Ann nails it! But FFLers can't hang their emPATHETIC war bonnets on a nail that 
doesn't exist.

 

________________________________
 From: wgm4u <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 7:03 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Ann Coulter on the truth of the Zimmerman case.
  
 
 
   
 
July 17, 2013 
Black liberals keep bemoaning the danger to their own teenage sons after the 
"not guilty" verdict in George Zimmerman's murder trial. To avoid what happened 
to Trayvon Martin, their boys need only follow this advice: Don't walk up to a 
stranger and punch him, ground-and-pound him, MMA-style, and repeatedly smash 
his head against the pavement. The Justice-for-Trayvon crowd keeps pretending 
there hasn't been a trial where the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Trayvon 
committed the first (and only) crime that night by assaulting Zimmerman. 
Instead, the race agitators are sticking with the original story peddled by the 
media, back when we had zero facts. To wit, that Zimmerman had stalked a young 
black child and shot him dead just for being black and wearing a hoodie. Dozens 
of these hair-on-fire racism stories are retold in my book, Mugged: Racial 
Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. In the golden age of racial 
demagoguery, they came at a pace of
 about one a year. Al Sharpton was usually involved. A normal person would hear 
some of the more outlandish allegations and think, "I can't believe it!" not 
meaning, "Wow! What a blockbuster story!" but rather, "I would like to hear the 
facts because I literally don't believe it." (That was much of America's 
reaction to the media's claim last year that a neighborhood-watch captain in 
Florida had hunted down a black teenager and shot him dead just for wearing a 
hoodie.) Whenever a much-celebrated claim of racism turned out to be false -- 
which was almost always -- you'd just stop hearing about it. There would never 
be a clippable story admitting that the media's harrumphing had been in error: 
Attention, readers! That story we've been howling about for several months 
turned out to be a complete fraud.  
A little time would pass, and then we'd get an all-new, excited "America is 
still racist" media campaign. Journalists are incapable of learning that they 
should get all the facts before launching moral crusades. As a result, the 
official record shows: A few hate crimes and some unverified hate crimes with 
no clear resolution one way or another. As long as the fraudulent hate crimes 
didn't get counted as strikeouts, liberals always looked like Ted Williams. 
Since they didn't keep an accurate batting average, I did it for them in 
Mugged. The case most like George Zimmerman's is the Edmund Perry case. In 
1985, Perry, a black teenager from Harlem who had just graduated from Phillips 
Exeter Academy, mugged a guy who turned out to be an undercover cop. He got 
shot and a few hours later was dead. Instead of waiting for the facts, the 
media rushed out with a story about Officer Lee Van Houten being a 
trigger-happy, racist cop. When that turned out to be false,
 The New York Times looked at its shoes. It was the kind of story the elites 
wanted to be true. It should be true. We had such high hopes for that one. 
Damn! The initial news accounts stressed not only that Perry was a graduate of 
Exeter on his way to Stanford, but that he was unarmed. (In all white-on-black 
shootings, the media expect the white to have RoboCop-like superpowers to 
detect any weapons on the perp as well as his resume.) A few weeks after the 
shooting, The New York Times called Perry "a prized symbol of hope." In a 
telling bit of obtuseness, The Times said that "all New Yorkers have 
extraordinary reasons to wish for the innocence of the young man who was 
killed." I doubt very much that the cop being accused of being a murderous 
racist hoped for that. An article in The Village Voice explained: "[L]ike so 
many other victims in this city," Perry was "just too black for his own good." 
Luckily for the policeman, Perry had mugged him in a
 well-lit hospital parking lot. Twenty-three witnesses backed the officer's 
story in testimony to the grand jury. (Unlike Zimmerman, Van Houten's case was 
at least presented to a grand jury.) As I wrote in "Mugged": "God help Officer 
Van Houten if he had been mugged someplace other than a hospital parking lot 
with plenty of witnesses." Such as, for example, a dark pathway in The Retreat 
at Twin Lakes. There weren't 23 witnesses backing Zimmerman's story, only about 
a half-dozen. But, as with Van Houten, the evidence overwhelmingly corroborated 
Zimmerman's story. In Van Houten's case, even after it was blindingly clear 
that Perry had mugged him, the truth was only revealed amid great sorrow. When 
the facts were unknown, the cop was a racist. When it turned out Perry had 
mugged the cop, it was no one's fault, but a problem of "violence," "confusion" 
and "two worlds" colliding. Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be 
treated like volitional human
 beings. But not yet. As with Zimmerman's case this week, some journalists 
pretended to have missed the court proceedings that supported the self-defense 
story. Even after the grand jury's refusal to indict Van Houten, Dorothy J. 
Gaiter of the Miami Herald wrote about Perry in an article titled "To Be Black 
and Male Is Dangerous in U.S." She asked: "How do you teach a boy to be a man 
in a society where others may view him as a threat just because he is black?" 
Van Houten said he was jumped, knocked to the ground, punched and kicked by 
Edmund Perry. Grand jury witnesses backed his story. Isn't it possible that Van 
Houten saw Perry as a threat for reasons other than "just because he is black"? 
(And please stop talking about Martin's "hoodie"! Zimmerman wasn't worried 
about the hoodie; he was worried about being beaten to death.) Instead of 
turning every story about a black person killed by a white person into an 
occasion to announce, "The simple fact is,
 America is a racist society," liberals might, one time, ask the question: Why 
do you suppose there would be a generalized fear of young black males? What 
might that be based on? Throw us a bone. It's because a disproportionate number 
of criminals are young black males. It just happens that when Lee Van Houten 
and George Zimmerman were mugged by two of them, they survived the encounter. 
COPYRIGHT 2013 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK 
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing 
Services 1.5K   
         

Reply via email to