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

Trouble in Ferguson’s Brown-ville – NYT style

Never, well almost never, will you see the Left get on the NYT for something. It’s almost taboo. But you have a freak instance where they criticize one of the left’s darling, heroes-in-the- making. Such is this case.

The New York Times did a mild article about Brown, compassionate yet confronting. What did they say that was so bad? Well, you can read the whole thing here. I’ll give a few select quotes. It is worth reading.

However, the real story now is in Leftville, where they have taken on and stopped just short of crucifying John Eligon, the author. So now there are scores of pieces written in opposition to what he wrote. What’s the Leftinistas’ old expression that they just want an honest debate? Nonsense. They claim to appreciate open discussion? No, they don’t.

The terrible story now of Brown’s death seems to be the postmortem one. Enter the wrath of the Left. Remember the name because, as Obama says, they have long memories. Whether John Eligon is aware or not, he walked through a door to an alternate universe.

Sometimes with the left you have to follow the evolution of the argument. That is exactly what we have here, all because NYT took a peek into what the Brown “tragedy” was about, the man at the center, and came up with a story that did not fit the Left’s narrative. Two things you have to remember about the left: 1) politics rules; 2) the narrative is everything – defer to #1. The author stumbled upon fractures in the second. NYT’s chief offense was being honest, for once.

It started with this interesting bit which set the stage.

FERGUSON, Mo. — It was 1 a.m. and Michael Brown Jr. called his father, his voice trembling. He had seen something overpowering. In the thick gray clouds that lingered from a passing storm this past June, he made out an angel. And he saw Satan chasing the angel and the angel running into the face of God. Mr. Brown was a prankster, so his father and stepmother chuckled at first.

“No, no, Dad! No!” the elder Mr. Brown remembered his son protesting. “I’m serious.”

And the black teenager from this suburb of St. Louis, who had just graduated from high school, sent his father and stepmother a picture of the sky from his cellphone. “Now I believe,” he told them. (NYT)

Well, I wondered if it was some sort of a premonition? I do take it seriously. But whatever, this was not what angered the Left. No, it was that he said Brown was “no angel”. The famous quote all the left is concentrating on — again, you do know the pack mentality.

Michael Brown, 18, due to be buried on Monday, was no angel, with public records and interviews with friends and family revealing both problems and promise in his young life. Shortly before his encounter with Officer Wilson, the police say he was caught on a security camera stealing a box of cigars, pushing the clerk of a convenience store into a display case. He lived in a community that had rough patches, and he dabbled in drugs and alcohol. He had taken to rapping in recent months, producing lyrics that were by turns contemplative and vulgar. He got into at least one scuffle with a neighbor.

Now that did it. It gave the Left something they must attack, which forces the NYT to defend its article (or sell out Eligon) But this article created a whole subtext of dialogue – a firestorm. To a person, even in MSM media, they are attacking the article and author as insensitive and whacky, calling it a hit piece on Brown. Huffington Post declared: “NYT incites backlash after saying Michael Brown was no Angel.” See that? Blame NYT, at the same time the Left uses it to stir up defense of Brown, as a victim of the press. Then the NYT will also be blamed for the predictable reaction it will cause. Get it?

You didn’t think it was a political case? Wrong. It is now, that’s no secret on the Left. It has become a voter registration drive, straight up. But it is not one of those left vs right things. Yea, sure. Every time the left gets on board it is automatically a political issue. What don’t they politicize?

Here are a few objections to the article, and/or John Eligon. You know how the left treats anyone going against their narrative.

Daily Kos “I wonder how many obituaries for dead teenagers get the explicit “he was no angel” treatment from the sodding New York Times.”

Huffington Post, headline: “WATCH: New York Times Incites Backlash After Saying Michael Brown Was ‘No Angel'”

Salon called it an “outrageously skewed” article.

However, the generally respectful article has unwittingly demonstrated the media’s unconscious bias.

In an article that purports to be about the spiritual curiosity of a doomed teen, why is it necessary to hedge the writer’s argument with harmless details of his allegedly fraught youth? Because certain media outlets have aggressively spread certain details of Brown’s life, it seems that every news outlet needs to include details of Brown’s drug use and petty theft (which are normal teenage offenses) in order to remain “objective.”

Why talk about his actual life? Well, you see where the Salon piece is headed. Dare you mention anything untoward about “Big Mike” then you are biased with an agenda because this line of reasoning(facts) is agenda driven. They claim NYT leads the reader to conclude maybe his fate was sealed. Leftists do not like that. Rather they assert he was a good kid from a good family ready to head off to college. So its alright if they intentionally color the picture of “Big Mike”, damn anyone reporting details about Mike. Wait till they all go after this cop’s life, in lockstep. That will be “fair game”.

Remember in the OJ case when they broadcasted “innocent until proven guilty” mantra? Remember the lectures on reserving judgement? Some call for the cop’s execution. They should have dragged him behind the police station and shot him. Now listen to their hollow chants about justice.

Back to this article. Couldn’t they just as easily say ‘those details about “Big Mike”only serve to humanize the man?’ No. This is just planting a flag on Michael Brown’s hill to the next soul even considering any revelations about Brown or his past. So that is it folks, if they went to war with the NYT over this, you can be sure anyone else is cannon fodder.

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.

Ferguson: the ideo-mindset

A couple things strike me as odd about the Ferguson matter.

The disdain for police is only part of it. Then the mistrust of the police is probably the bigger part. They all expressed it, which seems to be at the heart of the discontent. The rally was a rail-a-thon against the police.

But as the solution, they want the federal government to take over the entire investigation. So do you not have trust in local police and prosecutors, local government et al, but you have complete faith in the federal government — especially this DoJ under Eric Holder? The answer of course is yes, yes.

Sort of leaves me scratching my head how they complain about the militarization of police. That is a very real problem, I can understand that. It is one thing many of us are concerned about. Then they are upset at the national guard being brought in. On the other hand, they are begging the feds to take full control over everything.

So feds don’t abuse their authority, don’t screw up, and don’t deserve our distrust? Right, I have a bridge for them. The federal government that has politicized and scandalized almost every department, and can’t manage our border, is the infallible super-hero.

Am I missing some dots or not connecting them? I just find that strange. I know their desire is to make it a civil rights case, but the exuberant trust seems very questionable.

RightRing | Bullright