Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Oprah: Trayvon Martin = Emmett Till

Oprah: Trayvon Martin = Emmett Till

Of course, the two cases bear no resemblance at so many levels.

But Oprah can’t help herself, and debases the memory of Emmett Till by comparing Till’s whistling at a white woman and subsequent beating death to the violence perpetrated by Trayvon Martin upon George Zimmerman who acted in legally justifiable self defense.

Oprah thinks she’s being profound, but in fact she’s just showing her ignorance.

(video h/t @Dan Riehl)


OPRAH ON TRAYVON: Queen of Talk Makes First Public Comments on Trayvon Martin Case

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Oprah sowed her true colors during the 2008 campaign and since then her credibility has been nil…

    redc1c4 in reply to GrumpyOne. | August 7, 2013 at 12:11 am

    to anyone with an IQ larger than their hat size, her credibility has always been nil.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to GrumpyOne. | August 7, 2013 at 4:24 am

    Now we’re seeing more of her true colors. She’s a knee-jerk race grievance-monger.

      Dimsdale in reply to Juba Doobai!. | August 7, 2013 at 9:27 am

      LOL! “Shows her true colors”! Clearly, all she cares about is color, and perceived racism. It is how she built her empire. When she kept Sarah Palin off her dying show while allowing Øbama to use it as a campaign tool, I knew that she was the real tool.

      She is as big a race baiter as $harpton, or Jack$on.

      Martin got the justice he deserved and brought on himself, so suck it up, Øprah.

Oprah is quite an ignorant person, but she does have a way of dealing well with her audience and guests, that seems pleasing to all such. Yet on many subjects, Oprah simply grabs onto the most convenient or popular interpretation and uses that. What Oprah says once had some value to many yet that value has become diminished in recent years.

Oprah has an ignorant audience too. They seem to be lemmings…just following what the rest of the PC crowd thinks is right without knowing the facts (or perhaps, they know the facts, but just choose to ignore them)

BannedbytheGuardian | August 6, 2013 at 8:41 pm

Goes to show emmet has lost his mojo.

NC Mountain Girl | August 6, 2013 at 8:43 pm

Oprah is as phony as Obama and as much of a bully, too. While she may come across on TV as this nice woman you wish was your next door neighbor, she ties her staff up with some strictly enforces confidentiality agreements. Also, like Angela Corey, Oprah has been known to try to get those who have publicly criticized her fired. The reporter for the Chicago Tribune who mentioned her in a gossip column in a less than flattering way was quickly dismissed. She may not have the audience she used to have but she still can pay a lot of lawyers to harass anyone who crosses her.

    ROFLMAO! I’m not sure what incident you refer to … there must be many … but I recall reading one where Oprah and her entourage visited an antiques store, and the owner was forced to bring down many heavy pieces for examination from the 2nd floor. When the antiques store owner suggested it would be far easier for Oprah to go to the 2nd floor, a member of her entourage stated ‘Oprah doesn’t do stairs’. Indeed!

Oprah has done a lot of good things for a lot of people in her life, made herself a household name and a brand. For all that she should be quite proud. However, she crossed way over the line with her Emmett Till comment and not only should she be called to the mat for it, she should be asked over and over by every interviewer as she goes on the publicity tour for The Butler if she really understand the Till case and how very different it is from Trayvon Martin’s case. Then I’d ask her what she makes of the three black boys on a school bus in Florida who pummeled a white boy who refused to buy drugs from them.
http://patdollard.com/2013/08/watch-florida-school-bus-driver-stands-by-while-kids-beat-sixth-grader-may-face-charges/
What case will she say this is like?

Carol Herman | August 6, 2013 at 8:48 pm

Oprah is just selling her new movie role as the wife of the butler. For which she also expects an academy award.

The press is now all about its own circle jerk. And, don’t lose sight of da’ money.

Trayvon was a thug. Trayvon punched Zimmerman in the nose, taking him down by surprise. Only thing is Zimmerman had a gun. And, after calling out loud for help (that didn’t come), Zimmerman shot the thug. Zimmerman was probably very surprised that his shooting his gun was so effective.

All the hoopla over Trayvon is totally fake!

While, yes. In Florida blacks are known to riot. But in this case did not. They don’t give one whit for your culture. But for them to burn down their liquor stores, and their 7-11’s. And, check cashing places … would take more than this thug. A variety of teenager they are in fact more familiar with than you are.

Was there some expectation that our media would be fair?

If a lot of people assumed the media was fair, you’d see a lot of newspaper deliveries. And, ratings on TV would not be down in the toilet.

Personally, I’m not even tempted, now, to go see the butler. And, I could care less who gets an academy award, and who gets an enema.

Can our pop culture get any more deadeningly banal and predictable?

I have repeatedly heard comments from the leaders in the black community (and now Oprah) that Trayvon Martin should join the likes of Medgar Evers and Emmett Till as an icon of the struggle for civil rights. Of course this is preposterous as the only thing he has in common with Evers and Till is that he is black and he lost his life as the result of a violent act. Obviously though in Trayvon’s case there is no evidence that his death was the result of any type of racial animus on the part of Zimmerman who was justified in using self defense.

When I see the image of the hooded Trayvon I’m not reminded of Till and Evers but rather a different image of another black man with which the image of Trayvon has much more in common. It’s not that they as individuals have a direct commonality or even a similar history. Their life situations are completely different. In fact the other man is still living. Their images, however, are linked by how they are used even though they have very different histories. And who is that man in the other image? Willie Horton. And how are the images linked? They are/were both used as tools.

Of course there is a major difference though. The Willie Horton image was based on actual undeniable truth. The image of Trayvon, however, is based on lies manufactured and promoted by race hustlers, politicians, and the media for money, prestige, and power. This impact of this insidious invented image far surpasses that of Willie Horton in its complexity and impact on American society.

Oprah is indeed showing her profound ignorance.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Baker. | August 7, 2013 at 10:37 am

    I have been concerned about this since the media took up the cause and the President adopted TM as his long lost son. Not sure what they are asking the rest of us to do – Ignore burglaries? Ignore black on white (or Hispanic) violence? Not respond to the use of potentially lethal force if the assailant is black or wearing a hoodie?

    There are extremely serious issues facing poorer iinner city black communities, and the race hustlers pushing the Trayvon = Emmett comparison are trying to divert everyone’s attention from them. Black children born out of wedlock are somewhere around 75%, and we saw with TM’s girlfriend Rachel the level of literacy that is being achieved in that demographic. It is nearing 50 years now since LBJ enacted his Great Society, and started the War on Poverty. And what do we have for that? Rampant urban violence resulting to a great extent from the soaring illigitimacy rate funded in part by all those “poverty programs”. Oprah would do better for the country and for Blacks in particular if she would point out the need for personal responsibility, and that the greatest threats to the black community today come from within, from its violent fatherless young males and their welfare mothers and sisters who enable this by not marrying the fathers of their children.

    Maybe showing how bad this has gotten, woman was apparently arrested today/yesterday for running a Boston Globe truck off the road for a repeat DUI. She was driving a 7 year old Cadillac, had EBT cards for others, told the officers that they were fools for paying for their food,, and then vodoo cursed them.

Legally and morally justifiable self-defense. His life was threatened by Martin and he had the right to employ deadly force in order to end the unprovoked attack.

You can tell a lot about people by looking at the heroes they choose. Usually a hero encompasses to a high degree those values that those people consider important and worth striving for and imitating.

The most upsetting aspect of this is that it is not necessarily the members of Travon’s sub culture that are making him a hero, but it is our classically trained professional journalists (with the highest ethical standards) who are trying to impose the myth of Travon as a hero on that sub culture whether they want it or not.

    Lady Penguin in reply to Anchovy. | August 7, 2013 at 5:54 am

    this:
    “…it is our classically trained professional journalists (with the highest ethical standards) who are trying to impose the myth of Travon as a hero on that sub culture whether they want it or not.”

    You pegged it exactly right. These trained professional journalists seek these opportunities out in order to foment racial animosity and false narratives – all for the purpose of furthering their left-wing agenda. It’s not just journalistic malpractice, it’s willful subversion of the truth.

Is she doing crack again? Oh and her comment about that-she did it before crack was crack. See with logic like that, you can’t give credence to anything she says. Oprah is the poster child for white guilt.
Emmett Till would have had his butt handed to him by someone like Trayvon Martin. Emmett was innocent. Trayvon was thuggish.

Ignorance is always painful to see.

Oprah and Rosie O’Donnell, same thing.

Oprah = Madea

MouseTheLuckyDog | August 7, 2013 at 1:54 am

Oprah is a rich woman, who not can afford to hire her own personall trainer, dietician, and chef, and she does. But, she is fat more then half the time.

She got wealthy by having a television show which spent part of it’s time criticizing people for being fat. Said people not having all the advantages she did.

And of course the fat lady doesn’t do stairs.

Enough said.

theduchessofkitty | August 7, 2013 at 2:50 am

Glenn Beck did a major-league response to Oprah. Complete with the picture of poor Emmett Till’s body in his casket.

As I sad before, the murder of Emmett Till was brutal, cruel, disgusting and totally inhuman, for no other reason but his flirting with a white woman. TM was not Till, nor he will ever be.

The comparison to Emmett Till by Oprah is just as sinister as the rest of media concerning Trayvon Martin. Emmett Till was 14, the age the media and the Left still portray Trayvon Martin by using the more youthful, “innocent” pictures of the 17 going on 18, 6’1″ street-fighting thug.

Uncle Samuel | August 7, 2013 at 4:42 am

The Emmitt Till story may have been colored in his favor (no pun intended); there may have been more involved than mere whistling.

Till’s father was a convicted rapist and murderer executed by the army in 1945: “While serving in the Italian Campaign, Till was arrested by military police, who suspected him of the murder of an Italian woman and the rape of two others in Civitavecchia.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Till

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | August 7, 2013 at 4:51 am

    I am in no way justifying the inhumane brutality of the men who tortured and murdered Emmitt Till, just saying Till’s manner and words may have been disrespectful and lewd enough to go beyond mere whistling so as to create indignation.

    Indignation and a scolding and warning by law enforcement and the husband of the woman would have been a sufficient response.

    In earlier years in England, a duel for the lady’s honor would have ensued.

    What did happen was inexcusable, unthinkable and a horrible crime.

      Thank you for bringing this point up. Because of the brutal murder of Emmett Till which rightly made him a civil rights icon, the unfortunate side effect has been the notion that it’s okay for black men to sexually harass white women and white women are [email protected] if they don’t just smile and accept the “compliments.” It’s absurd that I should be expected to accept behavior in black men that I don’t accept in white men. And now, with the Zimmerman case, we see the advanced racial psychosis where white (and “white Hispanic”) men are required to just accept the beat down because to defend oneself is “[email protected]” I call it psychosis because it’s an apt term for the delusional idea that violent behavior is a civil right.

Lady Penguin | August 7, 2013 at 6:15 am

Oprah comparing Martin, a thug who lost his life because the other guy was able to defend himself, with Emmett Till – a victim of a true civil rights atrocity, nothing more than a female version of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. race baiters. Used to think she had some class or was at least pretending to, but it’s clear she only wants to play a racist deck of cards.

Uncle Samuel | August 7, 2013 at 7:20 am

Carol Swain, a law professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, provides the antidote of sanity and reason to Ophrah and the We Are Trayvon crowd:

“Trayvon Martin’s mother is missing an opportunity to lead a social movement. America needs a conversation about the unfortunate plight of thousands of young black men who have adopted unhealthy lifestyles.

“High unemployment, black-on-black crime, and hopelessness are factors that must be addressed. Individual choices and wrong internalized messages have led to the devaluation of human life in the black community at every stage of development.

“The devaluation in human life is reflected in our abortion rates and the willingness to accept high black-on-black murder rates. We can do better!”

Fulton, and Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin’s father, seem more interested in becoming bona fide left-wingers – under the misguidance of the Revvum Al Sharpton – than in steering young black men away from “unhealthy lifestyles.”

MORE HERE: http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-carol-swain-demands-honesty-about-trayvon-martin/article/2533867

And there is the Frederick Douglass Republican movement and many others who aren’t drinking the Obama/Holder/Crump Koolaid.

Reading the comments on this thread shows why there is such bitterness among so many blacks.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Zachriel. | August 7, 2013 at 8:31 am

    Well there was that lady who expected Obama to pay her mortgage & petrol in 2008.

    I guess show would be pretty bitter.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | August 7, 2013 at 10:49 am

      You are just sounding silly now, ignoring that Martin swung on Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, and, straddling him, beat his head into the concrete. That Zimmerman was armed was the reason that he is the one who survived, and not his violent assailant.

      Are you suggesting that we cut the Trayvon Martin’s in this country slack, that we allow them to physically assault people with impunity, beating them unmercifully, since they are black and didn’t grow up in their father’s household? That we should ignore them burglarizing houses just because of their skin color? (Not suggesting here that TM was doing such at the time he was first observed by GZ, but rather, that he appeared to be casing the house for such, and there is evidence that he had been involved in such in the past – intentionally ignored by the MD school system) What exactly do you think should have happened differently the night TM died in the course of his physical assault and beating of GZ?

        Bruce Hayden: ignoring that Martin swung on Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, and, straddling him, beat his head into the concrete. </i.

        According to Jeantel's testimony, Martin said "Get off, get off". That suggests Martin was grabbed, which precipitated the altercation. What's sad is that so many have piled on Martin who was minding his own business, even though he was followed by a man in a truck, then on foot.

        Bruce Hayden: That we should ignore them burglarizing houses just because of their skin color? (Not suggesting here that TM was doing such at the time he was first observed by GZ

        We see what you did just there.

        Martin was talking to a friend on hands-free. When kids do that, they meander, and look around distractedly. That’s what kids do.

        Bruce Hayden: What exactly do you think should have happened differently the night TM died in the course of his physical assault and beating of GZ?

        Zimmerman shouldn’t have been armed. He shouldn’t have jumped to conclusions. He shouldn’t have followed Martin and grabbed at him in the dark.

        That was followed by the personal destruction of Martin, Jeantel, even his step-brother Chad. As we said, reading the comments on this and previous thread shows why there is such bitterness among so many blacks.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Bruce Hayden. | August 7, 2013 at 12:54 pm

        Zachriel, You seem unable to grasp fact and prefer your own fantasies about this case. ‘Get off’ (even if Rachel Jeantel’s word could be trusted) means ‘come on and fight’.

        Uncle Samuel: ‘Get off’ (even if Rachel Jeantel’s word could be trusted) means ‘come on and fight’.

        Huh? That’s obviously not what Jeantel thought.

        Zachriel, if you had followed the trial you would know that there was no witness account of Zimmerman initiating physical contact. Jeantel’s testimony as an “ear witness” was vague at best. The one eye witness account places Martin over Zimmerman, beating him as Zimmerman cried for help.

        It’s a shame that people elect to live in willful ignorance, choosing to disregard the facts when they contradict their mythology.

        gxm17: if you had followed the trial you would know that there was no witness account of Zimmerman initiating physical contact.

        That’s right. Martin was not able to testify.

        gxm17: Jeantel’s testimony as an “ear witness” was vague at best.

        Yes, and the “ear witness” is what we cited. She testified that Martin said “Get off, get off” before the phone was cut off.

        “Get off” (if those words were ever actually spoken by Martin) could also have been directed at Jeantel, as in “get off the phone.” This was one of the biggest problems with Jeantel’s testimony (and her testimony was riddled with problems), the fact that without any visual, there was no clear context in which to frame her ever-evolving testimony. Unlike other ear witnesses, Jeantel didn’t even have a familiarity with the physical location to base her perceptions on.

        gxm17: Unlike other ear witnesses, Jeantel didn’t even have a familiarity with the physical location to base her perceptions on.

        That actually makes it all the more compelling.

        “That’s right. Martin was not able to testify.”

        Oh, but he was, Zachriel. And the testimony of the dead is often the most convincing because it’s based on science. Martin’s body and clothing confirmed that he was standing over Zimmerman when he was shot, and that he was shot at a very close range (i.e., he was not fleeing or turning to flee). And let us not forget that, at the prosecution’s insistence, the judge would not allow Martin’s own words to be presented to the jury.

        “That actually makes it all the more compelling.”

        I disagree, Zachriel. I think it makes her testimony even more confusing and disjointed than it would have been if she had actually been PRESENT and not hearing things, one-sided, through the static of a cell phone. Our senses rely on each other to work properly. With only limited audio in play, she was hindered by a sensory disadvantage, and a lack of context, that the other ear witnesses did not have.

        gxm17: Martin’s body and clothing confirmed that he was standing over Zimmerman when he was shot, and that he was shot at a very close range

        So? If Zimmerman caused the altercation that led to the killing and an unarmed teen, then he has moral culpability. Martin’s testimony might have been important in making the legal determination, but he’s dead.

        Bruce Hayden in reply to Bruce Hayden. | August 7, 2013 at 2:56 pm

        Zach, again, get your facts straight. TM was suspicious not only because he was walking around without an obvious destination, but also because he was doing so on someone’s front lawn, on the grass, in the rain, appearing to be trying to look into their windows. He was not on the sidewalk, or on the road, but on their front lawn, and this was a couple houses down from a house that had been recently burglarized (and the subject of several of GZ’s phone calls to the police played at trial – because the police description of the suspects was that they were black, and, indeed, were still black when arrested for the burglary). Most everyone would have seen this suspiciously as possibly casing the house for burglary. At least most everyone outside the inner city ghettos. The housing development had experienced a recent rash of burglaries, and that was one of the reasons why NW was formed, and why GZ had joined. Moreover, unknown to GZ at the time, TM seems likely to have been involved, at least at the level of receiving stolen goods, in such back in Miami Dade, when he was caught with women’s jewelry (not belonging to him). This was intentionally not tied to an outstanding burglary report at the direction of the MD school district administration. Ever wonder how unemployed TM ever afforded his pot, tats, and gold grill?

        You have no evidence whatsoever, beyond wishful thinking, that GZ ever approached TM, or that GZ swung first. None was introduced at trial, even RJ’s “earwitness account All forensic evidence supports the theory that TM swung on GZ first, hit him in the nose, knocked him down, and beat on him, hitting his head into the concrete, until GZ shot TM, who at the time was leaning over him (most likely still sitting on GZ). Expert testimony to almost all of the above.

        In any case, even if GZ had swung on TM (and, as pointed out above, there is no evidence to support such), he lost the right to self-defense at the time he started beating GZ”s head into the concrete, escalating into the use of deadly force. At that point, GZ was legally entitled to use deadly force in self-defense, regardless of who initiated the confrontation.

        Bruce Hayden: TM was suspicious not only because he was walking around without an obvious destination, but also because he was doing so on someone’s front lawn, on the grass, in the rain, appearing to be trying to look into their windows.

        When Zimmerman slow-drove past Martin, Martin was near the clubhouse. Only later does Martin go between the houses, after he told Jeantel he was trying to avoid Zimmerman. Incidentally, Zimmerman also walked on private property.

        Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just talking around, looking about… look at all the houses … now he’s just staring at me … he’s got his hand in his waistband.”

        What Zimmerman sees is a dangerous drugged-out burglar with a weapon. What Martin is is a teen talking on hands-free.

        Bruce Hayden: You have no evidence whatsoever, beyond wishful thinking, that GZ ever approached TM

        Jeantel testified that Martin said “Get off, get off” before the phone went dead. Martin was fatally shot within a minute.

        Bruce Hayden: At that point, GZ was legally entitled to use deadly force in self-defense, regardless of who initiated the confrontation.

        If someone can follow you then grab you in the dark, and you can’t fight back, there’s something wrong with the law. Zimmerman may be legally not guilty, but his conscience will never be clear until he fesses up to what happened.

      Jeantel was not a credible witness: (1) She was likely contaminated by the Martin Family lawyer; (2) She was willing to lie under oath; (3) Her testimony lacked coherence; (4) She went beyond her deposition. If you want to be a credible witness then don’t lie. About anything. She evidently thinks that she gets to lie if she believes the lie is in the service of a greater good.

      Even if you think she’s credible, the “get off” remark does not prove that GZ physically attacked TM first. The forensics overwhelmingly support the defense’s theory of the case. The prosecution’s case was so weak that its supporters have to grasp at at straws, which is what you are doing.

        raijin: Jeantel was not a credible witness

        As we said, reading the comments on this thread shows why there is such bitterness among so many blacks.

        gxm17 in reply to raijin. | August 7, 2013 at 1:42 pm

        “As we said, reading the comments on this thread shows why there is such bitterness among so many blacks.”

        LOL. Whipping out the royal We? Too funny.

        My heart goes out to anyone who feels embittered by facts, logic, and justice. But I have little sympathy for anyone who thinks it’s okay to beat a man’s head into the sidewalk just because he’s a “creepy-ass cracker.”

        gxm17: by facts

        The fact is that Jeantel testified that Martin said “Get off, get off”. Within a minute, Martin was fatally shot.

        gxm17 in reply to raijin. | August 7, 2013 at 3:33 pm

        Zachriel, as pointed out previously, that can be construed to mean that Martin told Jeantel to “get off” the phone so he could commence beating the “crazy-ass cracker.” Jeantel’s testimony, as much as she tried to twist it to fit the prosecution’s false narrative, was so vague that it can easily be taken more than one way. In the end, that makes her testimony an evidentiary wash.

        gxm17: as pointed out previously, that can be construed to mean that Martin told Jeantel to “get off” the phone so he could commence beating the “crazy-ass cracker.”

        “That’s real retarded, sir” — Jeantel

        gxm17 in reply to raijin. | August 7, 2013 at 3:39 pm

        Yes, Zachriel. That’s just the sort of hostility that made Jeantel a less than credible witness. Thank you for illustrating that point so succinctly.

        gxm17: That’s just the sort of hostility that made Jeantel a less than credible witness.

        That’s just the sort of dismissiveness that results in arbitrary justice.

    Lady Penguin in reply to Zachriel. | August 7, 2013 at 8:46 am

    In this day and age, the “bitterness” is of their own making. It’s easy to blame others for one’s own shortcomings, but it’s a lie you’re fostering.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Zachriel. | August 7, 2013 at 10:40 am

    I increasingly find that what most often victimizes people in this age is seldom bigotry, sexism or homophobia. Indeed, show me a bitter person and I’ll show you someone who has become a victim of far too much wishful thinking and a lack of awareness of their own often stunning stupidity.

    Getting past this self made trap requires insights that an impenetrable black avatar suggests might be in very short supply.

    raijin in reply to Zachriel. | August 7, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    raijin: Jeantel was not a credible witness

    Zachriel: As we said, reading the comments on this thread shows why there is such bitterness among so many blacks.

    So Jeantel gains credibility because she’s black? Or we must regard Jeantel as credible because otherwise some blacks will feel bitter? I really don’t get your point. Feelings don’t count when judging evidence.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to raijin. | August 7, 2013 at 2:34 pm

      Let’s all just forget the fact that Jeantel lied repeatedly when she saw fit. No, the assessment that she is less than credible is because she is black.

      /sarc

      raijin: So Jeantel gains credibility because she’s black?

      She was the last person who talked to Martin before his death. She testified that Martin said “Get off, get off”. That implies Martin did not initiate contact.

        Bruce Hayden in reply to Zachriel. | August 7, 2013 at 3:46 pm

        RJ said a lot of things, and much of it was contradictory. Even what you have said is contradictory – TM had been talking on his headphones, then took them off, and rolled them up, before the confrontation. He was almost assuredly not wearing them when the physical altercation started, which goes to intent. And, she also indicated that TM had gotten to his father’s girlfriend’s house, then turned around to go back, likely to pick a fight with GZ. Something to do with an Ass Cracker, which may be a racist slur, or, more likely, homophobic. The contradictory nature of her testimony is likely why the defense attorney just shrugged his shoulders when summarizing testimony during his closing argument.

        I think that a lot of people were worried about what she would say on the stand during trial. It turned out to be almost a non-event in terms of testimony, and more worrisome in terms of the standards for schooling and literacy in inner city school systems. I think that she had everyone’s sympathy, including the defense team’s. Still, with her testimony running all over the place, it is no surprise that GZ was acquitted.

This is what happens when you believe that there are many ways to God and to Truth. You end up saying whatever comes into your mind is the truth.

Besides, Oprah, by saying this nonsense, seeks to keep herself in the “black loop.” She’s been hobnobbing with too many “creepy ass crackers” lately.

Agree with Sally. Oprah tries to walk the line between new age white elite contemporary trends in everything from diet, sex, relationships, etc. and staying “in the loop” and “down” with current black culture.

I stopped reading her magazine years ago, it was the same drudged up drivel every month full of pop psycho babble, interspersed with articles about some war atrocity in Africa and the obligatory page of Maya Angelou’s rhymes. Oh, and the standard article of some expert coming to Oprah’s office, homes, apartments, etc to give their expertise to her regarding how she should be fitted for a bra, or how her closets should be organized, what technique she should use jogging, etc. Her personal chef’s would offer up their recipes, etc. You know, she’s just like the rest of us, only she’s more special cause she’s black.

A

Oprah is a genius. She’s a billionaire. She knows exactly what she’s doing. She obviously knows Trayvon is no Till.

This is a woman who made a huge profitable business out of catering to the infantile narcissistic fantasies of slothful emotionally erratic obese women.

Think of her business model as “liposuction for obese womens’ wallets” rather than for their hips.

Waiting for her brand to implode. Having someone that ill-informed with a national platform just adds to the massive stupid so prevalent in the culture.

I think it was Rush who coined the phrase”Oprahfication” of the society, in which all of it’s problems will simply go away if we all just sit and talk and discuss and understand, etc.

[…] Ophrah | Emmett Till | Trayvon Martin | George Zimmerman […]

Zach: Your following statement says it all about your view of this incident: “Zimmerman may be legally not guilty, but his conscience will never be clear until he fesses up to what happened.”

So, Zach, what is your whole proposition about? Are you pissed because Zimmerman was not found guilty? Or, are you pissed because he killed someone and has not admitted that he was in the wrong? According to your own statements, what did Zimmerman do that was wrong, except to live when Martin did not? If you truly want to live by a code of social justice, are you willing to abode by all its many dictates and definitions as to what is proper and what is improper?

Are you truly aware that except for the Jesse Jackson’s, Al Sharpton’s, Oprah’s, and others like them, many of us try to live in fact by MLK, Jr.’s credo regarding the character of a person rather than the color of his skin?

Your statements on this blog seem to reflect a view that the only point you give a damn about is the color of person’s skin. What about how much blood a person, or his ancestors’, shed to free men’s souls? Do you give a damn about that?

Do you want instead your free Obama phone, your free meals, or your free stuff, your bag of free parting gifts? If you cannot accept a just and fair trial, what in the hell do you want and why should any of us grant you that, because there’s nothing you’ve said or done here that warrants further conversation. Your a troll and we should do what everyone should do regarding trolls: Ignore trolls and never engage them in a conversation since they are incapable of being honest and forthright!

Doug Wright: Are you pissed because Zimmerman was not found guilty?

Our original comment concerned the denigration of Martin, his family, those associated with him, and people concerned with his death. You have only to read the comments on this blog to see why there is such bitterness among so many blacks.

    McCoy2k in reply to Zachriel. | August 7, 2013 at 9:17 pm

    @Zachriel

    Do you really think you’re changing minds? It’s obvious the posters here aren’t not changing yours despite appeals to the facts of the case. You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The jury decided that a Not Guilty verdict is the correct verdict, based on the facts and evidence, not on someone’s skin color, nor on any aspect of an emotional appeal for social justice.

    You’re welcome to go back and read the fantastic posts by Andrew Branca, who did an excellent job in providing detailed courtroom goings-on of the trial.

    Your trolling has made it’s point, in that there is not one corner of the web safe from some Leftist playing the race card.

McCoy2k: Do you really think you’re changing minds?

Not all minds are closed, you know.

McCoy2k: The jury decided that a Not Guilty verdict is the correct verdict, based on the facts and evidence, not on someone’s skin color, nor on any aspect of an emotional appeal for social justice.

Well, we can agree the jury decided on non guilty. It might mean Zimmerman is innocent. It might mean he is morally culpable, but not guilty under the law. It might the jury lacked understanding of other cultures. It might mean the jury was simply wrong. It might mean the law is poorly written. It might mean no law can account for all cases of injustice. It might mean that there was insufficient evidence, one of the primary witnesses having been shot dead, Zimmerman being given the benefit of reasonable doubt.

McCoy2k: there is not one corner of the web safe from some Leftist playing the race card.

We pointed out that blacks have a very different perspective on the case. Is that not a fact? Or are facts only important when they support your preconceptions? When we pointed it out, we were told it was because blacks just want free stuff, a very demeaning and revealing comment, that was left unanswered by others. Martin and everyone associated with him was publicly vilified.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend