Sharpton sees climate change opening in Ozone

What Sharpton is up to: Breitbart has the story on Sharpton’s incarnation as climate change/civil rights guru. That’s right, his job is to unify them.

Sharpton said, “it [climate change] is an issue of justice, and it is an issue of human rights. African-Americans are at a higher risk of being close, or predisposed to areas of carbon, as well as other poisonous pollution in the air. And we have a disproportionate interest because we suffer disproportionately.”

For instance, when blacks riot they are disproportionately exposed to such hazards many times more higher the average person. A burning car for instance, or an arson fire of a CVS can be almost toxic. So yes, they are a hundred times more at risk.

He added, “You cannot, not deal with climate change as a health issue, as a moral issue, and as a civil rights issue.” — see video

Oh yes you can “not deal with climate change,” if you are mayor of Baltimore issuing stand down orders giving rioters “space to destroy,” loot and burn – scorched earth. But it is desirable to “not to deal with it”. As a moral issue, their strategy is lying. Only for the right reasons, I suppose.

Civil rights? Well, if the Climate Caliphate does not get their way they make it a living hell. But it’s the government pushing it. Civil rights activism is usually standing up for people against oppression and discrimination, not endorsing them. What happened to speaking truth to power? They shout down, threaten, bully, stifle and destroy opponents.

Here we go again. I wonder how much Al’s making for the Climate Change gig while he’s been destroying our political climate for decades — what is really warming. I know, Al heard it was the “green agenda” so he said “that’s my agenda!” Al goes Ozone for that. “Preach it, Rev Al.”

Rev. Manning calling out Al Sharpton

 

Standing on the street in front of the studios, he calls out Al.  Protesting under way.

Rev Manning calls Al out
No response from the race-baiter hustler. I guess there was nothing in it for him.
Sort of a role reversal, you know, the protestor being protested.

Paging Al Sharpton …. paging Al!

“Snitch pimp, hustler, rat”…

Manning tells him I’ll be back.

ESP and Liberal minds (2)

Once again the subject is language and liberals. The Baltimore Mayor did a stunning reversal, or whatever you call it, on what she clearly stated in a press conference.

“We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.” – Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake

She later challenged the reporter who challenged what she said. Then she said the problem was the media twisting her words that she never said. Well, she did and we all heard it, but therein is the problem.

Fox’s Megyn Kelley took on the Mayor’s denial. Go to the video tape. Yep, that’s what she said, we heard her. Then it came to pundit commentary, so the token leftist was all bent out of shape that we actually applied her words to her. How dare you! He said what she really meant by those words, and that no mayor or official in the country would allow or want destruction taking place in their city. But she said it.

He went on to interpret what she intended or “meant to say”.(which requires revision) But that the mayor’s heart and concerns were in exactly the right place. It wasn’t just one Democrat pundit, many of the left said the same thing. So they could reinterpret her words into a harmless intent of goodwill, which she really meant. (we all know what she meant) Except for one thing, what the mayor actually said — in her own press conference, not behind doors in private. Though it makes one wonder what she says behind closed doors?

She also used the word thug to describe criminals, but then later revised her words to “misguided young people who need our support.” Apparently that revision satisfied the perpetually-peeved protestors because I haven’t heard any more rev interpretations.

It turns out that Liberals have the gift of telepathy on demand. Yes, they can read minds and intentions. They are good at it, too, because their powers are limitless. Then it’s treated as an official translation and reported that way. For example, if someone says “the sky is blue”, liberals can go out to translate what he meant was it is some color other than white or red, never mind clearly calling it blue. Media would report his intentions. Leftists say if Mayor Blake had it to do over again, she would have said something else. So they can just go ahead and fill in all those blanks for her.

Like Hillary goes out to say they were dead broke leaving the WH and people come out to translate what she really meant by that. So actually dead broke can mean a whole lot of things, I just thought it meant dead broke. Hillary has a village of interpreters.

What about when Obama goes out of his way to make some sort of racial or stereotypical slur? That is fine, the problem was your ears. Libs will rush out to say what he really meant. They say he was right to say those who “cling to guns and religion” with “antipathy” toward others, and it needed to be said. Since he is right, they say he should not apologize but be congratulated. But when you are correct about the term thugs — when even Obama used it — you should be shamed, scolded and forced to apologize… for being right and using the correct term. (no ESP interpretations allowed)

And it turns out the media that can do telepathic interpretations, and police language the rest of us use, runs prison TV on a loop on weekends. We should be shamed and cast as racists for using the word “thug,” while Baltimore’s Mayor Chaos must be given wide birth to telepathic interpretations on whatever she says. Having MSNBC’s #1 race-baiting anchor for a spokesperson, and running the translation efforts for the Mayor, should settle any outrage or dispute over what she says. I’m glad for their ESP expertise. Without their telepathic translators we would never know what looney leftists really say. And often the translations are worse than their actual statements.

RightRing | Bullright

Time for a dialogue about national conversations

The Left often talks about “conversation” but the word is a euphemism for getting their way.

National Conversations Are Worthless

Column: Especially when Al Sharpton is talking
BY: Matthew Continetti | Washington Free Beacon
December 12, 2014

Activists outraged at the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner are not only causing traffic jams and disrupting holiday shopping. They have a new target: President Obama, who the radicals say isn’t doing enough to rectify injustice.

What about opening investigations into the white police officers who killed the unarmed Brown and Garner, what about inviting Al Sharpton and Bill De Blasio to the White House, condemning the decisions of grand juries not to indict the policemen, and calling the ensuing unrest, which has included looting and arson, “necessary” to prick “the country’s conscience”?

Meh. Those things do not appease the left, which never takes yes for an answer.

“Mr. Obama has not been the kind of champion for racial justice that many African-Americans say this moment demands,” reports a disappointed New York Times. For example, Obama “has not stood behind the protestors.” He has not “linked arms with civil rights leaders.” He hasn’t even posed in an “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirt.

The activists don’t want Obama in the Oval Office. They want him on the picket line. They want to bully the president “into seizing on the post-Ferguson anger.” And they might be winning: “White House advisers say addressing the nation’s racial conflicts is now an imperative for the president’s final years in office.”

Uh-oh. If the president has any sense, he’ll make sure this pledge is as worthless as his red lines in Syria. Sixty-seven percent of adults rate their local police good or excellent, according to a recent poll. A majority of the public already disapproves of Obama on race. As do 57 percent of whites. Does the unpopular Obama (or his potential Democratic successors) really want to see how high this president’s disapproval rating can go?

America does not need another “national conversation on race.” The previous one, which lasted from 1997 to 1998, was so utterly useless that hardly anyone remembers it. President Clinton delivered speeches, convened town hall meetings, empaneled an advisory board, and issued a report on race relations. It went nowhere.

Why? Because the public forums were characterized by self-indulgence, protest, confusion, miscommunication, and acrimony. The advisory board presented the view of race from Harvard Yard. Affirmative action was defended when it was not ignored, its critics muted. […/]

More: http://freebeacon.com/columns/national-conversations-are-worthless/

Funny how all the talk about “dialogue” and “conversation” is really cover for protests, arrogance and lawlessness. As I have said many times, it is now(if it ever was) almost impossible to have a true conversation with Liberals, especially in the collective. Progressives don’t discuss, they react. Their perception is to be considered fact.

Sure you can go through the motions. One can pretend, as Obama did, that he had some conversation with others who disagree.  When two or more parties are interested they can have a discussion. When the interest is not there, you have nothing but words.  Cut to the chase that with the Left, progressives, Liberals, Democrats, or whatever you want to call them, ideology rules.  They are not interested in conversation.  They are interested in getting their way.

When you put race or other issue into the mix, Liberals will dominate the issue to the point of browbeating anyone who disagrees in the same way. So they don’t want conversation. They want to make demands, such as what rules should be used with protestors. They want to limit their opposition in any way they can. And anything they take on is considered a “civil rights” matter, from abortion to cross-dressing or gay pride parades.

You only have to look at the trail of damage and victims to get the point. Michael Brown and the Ferguson protestors caused more victims than they ever prevented. Mike Brown was an excuse. But they call that social justice. We often chuckle at their tactics and strategies, when we aren’t crying at the damage they cause, namely because it is so predictable. The victims and damage they cause is justified as righteous. Think what they did in unison to the Tea Party rallies. Now they are back on the bandwagon, from OWS to anarchy in Seattle, now to Brown and ‘what can racism do for you?’

RightRing | Bullright

White people: get with the program

I’m starting a new thing and going to roll it out soon. This is a combination of things I have already seen done. It’s a proven formula. (slightly satire)

I want to find a select few people that speak for all whites. Now I know plenty will want to but you can only have a very few. It defeats the purpose if there are a lot of them. They will operate as the spokesmen and be entitled to raise money, promote, extort, or speak on behalf of the “white community”.

I know there may be some objections. Some may resent a few single individuals vested with the responsibility for white people at large. But I see it done with blacks and there is no problem. In fact, I think every race et al should do the same. Like Asians for instance. Look at the poo-bah of the Islamic State (ISIS) that speaks for Muslims.

I just think whites are way behind in this. So I want to start a National Association for the Advancement of White People. (NAAWP)

The idea is whenever there is an event like a crime involving a white person, the spokesmen will be dispatched. They will also have carte blanche to organize white people for protests or demonstrations, or fundraising. They will speak for the White victim or his/her family in all public events.You can’t expect dumb families or “victims” to speak for themselves. They also can inject themselves between families and the attorneys. Look, this is how it works. I’m not making this up, you know.

See it is much simpler if a couple Whites are designated to speak for all. Don’t make it complicated, so people can understand it, keep it simple. Press will be glad to deal with and speak only to those people. See how simple that is?

Now it is a lifetime appointment. No one can revoke that authority and you cannot lose it by, ah, misbehaving. Everyone must bestow their faith and trust in them, no questions asked. Again, this just how it works. Members of the NAAWP will have the ability to choose their president and spokesman, who will speak for the organization. But the speakers’, let’s call them “organizers”, authority trumps all.

In a rare conflict, the NAAWP shall line up to stand behind the spokesperson. Whites cannot speak for themselves, you know. That only creates chaos and division, and white people do not need that! Trust me. Well, there should be “consequences” if they do not line up behind the leaders. Let’s call them “leaders of the White community.”

Even if a leader does something underhanded or illegal, they remain a de facto “leader”. Actually that is considered a good thing. (ha ha — fringe benefits) Obviously, they will be designated — but not by a democratic process. We’ll let everyone know who they are.

You get the idea. Anytime something happens, call in the pros to handle the details. If there is any negotiation, call them. When he puts out the word, just fall in line and repeat what he says. No, it doesn’t have to be true. No one cares about that, just repeat it — loudly and often. Don’t think outside the box.

Along those lines, we push the narrative: blame black privilege for all the problems. Talk about “fair” or “unfairness” of the system a lot. Say you are being discriminated against for living while white. From now on, everything is the Black man’s fault. (Or others, if need be. Defer to the leader’s script) Say you want a fair dialogue then turn it into an argument. Claim you want fairness and blame them for discriminating.

In Congress we need a “White Caucus,” which all whites will be obligated to support and stand with. One message, in lockstep, don’t confuse the system. It would defeat the purpose if we all stand up individually. This is the way it works. Get with the program.

There are still a few minor wrinkles to iron out, like what names to call those who don’t fall in line. There has to be a punishment for that. The Spokesmen can single them out, too.

I would ask for your opinions, suggestions, and approval except it is not necessary. Once this system is in place, your opinions are irrelevant anyway. Disagreement will earn you the label of traitor and a disgrace to your race. You have no veto power, that’s part of the genius. I hope you will like it, just don’t get in the way if you don’t.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama tells Ferguson “stay on course”

Gateway Pundit has the story:

President Obama met with Ferguson protest leaders on November 5th, the day after the midterm elections. The meeting was not on his daily schedule. He was concerned that the protesters “stay on course.”

What does that mean?

And why is the president meeting with the violent Mike Brown protesters before a verdict is reached in the court case?

The New York Times hid this in the 21st paragraph of their report:

But leaders here say that is the nature of a movement that has taken place, in part, on social media and that does not match an earlier-era protest structure where a single, outspoken leader might have led the way. “This is not your momma’s civil rights movement,” said Ashley Yates, a leader of Millennial Activists United. “This is a movement where you have several difference voices, different people. The person in charge is really — the people. But the message from everyone is the same: Stop killing us.”

At times, there has been a split between national civil rights leaders and the younger leaders on the ground here, who see their efforts as more immediate, less passive than an older generation’s. But some here said relations have improved in recent weeks.

Some of the national leaders met with President Obama on Nov. 5 for a gathering that included a conversation about Ferguson.

According to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has appeared frequently in St. Louis with the Brown family and delivered a speech at Mr. Brown’s funeral, Mr. Obama “was concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating. He said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”

http://www.thegartewaypundit.com/2014/11/obama-meets-with-ferguson-activists-says-hes-concerned-they-stay-on-course/

Tough to stay on course with looting and burning down the city. I’m glad he could encourage them.The NYT found a creative way to describe violent protests as “less passive” Interesting how Obama knew what they are advocating.

But wasn’t it the same with the Occupy movement: not a single leader, social media etc?

Blacks are being used

“You are just a vote” is right. Sadly, and they’ll say anything for it. For years we’ve been trying to make the Dems own Barack Obama and his policies.

But the reality is Barack Obama owns them, lock and stock. They were bought in the “change you can believe in” auction. He’s their master whether they admit it or not.

See the Democrats run away from him? But he arrogantly says the Dems are his voters, too. And he’s right, lockstep they are his along with the Democrats in Congress.

[Roll Call] “I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them,” Obama said in prepared remarks at Northwestern University.

“This isn’t a political speech, and I’m not going to tell you who to vote for — even though I suppose it is kind of implied,” Obama said, in a sentence that became an immediate head-scratcher as the president launched into a litany of attacks on the GOP.

Obama said these are the folks who voted with him, and he is going to get that vote out.

“The bottom line is, though, these are all folks who vote with me. They have supported my agenda in Congress,” Obama said on Al Sharpton’s radio show….

“So, this isn’t about my feelings being hurt,” he said. “These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me. And I tell them, I said, ‘You know what, you do what you need to win. I will be responsible for making sure that our voters turn up.'” — CNN

Josh Earnest explained:

“Here’s the other thing: the Democrats are going to be counting on Hispanics, African-Americans, young people, young women in particular to turn out [in the midterm] elections. The president got them to turn out in 2008 and 2012.

Why not tell Obama, ‘you didn’t build that’…nor did Democrats, the overseers?

RightRing | Bullright

Race-baiter in chief seeks advisor

And the real good news for the Spite House is: one happens to be available.

Politico: Al Sharpton Becomes Obama’s Race Ambassador

Friday, 22 Aug 2014 03:47 PM

By Sandy Fitzgerald | Newsmax

The Rev. Al Sharpton has come a long way from his bullhorn-shouting presence at some of the nation’s most racially charged events, and has become President Barack Obama’s go-to man for a White House seeking to make a connection when tensions are flaring between the races, a Politico Magazine article claims.

Sharpton’s latest appearance happened this month in Ferguson, Mo. He arrived 72 hours after a white police officer shot and killed 18-year-old black man Michael Brown. Brown’s grandfather requested he come in to help after Sharpton advocated for the family of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, reports Politico Magazine.

But these days, Sharpton is taking a different route, and instead of agitating protests, he’s serving as a contact for the White House, a role he once again played in the Ferguson melee.

“There’s a trust factor with The Rev from the Oval Office on down,” a White House aide told Politico. “He gets it, and he’s got credibility in the community that nobody else has got. There’s really no one else out there who does what he does.”

After Sharpton met with Brown’s family and members of the local community, he connected with White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, who told him the president was “horrified” by the images he was seeing from Ferguson and wanted to know what the Brown family expected from the White House.

While the old Sharpton was avoided, the new Sharpton visits and texts or emails the White House and Obama officials frequently, especially with Attorney General Eric Holder, the first black man to hold that job. Holder, who traveled to Ferguson this week for a probe into the shootings, and Sharpton both say the Ferguson crisis is important to Obama’s legacy.

The shift has been a lifelong goal for Sharpton, says the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who in the past was often a rival of Sharpton.

Sharpton said he has matured over the years, but his critics don’t accept that.

“I’ve grown to appreciate different roles and different people, and I weigh words a little more [carefully] now. I’ve learned how to measure what I say,” he said. “Al Sharpton in 1986 was trying to be heard. I was a local guy and was like, ‘Y’all are ignoring us’…. That’s not the case now.”

Read more:  http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/al-sharpton-race-missouri-police/2014/08/22/id/590375/

 

Let’s call him the czar of racism.  Activist, organizer, race agitator, promoter, TV host, and White House adviser.  Race-baiter General.

The excuse that is being made is that the Brown family called the bad-reverend to help. But don’t you think countless people or families in Chicago reach out to Sharpton? But the provocateur did not turn down the Browns. He “learned how to measure what he says”…. now that is funny.

Rev Al and the lefts’ P/C police

It has been simmering on the back burner since the Trayvon verdict They wanted a commentary on victimhood of blacks, with Sharpton and Jackson taking the stage as well as any other race hustlers. But as anyone made the wider case in the black community, and the Chicago connection, they turned the anti-Zimmerman wrath on them.

They skewed any white people for talking about the black community. Almost in unison they said white people have no right to tell us who our black leaders should be. As the Chicago case got any attention, they got viscous. Why is that? They didn’t actually want to talk about the black community.

Is it the terrible statistics? Is it the talk about the black family and communities, and unemployment, and violence stats, or the black on black crimes, or the unreported incidents and numbers of murders — known only as statistics? Pundit after pundit was asked, and they could not name one of those victims.

Not really; its about color and race. It is just that white people cannot say anything related to the black community. They must shut up, they have no business even talking about the black community. That is the message and what is driving it.

There is one other thing: all that talk about statistics, the black community, and Chicago murders diverts from their theme to keep it about Trayvon and the chosen black issues — and “defend your ground” law — all the time. In other words, that is where they want ALL the attention focused. Too bad, you lose Chicago.

After all, they were on a roll with protests and vindicated by Obama talking about Trayvon from the White House press room. What Chicago victim would not love to have that voice?

How dare whites talk about the black community or anything related to race. That cannot be. Who in the hell are they? But blacks talk about whites and communities with impunity. Who would reject their comments about that? And they would say they have every right to talk about it as much as anyone. Who would argue? No one.

But now here we have a divisive issue raised and the white people have to just shut up. Its their show. That is the message of the race police(hustlers) like Sharpton and Jackson, et al. Or our illustrious president of all things race, or attorney general. Who are you to inject white comments? But hypocrisy is always a problem for the left, and this debate is driven by the left and its activists.

Oops how did this happen?

So what happens when Rev. Michael Pfleger talks about race and organizes black rallies and protests? Remember he’s a white priest in Chicago. So what business does he have speaking on behalf of blacks? Who does he think he is? How can he be a leader in the black community? Oh, they don’t ask those questions. Of course no one said to him, “Reverend, you have no business speaking for blacks on these issues.” That would be news.

This is an oldy but goody. Its illustrative of Al Sharpton and his “leadership”.
(Just forward to 5 minutes)

Literal example. Hey, wouldn’t you like to see Sharpton sit down and shut up for a change, and let someone else speak?

And Pelosi, SHE IS A WHITE B**CH, ISN”T SHE? Well she scheduled hearing last week for today:
Washington Examiner:

House Democrats will hold a hearing next week to weigh in on the controversy swirling around the recent verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced “A Conversation on Race and Justice” on July 30 on Capitol Hill.
According to a Pelosi aide, the hearing will not focus solely on the trial, which acquitted Zimmerman of murder charges in the shooting death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but will be a “broader conversation.”
Pelosi will preside over the hearing, which will include Democrats from the party’s Steering and Policy Committee.
The scheduled panelists are Southern Poverty Law Center founder Morris Dees, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley, president of the Center for Social Inclusion.

So now if you are chosen white or a Democrat pol, you can talk about race or speak on black communities — and don’t make waves or interrupt black leaders. I think I got it.