Where are the bleeding hearts who were so in evidence for the Martin case on this crime? This is another example of someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was assaulted and ultimately murdered by two inhuman thugs. I wonder if, had Mr. Belton been armed and defended himself if this would be getting any more attention? Sadly for him, he suffered the fate that many seemed to wish upon Zimmerman.
If such tragic crimes are "about race" - as we were admonished by Sharpton, Jackson, Maddow, Perry, ad nauseum - then why is this not in the news, why are people up in arms over the clear racial implications of this and a few other recent similar tragedies? And if you really want something to ponder, imagine if the white equivalents of Al, Jessie and so on were to show up screaming bloody murder over this and calling for blood! There is no question that they would be called racists.
Why was one tragedy (in which there were self-defense implications) worth so much attention while others are less important? Well, let's look at the major difference. Hmmm - is it the race of the victim(s) or the race of the perpetrators? Is it that highlighting crimes in which the victims are white and the killers black violates some desired narrative? Isn't the issue crime?
I am generally not a conspiracy theorist, but even the most rational among us must wonder why crimes with white perps and black victims are headlines and crimes with black perps and white victims are not. What is the story we are being sold, what is the image being reinforced? Why is someone, some group out there, so intent on manipulating the news and public opinion, so intent on creating a narrative of victimhood for blacks with whites as predators? It is hard to see the true intention as one in which race is no longer an issue; it is more clear that the intent to to create a revenge scenario. It is clear that peaceful coexistence is not the goal, it is vengeance. It is clear that eliminating a power structure is not the goal, but simply turning it over.
On the 50th anniversary of the "Dream" speech, it seems the dream has changed a great deal. Hand in hand has become hand to throat or gun to head.
UPDATE: Of course, this afternoon on MSNBC, Joy Reid was whining that to equate, in any way, the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy with events like this one or the Oklahoma murder was creating "false equivalence". I agree, they are sadly not equivalent at all except that, in all of these cases, young men chose to initiate violent physical assault.
George Zimmerman was physically assaulted and defended himself against the attacker. His attacker chose this course and, sadly for him and his parents, paid a price for his decision. These more recent cases were nothing more than cold-blooded gang-type race-related violence and murder. At level of the fatal act, then, there is no equivalence at all; one (the one liberals choose to focus on) was an act of self-defense (Again - why do they choose this one, what is the agenda?), the others were wanton, craven murders. And the death of those assaulted in these recent cases would seem consistent with MSNBC and their like-minded viewers' world view; those who were assaulted should allow themselves to be killed. After all they preferred that Zimmerman die rather than defend himself and now, with these cases, they have their many pounds of flesh, but one can be sure no lesson learned.
To many, these cases highlight the need to protect themselves from irrational violence and the psychopaths who commit it. It is why they will not give up their rights to those who expect them to die before defending themselves, to run, to hide, to cower. These events are, quite sadly, the justification for the saying that "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". People are not willing to die for your social experiment.
In the end, given no choice to be left alone and unmolested, it is better to be George Zimmerman than Dilbert Belton.
No comments:
Post a Comment