On the aftermath of the verdict in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case:

Does anyone appreciate the irony of those outraged by Zimmerman’s acquittal now demanding a repeal of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law (which was not even used as a basis for justifying the killing of Trayvon)? Has it occurred to them that, without that law (and assuming, against all evidence, that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman out of fear for his life), Trayvon would have been guilty of felony assault? Without Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, if Trayvon truly feared for his life, he would have had a legal obligation to flee from Zimmerman, and could have been charged with a crime for his failure to do so.

Attorney General Holder now calls for a review of all Stand Your Ground laws, reasoning that they “senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods.” He might be interested to know that, in Florida, blacks account for approximately 34% of all cases where SYG was invoked (even thought blacks represent only 17% of the population of the state), and blacks have successfully used that defense 55% of the time, a higher rate than white defendants.

Speaking to the White House press corps a week after the Zimmerman verdict, Obama said that “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.” Considering that Obama was raised in Asia and Hawaii, went to elite private schools, and generally lived a life of privilege, it would appear that the only thing he has in common with Trayvon is brown skin and a penchant for smoking marijuana.

Obama also opined that “There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.” I’m not sure how to tell you this, Barack, but people don’t clutch purses (or wallets) when you come near because you are (half) black, they “do so because they’ve had first-hand experience with your tax policy and assume you’ll be just as likely to take their money in person.

Finally, Obama said that the outcome would likely have been different had Trayvon been a white male teen. Maybe so, but the outcome would also have almost certainly been different if George Zimmerman had been black. Do you honestly think that this case would have made national news if every single aspect of the story had been identical with the exception that Zimmerman was a black man? If Zimmerman was black, would Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson be organizing protests and rallies and demanding "justice for Trayvon”? Considering that hundreds of young black men are gunned down in the streets of Obama’s hometown of Chicago each year with barely a peep from these race pimps, I seriously doubt it.

On a related note, is it only when a black man is killed by a white (or “white Hispanic”) that there is moral outrage? It seems so. How else do you explain the complete lack of national coverage over the death of Joshua Chellew, a 36-year old white man who stopped for gas in Cobb County, GA just two weeks ago and was randomly attacked by four young, black men; who pummeled, kicked, and beat him until he fled into the highway, collapsed unconscious, and was hit and killed by oncoming traffic? Where are Al and Jesse and Barack with expressions of moral outrage for Chellew’s death? Where were these race pimps in 2007, when four black men and a black woman kidnapped, gang-raped, beat, tortured, set on fire, and executed a young white couple, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome? Where has the national media been with THAT story? If the races were reversed, does anyone doubt that it would have been front-page news for months?

I find it both sad and troubling when we, as a nation, judge the value of a human life based on the color of the victim’s skin, and that of the perpetrator. How much better would we be as a nation if we could start with the premise that ALL life is sacred and should be respected and protected, regardless of the color of their skin?

In other news…

The city of Detroit, once the fourth-largest city in America, boasting two million citizens (now down to just 700,000) and known as the heart of the nation’s manufacturing industry, last week was forced to declare bankruptcy. Detroit should have been the shining model of success for liberal policies. After all, it has been run by liberal Democrats (black liberal Democrats, no less) for decades, and yet those that can are fleeing the city, the crime rate is persistently high, education levels are disastrously low, and so many people have fled the city that thousands upon thousands of homes have been abandoned, dropping property values so low that one can now buy a home (average price of a Detroit home according to online real estate database, Zillow = $24,900) for less than you can buy a new Chevy Volt (starting at $39,145). On the bright side, the house is less likely to catch on fire than the Chevy Volt.

The bankruptcy proceedings are currently on hold though after county Judge Rosemary Aquilina demanded the filing be withdrawn, declaring that the bankruptcy filing does not “honor” Barack Obama. Yes, you read that right. She also declares her confidence that Obama will step in and protect the union worker pension plans that would be affected by the bankruptcy filing. That’s right, forget the rule of law… Detroit has King Barack, who makes his own law, just as did Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuala.

It is also worth noting that after a recent $1 billion payout, when the U.S. Treasury sold off more GM stocks, it is now estimated that the “successful” bailout of GM will cost U.S. taxpayers $10 BILLION that we’ll never get back. That number could go as high as $17 billion if GM stock prices drop any lower. But hey, at least the labor unions that donated hundreds of millions of dollars to Obama and the Democrats, and supplied them with untold thousands of political volunteers, won’t have their lifestyles cramped.

Procedural question: Do the arcane Senate rules require Republicans have their spines removed before commencing service in that august body? That would be a reasonable conclusion based on their failure to mount a defense against the shredding of the Constitution being engaged in by Obama and the Democrats. Not only will the majority of them not fight against this bureaucratic tyranny, but the cob-webbed and addle-brained like John McCain actually attack any young Republican upstart (or “wacko birds”, in McCain’s octogenarian vernacular) that dares defend liberty.

Obama is proceeding with his plan to sell guns to Syrian rebels (many of whom are affiliated with Islamic terror groups) and F-16’s to Egypt (where the Egyptian military battles the Muslim Brotherhood for control of the government), but at least we can take comfort that Obama is doing all he can to keep guns out of the hands of TEA Party members.

What interesting times we live in…