Liberals Trying To Start A Race War Over Ferguson

[mudwhistle]

Unbelievable: Time Offers 'In Defense of Rioting' Article
By Melissa Mullins | November 27, 2014 | 9:34 AM EST
Share it Tweet it More Sharing Services

0
shares
This is literally unbelievable. On November 25, Time.com posted an article by Darlena Cunha titled "In Defense of Rioting," insisting that peaceful protests are only a "luxury" to those safely in “mainstream culture”, that riots are a “necessary part of the evolution of society”, and even brought the Tea Party into the mix by comparing the peaceful Tea Party protestors of today to those of the Boston Tea Party rioters in the past.

Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society. Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there, the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain of the marginalized voices will boil over, spilling out into our streets. As “normal” citizens watch the events of Ferguson unfurl on their television screens and Twitter feeds, there is a lot of head shaking, finger pointing, and privileged explanation going on. We wish to seclude the incident and the people involved. To separate it from our history as a nation, to dehumanize the change agents because of their bad and sometimes violent decisions—because if we can separate the underlying racial tensions that clearly exist in our country from the looting and rioting of select individuals, we can continue to ignore the problem.​

Cunha then went on to talk about actor Kevin Sorbo’s comments on the riots – nothing controversial – nonetheless, Cunha focuses on his comments as if there were some racial undertones:

While the most famous rant against the riots thus far comes from Hercules actor Kevin Sorbo, where he calls the rioters “animals” and “losers,” there are thousands of people echoing these sentiments. Sorbo correctly ascertains that the rioting has little to do with the shooting of an unarmed black man in the street, but he blames it on the typical privileged American’s stereotype of a less fortunate sect of human being—that the looting is a result of frustration built up over years of “blaming everyone else, The Man, for their failures.​

Cunha then goes into a diatribe about “white privilege” in a capitalist society:

Because when you have succeeded, it ceases to be a possibility, in our capitalist society, that anyone else helped you. And if no one helped you succeed, then no one is holding anyone else back from succeeding. Except they did help you, and they are holding people back. So that blaming someone else for your failures in the United States may very well be an astute observation of reality, particularly as it comes to white privilege versus black privilege. And, yes, they are different, and they are tied to race, and that doesn’t make me a racist, it makes me a realist. If anything, I am racist because I am white. Until I have had to walk in a person of color’s skin, I will never understand, I will always take things for granted, and I will be inherently privileged. But by ignoring the very real issues this country still faces in terms of race to promote an as-of-yet imaginary colorblind society, we contribute to the problem at hand, which is centuries of abuses lobbied against other humans on no basis but that of their skin color.​

When comparing the Tea Party of today to that of the Boston Tea Party, Cunhu gave a “brief history” for those of us who don’t remember such an American event. The comparison of the Boston Tea Party and those of the riots in Ferguson are like comparing apples to oranges. One led to the American Revolution and created the greatest country in the world – while the other is helping to internally destroy our great country. Cunhu stated that “…while the destruction of property in that case may not have ended in loss of human life, the revolution that took place afterward certainly did. What separates a heralded victory in history from an attempt at societal change, a cry for help from the country’s trampled, today? The fact that we won.”



In ending the article, Cunhu gave her most transparent argument as to why the riots in Ferguson are constituted:

Blacks in this country are more apt to riot because they are one of the populations here who still need to. In the case of the 1992 riots, 30 years of black people trying to talk about their struggles of racial profiling and muted, but still vastly unfair, treatment, came to a boil. Sometimes, enough is simply too much. And after that catalyst event, the landscape of southern California changed, and nationally, police forces took note.​

And the racism they are fighting, the racism we are all fighting, is still alive and well throughout our nation. The modern racism may not culminate in separate water fountains and separate seating in the backs of buses, but its insidious nature is perhaps even more dangerous to the individuals who have to live under the shroud of stereotypical lies society foists upon them.​

Instead of tearing down other human beings who are acting upon decades of pent-up anger at a system decidedly against them, a system that has told them they are less than human for years, we ought to be reaching out to help them regain the humanity they lost, not when a few set fire to the buildings in Ferguson, but when they were born the wrong color in the post-racial America.​

What's even more interesting than Cunhu's defense of these riots? The fact that one could vote for the Ferguson protesters for TIME's Person of the Year.

- See more at: Unbelievable Time Offers In Defense of Rioting Article

 

[HenryBHough]

This war will either peter out on its own or Obama will surrender and apologize and send Holder to string up a bunch off white folks to satisfy the mobs. But only after thei Christmas loot-giving season is over.

Probably on December 26th.

 

[jc456]

Obama's Remarks on Ferguson Grand Jury Designed to 'Feed the Rage'

By Jack Coleman | November 25, 2014 | 8:20 PM EST

Seldom-heard praise for President Obama from Rush Limbaugh today -- wrapped within withering analysis of Obama's disingenuous remarks last night after a grand jury decided against indicting Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown in August.

Yet again, Obama fails to live up to his billing as a unifying figure, Limbaugh pointed out. Instead, he's just the opposite (audio) --

The grand jury system, I was kind of surprised. I know the legal beagles that I've listened to, a lot of legal people for whom I have great respect said, Rush, this is a slam dunk. There is, we've seen the evidence, as much as we've seen and as much as we've heard about, the testimony, there's no way this cop gets indicted. And I said yeah but that's not the way things happen in the country anymore. Everybody, episodes like this need sacrificial lambs and everybody's going to be focused on keeping the peace and everybody's going to be focused on, you know, just make the problem go away.

So I was surprised, grand jury system worked, despite enormous pressures exerted by the president's representative, Eric Holder, the attorney general. A police officer was not indicted and the president let it be known last night that if some people don't think justice was done, he understands. If some people are deeply upset and they don't think justice happened last night or the last two months, then he understands they're being upset. I think he missed a golden opportunity, I can't tell you how many golden opportunities this man has missed. He missed an opportunity last night, if he really cared about unity, he could have done a lot for it last night. If he really cares about bringing people together, if he really cares about a functioning, orderly society, even if he wants to transform it, he had a golden opportunity last night -- and he punted. He had 20 minutes of inane ramblings that were designed subtly to feed the rage. And he could have done so much. You do have to admit that he is, when he applies himself, a very persuasive and talented speaker and orator, when he applies himself. If it's on the teleprompter and the words he wants to use are there, then he can do it really well. Didn't even try. Didn't even try, it was just the exact opposite, it was so disappointing to me.

But then I had to stop and realize, that's not what Obama's about. Obama, transforming America, he knows it's going to be messy and he knows it's going to be filled with strife and he knows there's going to be a certain amount of chaos, that's unavoidable given the scope of the change he desires. He knows people aren't going to just sit idly by and let it happen, they're going to fight it, those who don't agree with it. And that is what community organizers do, they agitate, and that's what Obama sadly did last night was agitate. And he had a chance, he had a golden opportunity to do exact opposite, and he - didn't - even - try.

You see, to me what happened in Ferguson last night -- if you say, as the president did, it's an understandable reaction that there are Americans deeply upset, even angry, it's an understandable reaction -- how is it understandable? What if the rage and what if the anger is not legitimate? What if it's the product of, this is my whole point, the Democrat party, the American left, has created in its base supporters a degree of anger and rage that borders on the irrational. And they do it about everything! They do it about the Iraq war, they're doing it about the war on terror, they're doing it about virtually everything! And they keep their base supporters in a fevered pitch where their base supporters think virtually everybody is out to get 'em, that the deck is so unfairly stacked that they don't even have a chance, even with a man who is as historic as president, the first African-American. That doesn't even matter. You create this hopelessness, you create a circumstance where the foregone conclusion is disaster.

But why should the reaction last night be understandable when it isn't, really. I have to define understandable in the way Obama meant it. He meant it in a way of justifying it and that's where he missed a golden opportunity, but this is unnecessary and it's not going to change anything. It's not going to improve circumstances for anybody, it's going to make them worse for practically everybody involved -- other than the people that benefit from this. Who benefits from this chaos? Who benefits from this strife? Who benefits from the continuing racial strife in America? Who benefits from this? If you answer that question, you'll find out who's responsible for it. And don't doubt somebody benefits from it or it wouldn't happen.​

Yeah, he definitely has you in mind, Al Sharpton.



Right out of the gate when Obama made his remarks last night after the grand jury's decision was announced, he referred to two different responses -- "There are Americans who agree with it and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It's an understandable reaction."

... While agreeing with the grand jury is simply not an "understandable reaction," at least not to Obama and like-minded leftists. The signal is duly sent to the mob -- rampage away. After all, looting is merely socialism in a hurry.

Still, this pales compared to the shabby editorializing of NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams when he reported that the grand jury "failed" to bring charges against Officer Wilson. Kinda like when the U.S. Senate "failed" to convict Clinton in 1999?

- See more at: Rush Limbaugh Obama s Remarks on Ferguson Grand Jury Designed to Feed the Rage

You,yourself defined blacks (an entire race) as "the problem". The only people trying to start a race war are conservatives. The only reason you think it is now a problem is that there are riots in the streets.

When you guys used to just gang up on people and lynch them...was that a "war" then or is it only a war when people fight back?

When did that behavior happen and were you alive to witness it? And, you really believe it happens today?

LOL, my word are you one lost soul.