Published at American Thinker on January 1, 2019
Just after Christmas, an unnerving character headed to Grand Central Station molested a four-year-old girl on a subway en route from the stomping ground of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, AKA “Alex from the Bronx.”
The New York Post reported that just before midnight, while a mother and child were seated on a train southbound for Manhattan, a man boarded at Jerome Avenue and West 183rd Street. The male rider sat down beside the toddler and proceeded to place his hand under the child’s backside. When the girl’s mother noticed what was happening, she confronted the pedophile – so he threatened to shoot her.
Thankfully, after changing seats, the woman had the good sense to snap a cell phone picture, because the suspect was a black dude with multicolored dreadlocks, and New York City police decided that it would be best to err on the side of political correctness.
By ignoring the suspect’s unmistakably unique and easily identifiable physical characteristics, cops chose to provide the public with a generic description of a dangerous individual. Instead of truthfully describing the man as a Bob Marley wannabe with androgynous plaited hair, cops sided with racial sensitivity and cautioned the public to be on the lookout for – are you ready? – A “6-foot-tall man with a medium beard.”
Did the NYPD forget that, regardless of race, there are millions of 6′-tall American men and that 35% of our nation’s males also sport beards?
Therefore, based on such a preposterously shallow description, maybe – in an attempt to remain gender-neutral – cops should have just described the butt-grabbing child-molester as possibly having XX chromosomes?
A black man touches a little girl’s butt cheek, and police describe his height and facial hair? This sort of absurdity is yet another glaring example of the double standard that exists as political correctness painstakingly avoids stereotyping anyone other than America’s white people.
Take for example the incident in New York City as likened to the brouhaha currently taking place on the West Coast over a scheduled local Women’s March. While police protected the racial identity of a black villain on a train casing out preschool buttocks to fondle, in Humboldt County, California, event coordinators for a local Women’s March decided to cancel a January 19 event because it was “overwhelmingly white.”
Group leaders explained the decision this way:
Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community. Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach.
Outreach? Perhaps the Bob Marley lookalike is free to attend? That would rectify the Humboldt dilemma by making things more racially eclectic as well as sexually and culturally diverse.
Either way, does anyone believe that in the current climate, if a town chose to host a Mini-Million-Man March, or, more appropriately, a Black Women’s March, it would be acceptable to cancel the event because it was “overwhelmingly black”? Therefore, why is being “overwhelmingly white” an acceptable excuse to terminate a public event?
The liberal irony of the secretive racial identity of the East Coast butt-grabber, as compared to the cancelation due to too many white women on the Left Coast, is that these marches primarily focus on protecting females from the likes of the “minor-attracted” No. 4 train menace. And so, yet another liberal double standard arises when women who would likely agree with the NYPD that a black criminal’s race is irrelevant also justify canceling a scheduled rally merely because too many Caucasians signed up.
