The DOJ and corrupt media join forces

The passages below are from Jim Tarantos' daily WSJ Online column, and cuts to the chase on the Treyvon Martin-George Zimmerman hoax trial currently underway in Florida.  For anyone following the trial and evidence and cast of outside characters involved, this affair has been a very bad joke from the beginning. In short  the tragic and unfortunate incident was used by the grievance mongering crowd as a means, not to seek justice, as they claim, but to find a way to cash in of the television coverage and white guilt over racism to earn another huge payday along the lines of Pigford I&II. These passages also point out the utter corruption of NBC with their attempt to shape the narrative of this case with selective editing of transcripts.  Any one who watches NBC (and the other two networks as well, for that matter) is never going to get anything important right with regard to the news.  One has to feel sorry for these people who are being duped so flagrantly.

Salon's Joan Walsh, author of a book whose actual title is "What's the Matter With White People?," denounced "white grievance-mongers" who do not care for the word "cracker":

My God, don't these people get tired of themselves? So much of the trumped-up racial upset on the right, generally, is about language: If black people can use the N-word, why can't we? . . . Now we're moving on to: If the N-word is racist and forbidden, words like "cracker" should be, too.

But "cracker" has never had the same power to demean, or to exile, or to sting. No social order has ever been devised whereby African-Americans oppress people they deride as "crackers."

Walsh is surely correct in observing that "cracker" is less harsh than the antiblack racial slur to which she alludes--the one that in recent years has become so taboo that it's usually just called "the N-word."

But so what? In the context of the Zimmerman trial, the comparison is irrelevant. Nobody has claimed that Zimmerman used "the N-word." In fact, as we noted in April 2012, a report on NBC News, Al Sharpton's network, included an audio clip of Zimmerman telling a 911 dispatcher, in reference to Martin: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. . . . He looks black."

It turned out a Sharpton colleague had deceptively edited the recording to Zimmerman's disadvantage. The exchange actually went like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy--is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

In context, Zimmerman's observation that "he looks black" is entirely innocent. But the relevant point today is that if NBC's version of the recording had been truthful, it would have been problematic for Zimmerman not because he said "black" instead of the politically correct "African-American," but because even without any slur, it would have been evidence of racial profiling.

Martin's description of Zimmerman as a "creepy-ass cracker" is problematic for the same reason the phony NBC quote would have been. It would have been no less problematic for the Zimmerman-profiled-Martin theory of the case if Martin had described Zimmerman as, say, a "creepy-ass white dude" instead.

Walsh's observation that "no social order has ever been devised whereby African-Americans oppress people they deride as 'crackers' " is, in the main, true. Today there is systematic discrimination against whites, but to call it "oppression" would be a gross overstatement.

But whatever George Zimmerman's culpability in Martin's shooting, he is not to blame for the social order of pre-civil-rights America. He has every right to mount a vigorous defense, and the judge and jury have a duty, as in any criminal trial, to give the defendant the benefit of any reasonable doubt.

The rightful term to describe a criminal trial that serves as a "referendum" is "show trial."