Published on July 17th, 2013 | by Dr. Joel McDurmon12
Trayvon and Zimmerman in a nation of laws and leftists, too
The Marxist front for George Soros named Jim Wallis who masquerades as the concerned leader of a Christian ministry (Sojourners) has published a piece designed to inflame leftists and minorities over the Zimmerman verdict. The piece is so full of lies and deceitful insinuations that it makes Obama look like a conservative and Piers Morgan look like a real journalist.
And that, mind you, is after Piers just reached a new low with his spelling lesson from Trayvon’s girlfriend:
“Nigga” means “a male . . . any kind of male,” but end that word with an “-er” and “Black people, they not going to have it like that.”
I wouldn’t. But furthermore: “Creepy-a** cracka” does not refer to “a white person.” Note again, “cracka” does not have the proper grammatical suffix, “-er” for such denotation. Lacking such, “cracka” is properly defined as the following:
“That’s a person who act like they’re a police, or like security guard who acting like.”
Of course, this makes so much more sense of the facts in the case: because the first thing we all do if we believe someone is a policeman or security guard, or is even acting like one, is walk up and punch them in the face, breaking their nose, right?
Having swallowed the camel and absolved Trayvon and Rachel of any possible racialism through these cultural addenda to Webster, Piers then strains the gnat of Zimmerman’s almost certain racial motivations, leading his guest to say, “let’s be honest: racial.”
This type of media race-mongering by leftists is nothing more than ramping up emotions for a civil trial to nail Zimmerman a second time.
Along these lines, Al Sharpton openly admitted as much. Brietbart notes Sharpton’s belief that even the criminal trial was not a result of the “merits of the case,” but rather leftist agitation in the media. Don’t take my word for it. He said, “Let’s not act like we got in the Florida case because of the merits, we got there by rallying, by protesting and by raising the issue.”
And based on the same method, Sharpton wants to let out the leftist dogs in a second suit—one in which standards of conviction are lower and procedure will bear more heavily upon Zimmerman.
But we do appreciate the admission from Sharpton that leftists are not interested in the merits of the case. Let the ramp-up to public lynching begin!
The ramp up begins with plenty of leftist propaganda, and nowhere is this clearer than with Wallis’s piece, which is aimed specifically at Evangelical Christians.
Gary North has demolished much of this particular nonsense from Wallis already. I will not retread his points. But a few things must be noted yet. Remarkably, I refuted some of Wallis’ argument five years ago, when I criticized his work in God vs. Socialism. More of that in a moment.
Wallis wants us to consider a “Lament from a White Father.” The “father’s perspective” bit recalls Obama’s claim, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” That may be true. But as a certain white woman from Kansas would’ve told you, Obama racially has more in common with his fellow half-white individual George Zimmerman.
We have not heard Obama identify with this fellow. He did not even mention Zimmerman at all in his comments on the verdict. We also have not heard him identify with all of the brown-skinned and truly innocent children slain by his expanded drone program, or in the “black genocide” of abortion. But “let’s be honest,” if Obama had a son, he would look a lot like all of those babies, too. I have not heard him go there.
I have also not yet heard Piers Morgan or Jim Wallis go anywhere near there.
Wallis tilts the Zimmerman story from the start: “If my white 14-year-old son Luke had walked out that same night, in that same neighborhood, just to get a snack he would have come back to his dad unharmed.”
That’s the “big if” fallacy. And “just” is the key qualifier. Because on the other hand, if your son did more than just get a snack—let’s say he punched an armed watchman in the face, jumped on top of him and reached for his gun—he would have come back to his dad. . . .
Facts matter. And all the facts matter. But not to leftist propagandists: made up facts and insinuations matter more.
But then again, like I said, they talk too much. Wallis goes on to blab: “White Christians cannot and must not leave the sole responsibility of telling the truth about America, how it has failed Trayvon Martin and so many black Americans, solely to their African American brothers and sisters in Christ.“
I can’t imagine how demeaning that must sound to black Americans. In his zeal to pound guilt into white breasts, Wallis let slip what white elitist liberals have actually been doing for decades: perpetuating the so-called white man’s burden. Blacks can’t tell the truth by themselves, apparently, they need whites to help them (but only as white liberals approve, of course).
This is the real problem at work here. These leftists, all, do nothing but create resentment, hatred, and envy among blacks, then fan the flames of those wrongful emotions to exploit blacks for a political agenda of wealth redistribution and a police state. Blacks should see that the ones truly exploiting them are the white liberal elites, Marxists, and so-called civil rights leaders like Al and Jesse, and their media accomplices. These are the people who could truly care less about blacks, but find it useful to pretend. The perpetual lie that blacks are oppressed and need political help is itself part of the oppression: the liberals find it useful to keep blacks in a state of mind that they are helpless by themselves. That is the true plantation today. It was created by leftist politicians.
Contra Wallis, the truth about America is not that it has failed Trayvon and “so many black Americans.” The truth about America is that leftist leaders have failed blacks, by lying to them about America, about truth, about justice, about everything, including about blacks.
True to his evangelical mask, Wallis waxes religious: “racial profiling is a sin in the eyes of God. It should also be a crime in the eyes of our society, and the laws we enact to protect each other and our common good.”
I could split some theological hairs over these claims, but that’s for another time. Two obvious things for now: first, just because something is a sin doesn’t mean it should be a crime. Everyone knows this, and Wallis even knows this and advocates it.
For example, covetousness is a sin. Shall we pass a law against it? Would Wallis like a law against it? Hardly. In fact, his socialism is based on envy. He wants to pass laws that promote covetousness. So much for “in the eyes of God.”
Another example: Wallis, because he is a confessing evangelical Christian, has to say that abortion for mere convenience sake is a sin. But does he advocate that it “should also be a crime”?
So now you get the point, and see the hypocrisy of Wallis’s position on alleged racial profiling.
Second, the appeal to the “common good” is the great Trojan horse of politics. This is what I covered back in 2008. What that phrase really means is that real evangelicals must shut their evangelical mouths and do the political bidding of leftists. Indeed, you have no other choice. This is no joke. Obama said so himself. As I explained:
Wallis and his leftist idols including Obama continually talk about the “common good.” Closely related to the hijacking of religious terminology, “the common good” is a way of looking religious and deceiving religious people into signing up, yet denying the Bible itself any mention that is not already censored and sanctioned by the socialist agenda. So when Wallis seems to speak boldly for the faith when he refers to “prophetic politics,” he immediately smothers the idea under a leftist pillow: “We must find a new moral and political language that transcends old divisions and seeks the common good.… Prophetic politics would not be an endless argument between personal and social responsibility, but a weaving of the two together in search of the common good.”[i]
Question: how does individualism survive any “weaving together” with government-mandated social programs? Exactly. To the extent that government grows individual liberty shrinks. This is the clever trick of “common good.” Who can argue against the “common good”? Are you saying you prefer the “common evil”? That’s unchristian! Then whenever a program is put forth as “for the common good,” you must either vote for it or declare yourself public enemy number one. Wallis defines it in softer language: “new civic partnerships in which everyone does their share and everybody does what they do best.”[ii] The attentive student will hear Karl Marx ringing in the background, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” . . .
That Wallis is pushing the left’s agenda and code language is again obvious. Obama says, “Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.”[iii] This really means evangelicals must leave the foundation of their religion outside the doors of city hall, and Obama is honest about this: “Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.”
That is the leftists’ answer: “We have no choice.” The vaunted side of pro-choice is anti-choice when it comes to biblical faith being explicit. They want the name “biblical faith,” and they want the voting appeal of “biblical faith,” but when it comes to actual policy-making the Bible must be removed from the table. It must be replaced by “the common good.”
So you can see clearly who’s actually polarizing America. And you can see who is polarizing and exploiting black America. It is not middle-class whites, or half-hispanics who carry self-defense weapons. It is the political left and its media machine. And in the attempt to see that polarization reflected among Christians, Jim Wallis is at the forefront of that machine.
He just so happens be among the most transparent as well.
I think one of the most important areas where this can begin to change is in the black pulpit. Jesus and God’s Law must be held high to expose the ungodly foundations of leftist political solutions, and the exploitation of blacks inherent in the deal. There is much more to say, but the Bible is the beginning point to say it. I am only in the beginning stages of a project to help bring this about.
[i] Wallis, God’s Politics, 75–76.
[ii] Wallis, God’s Politics, 76.
[iii] Barack Obama, keynote address at Call to Renewal’s “Pentecost 2006: Building a Covenant for a New America,” June 28, 2006, http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/06-24-08-obama-call-to-renewal.pdf (accessed October 2, 2009).