Sirota defines the presumption of guilt that George Zimmerman used against Trayvon Martin as the "Zimmerman principle" (obviously, because the principle is apparently that new). Then, he starts his "argument."
Remember, in the same year that saw Zimmerman kill Martin, Zimmerman’s president, Barack Obama, extra-judicially executed Anwar al-Awlaki and then his 16-year-old son, without charging either of the two U.S. citizens with a single crime. The two were simply presumed guilty, without any evidence being officially marshaled against them.Zimmerman's president? If that's a joke, it's the sickest joke I have ever heard. In the same sense that President Obama is Zimmerman's president, he is Trayvon Martin's president, my president, and for that matter, as much as Sirota would like to hide it, Sirota's president. But that's not what it's about. This is about associating a black president with a violent vigilante.
This is serious. David Sirota is comparing actions taken by the Commander in Chief in a war specifically against a man who directly joined and organized armed enemies of the United States with an armed civilian chasing down and murdering an innocent black child. He is trying to say that the situations are the same when the United States fires on an enemy soldier, if it does so without a grand jury indictment of that enemy soldier, that it is the same as when a vigilante guns down an innocent child in civilian life. That is disgusting. That is sick. That is twisted.
But that's not all. Oh, no. Sirota thinks he's slick Willie:
It is, of course, no coincidence that, whether African-Americans like Martin or Arabs like the Awlakis, those most affected by the Zimmerman Principle’s presumption of guilt tend to be people of color.Let me make some things clear for you, you racist jerk: Trayvon Martin was profiled because he was black; Anwar Al-Awlaki was targeted in a war because of his actions - namely that he joined an armed group against the United States in foreign soil and actively recruited for that armed group, not because he was of Arabic descent. His son was killed in a drone strike that had someone different as the target.
David Sirota is not simply making a point about government - he is accusing the US military, headed by an African American president of using racist criteria in determining who to target in a war. He is trying to say that Barack Obama is hunting down Arabs, just as Zimmerman hunted down Trayvon because of his skin color. He is equating the black president's actions in war with an armed vigilante's persuit and murder of an unarmed teenager because he presumed guilt by skin color. And in that equation not so subtly lies the thinly veiled caricature of black men as violent, vindictive, indiscriminate killers.
The idea that Trayvon Martin, an unarmed, innocent child who did nothing wrong except be black is being compared with an armed terrorist and commander and recruiter of a foreign enemy of the United States is even more chilling than the accusation Sirota is making against the President. He is - I suspect knowingly - throwing fuel into the fire of racist phobia and presumption that Trayvon Martin was violent. Sirota wants you to think that he's saddened by the fate of Trayvon. In reality, he is dancing on Trayvon's grave, and jerking off at the president while doing so.
Yes, that was a vile image. But no more vile than what David Sirota has shown himself to be in his hatred against the President and his willingness to sacrifice the memory of Trayvon Martin in order to spread that hatred.
By calling Obama 'Zimmerman's president,' Sirota wants his readers to view a black president through the prism of a white killer. By equating Trayvon Martin with a terrorist who took up arms against the United States, David Sirota is doing worse: he is validating the far Right's assumption that all black men are violent criminals and better off dead. Every person of good conscience should be disgusted with moral outrage at what David Sirota has just thrown down.