The turmoil in Ferguson, Missouri back in 2014 was the antecedent of the recent riot in Charlottesville, Virginia. Both are examples of the street theater of “a new civil rights movement.”
In November-December 2014, the website American Thinker posted a series of nine articles that tracked the persons, groups, and political forces at play in the town of about 20,000 north of St. Louis, Missouri.
The author interviewed key leaders of the group that coordinated the street protests after white Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed, on August 4, 2014, black eighteen-year old, Michael Brown.
Here are the key dates relevant to the most noteworthy of those interviews:
August 20, 2014: A Grand Jury began hearing evidence in the case of State of Missouri v. Darren Wilson. Their task was to decide if a crime had been committed, and if there was probable cause to believe Wilson committed that crime.
November 24, 2014: Prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch announced a no-bill decision by the Grand Jury concerning Wilson’s possible criminal guilt.
In an interview that feed into the November 12, 2014 piece in the series, entitled “Don’t Shoot Coalition in Ferguson: a facade for progressive social activists,” one of the Co-Chairs of the Don’t Shoot Coalition—which gave birth to the “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” slogan—and also the Senior Attorney of the Advancement Project (AP), was interviewed by telephone.
This is how the AP describes itself:
“Advancement Project is a multi-racial civil rights organization. Founded by a team of veteran civil rights lawyers in 1999, Advancement Project was created to develop and inspire community-based solutions based on the same high quality legal analysis and public education campaigns that produced the landmark civil rights victories of earlier eras. From Advancement Project’s inception, we have worked ‘on-the-ground,’ helping organized communities of color dismantle and reform the unjust and inequitable policies that undermine the promise of democracy. Simultaneously, we have aggressively sought and seized opportunities to promote this approach to racial justice.”
This is AP’s Mission Statement, also found on its website:
“Advancement Project is a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization. Rooted in the great human rights struggles for equality and justice, we exist to fulfill America’s promise of a caring, inclusive and just democracy. We use innovative tools and strategies to strengthen social movements and achieve high impact policy change.”
The interview with the AP representative, then working “full-time” in Ferguson, was conducted at least 11 days before the no-bill decision from the Grand Jury. The AP attorney told the interviewer that: (1) There was “absolutely” no cause to indict Officer Wilson because he did nothing that violated proper police protocol; and (2) that what this (clearly referring to the Ferguson saga) was really about was advancing “a new, civil rights movement” in America.
This is the closing paragraph of AP’s “Theory of Change”:
“We choose project activities, whether national or local, with the potential to build power at the grassroots level and to reframe and accelerate the quest for racial justice. We do not shy away from difficult issues and typically are first responders to civil rights crises, as well as on the cutting edge of racial justice issues.”
Below was one image of Ferguson. The police showed up. And no verbal hostility was aimed toward Obama by the protestors, and certainly not by the media.
It was really not about Officer Wilson, or Michael Brown. It was about “a new civil rights movement”.
Today, we know what the old civil rights movement was about. It was clear then.
What is the “new civil rights movement” about? That’s not clear. At all.
It—the “new civil rights movement”—may have begun early in President Obama’s first term, in 2009.
In hindsight, his response to the temporary arrest of a black Harvard Professor by police in Cambridge, Massachusetts—who police initially suspected of breaking into what turned out to be his own house—may have been the unplanned kick-off of the “new, civil rights movement.”
“Obama defended [Harvard Professor Henry Louis] Gates on Wednesday night, while admitting that he may be ‘a little biased,’ because Gates is a friend. ‘But I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3…that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.’”
His statement that “the police acted stupidly” became famous, or infamous, depending on your perspective.
Was Obama “a little biased” because Gates was his friend, or because Gates was his black friend?
Years earlier, he had offered evidence at to the most likely answer to that question.
Back in his Harvard days, then student Obama was the subject of an article by Fox Butterfield in the February 6, 1990, issue of the New York Times. Here are excerpts from “First Black Elected to Head Harvard’s Law Review.”
“The new president of the [Harvard Law School] Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago’s South-Side before enrolling in law school.
‘The fact that I’ve been elected shows a lot of progress,’ Mr. Obama said today in an interview. ‘It’s encouraging. But it’s important that stories like mine aren’t used to say that everything is O.K. for blacks. You have to remember that for every one of me, there are hundreds or thousands of black students with at least equal talent who don’t get a chance,’ he said, alluding to poverty or growing up in a drug environment.
On his goals in his new post, Mr. Obama said, ‘I personally am interested in pushing a strong minority perspective.I’m fairly opinionated bout this.But as president of the law review, I have a limited role as only first among equals.’”
As President of the United States, he had a nearly unlimited role to push “a strong minority perspective.” But, aside from staffing government positions, did he do that? Doubtful that the black residents of South Chicago would say he did.
Now, draw a line to this image from Charlottesville.
In the media, and on the ground, much hostility was/is aimed at Trump. He dared speak the truth that both sides were at fault for the violence.
Meanwhile, few seem to be asking—Why were the police told to back off and let the two groups beat on each other? That question needs answering.
The media is working overtime to convince us that the removal of bronze and stone statues from the landscape, where some have stood for over 100 years, is about erasing racism and bigotry.
But if that’s so, why didn’t that happen during the eight years when we had an African-American President?
So what is this monuments sound-and-fury about, really? It signifies something. But what…is not clear. Not at all.
Since November 2007, Lee Cary has written hundreds of articles for several websites including the American Thinker, and Breitbart’s Big Journalism and Big Government (as “Archy Cary”). His work has been quoted on national television (Sean Hannity) and on nationally syndicated radio (Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin). He is quoted in Jerome Corsi’s book “The Obama Nation,” in Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny.” His pieces have posted on the Drudge Report and on the website Real Clear Politics. Cary holds a B.S. in Economics from Northern Illinois University, and a Masters and a Doctorate in Theology from the Methodist seminary at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL. He served in Vietnam with the U.S. Army in Military Intelligence. Cary lives in Texas.Commenting Policy
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement