Did Trump Goad and Guide the Pipe Bomber?

Did Trump Goad and Guide the Pipe Bomber?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

By Thursday, the targets of the mailed pipe bombs had risen to nine: George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Maxine Waters, John Brennan, Eric Holder, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Biden and Robert De Niro.

That list contains four of the highest-ranking officials of Barack Obama’s administration: the president himself, his vice president, his secretary of state and his attorney general.

Yet, by Thursday morning, there was heartening news.

Not one of the mailed bombs had reached its target. Not one handler of a mailed bomb had been injured. Not one bomb had exploded.

Several of the bombs were said to be deficient. While they contained elements of pipe bombs, with shards of glass and powder, there was no trigger to ignite an explosion.

Were these devices simply poorly made, or did the bomber intend not to wound or kill, but simply to cause a panic?

As of this writing, we don’t know. Moreover there is this oddity: All of the bombs had the same return address — that of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, who was ousted as leader of the DNC when hacked DNC emails revealed she had tilted the party machinery to defeat Hillary Clinton’s principal rival in the primaries, Bernie Sanders.

Was putting Wasserman Schultz’s return address on all the bomb packages some kind of joke?

What was going on here?

Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments….

Beltway residents, however, did not need to look far to learn who inspired and motivated the would-be mass-murderer of our liberal elite. In a front-page story headlined, “Subjects of Trump’s ire in bomb-maker’s sights,” The Washington Post identified the suspect:

“(A) common theme among the targets was unmistakable. Each has been a recurring subject of Trump attacks.”

The Post elaborated. Trump has called Democrats “evil.” Trump has denounced Obama’s presidency. Trump has “demonized Hillary Clinton, inspiring chants of ‘Lock her up!'” Trump has “used his bully pulpit to taunt Maxine Waters … as a ‘low IQ individual.'”

Trump has impugned ex-CIA Director John Brennan and fanned “conspiracy theories about George Soros.” Trump has called the news media “the enemy of the people.” Trump has singled out CNN’s reporting as “fake news.”

What the Post was implying was that Trump at his rallies had done the target acquisition for the bomber who intended to maim or murder the leading lights of liberalism and enemies of Trumpism.

If one missed the point on Page 1, the headline over the balance of the story inside the Post drove it home: “Amid incendiary rhetoric, targets of Trump’s words become bombs’ targets.”

The correlation between Trump’s targets and the bomber’s targets is no accident, comrade, the Post is saying.

Yet, as of late Thursday, still, no bomb had exploded. And what had been called bombs were being called “suspicious packages.” And the person or persons who made and mailed them had yet to be identified.

But still the attacks on Trump and the calls to hold him morally culpable for the bombs, because of his rhetoric, went on unabated.

Said Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, jointly responding to the president’s call for civility in Wisconsin: Trump’s “words ring hollow until he reverses his statements that condone acts of violence.”

This is not the first time a political atrocity has been to exploited to wound political enemies.

Though Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist who had defected to the Soviet Union, the city of Dallas, then a conservative stronghold, was indicted by the media for having “created the atmosphere” in which JFK was assassinated.

In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, the media blamed the anti-government rhetoric of conservative talk radio for poisoning the minds of extremists like Timothy McVeigh.

Guilt by association seems a more common recourse of the left.

When members of the Republican Congressional baseball team were shot and wounded at their morning practice, no major GOP figure blamed Bernie Sanders, though the would-be mass murderer was one of Bernie’s volunteers.

“Democracy dies in darkness,” reads the motto of The Washington Post. But democracy dies in other ways as well.

Democracy dies when the divisions in a society become so bitter and rancorous that a segment of that society becomes so estranged it decides that it would rather leave and live apart.

With their endless charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia America’s elite has let Trump’s “base” know what it thinks of them.

And at his rallies, where Trump’s mockery of that elite and its media allies evokes hoots and cheers, Middle America is telling our cultural and political establishment what it thinks of them.

Before we were a democracy, we were a republic. And we were always more than just a polity. We were a people and a nation.

Today we seem to be two countries and two peoples.

And if that is true, a political system based on majority rule is not going to be strong enough to hold us together indefinitely.

Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website? Let us know how we are doing – Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!

--divider bar--

Image Source: PixaBay…

A Party at War with Itself

By Patrick J. Buchanan

For the third time, the cops of the NYPD have turned their backs on the mayor of New York.

The first time was when Mayor Bill de Blasio arrived at Woodhull Hospital where mortally wounded officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu had been taken on Dec. 20. The second was when the mayor spoke at Ramos’ funeral. The third was at Liu’s service on Sunday.

Detestation of de Blasio among the NYPD and the cops who came from across the country to stand in solidarity with their slain brothers is broad and deep.

And, in a way, de Blasio served as stand-in for Al Sharpton, Eric Holder and President Obama. For all four gave aid and comfort to the war on cops that has raged since Ferguson last August when Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed an 18-year-old who tried to grab his gun.

When a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict the NYPD’s Daniel Pantaleo in the chokehold death of Eric Garner, after the 350-pound black man, suffering from heart disease, diabetes and asthma, died resisting arrest, the war on cops went viral and national.

De Blasio, Sharpton, Holder and Obama were all out on point saying that blacks, especially young black males, were all too often victimized by racist cops. And black kids needed to be taught that.

Brimming with moral outrage, protesters took to the streets, blocked Times Square and Grand Central, disrupted Macy’s during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, and shut down malls, highways and bridges across the country.

Though their lawlessness was rampant and their chants bespoke a hatred of police, who were compared to the KKK by marchers yelling for “dead cops,” these protests were indulged and described as “peaceful.”

So it was that on Dec. 20 a deranged criminal decided to make himself famous by putting “wings on pigs” and executing Ramos and Liu in Bedford-Stuyvesant as payback for Garner and Brown.

Suddenly, the real America revealed itself, an America enraged at the cold-blooded assassinations of cops and disgusted with those who had pandered to anti-police protesters. And the America that revealed itself is not good news for the Democratic Party.

For we have seen this movie before, half a century ago.

After LBJ’s victory over Barry Goldwater came the riots of the 1960s — Watts in 1965, Newark and Detroit in 1967, and 100 cities, including D.C., after Dr. King’s assassination in 1968.

These riots produced deaths, thousands of arrests, and looting and arson on a scale requiring the National Guard and federal troops. And these rampages were perhaps the principal factor in turning Middle America against a Democratic Party that had been the nation’s majority party since 1932.

In 1964, LBJ won 61 percent of the vote. Four years later, his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, got less than 43 percent.

What happened? A civil war had taken place inside the Democratic coalition, not unlike what is going on now. Today’s conflict, though not nearly so violent, is daily nationalized by cable and the Internet.

All of America watched what happened in Ferguson night after night, and saw the aftermath of what happened on Staten Island, and observed what happened Dec. 20 and then at those funerals.

Americans began openly and viscerally to take sides.

And from the new defensiveness of de Blasio and the muted responses of Sharpton, Holder and Obama, there is no doubt who has lost this battle. A sundered America is siding with the cops and turning against those who turned on the cops.

Something like this happened in Chicago in August 1968: Police, after constant provocation by foul-mouthed radicals, chased them down, clubbed them, and arrested them in Grant Park.

The networks and national media denounced a “police riot” and liberal Democratic Senator Abe Ribicoff said Mayor Richard J. Daley’s cops had used “Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago.”

When the dust settled, however, America, to the amazement of the elites, had come down on the side of the cops, not “the kids.”

That America gave Nixon and Wallace 57 percent of its votes.

The political point: In the 1960s, both George Wallace and LBJ were Democrats. Mayor Daley and the radicals cursing his cops were Democrats. The students who took over Berkeley and Columbia, and the deans and professors whose offices they trashed, were all liberal or leftist Democrats.

The ’60s wars over social, moral and cultural issues were bloody scrimmages on the home field of the Democratic Party.

So it is today. Whether the issue is income inequality or the evil of Wall Street, police brutality or black criminality, the hostility and anger among Democrats over these issues makes the Tea Party vs. the GOP establishment look like a badminton tournament on the country club lawn.

What the War on Cops Has Wrought

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“NYPD, KKK, How many kids did you kill today?”

That was one of the chants of anti-police protesters in New York City. Another was, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!”

Well, the marchers got their wish Saturday in Bedford-Stuyvesant when Ismaaiyl Brinsley, 28, firing into a patrol car, murdered NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu.

The two were executed by this criminal who had just shot his girlfriend outside Baltimore and used social media to say he was going to Brooklyn to take revenge for Michael Brown and Eric Garner.

“There’s blood on many hands tonight,” said Patrick Lynch of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, “That blood on the hands starts at City Hall in the office of the mayor.”

Echoed Ed Mullins of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, “The blood of 2 executed police officers is on the hands of Mayor de Blasio.”

Ex-Governor George Pataki called the murders “a predictable outcome of the divisive anti-cop rhetoric” of Bill de Blasio and Eric Holder.

When de Blasio arrived at Woodhull Hospital where Ramos and Liu had been taken, scores of cops turned their backs.

Rudy Giuliani dissents. “The blood is not on his hands. … That’s an incorrect and incendiary charge.” But, adds Rudy, “The protesters should not have been allowed to take over streets the way they did.”

Indeed, they should not. And here is where the moral culpability of de Blasio, Holder, Al Sharpton and President Obama lies. They gave aid and comfort to the cop-haters and cop-baiters.

When did any of these four speak up or speak out to denounce the blocking of squares, highways, bridges, tunnels, shops and stores, from New York to the Mall of America?

When did they denounce the protesters for their hateful anti-police rhetoric? When did they demand that these mobs go home and respect the rule of law and decisions of the grand jury, even if they disagreed?

When a Staten Island grand jury voted not to indict NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of Eric Garner, the mayor did not urge the city to accept it calmly, but expressed astonishment, called it a “very painful day for so many New Yorkers,” and said he had warned his biracial son to be especially careful dealing with cops.

De Blasio was feeding the myth that cops, especially white cops, are what young black males should fear most.

That myth is a big lie.

After the shooting death of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson, Holder flew to St. Louis, decried racism, which had nothing to do with the shooting, ordered the FBI to conduct it’s own investigation, and declared, “I am the Attorney General … but I am also a black man.”

When a St. Louis County grand jury concluded no crime had been committed in Ferguson, that Wilson acted in self-defense, Holder said his department would look at charging Wilson with violating Brown’s civil rights.

In an increasingly ugly national clash between police and black communities, Holder did not stand squarely for the rule of law; he and the president took sides against the cops and stood with their own.

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” said Obama, flashing a signal of racial solidarity in a blazing issue dividing his country and in which his allies, Revs. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, were stirring up crowds with incendiary rhetoric.

The Wall Street Journal writes today, “Especially in urban America, the police walk that line between civilization and mayhem every day.” Others say that the thin blue line stands between us and anarchy.

True. But what does it say about our country that, if the police took a week off, our cities would descend into mayhem. What does it say about the character of the people upon whom our democracy depends? Would the America of the Founding Fathers have descended into mayhem or anarchy if police were not a huge and visible presence? Would the America of the 1940s or 1950s?

In D.C. last week, an exasperated Police Chief Cathy Lanier said:

“All of these protests that are blocking traffic, it’s pulling police officers out of the neighborhoods that need the police the most. … So how do I prevent homicides and shootings and violent crimes and robberies and burglaries right before the holidays if all my cops are directing traffic around 30 guys that want to be out there at 11 o’clock at night laying in the middle of Chinatown?”

Consider the chief’s statement. Is it police brutality or police violence that worries her? Are cops committing those homicides, shootings, violent crimes, robberies and burglaries? Or does that crime come out of the poor neighborhoods the cops are trying to protect?

That’s the real D.C. That’s the real America. Unfortunately, de Blasio, Sharpton, Holder and Obama are either too blind to see it or will not concede it because they fear speaking truth to their followers. “To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men.”

Barack Obama, Outside Agitator

Barack Obama, Outside Agitator

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In his U.N. address, President Obama listed a parade of horrors afflicting our world: “Russian aggression in Europe,” “terrorism in Syria and Iraq,” rapes and beheadings by ISIL, al-Qaida, Boko Haram.

And, of course, the Ferguson Police Department.

That’s right. The president could not speak of war, terrorism and genocide without dragging in the incident in a St. Louis suburb where a white cop shot and killed a black teenager:

“In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri — where a young man was killed, and a community was divided.”

What, other than its racial aspect, can explain why Obama is so hung up on Ferguson? At the Congressional Black Caucus dinner Saturday, he was back stoking the embers.

“Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement, guilty of walking while black or driving while black — judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.”

Obama is here implying that Michael Brown was profiled, judged “guilty of walking while black,” when shot and killed.

But that is false, and Barack Obama knows it is false.

Brown had just knocked over a convenience store after collaring the clerk and was walking in the middle of the main street in Ferguson, blocking traffic, when officer Darren Wilson confronted him.

Did Wilson shoot Brown in a racist rage? Or did Wilson, face battered and eye socket smashed in a fight with the 290-pound, 6’4″ Brown, empty his gun in self-defense?

We do not know. And neither does Barack Obama.

For weeks, a grand jury in St. Louis County has been hearing testimony, trying to sort it out. But by implying the shooting was done for racial reasons, that Brown may have been “targeted” for “walking while black,” Obama is stoking the fires of racial resentment.

Why is he parroting a party line about America that he knows is more myth than truth? White cops are not the great lurking danger, nor the leading cause of violent death, of black teenagers and men.

That role is fulfilled by other black teenagers and other black men. And the statistics on the ugliest forms of racial violence in America — interracial assaults, rapes, murders — reveal that such crimes are overwhelmingly black-on-white.

Obama said that “young men of color” are too often “judged by stereotypes.” But behind those stereotypes are FBI statistics that show that black males between 16 and 36, two percent of the U.S. population, commit a vastly disproportionate share of all violent crimes.

Where are the stats to sustain Obama’s stereotype of cops?

And what did the Ferguson police do to deserve to be invoked as exemplars of what is wrong with law enforcement in America, while the Ferguson protesters get a presidential pass?

Since Michael Brown was shot in early August, rocks and Molotov cocktails have been thrown at Ferguson cops, stores have been looted and smashed, police have been cursed and threatened, and a mob tried to shut down I-70 at rush hour.

And what are the outrages perpetrated by Ferguson’s cops?

After a riot in Ferguson, the next night St. Louis County cops showed up in riot gear, helmets and body armor, with an MRAP.

Now some Ferguson cops are wearing wristbands reading, “I am Darren Wilson,” to show solidarity with their fellow cop who is in hiding for fear of his life.

This set off Eric Holder’s minions in the civil rights division at Justice, whence one Christy Lopez fired off a letter to the Ferguson police chief saying the bracelets “upset and agitated people.”

So what. If police baiters can raise hell in solidarity with Brown, cannot cops peacefully wear wristbands in solidarity with Wilson?

Last week, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson released a video, apologizing to Brown’s parents for their son’s death, and for not moving the teenager’s body from the street for four hours.

Unartful, perhaps, yet it seemed sincere.

The response: The Ferguson mob cursed the chief and Brown’s father brushed him off saying, “an apology would be when Darren Wilson has handcuffs, [is] processed, and charged with murder.”

Understandably, this is what Michael Brown’s father wants. And this is what the protesters demand. But that is not the way the law works in America, where crowds get the indictments and convictions they demand under a threat of civil disobedience or violence.

Saturday night, a Ferguson cop was shot in an incident unrelated to August. But Chief Jackson and State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson have told the Washington Post their officers have been repeatedly threatened and, since August, have come under gunfire.

If a St. Louis officer is wounded or killed in revenge for Brown, President Obama will deserve a full share of the moral responsibility.

It is time he started acting like a president of all the people, and dropped this role of outside agitator.

Race-Based Justice

Race Based Justice

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Among the demands of the “protesters” in Ferguson is that the investigation and prosecution of police officer Darren Wilson be taken away from St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch.

McCulloch is biased, it is said. How so? In 1964, his father, a St. Louis police officer, was shot to death by an African-American.

Moreover, McCulloch comes from a family of cops. He wanted to be a police officer himself, but when cancer cost him a leg as a kid, he became a prosecutor.

Yet, in 23 years, McCulloch has convicted many cops of many crimes, and has said that if Gov. Jay Nixon orders him off this case, he will comply. Meanwhile, he is moving ahead with the grand jury.

As for Gov. Nixon, he revealed his closed mind by demanding the “vigorous prosecution” of a cop who has not even been charged and by calling repeatedly for “justice for [Brown’s] family” but not Wilson’s.

What has been going on for two weeks now in Ferguson, with the ceaseless vilification of Darren Wilson and the clamor to arrest him, is anti-American. It is a mob howl for summary judgment, when this case cries out, not for a rush to judgment, but for a long tedious search for the whole truth of what happened that tragic day.

For conflicting stories have emerged.

The initial version was uncomplicated. On August 9, around noon, Brown and a companion were walking in the street and blocking traffic when ordered by Wilson to move onto the sidewalk.

Brown balked, a scuffle ensued. Wilson pulled out his gun and shot him six times, leaving Brown dead in the street. Open and shut. A white cop, sassed by a black kid, goes berserk and empties his gun.

Lately, however, another version has emerged.

Fifteen minutes before the shooting, Brown was caught on videotape manhandling and menacing a clerk at a convenience store he was robbing of a $44 box of cigars.

A woman, in contact with Wilson, called a radio station to say that Brown and Wilson fought in the patrol car and Brown had gone for the officer’s gun, which went off.

When Brown backed away, Wilson pointed his gun and told him to freeze. Brown held up his hands, then charged. Wilson then shot the 6’4,” 292-pound Brown six times, with the last bullet entering the skull.

St. Louis County police then leaked that Wilson had been beaten “severely” in the face and suffered the fracture of an eye socket.

Brown’s companion, Dorian Johnson, says Brown was running away when Wilson began to fire.

But, according to the autopsies, all of the bullets hit Brown in the front. ABC now reports that Dorian Johnson has previously been charged with filing a false police report.

If the first version is true, Wilson is guilty. If the second is true, Brown committed two felonies before being shot, and Darren Wilson fired his weapon in defense of his life.

If there is any public official who should recuse himself from any role in this investigation, it is not Robert McCulloch but Eric Holder.

Holder has a lifelong, almost Sharpton-like, obsession with race.

Three weeks in office, he declared America a “nation of cowards” for refusing to discuss race more. Arriving in St. Louis, he declared, “I am the attorney general of the United States. But I am also a black man.”

Query. What is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, who is heading up the federal investigation of the shooting of a black teenager by a white cop, doing declaring his racial solidarity?

Holder then related several incidents that have stuck in his craw:

“I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. Pulled over. … ‘Let me search your car.’ … Go through the trunk of my car, look under the seats and all this kind of stuff. I remember how humiliating that was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me.”

Holder also spoke of being stopped by a cop in Georgetown when he was running to the movies.

Fine. The Great Man is outraged by such indignities. But the mindset exhibited here raises a grave question as to whether Eric Holder can objectively lead an investigation of a white cop who shot a black teenager. In Eric Holder’s mind, the verdict already seems in.

Any defense attorney would have Eric Holder tossed out of a jury pool, as soon as he started to vent like this.

If Holder has made up his mind about what happened in Ferguson that Saturday, fine. He is entitled to his opinion. But someone who has already decided officer Wilson’s actions are consistent with a racist police pattern he has observed personally should not be passing judgment on whether officer Wilson goes on trial for his life.

President Obama says he does not want to put “my thumb upon the scales” of justice. He should take Eric Holder’s thumb off.

Shut It Down, Mr. President

Shut It Down Mr. President

Trayvon Martin was an unarmed teenager walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and iced tea, when he was shot to death by a racist, profiling wannabe cop named George Zimmerman.

In the Big Media, which has relentlessly sought out the voices of those most incensed by the verdict in Sanford, Fla., that is how the Saga of Trayvon Martin is being told. And from listening to TV reports of the rage across black America, that is what is widely believed there.

But is that what happened? Well, not exactly.

Trayvon Martin was not shot while walking home.

He was shot after sucker-punching George Zimmerman, breaking his nose, knocking him down, jumping on top of him, beating him martial arts style and banging his head on a concrete walk, while Zimmerman screamed again and again, “Help me, help me.”

This is what George Zimmerman said happened.

It is what the sole eyewitness to the fight, John Good, says happened. It is what Sanford police believed.

It is what the defense proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It is what that jury of six women came to believe.

Why, then, do so many in the black community believe Trayvon was profiled and murdered, when even most of the analysts on the cable news shows were saying in the last days of the trial that the prosecution had failed completely to make its case?

Answer: Many had convicted George Zimmerman in their hearts before the trial began. Here, as this writer noted a year ago, are some of the voices that had declared Zimmerman guilty of murder before a witness had been called.

“Blacks are under attack,” railed Jesse Jackson. “Killing us is big business.” Trayvon was “shot down in cold blood by a vigilante … murdered and martyred.”

“A hate crime,” said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said Trayvon had been “executed.”

The Grio compared his killing to the lynching of Emmett Till in Mississippi in 1955. The New Black Panther Party put Zimmerman’s face on a “Wanted Dead or Alive” poster, called for 5,000 black men to run him down and said Trayvon had been “murdered in cold blood.”

Spike Lee twittered Zimmerman’s home address.

And President Obama? Did he calm the waters? Hardly. He signaled whose side he was on. “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” he said.

Not only did they all inflame the black community into believing a racist atrocity had occurred, others still do so, even after the weeks of testimony that raised far more than a reasonable doubt.

Moments after the verdict, Al Sharpton ranted, “This is an atrocity.” He went on to explain the moral outrage that the ladies of the jury had just committed.

“What this jury has done is establish a precedent that when you are young and fit a certain profile, you can be committing no crime, just bringing some Skittles and iced tea home to your brother, and be killed.”

Did the ladies of the jury really establish such a “precedent”?

The four-term mayor of Washington, D.C., Marion Barry, has now brought his healing touch to the proceedings.

The Zimmerman verdict was “awful,” he said, another example of “institutionalized racism.” But look to Marion to find a bright side.

“The good news is that Zimmerman will never be in peace. He won’t be able to get a job. He’ll have to go underground, travel incognito and never live in peace. That’s the good news for me.” Now a comment like that might befit a James Earl Ray. But George Zimmerman? Who turned this neighborhood watch fellow, well-liked by all in his community, into some racist monster?

The night of the verdict, Mark O’Mara gave America the answer.

George “didn’t know why he was turned into a monster,” O’Mara told the assembled journalists. “But quite honestly, you guys had a lot to do with it. You took a story that was fed to you, and you ran with it, and you ran right over him, and that was horrid to him.”

Like his partner Don West, O’Mara exhibited moral courage in that post-verdict press conference, as did that jury of six women, who rejected the prosecution’s pleas to at least give them manslaughter or child abuse.

President Obama might now exhibit a little moral courage of his own, by directing his Justice Department to halt this scavenger hunt for a “hate crime.” If Sanford police and the FBI could not find a hate crime, and the prosecution could not prove racial profiling or malice, what reason is there to believe any such motive ever existed?

If Barack Obama and Eric Holder capitulate to Al Sharpton’s demand for “Plan B” and the NAACP’s demand for a second trial of George Zimmerman for a crime of which he has been acquitted, most Americans will come to believe this is no search for justice, but a drive for racial retribution and revenge. And they will be right.

End this persecution of George Zimmerman, Mr. President.

Shut it down.

Obama’s Zimmerman Problem

By Patrick J. Buchanan

God save me from my friends; I can take care of my enemies.

That thought must be coursing through the mind of President Obama right now as his White House rigs for silent running in the murder trial of George Zimmerman.

Obama foolishly inserted himself into this volatile case weeks ago, and injected the issue of race. Expressing empathy with the family of Trayvon Martin, Obama flashed a signal of racial solidarity:

“If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”

Obama also implied that he shares the liberal perspective that America is a country where black kids must walk in daily fear of white racist vigilantes.

“All of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.”

Translation: The death of Trayvon tells us something is wrong with America.

To most Americans, this is a slander against their country, refuted by the statistics on interracial crime. Obama, however, buys into it.

Angela Corey, the special prosecutor, says that the charge against Zimmerman of second-degree murder was based on evidence and not influenced by the weeks of demonstrations, demands and threats from black leaders.

Perhaps. But from what the pubic knows, a charge of second-degree murder, which carries a sentence of 25 years to life, does not seem to stand up.

To convict, prosecutors must convince all 12 members of a jury that not only was Zimmerman in no danger of bodily harm, he did not believe he was in danger of bodily harm. He simply killed Martin in a “depraved” state of mind.

Nothing revealed so far seems to support that theory.

Zimmerman saw a tall stranger, hooded and acting suspiciously. He called the cops. He did not tell them the man was black. They had to ask him whether the suspect was black, white or Hispanic.

“He looks black,” said Zimmerman.

The CNN report that Zimmerman, on the call to the cops, used a racial slur, “(bleeping) coon,” has been withdrawn. What Zimmerman said was that it was “(bleeping) cold” outside.

Came then the fight. Two eyewitnesses say they saw Zimmerman on his back being beaten and screaming for help.

A cop at the scene said Zimmerman had a bloody nose and a gash on the back of his head. Zimmerman’s family says Trayvon banged George’s head on the sidewalk. Film of Zimmerman entering the police station that night shows bruising on the back of his head.

Trayvon was found lying face down. If Zimmerman had been on top and shot him, would not Trayvon have been found on his back?

Zimmerman’s family says Trayvon started the fight with a fist to the nose, and George went down. Trayvon is not here to tell his story. But a natural question arises:

Why would Zimmerman, with a holstered gun to protect himself, close with and start a fistfight with a teenager half a head taller? A grown man with a gun his adversary does not know he has — would he not more likely stand some distance away, to pull it out if needed?

The prosecutors must have discovered new evidence to indict for murder. For all of the testimony from Zimmerman’s side and the eyewitnesses seems to create more than a reasonable doubt that he committed a murder.

Where is Obama’s political problem?

With the election on, the case has begun to divide the nation along racial lines. And Obama’s allies are doing it. It is Jesse Jackson and the Black Caucus crying that Trayvon was “hunted down like a rabid dog in the street,” that he was “murdered and martyred,” that it was a “hate crime.”

“It’s a disgrace that man (Zimmerman) hasn’t been shot yet,” says Mike Tyson. The New Black Panther Party has put out a poster offering a $10,000 reward that reads, “Wanted: Dead or Alive.”

The face on the poster is George Zimmerman.

Trayvon is the victim here, but George Zimmerman is beginning to look like a victim — of lynch law and mob rule.

With the Panthers and Tyson calling for vengeance and vigilante justice, where is Attorney General Eric Holder? Out congratulating Al Sharpton for bringing political pressure on Florida to indict.

Is this how justice is advanced in Obama’s America?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has denounced Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law — which may be Zimmerman’s defense — as “a license to murder” and an excuse for “vigilante justice.”

Bloomberg seems about to lead a crusade against the National Rifle Association and for repeal of stand-your-ground laws in the two dozen states that have enacted them.

Given their huge emotional investment in this case, how will black leaders and black America react if Zimmerman walks?

And how will the rest of America react to that reaction?

And if Zimmerman, Trayvon, race, guns and stand-your-ground become voting issues this fall, how good is that for Barack Obama?