unchecked rioting by blacks against Hasidic Jews (1991).

Ouch. But all true; it was New York's lowest ebb; and it took a hardcase (Republican) mayor eight years to whip the city back into shape. Kinda like Jimmy Carter followed by two terms of Reagan, I guess. But do we want to go thru that dark night again?

..... Dinkins' race did not make him a conciliator. It requires a similar lapse of logic to say the same things about Obama's supposed ability to calm terrorism in the boiling neighborhoods of the world. And such things are said, through a megaphone, with a straight face. The punditry is telling us to vote for Obama because he is black.

Finish the article at the link if you care to; it uncovers a variety of endorsements by allegedly serious writers/publication who offer up Obama's race as the best reason to vote for him; as if the color of his skin will make the rest of the world (finally) genulfect before us. Amazing that the media - which spends so much time angrily defending its postion as "opinion leader" as being beyond reproach - can see no further than skin deep on what may be the most significant election in a generation.

Someone ought to show them the Times editorial on Dinkins that fateful day in OCtober of '95; and ask them to reflect on that....

Change we DO NOT need...

Right Wing News wants to know: which prominent Democrat gave the following speech, and when did they give it?

"I believe that most Americans would agree on the problems this country faces and which the next administration must solve. They include the need, once again, for an economy that works. The economy today is in very, very bad shape, the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, xx% higher than when Mr. X took office, raging inflation. The latest wholesale price index is once again raising the specter of double-digit inflation. The purchasing power of the average American has slipped so much that it's now the equivalent of the purchasing power in XXXX. It's not getting better, it's getting worse. All the leading indicators now point downward. Stock investors are losing confidence. Over $XX xxxxxx of value has disappeared from the stock market in less than a month.

We need a government that works, we need a government that cares, and once again, we have to get back at work on education, on health, on housing, on the environment, on energy. And we need a foreign policy that once again reflects the values and the beliefs of the American people. This will take leadership, and we need leadership, too. The Republican administration, the Republican Party has had eight years to solve these problems. All of them have gotten worse. The Republican ticket does not offer new plans for their solution but is engaged in a frantic effort to defend the past. This nation desperately needs new leadership. The XXXXXX-YYYYYYY ticket would offer a new generation of leadership dedicated to solving the problems I have listed, and that is the basis of our appeal."

Hint: It was during a Vice-Presidential debate...

No, not Crazy Joe Biden, you silly goose!

It was Walter Mondale that spoke the words above, and the new leadership that was desperately elected was the Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale ticket.

Maybe that's why we hear the Democrats repeat this mantra ad nasuesm - because it has worked for them once or twice in the last quarter-century or so, and like all blinded superstitionalists, believe that it is the chant, repeated with the right effects and accents, that make the result possible.

Meanwhile...presenting Barack Obama as 2008's version of Jimmy Carter, as per Walter Mondale. Still think that Obama will be more like a David Dinkins - a elected official pushed into office by a media who conviced an easily duped New York electorate into thinking he would bring the racial healing and liberal salve that the city so desperately needed.

Turned out to be a disaster, as race relations hit an all-time low (anti-Asian rioting, anti-Semitic pogroms), crime hit an all-time high, and the soothing liberal words of a mayor whose leftist thinking didn't account for these eventualities simply acted as accelerant on the fire.

Result? Dinkins booted in four years (a la Jimmy Carter), and a city that is registered over 66% Democrat has elected Republican mayors for the last sixteen years and counting. And nary an old school liberal in sight, as New Yorkers cringe in fear from "the next Dinkins".

Obama's fate? Likely.

But America's fate? To be turned into 1988-1992 New York, writ on large scale, complete with race riots, freed "misunderstood" criminals, and an horrific economy? At this point in time in the world?

This is the change we have coming. The spirit of '76, indeed...

Anti-White Racism: Legal and Acceptable !!

Black Americans are told they must vote for black politicians as a matter of loyalty to their race. White Americans are told they must vote for black politicians to prove they are not racist rednecks.

So we have a respectable amount of black political leadership in the nation today, given that they make up close to 13% of the nation's population. The question is, can they be racially blind when governing a population that is largely racially different than they are?

Hmm. New York's Mayor David Dinkins was the city's first black mayor, a Democrat in a Democratic town, elected in 1990. We were told, over and over, that he would bring a new era of racial healing to a torn city. Of course, the opposite occured, and blacks were allowed to torment Korean shopkeepers and impose a pogrom on the Jews of Crown Heights, Brooklyn, while the mayor turned a blind eye. He was turned out in 1994 in favor of Rudy Guliani, and this Democratic city has elected strictly Republican mayors for the last 16 years.

So here we are in 2009. Has minority leadership grown up, and grown past racial vengence? Apparently, not in New York state:

During the first five months of this year, with the Senate under the control of its first African-American majority leader, [State Senator Malcolm] Smith, top Democrats bemoaned the lack of minority Senate staffers.

But instead of trying to recruit new hires, they fired nearly 200 almost exclusively white workers and replaced them with a large number of minority employees, many of whom were seen by their fellow workers to be unskilled at their new jobs.

The move produced severe racial tensions, made worse by the fact that, as a high-level Democratic staffer confided, “We’ve been told to only hire minorities.'’

This is ugly, and hasn't gotten the attention it deserves, simply because it is racism against white-skinned people, which is one of two types acceptable in mainstream society (the other is anti-Semitism, but you knew that). Were it white public officials firing 200 minority employees to change the complexion of their workplace - replacing them with incompetents, to boot - there would be a nationwide uproar.

Instead, media silence, and silence from our post-racial President. Somebody ought to tell minority leadership that the race game is a sure loser for them; for if all people feel they must vote by race to protect themselves, you'll be down to a handful of minority elected officials, all from ethnic enclaves. Even guilt(voting) is a rope that can wear thin...

Not a good way to get national - or even statewide - representation. But a great recipie for a disaster in a nation that has seen improving race relations. And it opens up the possibilty that good men or women of minority status will not get elected to higher posts due to the works of the Dinkins, and Smiths....

A tragedy for all, unless minority leadership gets their act together and the Democrats and the media stop excusing every act of liberal racism. Meanwhile, in Obama's America, the "beat" goes on:

Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.

But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.

It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.

The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.

''This was almost like being a terrorist act,'' Marshall said. ''And we allow this to go on in our neighborhoods?''

Apparently, we are. As long as the victims are people of pallor....

Barack Obama: Racist !

Well, of course white cops pick on black folks, even the ones like Officer Crowley, who just happens to be a department diversity specialist. Everyone knows that. Barack Obama know that too, and their are no extenuating circumstances that will permit him to admit otherwise.

He's quite secure in calling the Cambridge police officers who arrested psycho professor Gates "stupid". But it's not about them, or professor Gates - it's about Barack Obama, and Barack Obama finds himself in a heap of hot water. How to fix without compromising his racist principles? Bring in the media! In this case, Politico,who starts out gently chastising Obama for letting his cards show:

...for a politician who has benefited from his critics' ineptitude with racial language – such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's description of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a "Latina woman racist" – Obama's comments struck an uncharacteristically polarizing note.

Hmm...isn't Judge Sotomayor's description of white men as "less just" then a "wise Latina women" a bit of ineptitude with racial language as well? Well, I'll just point out that she and Obama are on the exact same ideological wavelength, and move on:

Republican pollster Whit Ayres said Obama played his cards Friday right by reaching out to Crowley and responding to a spiraling dispute that was "not consistent with the image of a post-racial America and a post-racial president." ...

The president, however, did not disavow the entirety of his comments on Gates's arrest. Though he massaged some of his specific word choices, Obama stuck by the core of his reaction to the incident in Cambridge, saying he still believes "that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home, to the station."

And neither Obama nor his press secretary went so far as to issue a direct and literal apology.

Barack Obama will not apologize; he will not admit he was wrong - in fact, he feels quite strongly that his racist knee-jerk reaction was the correct one. He just wants this all to go away, and what better way than to "reach out" to the man he viciously stereotyped in front of 24 million people?

Politico applauds this action as evidence of "post-racial" healing. It is anything but. An apology from the president and an admission that blacks too can be guilty of stereotyping would bring about some healing, but that would require an admission of fallibility from The One, and that's not gonna happen.

Instead we get a smear of feel-goody in an attempt to cover a racial firestorm fanned by a racist president, who is still blindy labeled as a "healer" by his supplicants in the media.

Look familiar? Only if you've lived through the "racial healing" of the Mayorship of one David Dinkins of New York City...

Ru-dee! Ru-dee! Ru-dee...!

New York, circa 1992, was considered, literally, an "ungovernable" city (made all the worse so by the disasterous reign of former mayor David Dinkins). Enter stage right one Rudy Giuliani, and watch a city often compared (negatively) against third-world nations become a low-crime, business-friendly, family-themed Disneyland of the Northeast. Any wonder why he's looking like the most likely candidate in the field to be taking the oath in January '09? George Will:

....for many months commentators have said that when the Republican base learns the facts about Rudy Giuliani's personal life (an annulled first marriage, a messy divorce, then a third marriage) and views on social issues (for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control, in each case with limits), support for him will evaporate. But such commentary is becoming self-refuting. The insistent reiteration of it during Giuliani's coast-to-coast campaigning is telling activist Republicans -- the sort of people who read political commentary -- the facts about Giuliani. And so far those facts are not causing a recoil from him: According to the USA Today-Gallup poll, his lead over John McCain has grown from 31 percent to 27 percent in November to 40-24 today.

And despite the media's attempt to portray all conservatives as "Christofascists" (sorry, John Edwards!), Will explains the nuance that the MSM is too thick to grasp:

People for whom opposition to abortion is very important might, however, think that in wartime it is not supremely important...

More on Rudy's accomplishments in an essay by Steven Malanga in today's New York Post:

NOT since Teddy Roosevelt took on Tammany Hall a century ago has a New York politician closely linked to urban reform looked like presidential timber...

He ran New York with a conservative's priorities - and delivered reform to a degree unprecedented in modern U.S. history. All while facing perhaps the only American media and political establishment even more liberal than the national one.

Over the last century, millions of people from all over the world have come to New York City," Giuliani once observed. "They didn't come here to be taken care of and to be dependent on city government. They came here for the freedom to take care of themselves....

TO those of us who observed Giuliani from the beginning, it was astonishing how fully he followed through on his conservative principles once elected - no matter how much he upset elite opinion, no matter how often radical advocates took to the streets in protest, no matter how many veiled (and not so veiled) threats that incendiary figures like Al Sharpton made against him and no matter how often The New York Times fulminated against his policies.

And while another canard in the anybody-but-Rudy campaign is that "no blacks will ever vote for him", one important fact should be made crystal clear:

For Giuliani, "the most fundamental of civil rights is the guarantee that government can give you a reasonable degree of safety."

Giuliani was responsible for:

...a historic drop in crime far beyond what anyone could have imagined - with total crime down by some 64 percent during the Giuliani years, and murder (the most reliable crime statistic) down 67 percent, from 1,960 in 1992 to 640 in Giuliani's last year.

How many of those 1300 lives saved annually were black? How much did Rudy's crackdown on crime actually improve the quality of life for all black citizens of New York, the segment most likely to be a crime victim in the pre-Rudy years? My bet (hope might be a better word) is that some black leaders will wake up to this and support Rudy, rather than falling back on annual Democratic assurances of renewed race-grievances and additional job-training centers...Sharpton, in eight years of battling with Rudy Giuliani, was never able to get the upper hand on him; why would anybody follow his lead now?

Now, together with me...Ru-dee! Ru-dee! Ru-dee!

Paris - The New Beriut?

Riots continue for a fourth night in Paris, and French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy tries dhimmitude to bring about the peace:

Sarkozy defended his tough crime policies on Monday after a fourth night of riots in a Paris suburb in which tear gas was fired into a mosque.
Sarkozy, addressing police officers, vowed to find how tear gas had been fired into the Muslim place of worship, an incident which had helped fuel the disturbances

"helped fuel"? This is the media making excuses for Muslim anti-social violence; not unlike how Isreal "helps fuel" the "cycle of violence" by having the nerve to fight back. I'm sure there was a good reason to fire the tear gas; better than bullets, no? But Sarkozy keeps begging:

French television said six police officers were hurt and 11 people arrested in violence partly fueled by the incident at the mosque. Sarkozy promised an inquiry.
"I am, of course, available to the imam of the Clichy mosque to let him have all the details in order to understand how and why a tear gas bomb was sent into this mosque," he told about 170 police officers at the prefecture

How about an inquiry onto how the police officers got injured?
Now it's "partly fueled"? That's a flat-out lie by CNN here. This is the fourth day of rioting, remember?

The violence began four days ago after the deaths of two teenagers, believed to be of African origin, who were electrocuted after clambering into a power sub-station while apparently fleeing police.
Sarkozy offered to meet the youths' parents but it was unclear if the meeting would take place, aides said.

Sarkozy is being a good multicultural dhimmi. Instead of meeting with the families of the dead teenagers, how about the families of the injured police officers? How about investigating why these boys were running from the police, instead of investigating why the officers had to defend themselves?

I've lived through this, during the dark days of this in New York, when multiculturalist Mayor David Dinkins paid for/attended the funeral of a drug dealer shot dead by police. It only begot the Crown Heights riots, and an overall dramatic increase in crime, that did not abate until Rudy "Cowboy" Guliani came to town. The race-baiters were shut out, the criminals pursued and arrested, the cops defended. Now New York is one of the safest cities in the world, for people of all races/colors...

Taking notes, Mr. Sarkozy? You should be...

Link to CNN story via Little Green Footballs here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18063_Fourth_Night_of_Muslim_Riots_in_Paris&only