Editor’s note: The cartoon above is the creation of our cartoonist Amir Avni. To see his work for Frontpagemag.com, click here.

Jews however are a race, a fact that has been known for thousands of years and has been backed up by genetic evidence in modern times. A fact that has been dismissed by liberals who are eager to denounce racism except when it comes to the one particular race that they have given themselves permission to hate.

By embracing the Islamophobia narrative, the left prioritized combating discrimination against a belief system over combating discrimination against a race, reversing its past position that racial prejudice is worse than any other form of prejudice because it persecutes an innate aspect of the individual, rather than an external adopted one. And when the two were in conflict over the racist aspect of the ideology, it chose the ideology and its racism.

Leftist and Islamic persecution of Jews and the common alliance of the two groups have made it necessary for the left to ignore or even legitimize displays of Anti-Semitism. The supremacy of these two ideologies over the rights and humanity of the most persecuted racial minority in the world are the toxic ingredients in the “New Anti-Semitism” which has revived Anti-Semitic racial prejudice as a progressive value.

American and European elites have become obsessed with protecting a single religion from any criticism, even when that religion comes burdened with an ugly legacy of racism that believes the Jewish people are its eternal enemies who must be destroyed in an apocalyptic Islamic genocide that concludes with every rock crying out,  “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!”

The rocks have remained silent, but left-wing newspapers have taken up the call in their place. Jewish store windows are smashed, synagogues burned, schools attacked and children murdered, while the media ignores, justifies, whitewashes and even occasionally praises these crimes. Every other news story from the Middle East is either an attack on the Jewish State or a celebration of the Muslim Brotherhood and its plans for a genocidal theocracy stretching across the region and eventually across the world.

Attacks reminiscent of the work of Goebbels’ pet propagandists regularly make their way into the pages of The Guardian and Time Magazine as part of the Leftist-Islamic alliance against the Jews. Warnings about growing Anti-Semitism are ridiculed or dismissed while Islamophobia is treated as a grave threat, even though crime statistics clearly show a far higher numbers of attacks on Jews contrasted with a fairly insignificant numbers of attacks on Muslims.

The left cannot deny the hate crimes statistics, so instead it chooses to ignore them. The artificial reality bubbles sent up by its media empires clamor about the manufactured crisis of Islamophobia, while claiming Anti-Semitism is largely overblown, a tool that it insists Jews use to silence Muslims and leftists. The same elites who claimed that McCarthyism was worse than the Gulags, now claim that Islamophobia is worse than Anti-Semitism.

Reuters‘ report provides a complexity to the story that has been so sorely missing until now. Among other things, it calls into question the notion that white racism was the motivating factor in Martin’s shooting. That narrative was never entirely convincing, and not just because the mixed-race Zimmerman never fit into the media’s neat white-gunman-black-victim allegory. The New York Times‘ designation of Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic” was only the most strained attempt to impose a racial framework on the shooting.

Reuters‘ report muddles the racial element even further. It points out that Zimmerman was not only half-Hispanic but he also had black roots, tracing back to his Afro-Peruvian great grandfather on his mother’s side. So far from harboring anti-black racial resentments, he appears to have sought out the company of black friends and colleagues. In 2004, for instance, Zimmerman, an insurance agent, teamed up with a black friend to start up an insurance office.

Even more significant, perhaps, Reuters’ report makes clear that much of the media has simply failed to present the context in which the shooting took place. Yet that context is critical to understanding, if not justifying, why the shooting happened as it did. One would never suspect if from most media accounts, but Zimmerman had good reason to be suspicious of an unknown young black man walking through his neighborhood – and racism had nothing to do with it.

The riot is usually directed at the authorities or some vulnerable group, sometimes both, but invariably one of them takes precedence. The authorities prefer that they direct their rage at a conveniently vulnerable group and afterward the vulnerable group takes the blame for the violence directed at them. The rioters treat those few of their number who were killed in the looting spree as martyrs, while the rioted-upon pick up the broken glass and try to reopen their stores again.

Minorities rarely riot against majorities for the practical reason that rioters are cowards and they want to have the numbers on their side. A riot is less often a symptom of injustice and more often a sign that they have the numbers and all they need is a pretext to go out for a fine day of looting and maiming. A riot isn’t a response to injustice; it’s a power play by people who believe that they are above the law and that their victims are outnumbered.

It’s a rather odd development that white people in America took on the role of the Chinese in Indonesia or the Jews in Russia, long before they became a demographic minority, but not entirely so. Race riots have mostly happened in cities where white people were on the way to becoming a minority. And all three groups share the vital characteristic of being hard-working types whose success is overestimated by the looters looking for a taste of that success without having to go out and work for it.

If riots were really triggered by a black and white racial disparity, then Asians wouldn’t be the victims of African-American riot rage from New York to Los Angeles. If anyone can be exempted from charges of shipping slaves or conspiring to employ their privilege to keep people of color down, it would be the Chinese and Korean immigrants. But it isn’t really race that’s the issue; it’s being a successful minority.

Chinese, Jewish and white store owners in America are targeted by rioters for the same reason that Chinese store owners in Indonesia are. Because they are members of an outside group who are working hard and getting ahead and that is the worst imaginable crime to people who believe that success through honest work is impossible. That anyone who succeeds has taken advantage of a rigged system and is exploiting them to get ahead.

That mindset is no longer confined to a few ghettos; it finds open expression in city government, in state government and even in the White House and the Justice Department. The ugly resentment, the selfish greed by those who have never worked for a living, is dressed up with American flags and the looting is described as wealth redistribution, but it’s still the same thing. Except the government functionaries are the ones doing the looting.

The American city was once the heart of an industrial machine manned by workers who believed that they could get ahead in life. And then the worker became a minority in cities dominated by the indolent, municipal unions, social workers, community organizers and bleeding heart college graduates who squeezed him out. When the looters came for the American worker, he fled to the suburbs, the city declined, and the rioters unleashed their rage on the Chinese who came to take his place.

When the man who became president of the United States says this — the No. 1 law enforcement officer — it must, therefore, be true.

Let’s examine five major assumptions behind this assertion.

1) Blacks are arrested at higher rates compared to whites — but wrongly so.

Not true. While only 13 percent of the population, blacks accounted for 28 percent of nationwide arrests in 2010 and 38.1 percent of arrests for violent crime (murders, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault). But are they unfairly arrested? Studies find that arrest rates by race are comparable to the race of suspect identification by victims.

For example, in a given city, x number of robbery victims describe their assailants as black — whether or not the suspect has been apprehended. It turns out that the race of those arrested matches the percentage given by victims. This has been found repeatedly across the country, in all categories of crime where the race of an assailant is identified. So unless the victims are deliberately misidentifying their assailants — unconcerned about whether the suspect is apprehended and knowingly give a false race — blacks are not being “over-arrested.”

2) Blacks are convicted at higher rates and given longer sentences than whites for the same crime.

Not true. Differences in conviction and sentencing rates by race are due to differences in the gravity of the criminal offenses, prior records or other legal variables. A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases in the country’s 75 largest urban areas actually found lower felony prosecution rates for blacks than whites and that blacks were less likely to be found guilty at trial.

3) The sentence disparity between powder and crack cocaine is racist and accounts for a large percentage of imprisoned blacks.

Not true. Concerned about the deadly effect of crack within their own communities, black members of Congress led the charge to pass the 1986 federal drug laws. The bill that was passed — which included the crack/powder sentencing disparity — did so with the support of the majority of black congresspersons.

None at the time objected to the sentencing disparity as “racist.”

In 2006, the feds tried 5,619 crack sellers, and 4,495 of them were black — out of the 562,000 blacks in state and federal prisons at the end of that year. Add in county and city jails, and the figure rises to 858,000. And states’ crack cocaine laws are not the culprits. Only 13 states employ differing sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder — and their differential is much smaller than that of the feds.

The foregoing actions were those of people seeking retribution for two very separate offenses. First, of course, there was the killing of Martin—an act which, according to a Gallup poll, 72% of blacks (as compared to 31% of non-blacks) view mainly a result of Zimmerman’s own racial bias. Second, and much more important, was the perception that law-enforcement’s decision not to incarcerate the gunman in the immediate aftermath of the shooting reflected a racial bias that pervades the entire criminal-justice system of the United States. Gallup reports that 73% of blacks (vs. 35% of non-blacks) believe that Zimmerman would have been arrested (and presumably jailed) if his victim had been white, while a new ABC poll finds that 84% of blacks feel that the justice system—from the police to the courtroom to the penitentiary—treats them inequitably.

While it is virtually impossible to overstate the implications of this core belief which has so firmly embedded itself in the worldview of black Americans, one vital question begs for an answer: Is it true? Let us briefly survey the mountain of empirical evidence that the champions of “civil rights”—like Jackson and Sharpton—have so carefully avoided mentioning amid their incessant, thundering denunciations of the U.S. and its justice system.

The criminal-justice process is comprised of a number of stages, or decision points, at which law-enforcement personnel (such as police and judges) must determine how they should proceed—arrest or release a suspect; convict or acquit; impose a harsh or mild sentence; etc.  Contrary to popular mythology, there is virtually no evidence of racial discrimination at any of these decision points. Black overrepresentation is almost entirely at the arrest stage, reflecting the simple fact that the “average” black engages in criminal activity more frequently than the “average” white. Not only are the outcomes at other decision points nearly identical for both races, but the slight differences that do exist tend to favor blacks. Further, the arrest rates of blacks living in cities that are the politically black-controlled are no lower than the arrest rates of blacks in white-controlled cities. Nor are these realities anything new; they have been true for decades.[1]

Consider that as early as 1983, the liberal-leaning National Academy of Sciences found “no evidence of a widespread systematic pattern of discrimination in sentencing.”[2]  In 1985 the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology concluded that a disproportionate number of blacks were in prison not because of a double standard of justice, but because of the disproportionate number of crimes they committed.[3]  That same year, federal government statistician Patrick Langan conducted an exhaustive study of black and white incarceration rates and found that “even if racism [in sentencing] exists, it might explain only a small part” of the black overrepresentation among prison inmates.[4]  In a 1987 review essay of the three most comprehensive books examining the role of race in the American criminal-justice system, the journal Criminology concluded that there was little evidence of anti-black discrimination.[5]  The most exhaustive, best-designed study of comparative sentencing patterns—a 1990 analysis of more than 11,000 recently convicted criminals in California—found that the severity of sentences depended heavily on such factors as prior criminal records, the seriousness of the crimes, and whether guns were used in the commission of those crimes; race was found to have no effect whatsoever.[6]  A 1991 RAND Corporation study found that a defendant’s racial or ethnic background bore little or no relationship to conviction rates; far more important than race were such factors as the amount of evidence presented, and whether or not a credible eyewitness testified.[7]

Angela Davis is a former member of the Black Panther Party, who became a Communist in 1968 because she believed that “the only path of liberation for black people is that which leads toward complete and radical overthrow of the capitalist class.” In 1979, Davis was awarded the Intenational Lenin Peace Prize (formerly the International Stalin Peace Prize) by then-communist East Germany. In both 1980 and 1984, she ran for Vice President of the United States on the Communist Party ticket. She currently leads her own movement against what she refers to as the “Prison industrial complex,” contending that all incarcerated minorities are nothing more than political prisoners who should be freed.

On August 7, 1970, 17-year-old Jonathan Jackson pulled out a gun in the middle of trial and ordered everyone to freeze. He then passed out guns to the defendants and took five hostages as part of an escape plan. One of the hostages was presiding Judge Harold Haley, who had a sawed-off shotgun taped to his chin during the ordeal. During the subsequent gun battle attempting to prevent the escape, the judge’s head was blown off.

Davis was indicted as a result of two over-riding factors. First, more than 20 witnesses indicated that the hostage-taking was an effort to free fellow Black Panther George Jackson who was reportedly her lover, and that Davis had been in the area at the time of the crime. Second, Davis was the owner of the shotgun that killed Haley, and owned all of the other guns used in the attempted escape as well.

Trumped up charges? Davis seemingly didn’t think so. She fled California to avoid arrest, using aliases and changing her appearance until she was apprehended in New York City two months later. And even if one concedes the former charge might be untrue, the latter charge is indisputable. Davis owned the guns. Yet for people like Thomas Chatterton Williams and other see-no-radical-evil disciples, a prosecutor bringing charges against the owner of weapons used in a murder constitutes race-based railroading.

See-no-evil is a recurring theme for leftists when it comes to black radicals. Assata Shakur, aka JoAnne Chesimard, was part of a revolutionary activist organization known as the Black Liberation Army (BLA). On May 2, 1973, Chesimard and two accomplices were stopped for a motor vehicle violation on the New Jersey Turnpike by two state troopers. Chesimard was already wanted for her involvement in several felonies, including bank robbery. The trio opened fire on the troopers, wounding one. The other trooper was shot and killed execution-style at point-blank range. In 1977, Chesimard was convicted of first-degree murder. Two years later, she escaped prison and is currently thought to be living in Cuba.

A societal pariah as a result?  Hardly. In 2005, a grassroots movement, “Hands Off Assata” generated support for Chesimard in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and other cities. Other supporters claim she was the victim of “racial profiling and political targeting.” In 2011, the controversy touched the president when rapper Common was invited to the White House, despite penning “A Song for Assata” and naming his child Omote Assata Lynn. “Assata had been convicted of a murder she couldna done,” Common rapped. New Jersey state troopers were understandably outraged by the invitation. How is the president associated with Common? “It is likely Obama met Common at the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ were both men were members,” reported the NH Journal in 2011.

Derbyshire got in trouble over a piece he posted on the webzine Taki’s Magazine called “The Talk: Nonblack Version. “The talk” is what many professional blacks call the coming-of-age conversation they have with their kids, the main theme of which seems to be the persistence of racism in American society. Derbyshire’s version focuses on some matters of fact, such as the disproportionate numbers of black criminals, and others of speculation, such as black intelligence inferiority. It was the latter, of course, that got Derbyshire fired by National Review, which called such ideas “nasty and indefensible.”

Surely, our main concern should be whether the notion that blacks aren’t as smart as whites is wrong, and what evidence demonstrates its errors. Putting this speculation out of bounds precludes the airing of the evidence and arguments that explode it. Indeed, this eagerness to demonize and forbid any discussion at all reminds me of the climate change fundamentalists, who simply assert that there is a “consensus” and that anyone who doubts it is anti-science, a “denier,” or in thrall to big oil.

Personally, I have doubts about the whole intelligence and race debate for many reasons. First, I’m not sure that “race” is a useful way to talk about people. The genetic differences accounting for variations in hair texture or skin pigment strike me as trivial compared to the fundamental reality of human beings, which resides not in the material world but in the spiritual, that immortal, free soul created in the likeness of God. More practically, the notion that there are pure “races” seems with some few exceptions to be empirically false. There’s been a lot genetic mixing and blending going on over the millennia, and we don’t yet understand how genes work, or how they interact over time with each other and various physical and cultural environments, to pinpoint a genetic cause for much of anything. Race, in short, is a pseudo-scientific idea reflecting the fundamentalist materialism that arose in the late 18^thcentury and that attempted to reduce all human reality and behavior to matter and the laws of nature. That’s why the first progressives took to racism so eagerly: it was just another example of how “science” could provide reliable knowledge about people that in turn could be used by experts to arrange society more efficiently.

In his Associated Press article titled “Old photos may be deceptive in Fla. shooting case,” Matt Sedensky pointed out that the photos carried by the major media were several years old and showed Zimmerman looking fat and mean and Martin looking like a sweet young kid.

Jesse Jackson told the Los Angeles Times that “blacks are under attack” and that “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business,” adding that Martin is “a martyr.” President Barack Obama chimed in by saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Let’s look at some non-news cases. On March 14 in Tulsa, Okla., a white couple suffered a home invasion by Tyrone Woodfork, a 20-year-old black man. Ninety-year-old Bob Strait suffered a broken jaw and broken ribs in the attack. His 85-year-old wife, Nancy, was sexually assaulted and battered to death, ending their 65-year marriage.

On March 4, two black Kansas City, Mo., youths doused a 13-year-old boy in gasoline and set him on fire, telling him, “You get what you deserve, white boy.” Last summer, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel ordered an emergency shutdown of the beaches in Chicago because mobs of blacks were terrorizing white families.

Several years ago, in Knoxville, Tenn., a young white couple was kidnapped by four blacks.

Black Africans know this. That is why so many seek to live in the United States. Decades ago, the number of black Africans who had immigrated to the United States had already surpassed the number of black Africans who were forcibly shipped to America as slaves.

And members of other races and nationalities know this. Even Muslim and Arab writers have noted that nowhere in the Arab or larger Muslim world does an Arab or any other Muslim have the individual rights, liberty, and dignity that a Muslim living in America has. As for Latinos and Asians, vast numbers of them from El Salvador to Korea regard America as the land of opportunity.

And when any of these people come here – from anywhere, speaking any language, looking like a member of any race — they are accepted as Americans the moment they identify as such. He or she will be regarded as fully American. This is not true elsewhere. A third-generation Turkish-German, whose German is indistinguishable from the German spoken by an indigenous German, will still be regarded by most Germans as a Turk. The same holds true elsewhere in Europe.

On the other hand, a first-generation Turkish American, who speaks English with a heavy Turkish accent, but who identifies as American, will be regarded every bit as American as anyone else.

As is often the case, a foreigner pointed this out most clearly. On a visit to America in February, The president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, said:

“The other day, I was in a small company — and there were Asians, Koreans, Middle Easterners, some other people.

And they had been in America for, like, two, three, four years. And they talk American. They look American. Body language is American. I’m sure they already think American. Go to Korea and become Korean in one or two years’ time. Good luck with that. That’s what’s so special about this country.”

Barry told supporters in D.C.’s Ward 8: “We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops. They ought to go.” Once pushed out, Barry promised, he would replace the foreign invaders with “African-American business people.” Barry then took to the social networking platform Twitter to expound on the perils of “dirty” Asian shops in his neighborhood.

As documented by my Twitter curation start-up Twitchy.com, Barry posted photos of supposedly hazardous stores — including Chinese restaurants surrounded not by trash or toxic waste, but by Plexiglas barriers and reinforced doors. Barry explained that Asian-owned businesses that had the audacity to protect themselves from crime were “lowering standards” in his constituents’ communities.

In Barry’s bizarre world, law-abiding entrepreneurs who take steps to prevent robberies are the ones who threaten Ward 8′s quality of life — not the armed thugs who threaten honest livelihoods in the first place. Vigilant wealth creators taking care of their families? Scourge of D.C. Profanity-spewing drug addicts inciting hatred against successful achievers of the American Dream? Model citizens!

Crazy Barry doesn’t just need another round of rehab. He needs a reality check.

As a commenter on DCist.com noted, 2010 Census data showed that “Asians made up 0.4 percent of the Ward 8 population (blacks made up 93.5 percent, a 1 percent increase from 2000). If anything, Asians are moving out, not in — the Asian population decreased 13.6 percent (from 301 people to 260 people) between 2000 and 2010. Meanwhile, the child poverty rate in Ward 8 sits at 48.3 percent, a 1.2 percent increase since 2000 — in contrast, the District’s overall child poverty rate decreased 3 percent since 2000. Now that’s what I call defying the odds.”

If Barry’s ignorant slurs had come out of the mouth of, say, former GOP Gov. George Allen of Virginia (pummeled for his “macaca” gaffe), there would be calls for his head from every civil rights organization in the Beltway. While the Washington Post reported that Barry “apologized,” he showed typical fake penitence for “offending” Asians and claimed he was “taken out of context.”

By “Asian,” he blubbered to a local TV reporter, he didn’t mean “Asian.” He really meant all “those persons (who) come into our community, whatever color they are; it happened to be Asian initially.” Put the prejudice pipe down, buddy.

Instead of showing true remorse, Barry dug in deeper with even more divisive, entitled and militant us vs. them propaganda: “We’re spending our money there, and we demand respect,” he told the Washington Post. “We demand they participate in community affairs. We demand they give jobs to Ward 8 people regardless of their cultural situation. That’s as American as apple pie.”

Spoken like a true racial racketeer.

Distilled to its essence, the original, widely accepted narrative of Trayvon Martin’s death was that of a clearly delineated battle between good and evil which went something like this: On the night of February 26^th in Sanford, Florida, a racist vigilante named George Zimmerman relentlessly and unjustifiably stalked an African American “child,” as Al Sharpton tenderly described him, who had been minding his own business, eating “a bag of Skittles.” Zimmerman then gunned the boy down in “cold blood,” according to Jesse Jackson—simply because, like so many Americans, he instinctively viewed all black males as potential criminals. Notably, a host of major media reports described the Hispanic gunman specifically as a “white Hispanic”—a term rarely if ever used prior to the Martin killing—to emphasize the familiar “oppressor-versus-victim” racial storyline that the left has grown so proficient at reciting.

Recently the New Black Panther Party—never known for mincing words—has weighed in on the case as well, ominously declaring that “White America,” having “failed black people” for “400 years,” will no longer be permitted to “kill black children and get away with it.” To drive the point home, the Panthers initially offered a $10,000 bounty for the “capture” of George Zimmerman. Lest there be any ambiguity about what the Panthers meant by “capture,” the group not only demanded “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” but also circulated a flyer that read: “MURDERED in Cold BLOOD—Child killer of Trayvon Martin—WANTED DEAD or ALIVE.” Soon thereafter, the Panthers upped the ante to $1 million, a sum which they expected to collect in donations “from the black community [including] athletes and entertainers.”

The Panthers, it is worth noting, have been unpersuaded by some inconvenient facts that emerged following the announcement of their bounty, including eyewitness evidence that Trayvon Martin actually attacked Zimmerman (rather than vice versa) and was beating the latter quite badly just prior to the shooting. Of course, not all the facts are known yet, but as far as the New Black Panthers are concerned, the collection and evaluation of evidence are merely tiresome formalities that would serve only to delay and deny “justice” for the racist killer. The Panthers’ southern regional leader, Mikhail Muhammad, puts it succinctly: “He [Zimmerman] should be fearful for his life. You can’t keep killing black children.” Righteous crusades against evil don’t require due process; they only require victory.

Anyone familiar with the New Black Panthers knows that they have long been vexed by the racism which they claim pervades “White America.” Indeed, who could forget one of the Panthers’ most famous leaders, the late Khalid Abdul Muhammad, whose angst about white racism led him to express his deepest “love” for one Colin Ferguson, a black gunman who had shot some twenty white and Asian commuters (killing six of them) in a racially motivated rampage aboard a New York commuter train in 1993. Determined to stamp out white racism by any means necessary, Muhammad announced: “I honestly wanna kill the enemy…. I would be embarrassed if we couldn’t point to one Colin Ferguson that decided one day to … just kill every goddamn cracker that he saw.”

When Muhammad died of a brain aneurysm in 2001, he was succeeded as Panther chairman and crusader-in-chief-against-racism by his longtime protégé, Malik Zulu Shabazz. Like his mentor, Shabazz reads American history as an unpunctuated narrative of white-perpetrated oppression. He asserts, for instance, that George Washington was little more than a slave owner who “raped black women,” while “old wooden-teeth-wearin’, wig-wearin’ Thomas Jefferson, [was] nothin’ but a slave-master, a slave-owner, an Indian-killer.”

Let’s begin with the media. The initial narrative they seized upon was one of George Zimmerman, a “white Hispanic,” targeting Martin for wearing a hoodie, tracking him down, beginning a fight with him, and murdering him. Afterward, the narrative goes, Martin was not arrested by the police because either the police were racist, or they completely misconstrued Florida’s “stand your ground” law.

To make this narrative work, the media had to paint Martin as a saint, and George Zimmerman as a devil. If they had cared about accuracy, they would have realized that the character of both the supposed victim and perpetrator was irrelevant – only the events of the night in question matter. Instead, they decided to tell the American public that Zimmerman was a racist pig, while Martin was a clean-cut young man with no history of suspicious behavior.

So they released a picture of Martin that was several years old and emphasizing his youthful innocence rather than a more recent picture showing his gold chains and tatts. They suggested that Martin was a model student, rather than a troubled young man suspended from school for carrying an empty marijuana baggy.

Meanwhile, Zimmerman was portrayed as a latent member of the Ku Klux Klan, even though he was a mentor to two teenage kids of a black woman in Florida, and helped in a fundraiser for a black church.

So what’s the real story? According to police, Martin attacked Zimmerman by punching him and knocking him down; he then began slamming his head into the sidewalk. Witnesses corroborated this account. Zimmerman then shot Martin in the chest. Zimmerman was found with bloody lacerations to the back of his head and a swollen lip, consistent with his story.

Did the media do anything good by pumping it as a racial narrative without clear evidence? Of course not. But they made hay, turning a local killing into a national issue.

“I’ve been a poster at DailyKos for 5 years and was recently banned for posting the following dairy: ‘Stop the Lynch Mob‘.

“I made this post because I do not believe that under present conditions George Zimmerman can receive a fair trial. The information being posted in the media is either false or misleading, and most of the media and public appears to have made up their minds. The posters on DailyKos took exception to my use of the term “lynch mob,” which I defended by saying that the comparison was in terms of their attitude, not their behavior. What bothers me are the outright lies being put out by the media:

“Lie #1- George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin after he was told not to. There is absolutely no evidence for this. According to the 911 tapes, George Zimmerman was told that following Trayvon Martin was unnecessary, and he apparently acquiesced to their request (by saying okay). He also stayed on the line with police and talked to them about where they could meet him. I have listened to the full 911 audio and it does not appear that he was running after him at that point.

“Lie #2- Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood. The only eyewitness to the attack saw Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman pummeling him, while George Zimmerman called for help. This same eyewitness, “John,” did not see how the altercation started. He did not see who attacked who first, but there was a fight and George had clearly lost it and was getting punched in the face. The initial police report also states that George Zimmerman had a bloody nose, blood on the back of his head, and grass on his back.

“Lie#3- George Zimmerman was not questioned and allowed to walk home with his weapon. According to the partial police report, George Zimmerman was handcuffed and taken to the police station. At the police station George Zimmerman was questioned without an attorney. The police decided they did not have enough evidence to press charges against him and released him.

“These lies are what prompted me to post my comments; I believe everyone deserves to be treated fairly. George Zimmerman may be a racist vigilante, but that is irrelevant to whether or not he is guilty of murder. In my opinion given the facts of the case it is extremely unlikely that George Zimmerman is guilty of first degree murder, or a hate crime which is what many believe.

“Nonetheless, the biggest liberal website in the U.S. is banning people for aggressively questioning the media narrative. It’s frightening to believe that we live in a country where people don’t care at all about the truth.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Twelve years ago, a black Washington, D.C., commissioner warned cabbies, most of whom were black, against picking up dangerous-looking passengers. She described “dangerous-looking” as a “young black guy … with shirttail hanging down longer than his coat, baggy pants, unlaced tennis shoes.” She also warned cabbies to stay away from low-income black neighborhoods. Did that make the D.C. commissioner a racist?

In some cities, such as St. Louis, black pizza deliverers have complained about having to deliver pizzas to certain black neighborhoods, including neighborhoods in which they live. Are they racists? The Rev. Jesse Jackson once remarked, “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — (and) then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” Does that make the reverend a racist?

The former Charleston, S.C., black chief of police, Reuben Greenberg, said the problem facing black America is not racial profiling. He said, “The greatest problem in the black community is the tolerance for high levels of criminality.” Former Los Angeles black police Chief Bernard Parks, defending racial profiling, said: “It’s not the fault of the police when they stop minority males or put them in jail. It’s the fault of the minority males for committing the crime.

The latter took time out from the trivial business of nominating a World Bank president to interfere in a local law enforcement matter and join his good friend Al Sharpton, who specializes in racist rhetoric, in throwing some racebaiting gasoline on the flames.

To Obama, the significance of the whole event was that Trayvon Martin looked like his hypothetical son, which presumably Allen Coon did not. The insufferable egotism of that statement suggests that shooting victims only matter if they look anything like the head cheese. It’s racial feudalism and personal politics at its ugliest even as it once again confronts us with Obama’s inability to talk about anything without shining it through the narcissistic lens of the self.

Even Trayvon Martin only matters because he is in some hypothetical sense linked to Obama, and every trending topic from Jeremy Lin to the million hoodie march must be commented on by him in some way to demonstrate his own relevance in the mobius strip of fame. There can be no 2012 election without the race card, and so Martin was posthumously drafted into the Obama family portrait that appears on campaign ads to remind the rest of the country that they still need to feel guilty and vote the left’s ticket.

“All of us have to do some soul searching,” Obama urged, as somehow a local shooting had become a national matter and then a burden of guilt staining the souls of an entire nation. With the dexterous agility of the practiced race huckster, a Hispanic man shooting a black man had become another reminder of our endless burden of racial guilt. A burden that only our pope of the race card could briefly lift from us in a climactic moment of electoral hope and change.

If Obama had enough time to spare in between playing golf, campaigning, wasting money and race-baiting, he might have taken a seat by the window, put his famous abbreviated chin on one skinny fist and searched his soul for all the people killed in Mexico by his own Attorney General’s plot to wreck the Second Amendment. But the soul-searching never seems to happen on the right side of the Oval Office window. It is a duty handed down to us from our betters, like schoolmarms urging us to “think about what you’ve done” until eventually you decide that you must have done something.

Obama said that it was “absolutely imperative”  that the shooting be investigated at “federal, state and local”  levels and praised the Florida governor for forming a task force to investigate the incident. From the overload of rhetoric, an outside observer might have been forgiving for assuming that this was the first time anyone had been shot in the country this year.

Is anybody else out there as sick and tired as I am of lynch mob racists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (vide: Tawana Brawley, the Duke Lacrosse kids) who don the mantel of the “civil rights” movement to indict non-blacks in advance of the facts, and incite racial rage against them? Yet that is exactly what they – and scores of black leaders — are doing to an Hispanic individual named George Zimmerman. Along with a cast of thousands, they are holding him guilty of racism before the fact, justifying a hatred, as inflammatory as the hatred once spewed by southern crackers against blacks.

There is no evidence whatsoever that race was a defining factor in the tragic death of Trayvon Martin. Notwithstanding the absence of evidence, this unhappy incident is now the occasion for school shut-downs, mass marches and public death threats by enraged African Americans, displaying behaviors reminiscent of the lynch mobs that were once a scourge of their parents’ generation in a now rejected past.

The facts surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin have not been investigated and are still uncertain. But the lynch mob has delivered its verdict: George Zimmerman is guilty of a race crime; Trayvon Martin was killed because he was black. “Trayvon is the Emmett Till of our generation,” said one mob leader, referring to the 12-year-old who was murdered by white racists in 1955 for whistling at a white woman.

There is no verifiable evidence for this fact-challenged, inflammatory, claim. According to the lone eyewitness to come forward, it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman and was on top of him and beating him to a pulp when the fatal shot was fired. The fact that Zimmerman’s face was bloody when the police arrived, is an apparent corroboration of this version of the event. Is this what happened? We don’t know. But it is a claim that should get tested in a court of law. Unfortunately to a lynch mob the evidence is irrelevant, the conclusion foregone.

If the demonstrators were merely calling for an investigation that would be proper. But the cries for retribution, and the accusations of racism, which dominate the public demonstrations are not. And that goes for the statement of the President as well. Not willing to be separated from his racial constituency, even when they are behaving badly, Obama has lent his prestige to the insinuation that the crime was inspired by the victim’s race. Otherwise there would be no reason to mention the fact that “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.” Everyone who has a son should be concerned by the loss of this life. By making it racial, the president is establishing guilt without evidence, and indicting non-black America as well.

The display of racial outrage over this case is a national disgrace. It is a throwback to the past and a shameful repudiation of the values the civil rights movement once stood for but apparently does no longer.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Is anybody else out there as sick and tired as I am of lynch mob racists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (vide: Tawana Brawley, the Duke Lacrosse kids) who don the mantel of the “civil rights” movement to indict non-blacks in advance of the facts, and incite racial rage against them? Yet that is exactly what they – and scores of black leaders — are doing to an Hispanic individual named George Zimmerman. Along with a cast of thousands, they are holding him guilty of racism before the fact, justifying a hatred, as inflammatory as the hatred once spewed by southern crackers against blacks.

There is no evidence whatsoever that race was a defining factor in the tragic death of Trayvon Martin. Notwithstanding the absence of evidence, this unhappy incident is now the occasion for school shut-downs, mass marches and public death threats by enraged African Americans, displaying behaviors reminiscent of the lynch mobs that were once a scourge of their parents’ generation in a now rejected past.

The facts surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin have not been investigated and are still uncertain. But the lynch mob has delivered its verdict: George Zimmerman is guilty of a race crime; Trayvon Martin was killed because he was black. “Trayvon is the Emmett Till of our generation,” said one mob leader, referring to the 12-year-old who was murdered by white racists in 1955 for whistling at a white woman.

There is no verifiable evidence for this fact-challenged, inflammatory, claim. According to the lone eyewitness to come forward, it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman and was on top of him and beating him to a pulp when the fatal shot was fired. The fact that Zimmerman’s face was bloody when the police arrived, is an apparent corroboration of this version of the event. Is this what happened? We don’t know. But it is a claim that should get tested in a court of law. Unfortunately to a lynch mob the evidence is irrelevant, the conclusion foregone.

If the demonstrators were merely calling for an investigation that would be proper. But the cries for retribution, and the accusations of racism, which dominate the public demonstrations are not. And that goes for the statement of the President as well. Not willing to be separated from his racial constituency, even when they are behaving badly, Obama has lent his prestige to the insinuation that the crime was inspired by the victim’s race. Otherwise there would be no reason to mention the fact that “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.” Everyone who has a son should be concerned by the loss of this life. By making it racial, the president is establishing guilt without evidence, and indicting non-black America as well.

The display of racial outrage over this case is a national disgrace. It is a throwback to the past and a shameful repudiation of the values the civil rights movement once stood for but apparently does no longer.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Those “forces” are laws being passed by various states that require a photo ID for voting.

The NAACP move is so absurd and so self-destructive that one has to wonder why the organization has done this. According to the Freedom House 2011 assessment of freedom in the world, of the 41 members of the U.N. Human Rights Council, fewer than half are free countries. Ten are ranked “Not Free,” and 12 “Partly Free.” Among the “Not Free” members are Angola, China, Congo, Cuba, Jordan, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Those countries’ elections, if they have them, are rigged, and prominent opponents are jailed, tortured and killed.

To bring a human rights complaint before countries in which there are almost no human rights is truly absurd. That the alleged human rights violation takes place in the freest country in the world further elevates the level of absurdity. And when the alleged violation is a law that requires all voters, irrespective of race, creed or color, to show photo identification before voting, we have gone beyond the absurd and entered a modern Twilight Zone.

The absurdity explains why what the NAACP doing is also self-destructive. It’s one thing for a prominent individual or organization to make a mistake. But it is quite another to seem ludicrous, which is how the NAACP appears to everyone who is not on the left — and perhaps even to thoughtful leftists.

Why, then, would the NAACP open itself to ridicule?

According to NAACP President Ben Jealous, the reason is that “We are here today because in the past 12 months, more U.S. states have passed more laws pushing more U.S. citizens out of the ballot box than in any year in the past century.”

On Thursday, O’Brien interviewed Joel Pollak, editor-in-chief of the late Andrew Breitbart’s online empire. Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com released a 1991 video of Barack Obama (then a 30-year-old law student) at a Harvard rally embracing radical racialist Derrick Bell and his push for more aggressive race-based hiring at Harvard. Bell is a proponent of critical race theory (CRT), which posits that America remains a hopelessly racist country dominated by Jews and white supremacists.

O’Brien lost her cool when Pollak shed light on Bell’s fringe legal theories. Acting more like an Obama campaign surrogate than a disinterested host, she angrily jumped on Pollak’s mention of CRT. “That is a complete misreading of critical race theory,” she shrieked. “That’s an actual theory. You could Google it and some would give you a good definition. So that’s not correct!”

When viewers took to Twitter to pepper O’Brien with follow-up questions about critical race theory, the CNN star had a twit fit. She invited a liberal professor, Emory University’s Dorothy Brown, on her television show to back her up and then lashed out: “See? That was our critical race theory 101. Stop tweeting me. We have moved on, people.”

Not so fast, sister.

Turns out that O’Brien, a Harvard grad, has a rather emotional connection to Bell. As documented at my new Twitter curation/aggregation site Twitchy.com, O’Brien tweeted that it was a “rough day” for her when Bell passed away last fall. She wrote that she had “just started re-reading” one of his books and mourned again: “RIP Prof. Bell.” O’Brien also shared tributes to Bell from fellow Harvard prof and friend of Obama Charles Ogletree. That’s the same Professor Ogletree who bragged that he “hid” the Obama/Bell video during the 2008 campaign.

O’Brien failed to disclose her pro-Bell bias to viewers before her segments.

O’Brien also failed to disclose that the liberal prof who denied on her show that critical race theory had aaaaaanything to do with bashing America as a white supremacy-ruled government actually wrote the exact opposite.