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.

Obama adopted, then became Trayvon

‘Travon Obama’ gives race lecture from White House

Black and white ain’t so Black and White

And the race-baiting continues.

There is absolutely zero reason to believe anything said here is being politically correct. So if you cannot stomach that, you may not want to read this, it may offend your sensitivities.

My Bullshit Meter has exploded. I knew it would at some point about this Zimmerman verdict — since the verdict is the real source of the problem now. Everyone has followed it or at least heard the story of the “child” who goes to the store to buy some candy and a drink and is shot in cold blood on the way home, just for his innocent efforts.

I wonder how many parents and friends can truly say that about someone they knew in Chicago? Just walking along and gunned down, and they don’t even know by who. There have to be hundreds if not thousands of those — through no fault of their own — murders. This one case, in Florida, does not happen to be one of those. Maybe it is fortunate for Trayvon’s parents that they have someone to blame and had their day in court. How many kids or surviving families in Chicago never had either of those?

Now, flash forward nearly a week after the “verdict”. We all heard clips and coverage, even since, about the case and the outcome. One important thing they want to ignore is where Trayvon attacked and was beating Zimmerman. (for whatever reason they do) They made it a national case way before trial, and had their storyline framed in the media.

The President even gave a remark at the onset that if he had a son he would look just like Trayvon. Now, I don’t claim to know exactly what he intended saying that, but I do know he personalized it. He also intervened in an arrest of a black Harvard professor. That was biased too – before knowing the details, he said police acted stupidly. Beer summit?

The family did post-verdict interviews and pleaded with the President to step in or intervene in some way, as well as countless others. They demanded Eric Holder and the DOJ to investigate, again, and press a civil rights case. We all know.

So the President does come out and give a 20 minute speech about it. (no questions — something Carney claimed Obama waited for all week and expected, but hadn’t received) Now he talks about it, and said his earlier remarks should also mean that could have been him 30 years ago. He upped the personalization to himself. Well, at the risk of Obama making this about himself, it is in effect what he did. Putting his DNA on it. I knew that was the intent of his first remark but he wanted to clarify it unless people didn’t get it.

In his latest rambling lecture on race in America, he rattles off a list of grievances of African-Americans regarding race. Feelings were a big part of his message. He spoke of being profiled in a store, crossing the street with locks clicking on cars, or standing next to a white woman clutching her purse. It was not lacking in typical examples.

And while rattling all these grievances off is where my bullshit meter exploded, (not fizzled… it exploded) because, as he said, we needed to add context to the issue. I can appreciate that. So I’d like to add a little bit of context — not an exhaustive one — of an average white guy. And yes, there is a context for that, too.

First though, by “context being denied “, as Obama puts it, I presume he meant denying the justifiable excuses for behavior, or denying that “experience” is causal.
Here is what Obama said in part:

Now, this isn’t to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.

They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration.

So Trayvon is a product of a violent history and poverty? There’s the unacknowledged context for it. So racism and others are to blame?

So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied.

But to start with, he repeats claims, like the commentators did, about conversations they must have with their children and those societal lessons they must learn. Educationally of course. Yes, white people have had to have and deal with some difficult conversations too. And knowing that these situations do not go away, they remain there like a scab that just won’t heal. We don’t appreciate having to talk about such issues but they are there.

So let’s put a geographic picture on it for openers. The small city or town, in rural America, where one cannot travel in a section after dark. You may walk though in the daytime, but even then it is risky. A likely scenario is someone says, “boy you in the wrong hood, what’cha doing here? Are you lost?” The message is clear this is their turf. It may not be the bloods and crypts but their turf, no doubt about it. God help you if you did break down in that section at night, you are at their mercy. (“they” meaning any opportunist)

Just crossing a main street in one section puts you on the black side. Blacks freely walk in other sections but everyone knows everything across that street is basically off limits. You have to let your kids know that. You wouldn’t send them over there unaware of the circumstances. While at the same time, avoiding that section does not make you immune to a bad encounter in the other parts of the city. (but your chances are better.)

I am not just referring to gang related problems. At night, ambulances run back and forth across that section. It’s a part of life, something you must live with. It doesn’t change. How does that make people feel? Those neighborhoods are off bounds to whites and might as well have signs on them. Anyone venturing in them would be at their mercy. Frequent shootings. I lived in a sprawling town like that at school. A block from the action as we called it. What happened there would not surprise you. Someone was stabbed while standing in front of a bar on the demarcation street. Fortunately he had a legal handgun. (he did not kill him) It was a message of the unfortunate truth.

But you never hear their concerns about that, those problems, tensions and feelings, or that history. They never mention the social problems whites deal with. You can be considered prey in the wrong part of town. How would any woman feel? The hospital borders that section and nurses had to travel back and forth at all hours. No, we did not have cell phones or GPS then. I’m thinking e GPS will catch up to say “Safety alert: you should know what part of town you are in, lock your doors, roll up your windows….and do not get out of the vehicle.”

So, let me tell you about some typical scenarios for white people. How about the life of white people and how they are forced to “feel”? How about when going into a gas station and there is a crowd of young black guys in front of the door with 40’s? Or maybe you have the pleasure of being offended hearing all the expletives they yell. And you have to explain to your children waiting in the car what is going on or why they were saying that? Or the playground being off-limits due to crack dealers. Or the unavoidable sight of men with their pants around their thighs with the entire underwear showing, groping their crotches every few minutes. Or the rap blaring expletives at deafening levels. Conversation starters for kids, or a conversation waiting to happen? Yep. I can hear the kids now, why is that?

Now maybe that doesn’t equate to walking across the street and hearing the locks click on all the cars. But I think I could handle that precaution pretty well, in context. Anyway, we are lectured by Obama to do some soul-searching. What about where whites are not dealt justice, and receive biases in courts and family courts? (Nichol and Ron Goldman) Yes it is there too. Where is that context?

Oddly enough — OR NOT — not a word from Obama about the race-baiters like Sharpton and Jackson. Not that we’d expect it. Or little about race riots spawned in California. And nothing about Black Panthers issuing a 10 thousand dollar reward for Zimmerman. Nor anything of substance about his own hometown, Chicago, where murders are practically hourly. Only a vague reference to violence over the verdict and protests.

Obama sounded like he was warning school children about violence. This isn’t a schoolyard and he is not a referee. It’s dangerous to make such casual remarks about it.

I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.

Wow, tough ultimatum. “I will remind them.” (I may have to lecture…)
Their rhetoric is: “What are we going to do about it?”, and “No justice no peace!”

And then, finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching.

How about store owners with thousands of dollars to replace signs and windows, only to wonder if it will happen again? Soul searching?

Then Obama says we ought to ask if we are “wringing as much bias out of” ourselves as we can? Give me a break. Is he? He believes that dividing us somehow unites us. Or maybe he really doesn’t believe it but that’s his formula.

If he sees any violence he will remind them? We’ve already seen acts. “Remind” who?

Speaking of “wringing out biases,” from the same guy who blamed an internet video for a terrorist attack in Benghazi, and months later says it was a long time ago. He won’t confront the unfortunate context of why those heroes died, but he’ll jump because a teenager was shot in self-defense to say, “that could have been me.”

He had no soul-searching, identity bonding to Benghazi or Fort Hood victims. No problem labeling an act of jihad work place violence. Benghazi was a long time ago.

Here’s an inconvenient racist reality for you. The Congress can’t even get basic accountability from the Attorney General on Fast and Furious without the Black Caucus crying racism and staging a walkout. Where’s the context and history for that? Better to worry about car locks clicking.

Soul searching anyone?