Thanks for analysis

Thank you for your analysis of President Obama’s remarks on the George Zimmerman trial and its aftermath. I think that a close look at the way he “chose to arrogantly stoke the fires of racial division” might prove instructive.

Let’s begin with the verdict. As you correctly point out, “A jury of six women accepted Zimmerman’s self-defense argument.” Obama’s response to this: “The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that’s how our system works.” Such radicalism!

You state that ” (M]any black youths in this country grow up at an unfair disadvantage for cultural reasons the lack of a male role model, neighborhood drug influences, gangs, and a culture of dependence.” In light of such revelations, how can Obama assert that “African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system. . .they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence”?

You say, “The clearest path to creating the momentum needed to give all black children the opportunity they deserve is for, above all else, black leaders to show the way. This includes civil rights officials, entertainers, athletes, ministers, business and political leaders. They are in the best position to create the needed cultural change.” Obama, of course, is having none of it, pompously proclaiming that we should “gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how we are doing a better job helping young African-American men feel that they’re a part of this society and that they’ve got pathways and avenues to succeed I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we’re going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.” The man just doesn’t get it.

I suppose it never occurred to the president that “stand your ground” laws “did not play a role in the case.” After all, he betrays his ignorance when he says, “Stand your ground laws in Florida were not used as a defense in this case.” What gives him the authority to question the efficacy of a law? Who does he think he is a Harvard educated law professor?

John Poritsky


Submitted by Virtual Newsroom