Dialogue is an exchange that takes place when there are competing points of view and it is reasonable to believe that both of them may have a point.
Does the president really think there are two sides to this story?
In the absence of any proof of racial animus on the part of police – in fact, in the face of overwhelming proof that police take great personal risks to protect minority communities – Obama and his attorney general have joined the administration at the hip with notorious demagogue Al Sharpton. Together with like-minded radicals like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, they promote a lethally dangerous smear that police lack human regard for the lives of black Americans.
This has not only divided our society – and Obama, like Sharpton, divides us out of the most shameful of political calculations. It has further signaled to a violent fringe Obama well knows is out there that savage acts against police and others are likely to be rationalized and tolerated – and, indeed, that violent acts short of murder will be ignored or sugar-coated as “peaceful protest.”
And now, two police officers have been murdered because they were sitting in their squad car wearing their uniforms – by a violent criminal who was clearly animated by the racially-charged, rabidly anti-police atmosphere Obama, Sharpton & Co. have promoted.
Before the murders happened, police were being assaulted on the streets of New York City, where the rabble felt free to chant, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” When the murders happened, some among the rabble engaged in the same kind of celebration that Islamists do when terrorists kill Americans or Israelis. And after the murders happened, others brayed that the killing of police would continue.
What it there to have “dialogue” about? What is the other side of this story that the president would have the widows and children of these two murdered officers hear? Or that he would have the police, who are now targets of the mob, understand?
