Micah Johnson, the Dallas shooter, stated explicitly that he wanted to kill white people, especially white police. Yet absolutely no one in the mainstream media has used the word "racist" to describe him. The term "racism" still only applies in only one direction.
This seems to be the Times' version of, "But they started it!" They added the "Chief Says" bit to give themselves cover. You know, the way they normally present the police viewpoint in their headlines.
The subheading said, "Dallas Sniper Said to be Driven by Police Shootings of Blacks."
Evidently we're supposed to react to that by thinking, ah, well, in that case it's understandable.
If a white had shot eleven blacks, killing five of them, as revenge for, say, a couple of black-on-white killings, the media would be screaming the R word from the rooftops. And they would never, ever present it as a tit for tat situation.
But this wasn't Dylan Roof shooting a bunch of blacks, it was the opposite: a black-on-white racial killing. So while the media solemnly talk about the tragic nature of the event, they've generally refrained from editorializing, since this doesn't fit the liberal narrative.
A few have mentioned the "horrible epidemic of gun violence" in passing, but the elephant in the room is simply ignored.
Obama called the shootings "a vicious, calculated, and despicable attack on law enforcement." Which makes it sound as if he's harshly condemning the murders.
But, Obama did not mention the racial nature of the killings, just as he refused to mention the radical Islamist nature of the killings in Orlando. As always with Obama, what he doesn't say speaks much louder than what he does say. Had the Dallas shootings been white-on-black, of course, he would have been all over the racial angle, as he was when Dylan Roof shot those black churchgoers in Charleston.
While Obama may have said the Dallas shootings were despicable, he's actually been subtly inciting this violence all along.
No, he hasn't told anyone to go out and shoot police officers. But he's been doing his best to stoke animosity and make the black community feel aggrieved.
(Here's a great summation of how Obama's words are both misleading and provocative.)
Whenever there are such incidents, Obama, without knowing all the facts, immediately, instinctively sides with blacks. He did it after Harvard professor Henry Gates was arrested, after the Trayvon Martin kiling, and after the Michael Brown shooting. Hours before the Dallas shootings, Obama said, of the recent killings of blacks by police in Minnesota and Louisiana:
"Right now, the data shows that black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents. There is a particular burden that is being placed on a group of our fellow citizens…When incidents like this occur, there is a big chunk of our fellow citizenry that feels as if because of the color of their skin they are not being treated the same….Regardless of the outcome of such investigations, what's clear is that these fatal shootings are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year….As a nation, we can and must do better to institute the best practices that reduce the appearance or reality of racial bias in law enforcement."
If you listen to Obama, you'd be left with the impression that the only reason blacks are arrested and convicted at higher rates than whites is because law enforcement is racist. But again, what he doesn't say speaks much louder: blacks and whites simply don't commit violent crimes at the same rate.
In fact, it's not even close: blacks commit all four of the four major categories of violent crime (aggravated assault, rape, armed robbery, and murder) at a rate six to eight times higher than whites.
As for interracial violence in general, the statistics are similarly lopsided. Black-on-white crime is far more common than white-on-black. Yet to hear the media tell it, you'd think it was the opposite.
As far as police shootings of blacks, in fact the police kill roughly twice as many whites, and studies have shown that police in general are more reluctant to shoot a black suspect than a white one. (Is anyone referring to this difference as "racism"?)
Micah Johnson was an Army reservist, and the Army tries not to accept recruits with IQ's below 92, and an IQ at that minimal level for acceptance would put Johnson 7 points above the black average. So he couldn't have been that dumb. But Johnson couldn't have been that smart, either, or he would have delved into the statistics and seen for himself exactly what they showed.
Johnson was, in a sense, a Manchurian candidate, brainwashed by the constant media drumbeat and the lies of the BLM crowd into thinking that the cops really do go around hunting down young black men for sport. A few hours after the President himself basically said that the cops were racist, Johnson decided to indulge his rage.
One crucial distinction here is between dishonesty and stupidity. It's hard to believe that Obama and Loretta Lynch and Valerie Jarrett and George Soros, as well as the people who originally started the BLM movement, are so dumb that they don't realize that the way they present the police killings are misleading at best.
Which makes them dishonest. (That's the only other choice here.)
It is easy to believe, on the other hand, that the majority of the BLM followers, the Micah Johnson's of the world, after having been told over and over again how the police are trying to hunt them down, actually believe it.
Of course, once the Micah Johnson's and other simpletons explode, the Obama's do their best to distance themselves from those explosions.
But who's the truly bad party in this scenario?