As President Obama once again over steps his authority to remark on the outcome of a criminal trial, freedom-loving Americans should shudder at the implications of his words. The sycophantic mainstream media focused on the “personal” nature of his words, but – in reality – Obama is using the Zimmerman verdict to make the case for Tyranny. The fact that Attorney General Eric Holder made similar comments reveals the advancement of an agenda; one that aims not only to nullify the Second Amendment, but will also mean an end to states’ rights.
In comments Friday during a White House press briefing, Obama made one very questionable comment; he asserted that “There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.” This comment can only be described as asinine, for the following reasons; firstly, there are plenty of black men who have never been followed around a department store. The idea that many have been can hardly be doubted, but to say that “very few” have never experienced being the object of suspicion is stretching the truth, somewhat.
Shoplifting – the activity to which the President is obviously referring, here – is not only a very common crime in the United States, but one that costs the retail industry billions of dollars every year. Many large stores and chain-stores have in-store human security; often referred to as loss-prevention or asset-protection officers. These are the only people who follow anyone around in department stores. They do so, not based upon race, but based upon suspicion aroused by an individual’s dress, appearance and behavior. There is no reliable ‘profile’ of a shoplifter and no credible study that suggests black people shoplift more than white people, or that women shoplift more than men. Therefore, there is absolutely no logic whatsoever to Obama’s assertion that “very few” black men have not been followed around a department store.
The fact that the President inserted himself into this statement is somewhat amusing, when one considers that he had an upbringing which bore no similarity, whatsoever, to the upbringing of the “average” black American male. It is likely that the only people who have ever followed the President around a department store were Secret Service agents.
Fabrications and exaggerations aside – since they are common to this President – the greater cause for concern is his remarks on Florida’s ‘stand your ground’ law. This law, to describe it in the most basic terms, does not require an individual to retreat, if attacked – even if that individual has a clear opportunity to do so. The fact that this law has been tied to the trial of George Zimmerman is a red herring, to begin with: According to witness accounts of the confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, the former was not in a position to retreat; therefore, ‘stand your ground’ is irrelevant.
In addressing the criminal proceedings against Zimmerman, the President managed to summarize the trial’s outcome – and the way in which it should be respected – in one clear, succinct and totally accurate statement: “The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The jurors were properly instructed that in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant and they rendered a verdict,” he said. “And once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works.” This perfect summary should suffice to put the entire issue to rest. However, the President – as he has done countless times before – expressed a sentiment that he does not truly believe: Were his assertion heartfelt, he would be considering no further action, regarding the Trayvon Martin shooting. He has, instead, taken the advice of Chicago Mayor and former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel; he is not about to let this ‘crisis’ go to waste.
A keen observer of the daily news cycle will not have failed to notice that Trayvon Martin, the human being, is already receding into the background; after all, what is so special about Martin, when hundreds of black youths have been gunned down in Chicago this year? Trayvon Martin, the symbol, is now emerging. The narrative is being deliberately steered towards questioning states’ firearms laws. If it has not already been proposed, it is, surely, only a matter of days before someone calls for the passing of the ‘Trayvon Law’ or the ‘Martin Law’, which will, in all likelihood, be aimed at all but criminalizing any form of self-defense.
The President said Friday, in reference to laws such as the one on the books in Florida “…it seems to me that we should examine those laws.” The question is; what constitutional right does the federal government have to “examine” any state law – unless that law is, in itself, unconstitutional?
Attorney General Eric Holder has similarly taken aim at state firearms laws. As reported by the New York Times, Holder gave a speech Tuesday at the N.A.A.C.P. convention in Orlando, Florida. In it, he criticized the Florida law. “It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” Holder said. How standing one’s ground expands the concept of self-defense is puzzling, but – clearly – the Attorney General and the President coordinated their remarks to set the stage for federal government intervention in what is clearly – and legally – a states’ rights issue.
Florida Governor Rick Scott has rejected the idea of a special legislative session to take another look at the now controversial law. He urged opponents of the laws to make their feelings known to their legislators – which is how the system is designed to work.
If the Obama administration, and his Justice Department, begin to take action against states that allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, then a key element upon which the United States was founded; the idea that limited powers are invested in the federal government, whilst all other powers are reserved for the states and the people, will be gone forever. President Obama is using the verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman to make a case against the structure of the Republic and for tyranny; the tyranny of a central government that strips the States of their right to pass their own laws. State legislatures will be all but rendered obsolete. Indeed; the entire concept of a Federal Republic will be at an end, if we, as a nation, are not vigilant.
At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a Philadelphia delegate asked Benjamin Franklin “Well, doctor, what have we got?” Franklin’s reply continues to echo down through the years: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
An editorial by Graham J Noble