Sunday, July 14, 2013

David Horowitz, Useful Idiot? Erstwhile Anti-Communist and Race Realist Has Jumped Aboard the Trayvon Martin/Gun-Grabber Bandwagon, Much to His Readers' Chagrin

Posted by Nicholas Stix


The following column is so poorly written, and so full of factual inaccuracies that I doubt that David Horowitz wrote it. And whoever ghosted it for him failed to adequately research this case. It sounds as if it had been written by someone working for racist, Martin Family shakedown attorney Benjamin Crump.



Is the Zimmerman Case Really Open and Shut?

By David Horowitz

July 5, 2013

Front Page Mag




Many conservatives seem to think so. But are they letting leftists dictate their conclusion? Are they not guilty of the same rush to judgment that made liberals convict Zimmerman before the facts, and merely reacting to that injustice rather than to the actual elements of the case? Is it not possible that they are themselves victims of a toxic environment that polarizes all things racial?

It is a fact that many, if not most conservatives have already concluded that George Zimmerman is innocent of any crime in connection with Trayvon Martin's death and should be acquitted if justice is to be served. Indeed, this opinion was formed long before the trial began as a reaction to the outcry of liberals that Zimmerman was guilty — and guilty of being white – and that the crime was murder, and must be punished. But just because a lynch mob has formed to condemn Zimmerman in advance of the facts, does not mean one must conclude that Zimmerman is innocent of Trayvon Martin's death.

The political melodrama that surrounds, and often overwhelms the judgments in this case reflects a culture war that has been roiling in this country for decades. It is a war in which the liberal ethos of "political correctness" requires that whites are bad and blacks are victims. Right-thinking individuals are justified in rejecting this poisonous standard. But in the interests of justice, the political melodrama should also not be allowed to obscure the reality of this trial: it is about the death of an unarmed 17-year-old, who was not [sic] a felon, who was on a neighborhood run to get Skittles [and watermelon drink, for his "trank"], and whose life has been extinguished. Given that the young man was unarmed [nonsense; he was armed with his fists and the sidewalk] and that he inflicted very superficial [b.s.] injuries on his adversary during their scuffle [sic], Zimmerman's claim that he was in fear for his life has to be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least. [B.S.—I'm losing count.]

What we have learned through the process of the trial thus far is that the only surviving witness, Zimmerman, is not credible. He has lied on several revealing occasions. First about not having any money to post bail when he had $150,000 in his account. Second, about not being aware of the Stand Your Ground Law, when he had taken a class that discussed the law. [I don't believe he said he was unaware of SYG, and the fact that he took one college class in Florida law hardly makes him an expert on SYG] Third, and most importantly, about Trayvon jumping out of the bushes to attack him — because those bushes don't exist. [I thought I heard there were small bushes nearby.] So, one has to ask, did he also lie about returning to his vehicle and that only then was he attacked? Or was he still following Trayvon, provoking the alleged attack?

[Following someone does not justify their beating you to death.]

Most disturbing to me is the interview Zimmerman gave to Sean Hannity before the trial began. Sean asked him if he regretted anything he did that night. He said no. Sean rephrased the question and asked him if there was anything he did that night that he would do differently. He said no. Then Sean asked him to explain why not. He said, "it was God's plan."

[A lot of Christians think that way. Non-Christians, too.]

I thought to myself, even if I had been jumped and beaten until I was scared for my life as Zimmerman claims, now that I knew my victim was an unarmed 17-year-old with no criminal record [he didn't have a record, because a criminal conspiracy within the Miami-Dade school system had the officer who found him with a burglary tool and stolen jewelry wrote a fraudulent police report to downgrade the offense], angry that I had followed him, wouldn't I have had some second thoughts? Wouldn't I have felt I should have phoned 911 [Z. didn't call 911] from my vehicle and left it at that? Wouldn't I have wished that I had been more careful with my firearm and aimed it away from his chest? [Like where? His head? His neck? Horowitz sounds like those blacks who, when the cops shoot and kill a perp, complain that they didn't somehow wing him in the leg.] Or not carried it at all that night? [Drive unarmed to go shopping and park in a department store parking lot, where so many carjackings, robberies, and murders are committed? Wouldn't he have been a fool to get a gun to protect himself and his wife, and leave it home?!] Wouldn't I have been full of remorse that I had taken a man's life? [Z expressed remorse. But actually, when someone tries to kill you, you're not obliged to be remorseful.]

Might it not be possible that the toxicity of the racial environment also affected Zimmerman so that he saw in Trayvon an image from the melodrama and not the actual young man who was walking in front of him? Might Travyon have been a victim of the same racially poisoned atmosphere then, as Zimmerman appears to be now? [No. Trayvon was no victim, except, perhaps, of his parents.]

We'll never know. What really happened that night is buried with Trayvon Martin. We cannot hear both sides and split the difference or reject one and embrace the other. What we do know is that a young man who was unarmed and guiltless of any crime is dead. [Wrong!] And shouldn't there be some penalty to pay for that?

Here is what I think as a result of these reflections. The Stand Your Ground Law should be rewritten to apply only to home invasions since then it is clear that the intruder is the aggressor and the response is self-defense. [SYG was irrelevant to this case.] Second, Neighborhood Watch guards should not be permitted to conceal and carry. [There are no Neighborhood Watch laws. The right to keep and bear arms is anchored in the U.S. Constitution.] If you are carrying a weapon it changes your attitude and can well lead you into dangerous situations (such as following someone who doesn't want to be followed) that you would otherwise avoid. And worse it can lead you to take the life of someone who whatever he did, did not deserve to die. [Wrong. Trayvon Martin deserved to die.]


Anonymous said...

"Given that the young man was unarmed [nonsense; he was armed with his fists and the sidewalk]"

In Chicago, the police call a robbery without use of additional weapons "STRONG ARM ROBBER" not "UNARMED ROBBERY."

Guys like Horowitz are why Aron Zelman founded JPFO - to fight against the massive Jewish involvement in the Gun Control treachery.

Anonymous said...

"What we do know is that a young man who was unarmed and guiltless of any crime is dead."

In America,violently assaulting or attempting to kill a person who is perceived as white is not seen as a crime,especially by the chosen.