Michelle joins Fox and Friends to discuss the latest news items of the day. Today's topics: The George Zimmerman Interview conducted by FNC's Sean Hannity the previous evening as well as the response of Martin's parents which took place moments before this interview. Also covered, the public response on twitter/twitchy.com from Jon Lovitz as well as both sides of the political spectrum in regards to President Obama's recent "You Didn't Build That" speech given last week in Roanoke, Virginia.
A Florida judge set Zimmerman's bail, and ABC released new photos showing injuries to Zimmerman's head. What's next in the case? Plus, the National Organization for Women goes after Rush Limbaugh. Will their campaign work? Find out the latest news and Nancy Pelosi's latest push to amend the Constitution on this PJ News Break.
Author’s Note: I’ll be speaking at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio tonight! The event will start in Harrison Hall, Room 111, at 6 p.m. The speech is called “Three Liberal Assaults on Free Speech (and Three Conservative Solutions).” Because it is about free speech, the speech is free!
In my many years of serving on faculty hiring committees, I have often heard the statement “minorities and women are encouraged to apply.” It usually follows in close proximity to the statement “our institution does not discriminate on the basis of race.” The two statements cannot be reconciled by logic. But, then again, logic is considered a form of white oppression at the postmodern university.
Nor can those hiring statements be validated empirically. Not all minorities are encouraged specifically to apply at my university. Orthodox Jews are not encouraged. White Mormons are not encouraged. And neither are white Hispanics. The fact that “minorities” really means “black” renders the second statement even less credible than the first. We really discriminate when we take affirmative action against discrimination. I hope someday we take affirmative action against illogic.
This practice of establishing certain preferred minorities has been going on for a long time. But, I did not fully understand it until I was asked the following question about the Zimmerman/Martin controversy: “Dr. Adams” asked a former student, “what exactly is a white Hispanic?” Without pausing, I responded “It is a pathetic attempt to say that blacks are the only legitimate minority in America.” Sometimes our most honest responses are given reflexively. And they spur our own thinking, not just that of others.
Make no mistake about it: At issue in George Zimmerman's case is not whether he had a right to shoot Trayvon Martin. It is the future of how race will be viewed in America. That is why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are clinging on to the Martin controversy.
In their struggle to maintain their racial minority status, race hustlers like Jackson and Sharpton regularly invoke the one-drop rule. The one-drop rule states that anyone who has even a drop of black blood is considered black. The rule was once used by white racists in the South. They thought that anyone who had a drop of black blood was contaminated, so to speak. Just a drop of black blood made them both intellectually and morally inferior.
But, now race hustlers are using the one drop rule to advance their own political agenda. Given that half of black pregnancies end in abortion, Jesse Jackson and his ilk must have some means of keeping their numbers and corresponding political influence from dwindling.
Of course, the one-drop rule operates differently with respect to Hispanics. Black civil rights leaders now want to say that having a single drop of white blood means you are white, not Hispanic. The reason for that is obvious: open-border immigration has made Hispanics the largest minority in America – numerically, if not politically, speaking.
It is also worth noting that these Hispanic immigrants are often Roman Catholic. That means they are less likely to abort their children than someone who practices black liberation theology. It helps explain why Hispanics are now 15% of the United States population while blacks constitute only 12%.
The gradual displacement of blacks as America’s preferred minority is producing a powder keg of racial tension in Florida and elsewhere. So much so that even the normally wise Bill Cosby can’t quite come to terms with it. Cosby wants to think this is all about guns but it isn’t. It’s about race, Bill. And the wave of inter-racial violence in the wake of the Zimmerman release should have tipped you off.
Things are going to get worse before they get better. Mitt Romney is going to choose Senator Rubio as his running mate. He is going to run on a pro-life and pro-gun platform, regardless of his true beliefs, which are virtually indiscernible. And Hispanics will support Romney/Rubio in record numbers.
Eventually, blacks will figure out that the real threat to young men like Trayvon Martin is was not a white Hispanic named George Zimmerman. It was a white supremacist named Margaret Sanger.
In the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, director Spike Lee thought it would be cute to tweet to his 250,000 Twitter followers what he thought was shooter George Zimmerman’s home address.
As some of you know (those who watch Fox News) it turns out that Spike got the wrong address and the wrong Zimmerman and caused an elderly Florida couple’s life to be turned into a living hell.
Lee, after finding out the couple lawyered up, apologized to the family. How sweet and convenient of Spike. Someone should interview the couple and find out what kind of crap they had to endure because of Spike’s tweet.
Before I continue to touch on how Lee seriously mucked up an innocent couple’s life with his stupid stunt and how I believe that sweet, old couple should sue him for the bollocks he put them through, let’s play a quick game of “What If,” shall we?
What if Spike got the right Zimmerman and his cabal charged in and beat and/or killed a man who had yet to be given due process under the law? Hmmm? Question: Would Lee be legally liable if one of his vigilantes said they got their 411 and motivation for mayhem from his tweet?
From watching cop shows on television—and with a little help from my Facebook friends—would Lee’s tweet be considered:
Being an accessory to a crime
Reckless and malicious endangerment
Incitement to criminal mischief
Conspiracy to commit bodily injury and/or murder
Interfering with a police investigation
All of the above
Smells like all of the above to me. But what do I know? I’m just a goofy gringo. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Spike’s speech is protected under the First Amendment if his tweet was meant to incite violence.
I know that if a Caucasian man named Whitey Whitebread put out a fatwa like Lee did that Whitey would be charged with a hate crime, making terrorist threats, inciting mob violence, endangering the well-being of an innocent person and cyberbullying. Isn’t Hollywood coming out with a movie about bullying? Maybe they should show how they’re truly against it by boycotting Spike ‘til Jesus returns.
Now, before I plow ahead in condemning Lee’s tweet, let me go on record as stating that if it is proven in a court of law that Zimmerman did indeed pursue and kill Trayvon Martin for no other reason than Trayvon was a black kid wearing a hoodie and going through a gated community then George deserves the death penalty, his name needs to live on in infamy, and I want to be in the room when he is administered a lethal injection.
But back to Lee and his ill-fated tweet.
Aside from the above hypothetical situation, I’m a thinkin’ what Spike did to this elderly couple constitutes a need for some form of sanctions; there should be criminal charges levied against him, and the McClains should sue him for a cool million for the mayhem he caused them. Twitter should then yank his account because he transgressed their code of conduct.
The thing that I find most interesting is the moral blindness Spike sports. Isn’t what Lee loosed vigilantism in its purest sense? Isn’t Lee’s tweet akin to what he and his ilk are accusing Zimmerman of? Oh, the irony.
We’re going to have to wait and find out whether or not what Zimmerman did was, as Spike and others believe, vigilantism and a racist’s lethal rush to judgment. However, we don’t have to wait to determine the motivation and criminality of Spike Lee’s tweet. I guarantee if the roles were reversed and Whitey Whitebread had done what Lee did this past week he’d be in jail, there’d be a civil suit against him, and we wouldn’t see him on Twitter tweeting any longer.
Michelle joins Fox and Friends to discuss the latest news items of the day. Today's topics: The George Zimmerman Interview conducted by FNC's Sean Hannity the previous evening as well as the response of Martin's parents which took place moments before this interview. Also covered, the public response on twitter/twitchy.com from Jon Lovitz as well as both sides of the political spectrum in regards to President Obama's recent "You Didn't Build That" speech given last week in Roanoke, Virginia.
A Florida judge set Zimmerman's bail, and ABC released new photos showing injuries to Zimmerman's head. What's next in the case? Plus, the National Organization for Women goes after Rush Limbaugh. Will their campaign work? Find out the latest news and Nancy Pelosi's latest push to amend the Constitution on this PJ News Break.
his cabal charged in and beat and/or killed a man who had yet to be given due process under the law? Hmmm? Question: Would Lee be legally liable if one of his vigilantes said they got their 411 and motivation for mayhem from his tweet?
The New Black Panther Party is offering a reward for the capture of George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case.
