Tag Archives: al sharpton

NEWS TO MUSE: Pressing Press Questions, More Liberal Lack of Logic and “The Winner is … “

Gottcha Scott Walker

Obviously, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker does not appreciate stupid press questions and he got two of them recently.  Does he believe in evolution and does he believe that President Obama is a Christian.  In both cases, the presidential hopeful refused to answer the questions.  His refusal is well grounded, but his reply was a bit maladroit.  In that regard, the School of Gottcha Journalism won another round as virtually every news and talk show spent an enormous amount of time debating whether the questions were appropriate or the product of a biased press — or whether Walkers answers were some sort of policy statements on God’s creation … oooops … God’s evolution and Obama’s relationship with God.  If he was not running for President of the United States, he could have just said: WTF?  An interesting footnote: Way back when, when Hillary Clinton was asked is Obama was a Muslim, she hedged her response, “I think he’s a Christian, AS FAR AS I KNOW.”  Geez! All this debate over Obama’s religions.  Personally, I don’t think he is all that religious no matter what he is, and there’s nothing wrong with that AS FAR AS I KNOW.

Bashing Bush Liberal Logic Style

Democrats and the press are most eager to hang everything they did not like about George W around the neck of Jeb Bush even though he was never part of either his father’s or his brother’s administrations.  I note this be cause a panel of libs on MSNBC made every argument they could to tie Jeb to what they believe are the sins of the father (and the brother).  However, when the conversation turned to Hillary Clinton, the same group opined that she would bear no burden for any unpopular policies of President Obama because they were his policies, and not hers.  In case you missed the liberal logical lapse, here it is.  If you are related to the President, but not part of the administration, you are tied to the policies (if you are a Republican, that is).  However, if you are the top Cabinet officer, an advisor to the President and faithfully caring out presidential policies (and you are a Democrat), you are absolved from all blame.  The mistake liberals make is assuming the public is stupid (a la Jonathon Gurber) or “low information voters” as liberals often call the unwashed masses.  Actually, the public has good common sense.  It is probably why FOX News gets the highest ratings.

Piling on Rudy

Rudy does not think Obama loves America.  His private opinion, along with Scott Walker’s lack of opinions, has dominated the news for two days already.  Maybe it was a poor choice of words, but I think a LOT of Americans wonder why this President always seems to be criticizing and apologizing for America.  He relegates American Exceptionalism to nothing more than common chest-pounding nationalism.  What struck me is the volume and nastiness of liberal animus.  White House spokesperson talked of Giuliani as if  he was getting senile, and pitied they hopeless damage to the former mayor’s lifetime reputation.  I found Earnest to be pitiful, but that is his job description under the Obama White House.  Another pundit on MSNBC said he found Giuliani’s comments “incoherent.”   When Joe Scarborough argued that as a private citizen, Giuliani is entitled to his opinion, co-host Mika Brzezinski insisted he is not a private citizen.  And they call the voters “low information.”  Of course, ever predictable Al Sharpton reached deep into his one-word vocabulary to call Giuliani a racist.

Hollywood’s High Holiday – Academy Awards Night

I have determined that the Academy Awards’ PR people have only one post awards press release with a number of blanks to fill in.  There is that political statement — this time women pay equality from a woman making a gazillion times more than most men.  Then there is the dress.  The new twist in the overexposed category was host, Neil Patrick Harris, appearing in his tidy whities.  J. K. Simmons elevated the “thanks ma moment” to a universal show of appreciation usually reserved for Mothers’ Day.  It was all so … so typical … so boring.

Post Script

Has the liberal press forgotten that ISIS is on a rampage, innocent people are being murdered every day, Russia continues to advance in the Ukraine, etc., etc., etc.  Well, I guess a press that can ask the Attorney General to quack like a duck or ask then President Clinton if he wears boxers or briefs cannot be expected to focus on serious issues.

My thoughts on Mayor de Blasio as published in the Palm Beach Post on January 8, 2015

Palm Beach Post

Thursday, January 8, 2015


De Blasio’s missteps doom administration

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio was once the toast of the town. He is now just toast. He cannot recover, because he is either the most tone-deaf politician in America or is just too arrogant to be humble. Methinks both.

Pleas from Police Commissioner Bill Bratton did not stop the turning of backs at the funeral of Officer Wenjian Liu. I suspect that every turned back represented a multiple of officers who privately shared the sentiment.

In his first appearance after the shooting, de Blasio had an opportunity to mend fences. Instead, he made a request for both sides of the controversy to gag themselves, ostensibly out of sympathy for the dead officers’ families. It backfired, because it came across as insincere, blatantly self-serving and arrogant.

The failed “peace summit” with various police unions only made matters worse.

De Blasio needed to be humble, take responsibility for his rhetoric and publicly disassociate from Al Sharpton. He did none of it. Now it is too late.

After 9/11, then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was called “America’s mayor.” De Blasio has now earned himself the well-deserved appellation some are calling him: “America’s most hated mayor.”


Here is my take on who is culpable for the violent atmosphere that led to the deaths of two New York police officers as published in the Washington Times on December 23, 2014

Washington Times, The (DC)


Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, Bill deBlasio share blame in N.Y. police killings

 There is a huge pushback against statements of the many who have assigned New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, the Rev. Al Sharpton, Attorney Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. and even President Obama with culpability in the deaths of two New York police officers (“Al Sharpton says he’s the victim, plays audio of death threat during press conference,” Web, Dec. 21).

There can be a huge gap between responsibility and culpability. Those who hold Mr. de Blasio, Mr. Sharpton, Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama blameless in the shooting deaths of New York Police Department Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu are merely acting out of partisan and philosophic zealotry. The facts of their statements are on the national record for all to see.

They have pitted one group against another by perpetrating the mythology of pandemic racism, when racism in America is anecdotal and receding. They have rhetorically accused — no, smeared — the police departments across America with false implications of and allusions to systemic and institutional racism. They have elevated the reputations of petty criminals above those of hardworking cops. They have remained silent as mobs, not peaceful demonstrators, rampaged illegally through the streets, vandalizing and looting. They have called such people “protesters.” They remained silent as the mob called for the murder of police.

The president has empowered Mr. Sharpton, arguably the most provocative inciter of violent action, as the racial spokesperson for America.

They now attempt to say the murder last weekend of the two NYPD officers was merely the work of an insane lone wolf. They question his motivation. But there is no question; the killer told us exactly what motivated him: the demonstrators on the streets and those calls for vigilante justice. In fact, he specifically referred to Mr. de Blasio’s words.

I believe these leaders have violated the very rules they claim to so cherish. They are guilty of hate language. They are guilty of inciting public unrest. They are guilty of creating a hostile work environment. They are guilty of promoting racism.

Leaders are important. What they say has meaning, and words influence actions. In another time of racial tension, President Abraham Lincoln called upon leaders to guide their people to “the better angels of our nature.” In this case, Mr. Obama, Mr. Holder, Mr. Sharpton, Mr. de Blasio and others take us to the darker demons of our nature. If not responsible, they are most certainly culpable.


Boca Raton, Florida

Two dead cops, killed by politics, political rhetoric and political correctness.

President Obama’s campaign promise to “bring America together” has proven to be as false as many of his others.  By ever measure, including polls that show both blacks and whites see racial relations worse today than in 2008.  There is no doubt about it.

The Obama legacy is one of increased racial friction brought on by the President’s own words and policies, echoed by Attorney General Eric Holder and amplified by the President’s chief racial advisor, Al Sharpton.

It permeated the left-wing political structure and was condensed into the kind of provocative talking points you heard from New York’s pugnacious Mayor William de Blasio.

In recent years, we have seen attacks on the first amendment.  Kids who post negative opinions about teachers on social media are punished.  People who espouse loyalty to terrorists are arrested – perhaps not enough.  If you make offensive racial remarks, you are guilty of hate crimes.  Even Tea Party criticism of national policy is dubbed terrorism.

The movement to criminalize free speech is rampant, except when it comes to provocative left-wing, politically correct bellowing.

When people like Al Sharpton use his platform to give black people a heightened sense of victimization, and fuel embers of anger and hatred, this is not only acceptable to the President, the Attorney General and the mayor of New York, it is reinforced.  Yet, this rhetoric, dangerous as it is, is never challenged as incendiary or provocative.

Obama and Holder sympathize with blacks killed not matter the circumstances.  They send White House representatives to the funeral of a dead street thug, elevating him to a racial hero.  The President compares another dead young man to a “son.”  In virtually every case, he calls out the police before investigations even begin.  De Blasio publicly admits that he educates his mixed race son to be wary of the police.  They call criminal rioters, “demonstrators.”

They have used public office and publicity to demonize the police.  There was no official outrage over scores of “demonstrators,” white and black, chanting for the murder of police.  There was no outrage against those who expressed giddy pleasure at the assassination of the two law enforcement officers.

The result?  Two dead police officers, killed because of the heightened racial tensions caused by racist policies and rhetoric.  Yes, the shooter, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, is likely a mental case, but that is exactly who this racially charged rhetoric  motivates first.

Despite their best efforts, the responses to the deaths of the two officers from Obama, Sharpton and de Blasio lack the deep sincerity you would hope for.

The head of the New York police union goes so far as to say there is blood on the hands of de Blasio and Sharpton.  While that seems pretty harsh, it is also hard to refute.

DAILY OBSERVATION: In New York, the protestors are not wrong

One of the biggest distinctions between Ferguson and New York City is the issue of racism.

Ferguson was a bad example to make a case for police brutality and underlying racism.  The facts, current and historic, did not fit the false charges of hotheaded provocateurs like Al Sharpton.  Michael Brown was a brutish criminal who had violently robbed a store and violently attacked an arresting officer.  It was criminal against cop, not black against white.

New York is totally different.  On all sides – Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal – there appears a general agreement that, based on the video alone, the issue of innocence or guilt should have been determined by a jury in open trial.  With charges as nominal as “recklessness” on the part of the officer, it seemed reasonable that Eric Garner’s case should not have ended inside the sanctorum of the Grand Jury.

In Ferguson, it is easy to understand, based on the evidence, why the prosecuting attorney left it up to the Grand Jury.  He could tell at the onset that it was a non-start as a criminal case.  But, he also knew that if he made that decision unilaterally, the outrage would have been far greater.  He felt he needed the credibility of impartial citizens arriving at the obvious correct decision.

In New York, the elected prosecutor appears to have maneuvered for an non-indictment based on his understanding of the racial undercurrent of the city.  Like most big cities run by Democrat “machines,” there is a disconnect between the hypocritical tolerance given lip service to by the mayor and others and the reality of racism in the substructure – racism that is never truly addressed by the leadership.

The subtle racism that permeates the sub-structure of New York City politics becomes an influential factor in the population pool from which the jurists were selected, compounded by the arguable conflict of interest created by the fact that the prosecutor is elected and has a unique relationship to the police structure.

It is also significant that the crime committed by Garner was of the pettiest nature.  It is at this level where racial bigotry is often seen.  It is at this level where blacks often experience the disadvantaged attention of police.   It becomes less about law and order and more about harassment.  Did the crime by Garner really warrant the attention of four officers?

In New York, unlike Ferguson, it was the influence of inherent racism that prevented the case from going to a court of law rather than the evidence.  Such racism is never obvious, but still very real.

That is why reporters on CNN and FOX News both seemed to agree that a miscarriage of justice had taken place in  New York.

The proper way to rob a store.

As a public service, I thought I should pass along the insiders advice on robbing a store.

If you are among those who just need something so bad that you have to rob a store to get it, here is the proven way to get away with it.  This method works even if you are caught on cam.  It works even if you find yourself surrounded by police.  This method is post racial.  It works for blacks, whites, Hispanic, Indians and Asians.  If you are among those folks who have insufficient ethnic identity to be an interest group in America you can stop reading now.   Otherwise, follow these instructions.

First: Organize a demonstration around some injustice – or even a perceived, claimed or something you can make look like an injustice.  You need not worry about what cause to select, since you are only interested in getting some cool free goods from a local merchant.

Second: Arrange a planning meeting with an appropriate speaker.  Just make sure your speaker can really get the crowd pissed off.  For example, if you are black, Al Sharpton is always a good bet.  He is in high demand, however, so you need to convince him that there will be lots of press covering your demonstration.

Third: Plan the route so that is passes the stores you wish to shop in. Duh!

Fourth: Wait until after it is dark to take your protest outside.  First of all, there are more people available to demonstrate at night, and the optics are really cool.  Gun flashes, tear gas and burning cars and building all show up a lot better on television at night — and you don’t.

Fifth: Remember to provide demonstrators with lots of pre-made signs and a goodly number of bricks.

Sixth:  You can recruit folks who are not even involved in your specific protest. If you can, add a few anti-war folks or the down with capitalism crowd. They have extensive experience in property destruction and are more than willing to express their rage at any time for any reason.  For those folks, protesting is an avocation.

Seventh: As you march, remember the proper order.  In the safety of the front will be peaceful demonstrators sincerely concerned about the issue, the news cameras and most likely your Al Sharpton. The second group will get agitated because the first group is moving too slowly and getting all the media publicity.  They will start throwing those bricks, and some will hit nearby store windows.  HINT:  You should carry a brick or two, yourself, in case group two misses your favorite store.

Eighth:  You need to remain in the third group so you can dash through those broken windows to collect the items on your shopping list.  You can also invite a few like-minded friends.  There is more good stuff available than you could possibly carry home.  Cell phones, iPads, televisions and booze are generally on most lists.

Ninth:  You MUST move quickly because behind you is the fourth group, and those crazy bastards are about burn down the store you’re in.  Your greatest danger is not from the police, but being caught in a burning building.

If you are lucky, you can take your newly acquired television home and watch yourself on the HD screen, while sipping your free bourbon and texting your friends on you new cell phone.

WARNING:  As with all instructional information, I am obligated to tell you the risk.


DAILY OBERVATION: Ferguson and beyond – Part three

The events in Ferguson has sparked protests across the nation.  While the shooting of Michael Brown triggered the outbreak, there are very few individuals taking to the streets in defense of Brown – largely because his case is indefensible.  The Grand Jury already passed judgment on the events in Ferguson.

In fact, the Brown case is counterproductive to any honest concern about social justice.  Putting him up as a martyr to racism or police brutality is misguided.  He was a thuggish common criminal, not a crusader for civil rights.  He was as responsible for his own death as anyone.

Making him the example for mass demonstrations does a disservice to the true cause of equal rights.  In attempting to elevate him, the larger movement is lowered and discredited.  Comparing him to Emmitt Till, as some black activists have, is denigrating to the Till memory and a complete perversion of history.

What the case has sparked is not a cohesive expression of concern about Ferguson, or even the larger issue of race relations.  What it sparked is an outbreak of a civic virus I call – excise the expression — the “perma-pissed.”  Like a virus, these folks pop into view every time some event draws enough media attention.

These are the folks who hate America for a multiple of reasons.  They include those on the edge who still dream of a liberal revolution to take over the American government.  This is why the ragtag remnants of the American Communist Party are engaged in the national demonstrations.

In the streets again is hard left, that hates capitalism – representatives of the same crowd that had once occupied Wall Street.  That is why you see the shutting down of malls and other businesses.

There are even the much older 1960s anti war crowd, almost comically attempting to tie American military actions to the death of Brown.

Now the unions have weighed in heavily.  I find that terribly ironic.  The pugnacious Richard Trumka, of the AFL-CIO, represents unions which are both historically and currently biased against black membership.  He is there more to keep blacks in the larger political movement.

Then there is the element represented by Al Sharpton.  He and his ilk make up the power and profit component of the black race baiting industry.  He is a disgrace to the memory and philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King.  Rather than recognize the changes in racial tolerance and to seek peace and harmony, as did King, the Sharptons resurrect the image of the past to create their personal false crusade based on exaggerated victimization.

There is a saying that if your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails.  That is the problem with the Al Sharptons.  Their only tool is racism, so all events are seen as bigotry.

In thinking about the efforts to promote black racism and a belief in victimization far beyond reality, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Democrat Party.  To the extent we have social injustice, it is the direct result of the hypocritical racist policies of Democrat politicians.  While they wear the “sheep’s skin” of equality and beneficence, Democrat leadership has kept black Americans ghetto-ized – deprived of housing, education, healthcare, safety and access to upward mobility.

It is no coincidence that the geography of black oppression occurs largely within political structures controlled by Democrats.  Chicago has the longest continuing Democrat Machine in America.  There are no Republican office holders in Chicago – even among the extraordinarily large 50-member city council.  Yet Chicago has the worst minority schools in America.  It is the most segregated major city in America.  Blacks in Chicago have among the highest unemployment rates in America.  And no city can match the number of blacks, including small children, murdered each year in Chicago.  How can blacks believe in Democrat beneficence in the fact of these facts?

For the most part, we are not a racist nation.  Each day, there are millions of positive interactions between blacks and whites.  We work together.  We play together.  We do favors for each other.  We care for each other.  We love each other.  We marry each other.  We served side-by-side in the military together – and on the police forces.  The incidents of racial hostility are infinitesimal within the big picture.

However — and it is a significant however – racism does occur.  In fact, it will always occur. It will arise from the malevolence of those few bigots who cannot be enlightened.  It will emanate from both white bigots and black bigots.  It is like a virus that can be put into remission, but never eradicated.

Unfortunately, the demonstrations occurring around the nation today are counterproductive.  They promote distrust, intolerance and racism.  Whitney Young once said that America does not need coalitions of blacks against coalitions of whites, but rather coalitions of the good against coalitions of the evil.  That is not happening today.

It is often said that we need a “national dialogue on race.”  Indeed we do, but not the one-side discussion proposed by narrow liberal prejudices.  We need the good people on both sides to address the issues with honesty.  We need to look at all facets of racism.