Charles Krauthammer notes an earlier segment on the O’Reilly factor in which the guest was unable to be specific in her demands as to what type of conversation about race needed to be engaged in, resorting to vague and aggressive demands for a debate which she either lacked the capacity or simply chose not to engage in, perhaps in the absence of a legitimate supporting argument.
Krauthammer says, “Whenever you hear that you say to them, ‘well we are having one right now, what is it that we ought to be talking about that we’re not,’ and they get vague, ‘you know we have to have a conversation where we listen to each other.’ I have no idea what that means.”
He continues, “We’ve been having one for fifty years in this country, you could argue 150, you could argue for the entire history of the republic. If there’s been one subject that’s been a constant in the national discourse it’s been race. The idea that we haven’t discussed it enough is preposterous.”
He adds, “What is usually implied is that whites ought to be confessing their racism and that should be the starting point. I refuse to accept that premise. I think if you want to have an honest argument , let’s talk about, honest discussion, argument, whatever, let’s talk about what’s going on and what can be done.”
He asks if there is any evidence that anything involved with the Garner case has anything to do with race and notes that even Garner’s wife says that there is not. It’s purely an opportunity for racial demagoguery and deliberate inflammation of a non-racial issue into one that is.
Krauthammer notes a lack of balance in the public conversation about the incidences and the subsequent escalation into a racial discussion, which became a divisive tool used successfully for manipulation and escalation.
He points out how the actions of the Mayor in effect were an endorsement of their claims and behavior, which created the perception that he was saying, “I’m with the demonstrators, I support the grievance, I believe it.” Krauthammer may be being unnecessarily generous in labeling that a perception rather than an actual position. De Blasio didn’t leave much room for misinterpretation at the time. He is or at least was with them and was one of them.
Eric Bolling raises the point that Sharpton has visited the White House 81 times and asks if that is a problem.
Krauthammer believes that giving a man makes his living parasitically off of racial conflict, who has a “terribly checkered history,” that type of endorsement and respect is a problem. He details some of the shadier details of Sharpton’s past, noting that this is not the type of person who should be visiting the president of the United States.
If we had a legitimate president, Sharpton, and Holder for that matter would be nowhere near the White House. We don’t, we have a Manchurian fraud who has been inserted there to carry out his destruction. Against that backdrop, they might want to consider renaming a White House bedroom after Sharpton, maybe the “Scumbag Charlatan Bedroom.” That might be too vague; people would probably confuse that for the Obama Bedroom.
The other guest on the program, the big mouth who refused to provide non-existent specifics is below, in case you missed it.
Rick Wells is a conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. Please “Like” him on Facebook, “Follow” him on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us