Posted by
John Caile on Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:56:39 AM
The headline in the Denver Post (Saturday, Nov. 21, 2009) seemed straightforward enough:
"Denver Police arrest 32 in series of downtown assaults"
And the fact that the offenders nabbed in the sweep were all young, black males, most of whom were affiliated with major street gangs, came as no surprise to anyone who lives in Denver, or any major city in America for that matter. Young black males account for a hugely lop-sided proportion of violent street crime - the Bureau of Justice statistics have documented this for decades.
But when the details of this particular operation, and its genesis, were revealed, a more disturbing aspect emerged. These young thugs, who viciously beat and robbed dozens of people, had specifically targeted their victims because of their race. Their victims were almost exclusively white, with a few Latinos thrown in.
As Denver Police Chief Gerry Whitman describes it, starting in July, "Groups of four or five black men would approach a victim late at night or early in the morning and attempt to spark a fight" usually with racial insults.
The Post further reported that "Victims were punched in the head, resulting in head injuries, broken noses and shattered eye sockets, according to Whitman" who also said "it might be the largest racially motivated criminal group ever in Denver."
All well and good, but the most significant (and disturbing) line in the article states that "In September, police asked the public for help in solving 14 downtown muggings but chose not to alert the public to the racial nature of the crimes" supposedly out of "concern that the undercover effort would be compromised."
So, warning potential victims that they may be targeted because they happen to be white would "compromise" the investigation? What nonsense. What we have here is once again, public safety being trumped by concerns for political correctness. And that is no exaggeration - more than a dozen additional attacks occurred that might have been prevented, had police been up front about the racial nature of the attacks.
Shades of Ft. Hood.
What's next? Referring to the "Rollin' 60s Crips" and the "Black Gangster Disciples" (the two gangs behind the attacks) as "African-American Social Clubs?"
Let's face it, if these attacks had been the work of some white "skin-heads" who had attacked blacks or Latinos (or heaven forbid, Muslims) the outcry would be deafening, and unending.
Chris Mathews would be having a stroke.
Al Sharpton would be vomiting his usual race-baiting rhetoric.
The "Lame-Stream Media" talking heads would be chattering hysterically about the "wave of racism" inundating the country.
Even President Obama would likely sally forth with a somber (and Teleprompter-coached) statement on America's "persistent racism" - why, with a couple of tweaks, he could simply recycle his "Skip Gates" speech.
But don't hold your breath waiting for this case to become a wall-to-wall 24/7 story on CNN. Just as the "LSM" buried the story in Kansas City where a young white couple was savagely raped and tortured for days, then burned alive by four black men and a black woman, today's press hates to report black-on-white crime (in spite of the fact that it is 3 times more likely than white-on-black crime).
After all, actually reporting the truth might throw a monkey wrench into their relentless "diversity" crusade - and in their distorted world, that would be worse than the crimes themselves.