Box Turtle Bulletin

No, Rush, “rapist” doesn’t equal “gay”

There are few things that Rush Limbaugh enjoys more than pushing the buttons of “liberals” by turning language back on them. It matters little to him whether his jibes are based in reality, simply whether they can annoy and whether he can pretend to find them plausible.

But his latest is absurd, even for Rush. And worse, it plays on the most obscene and vile of anti-gay stereotypes.

On July 15, CNN’s Piers Morgan interviewed Rachel Jeantel, a friend of Trayvon Martin and a witness in the case. Here is a portion of the interview:

MORGAN: But you — but you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn’t know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?

JEANTEL: Yes.

MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?

JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every — who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you have to take it — as a parent, when you tell your child, when you see a grown person following you, run away, and all that.

Would you go stand there? You going to tell your child stand there? If you tell your child stand there, we’re going to see your child on the news for missing person.

Rush Limbaugh took that and turned it into something else entirely (the entire segment is quite long, but I can’t cut it without skewing it):

You can’t infer race from what she said. There’s certainly no racial implication that she made. Well, here’s what she said, “Definitely. After I say” to him… She’s reporting and recounting her telephone call. (paraphrased) “Definitely. After I say to Trayvon, ‘Zimmerman might be a rapist!'” I’m translating for you. “Zimmerman might be a rapist. That makes him gay.” He’s a guy, folks. Male rapist. Rachel is telling Martin… This guy’s chasing him. He doesn’t know why he’s chasing him.

Rachel, says, “He may be a rapist, Trayvon,” and then she said, “For every boys or every man, every who’s not that kinda way,” that means who’s not gay, “you see a grown man following ’em, you be creep out.” So she was saying, Trayvon is straight; he’s got this adult male chasing him. She’s put the idea out that this adult male might be a rapist, and Trayvon “be creep out” by being chased by a gay guy.

And then she went further. “So you gotta take as a parent. You tell a child, ‘You see a grown person following you, run away,’ and all that.”

Grown person.

Not racial. Not “white person.” “Grown person.” You, as a kid, “You see a grown person following you,” as a parent, you tell your child, “run away.” Then she also said, “And people need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get — mind you, his little brother was there.” You need me to translate that? Okay. She has put in Trayvon’s mind that Zimmerman is gay. Zimmerman might be a rapist, and a predator.

What are we to think? “Grown man.” When she says Trayvon’s a male, Zimmerman’s a male, and she says rapist, what are we talking about here? We’re talking about a gay predator. She has put the idea in Trayvon Martin’s head that this might be a gay predator chasing him. Then she said on Piers Morgan last night, “And people need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get…”

Trayvon’s staying at his father’s girlfriend’s house, and she is saying people need to understand Trayvon didn’t want Zimmerman, that potential rapist, “that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get,” and then she paused, and said, “[M]ind you, his little brother was there.” So she was saying that Trayvon wouldn’t want this gay predator chasing him down to his house where there is a little kid inside. Nowhere in any of this is race mentioned.

Jeantel also said this about Zimmerman being a rapist on the witness stand, under oath. It wasn’t just last night with Piers Morgan on CNN. She also alluded to this. So, folks, do you understand? We have been, the country has been entirely fooled. (The jury wasn’t, by the way.) There was no racial component in this at all. Rachel Jeantel didn’t talk about race. She wasn’t talking about race at all. She wasn’t worried. She didn’t tell Trayvon to run away from a white guy. “Creepy ass cracka” is police.

So maybe, in their minds, Zimmerman is a gay male predator hiding behind a badge, which gives him access to little boys. I mean, this is the way certain people think, and we already know that she believed that Zimmerman was a rapist, or potential rapist, and put that thought in Trayvon’s head, and Trayvon didn’t run away. He turned around and started beating up on Zimmerman. Not because Zimmerman was “a white Hispanic.” He didn’t even know what he was!

I mean, it’s dark and rainy. Zimmerman’s of dark-complexion, too. The race angle in this has been absurd from the get-go. So essentially Rachel was saying… When she says, “And people need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get — mind you, his little brother was there,” she is saying that this guy, this rapist, after finishing with Trayvon, might then go after his little brother.

She told Trayvon to run, run, run.

I thought, when I heard this last night, that that’s all anybody’d be talking about today, because this throws this thing 180 degrees out of phase. So now Trayvon Martin, who is the recipient of full-fledged, 100% victim status? It turns out could well be a gay basher, and the left has been defending him. So what do they do? They have two interest groups here that they represent and champion: African-Americans and homosexuals, and in this incident, the object of their affection (in this case, Trayvon Martin), might have thought he was being pursued by a gay guy and beat him up, or tried to.

Whether there was or was not a racial element in the confrontation might be a point about which he could have made a credible argument. And I do think that Rush may be on track when he suggests that Martin might have perceived his pursuer to be a sexual predator.

But Limbaugh didn’t stop there. He had to get a dig in at “the left” so he equates sexual predator and “rapist” with being gay, and confronting a sexual predator with being a “gay basher”. But there is no sexual predator “interest group” and the “homosexuals” that “the left” represents and champions certainly do not condone or support rapists.

It’s a vile comparison. And it is inconceivable that Limbaugh would not know that he’s making a false comparison and smearing an entire group of people.

But look, he’s being talked about again. And that equals ratings. And ratings are a far far greater concern to Rush Limbaugh than the violence, death, and misery that follow creating these false equations.