« | »

Obama Says That Trayvon ‘Could Have Been Him’

From a cheering MSNBC:

‘Trayvon Martin could have been me,’ says Obama

Rose Gordon Sala | July 19, 2013 

“Trayvon Martin could have been me – 35 years ago,” President Obama said during surprise remarks Friday from the White House.

Speaking publicly for the first time on the case since the jury returned a not guilty verdict for George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, the nation’s first black president discussed the status of young black men in a frank and emotional speech.

“I did want to talk about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling,” the president began. “You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."

Really? Obama was raised by his wealthy white grand parents. He went to an exclusive private school.

Obama does not seem to have had a record of physical violence, of wanting to be a thug. Obama does not seem to have had a record of theft. In fact, apart from his skin color and his penchant for smoking marijuana, there don’t seem to be many other similarities.

But Obama sees everything through race-colored glasses.

"And when you think about why in the African-American community at least, there is a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.” …

That could be because that our news media, school system and general culture, have told them since birth that they are victims of white racism.

“There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed while they were shopping at a department store,” Obama said. “That includes me.” …

Very few men of all races have not been followed in a department store. Young men tend to be shoplifters. As do young women. And, of course, shoplifting is even more common among blacks.

“There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often,” Obama continued…

How paranoid these racist white women are. And for not reason.

By the way, lest we forget, Obama once called his grandmother a ‘typical white person,’ for being so wildly bigoted that she once described feeling uncomfortable around an aggressive black panhandler.

Of course, only a racist would see that as racism. But apparently Mr. Obama is a racist.

The president praised the peaceful nature of protests that have happened around the country in the aftermath of the verdict, and said it was time for the whole country to “do some soul-searching,” while also calling for that soul-searching to not be tainted by hollow political promises.

“How do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys?” he asked. “Is there more that we can do to give them a sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?” …

Perhaps we could take them away from their uncaring parents to send them to Hawaii, where they could be raised by people who care.

Although he noted that “once a jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works,” the president grappled with trying to explain why many in the black community reacted personally to verdict and with calls for further investigation into the death of Martin.

What’s to grapple. The race baiters and their fellow travellers in the news media have tried to turn this case into a racial incident from the get-go. When it was never about race.

"The fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given that ‘Well there are these statistics given that show that African-American boys are more violent,’ using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain."

Sometimes the truth hurts. Perhaps those statistics need to be addressed, instead of ignored.

"I think the African-American community is also not naïve in understanding that statistically someone like Trayvon Martin was probably statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African-American boys, but they get frustrated I think if they feel that there is no context for it and that context is being denied.

And by ‘context’ Obama means racism. Even though there is no evidence anywhere that racism was ever a factor. Except on Trayvon’s side.

And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in a same kind of scenario that from top to bottom both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different." …

In other words, Obama is saying that the jury were racists.

Obama… on Friday [also] said it was time to “examine some state and local laws,” and referenced Stand Your Ground.

“I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?” Obama said. “And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?”

Remember, Mr. Obama is supposed to be a lawyer. He was even paid to teach law. And yet he still does not seem to understand that Stand Your Ground law had nothing to do with this case.

George Zimmerman was doing his duty as a neighborhood watch. He was physically attacked in a very brutal fashion. He defended himself.

If Zimmerman had been a black Hispanic instead of a white Hispanic, he still would have been defending himself. Which is still perfectly legal, despite all the efforts of the left to criminalize it.

Obama acknowledged on Friday that “each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race.” But, he added, “It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated.”

And, God knows, Obama wouldn’t want that. He would no longer have any excuse for his own failings or the failings of others

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Monday, July 22nd, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “Obama Says That Trayvon ‘Could Have Been Him’”

  1. Petronius

    Nerobama’s use of logical fallacies :

    1. “the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.” This is the mind projection fallacy = i.e., projecting your personal reality onto the world, even though the way you see the world is not necessarily the way the world really is. It cannot be stressed too strongly that in a civilized society it is the facts and the rule of law that govern all of us –– even the President and his Attorney General –– and not “the black experience” nor the highly cultivated grievances of any particular group.

    2. “do some soul-searching….” This is the fallacy of ad misericordiam = i.e., an appeal to feelings of pity, guilt, or victimhood; also wishful thinking. It also neatly uses the fallacy of the moral high ground = i.e., assuming a holier-than-thou attitude in order to win an argument. It is also a form of ad hominem argument, in which you attack your opponent personally for his impure attutides, instead of answering the merits of his position. Here the attack is made by inference of racism.

    3. “the fact that a lot of African-America boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuses given, ‘Well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent,’ [but] using that as an excuse to then see [our] sons treated differently causes pain.” This neatly combines the fallacy of ad misericordiam with the fallacy of ignorantia affectata = i.e., a cultivated ignorance; not wanting to know what is true; a willful lack of knowledge designed to protect one from unpleasant truths or consequences, such as being deemed guilty of holding impure thoughts, or deliberately to turn one’s back on reality for sake of political correctness. Thus the President is recommending that the public should turn a blind eye to the facts about black violence, as well as to the facts of this particular case.

    4. “if a white male teen was involved in a same kind of scenario that from top to bottom both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different….” This is the fallacy of the red herring, i.e., a change-the-subject or what-if type of argument; it is the favorite tactic of the Left, and most of the Left’s arguments about the Z’man case probably fall into this category. The idea of a red herring is to distract the jury or the public by deviating from the issue onto a different topic which is easier or more convenient or comfortable for you to defend. Here the President ignores the inconvenient fact that it was Trayvon who attacked Z’man. He has no rebuttal for that fact, so he deploys a red herring.

    5. “examine some state and local laws.” Another red herring. The stand-your-ground law was not involved in the Z’man case. Does the president propose to repeal the law of self-defense? Maybe.

    6. Could Trayvon “have stood his ground on that sidewalk?” Another red herring.

    7. “do we actually think that he [Trayvon] would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?” Another red herring. Also cherry picking the facts = i.e., willfully ignoring or suppressing the facts. This is also an example of binary thinking or the black-or-white fallacy = i.e., an argument that limits us to only two possibilities, when in fact there are other possibilities. Thus the possibility that Trayvon attacked Z’man and that Z’man met deadly force with deadly force is not considered.

    8. “But it doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated.” This is the fallacy of the moral high ground = i.e., assuming a holier-than-thou attitude in order to win an argument. Again, it is a form of the ad hominem argument, in which you attack your opponent personally instead of the merits of his position. Here the attack is the President’s unspoken inference that white people are racists. It is also an example of Bulverism = i.e., a form of ad hominem argument, coined by C.S. Lewis. Rather than proving why your opponent’s argument is wrong, you declare him to be wrong because of his suspected motives, condition, attitude, or frame of mind. In other words, you infer that an argument is being used for an impure reason, then assume it is invalid as a result of the flawed psychology or personality that motivates it. Thus the arguments in support of Z’man come from a biased mind, therefore those arguments must be false.

    Nerobama’s speeches generally make great use of these and other logical fallacies.

  2. No, Barry

    Trayvon was 100% black.

  3. If stand your ground (which has NOTHING to do with this case) actually means (as stated by our Attorney General) that if you CAN run away, you SHOULD run away… then why didn’t Trayvon run away? How is it Zimmerman’s fault that Trayvon decided to circle around and attack him? Zimmerman didn’t run away because his head was too busy being bashed into concrete at the time. Trayvon didn’t run away because he felt it was necessary to “whoop asssssssssssss”.

    So, where is the criminal intent? I’d say the only criminal activity in this entire situation was Trayvon deciding that assault was the proper response to being followed. The rest is falling dominoes from that criminal choice.

  4. Liberals Demise

    And if obama had a city that looked like him it would be Detroit.

  5. “Trayvon Martin could have been me – 35 years ago,”

    Oh, if only! That would have saved us a lot of misery.

  6. Astravogel

    Thanks, Petronius, I wondered why Obama’s speeches
    gave me headaches and a touch of the Royal American
    trots. Logical fallacies will do that to me.

    • I can honestly say that I have never watched Obama give a speech. Not Once. I mute the volume or turn the channel when he appears on my TV or radio. I’ve heard him mostly on Rush’s show. Ten second sound bites at a time. I don’t care to watch someone lie to me. Especially when I’m paying for it.

  7. yadayada

    “The president praised the peaceful nature of protests that have happened around the country in the aftermath of the verdict,….”

    those oakland and l.a. demonstrations were sure peaceful. so were a lot of others.

  8. yadayada

    I’ve searched my soul regarding the trayvon issue in it’s entirety.
    I completely disagree with you on all points, barry.

    how are these skin hustlers any better than the native african slave traders on the ivory coast in the 16th century who sold captured rival tribesman off for a quick buck.
    except these turd-slingers sell their own race for a lot more bucks. what’s rev al’s or j.j.’s net worth these days?


« Front Page | To Top
« | »