This past weekend I was asked by my friend and Fox News commentator T.J. McCormack to visit with him on his radio show and comment on a column he’d written concerning the Trayvon Martin shooting. Pretty much anyone with a forum (whether television, radio, online publications or social media) who’s commented on this issue has taken heat either from the right or the left. In this case, it was both.
T.J.’s take on the shooting, subsequent media feeding frenzy and rash of activism was a little different than most being bandied about. It was a sincere appeal for prominent parties on both sides of the issue to unite amicably in light of the incident’s grave potential repercussions.
“Coming together” for the good of the nation would certainly hold the moral high ground, but I opined that this was probably about as likely as my becoming a volunteer at the local Obama campaign office.
There are simply too many agendas in play to hope for such unity to manifest. The radicals are driving the discussion and the response, which in this case is analogous to the inmates running the asylum. Race-baiting career activists are fomenting anger and tension with the full complicity of the establishment press. The former seek continuing relevance and ongoing financial support, while the latter seeks ratings. Both are ideologically aligned with – or rather, part of – the radical element.
And the politicos? Well, Democratic leaders are obviously aligned with the radical element, particularly if they’re part of this administration, and the remainder are close enough. Republican leaders will be in trouble no matter what they do. If they remain silent, they’ll be called cowards; if they speak out and don’t call for George Zimmerman’s boiled severed head, they’ll be called racists. Most would rather have the coward label than the racist one, so have said nothing. Conservative commentators who weigh in are dismissed as party to perceived racist policies, and any reasonable liberal voices are being drowned out by the din of the far-left propaganda machine.
How do we go from a moment to a movement that creates fundamental change? If it’s a moment, we go home. If it’s a movement, we go to war.
– Rev. Jesse Jackson, March 12, 2012
It may surprise some people when I say that the hypocrisy and irresponsible, dangerous rhetoric of career civil-rights activists are hardly the issue here. Neither is the alacrity with which the news media pounce on stories like this while ignoring the 2007 Tennessee gang-rape and mutilation slaying of a white couple by four black men, or the recent attempted immolation of a white Kansas City youth by a gang of black kids. The issue isn’t black Americans’ inability to discern that their political allies have accounted for exponentially more deaths of blacks via their policies than all the confirmed race-related killings of blacks over the last 40 years.
The issues upon which we should focus are the when and the why this is occurring in the way it is occurring. We may never know the truth of what happened between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman in the moments before the shooting, but if we examine the when and the why of its aftermath, the truth becomes eerily apparent.
When President Obama commented on the Martin shooting, some contended that he had “acted stupidly” in commenting on something he should have stayed out of for reasons of due process and presidential decorum. I contend that like nearly everything he does, it was quite calculated. While specious as well as gratuitous, Obama stating that if he had a son, “he’d look like Trayvon” was nevertheless calculated to engender an emotional response. The reason it was calculated to engender an emotional response is the same reason many things are transpiring across the political landscape, all at the same approximate time.
That’s the when part … which is, quite clearly, right now.
The things to which I refer that are transpiring concurrently include the aftereffects of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, violence on our border with Mexico, the Occupy movement, assaults on religious freedom and free speech by the administration and activists, and the implausible organization and mobilization of fringe malcontents into politically active groups. These developments can all be traced (as I’ve recently indicated) to Obama’s political roots, which are borne out by his policies, his associations and his affinity for such doctrines as Black Liberation Theology and Critical Race Theory.
The specter of a communist takeover of the U.S. still remains singularly preposterous to millions of Americans who would quickly come to arms if they actually believed it a possibility. I’m not entirely certain how President Obama proposes to suppress those who would rise up against him were his intentions to become widely apparent, but I believe that part of the plan is to factionalize us (such as is occurring over the Martin case and Occupy Wall Street). I believe he’s also counting on deepening economic adversity to heighten Americans’ collective stress. Another element might be to provoke concerned patriots into action that he could point to as a threat to domestic tranquility, thereby convincing a preponderance of Americans to accept fundamental compromises to their civil liberties.
In such a case, Obama could then employ some of the more traditional Marxist tactics, such as mass executions, as cohorts of his friend Bill Ayers once advocated. It’s already apparent that certain factions would be more than happy to aid him in that effort. Quite a few conservatives have pointed to the timeliness of Obama’s executive order of March 16 (on “National Defense Resources Preparedness”) as an overture to just such action. Called a mere “tweak” of the amended Defense Production Act of 1950, many have asked why the president saw a necessity to “tweak” a law with provisions that essentially give exclusive and unlimited power to the Executive Branch in the event of a national emergency, which would necessarily be declared by the president himself.
To those whose assessment of individuals is not predicated upon what comes out of their mouths and the mouths of their surrogates, the truth is clear: President Obama is a communist, laboring with like-minded comrades to actualize a long-embraced communist agenda – and their end game is fast approaching.
That is the why of it.
by Erik Rush – a columnist and author of sociopolitical fare. His latest book is “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession” In 2007, he was the first to give national attention to the story of Sen. Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright, initiating a media feeding frenzy. Erik has appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity and Colmes,” CNN, and is a veteran of numerous radio appearances. More <- <- Email | Archive