Sunday, July 24, 2016

There is no Law Compelling Media to Inform the Citizenry but that does not Preclude the Will to Make it so...



Let me say that again – There is no law compelling media to inform the citizenry but that does not preclude the will to make it so... (with the truth, which I believe is implied).

Neither does it preclude mainstream media from understanding and respecting the intent behind its mention in the First Amendment.

Nor does it preclude the citizenry from standing up and talking back! 

In fact, the court of public opinion is the only thing that can hold its feet to fire otherwise, as we are seeing today, they merely breed low information citizens.

I am of the mind that the press is protected by the 1st Amendment with the expectation that it serves to expose abuses of power by the government followed, in turn, by consequences ~ as determined by an informed electorate at the polls.




As an activist and a former journalist who believes an informed electorate is critical to the success of our nation, the fairly recent and rampant merging of activism and news became the focus of my work in supporting President Obama and his Agenda in the context of prodding mainstream media to do its job with integrity so the electorate can, in turn, do its job with knowledge.

I have been a freelance media critic and a Volunteer with Organizing for America (campaign) and Organizing for Action (advocacy) via the Truth Team and I am a continuing that work as a freelance media critic and a Volunteer Leader with the Hillary Clinton Campaign primarily through social media.

I don’t take media's role in civics lightly and often times I am annoyingly purist about it because I do hold the messengers of our information to a high standard and if hear them miss that standard, most notably as established by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), I stand up and, with all due respect most of the time, talk back.

(I don't think there is a media person who is not accessible to citizens who would like to stand up and talk back on behalf of truth in media, BTW, particularly on whatever one's favorite social media platform might be!)

Some of my expectations of journalists are, as follows:


One

I expect journalists to believe “public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.” 

Two

I expect journalists to seek the truth and to provide fair, accurate and comprehensible accounts of that truth. 

Three

I expect journalists to source their information (and that would be from more than one source, thank you very much). 

Four

I expect journalists to identify sources and to grant anonymity sparingly. (Speaks for itself.) 

Five

I expect journalists to disclose conflicts. 

Call me na├»ve but I believe mainstream media’s primary role is to perform a service that assists in the maintenance and preservation of the United States of America. 

I believe our Founding Fathers were clear on the important role communication played in organizing a revolution and a new form of government even if they may not have been as clear on the boundaries between truth, opinion, campaigning, etc., as they should have been.


Fortunately for us, by the late 19th Century, a major newspaper owner, Adolph S. Ochs, declared news to be impartial; the Progressive Era ushered in watchdog journalism and; the early 20th Century Communications Act set the tone for a mainstream media that served “the public interest...” 


Today, mainstream has lost clarity on the boundaries that separate truth, opinion, campaigning, advertising, etc.. As a result, it is more important than it has ever been that we, as consumers, accept responsibility for critical thinking and for separating fact from fiction.

I am of the old school of print journalism, editing and critiquing. I can be a stickler for sources, facts and language. It is what tells me if I should consider a reporter/talking head to be credible. 

Are they using anonymous sources when anonymous sources are not necessary? If they are they have minimum credibility the minute they write/speak ~ because if one is not willing to use one’s name unless one’s life or livelihood is threatened then one shouldn’t speak. 

(And if they have no sources they are not worth reading/listening to.)

Are they are using qualifying language such as If, And, Or, Maybe, and But; it “appears”; it is “nearly”; it is “slightly”; it is “somewhat”; it is “almost”; it is “kind of”; it is “pretty” easy (or hard)?

All morning, just this morning, talking heads on two separate channels used qualifying language such as "think," "apparent," suggest," feel," seems" and "potentially."

Good Grief, reporting reports what is and what isn't and language as noted above indicates  
 they are imagining and they are of no service to the electorate. 

Are they defining the terms? In the context of the 2016 Democratic Convention, for example, what is a Democrat and what is not? They are remiss of they don’t define the terms for their audience. 

Are they are doing the false equivalency thing ~ reporting that two sides of one story are the same. If they are they are lying. Democrats and Republicans, for example, are not the same thing.

You can read SPJ's Code of Ethics here ,
then you can decide if you should be standing up and talking back -- or not...


Thank you for reading!


G., aka Partisan Democrat

( Please follow at http://gkmtnblogs.blogspot.com/
and sign up for an e-mail notification when GKMTNblogs posts! You can also follow me @http://networkforhillary.blogspot.com/ for an opportunity to help Hillary win daily! )

















Sunday, July 17, 2016

ICYMI !!! Excerpts from: “The Long, Hard Fight To Finally Get A Woman At The Top Of The Ticket” By the Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel and Christine Connetta

Thank you to Florida for Hillary for sharing both the story and the meme on Twitter!

(You can share visit them on Twitter here!)

Seriously, if you missed the Terkel/Connetta article recently published in the Huffington Post, put aside an hour or so today to read one of the best pieces of work I've seen in media for a long time.
It's historic, informative, timely and a great lesson in just whose shoulders women stand on as Democrats prepare to vote a woman to be the 2016 Democratic nominee for President of the United States – for the first time.
Out of respect for the work done by all who were involved in bringing this mixed media story to "press", I have limited my excerpts to just enough to tempt you to read the story in it's entirety. What follows are some highlights of what you will see when you click the link to the story below:
They deserve to have to go directly to the story to be counted as a reader of it.

Trust me and do it! TY!



➡️ In 1952, when Nancy D’Alesandro was 12, her father ― then the mayor of Baltimore ― brought her with him to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

Young Nancy D’Alesandro grew up to be Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker of the House.
➡️ The Huffington Post spoke with Pelosi and other Democratic women who have fought their whole lives to make this moment possible ― from shifting the conventions’ decision making out of those male-only smoke-filled backrooms to electing female candidates to political offices across the country.
➡️ These women have waited their whole lives to see a woman in the White House. And they’ll be in Philadelphia later this month to see Clinton accept the nomination.
➡️ Here: A fabulous graphic of “Historic Moments For Democratic Women” from 1900 to 2016
➡️ Women have attended every Democratic convention since the first in 1832, but for decades they were just guests and observers, supporting the men running the show. It wasn’t until 1900 that the first woman attended as a delegate, and not until 1920 did women have the constitutional right to vote in the election.  
➡️ In 1951, President Harry Truman asked DNC official India Edwards, a former Chicago journalist and longtime party activist, to be party chair. She declined, arguing that men in the party weren’t ready for a woman to lead them.

“I feel that if it were a year earlier, then I might be willing to run the risk,” Edwards said she told Truman. “But it is too close to a presidential election, and if anything went wrong they’d blame it on the woman. ... I’ll tell you, Mr. President, if I were chairman of the committee, I would be so busy protecting my rear I could never look forward.”

But the party was changing ― and so was the country.
➡️ Four years later, the concerns that many in the party had about their lack of representation spilled out in front of a national television audience when the Chicago convention erupted in violence. Inside the hall, fights broke out, motivated largely by tensions over the Vietnam War. Outside the hall, a small army of police, National Guardsmen and Army troops mobilized by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley clashed violently with thousands of protesters who had come to the city.

“What came out of that was a sense that we needed to open up the process of conventions,” said Joanne Howes, a longtime Democratic activist. “That it shouldn’t just be smoke-filled rooms and these guys making all these decisions. Small-d democrats should be part of the decision-making process.” 
➡️ Ann Lewis was in her 30s, working for the mayor of Boston, when a friend invited her to an organizing meeting for the National Women’s Political Caucus in the early 1970s. Pioneering feminists like Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan, Millie Jeffrey and Gloria Steinem had started the new group to make sure that women, not just women’s issues, would be part of the political process.

“You know that famous ‘click’? That was my click,” remembered Lewis, who was political director for the Democratic National Committee from 1981 to 1985, served in President Bill Clinton’s administration and later worked as a top adviser to Hillary Clinton. “Because here were all these women saying, ‘We work for equality through the political process.’ But equality in the political process? Why is it when you walk through a campaign headquarters, the women are out front making phone calls, doing the work, and the guys are in the backroom doing meetings? We’re better than this. We’ve got more talent than this.” 
➡️ Early on, the NWPC ― which was then bipartisan ― recognized the importance of the conventions. The group’s goal, according to Steinem’s autobiography My Life on the Road, was to increase “the number and diversity of women and delegates to both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions of 1972, and to get the Equal Rights Amendment, reproductive freedom, and other basic issues of equality written into both parties’ platforms.”  


➡️ But as Germond, Lewis and the NWPC worked for change behind the scenes, Rep. Shirley Chisholm decided to step forward and run. A fiercely progressive black congresswoman from New York, Chisholm sought the 1972 presidential nomination herself, jumping into a crowded Democratic field.
➡️ The NWPC made its first appearance at the Democratic convention that year, with members going as either delegates or attendees pushing to ensure that feminists were heard. The group managed to insert a “Rights of Women” section with an endorsement of the Equal Rights Amendment into the platform...
➡️ One notable advancement in 1972 was that, for the first time, a woman of color served as the convention’s vice chair. Yvonne Brathwaite Burke hadn’t even planned on attending, because she was busy running for Congress in Los Angeles and had just gotten married. Unbeknownst to her, the rules committee had selected her for the job. She was, in many ways, the ideal choice: She satisfied African-Americans who wanted a black vice chair and feminists who wanted a woman.

She first heard about her historic role when reporters showed up outside her house.
➡️ Some men lamented the newly serious role for women. In “Year of the Woman,” a “fantasy” documentary about the 1972 convention, Washington Post columnist Art Buchwald reminisced about the “hurdy-gurdy” of the old days, when “the streets were full of young girls dancing, pretty girls in their skirts and saddle shoes and waving pom-poms.” 

➡️ For all the missteps, 1972 was still a turning point...
“It gave genesis to a lot of women saying, ‘Whoa, we need to get involved here,’” she said. Germond and some friends started meeting at each other’s kitchen tables and eventually launched the Los Angeles chapter of the NWPC. They surveyed the landscape of races where a woman could run a credible campaign, and by 1976, they had their first female member of the California state Senate.

All over the country, other women were holding similar meetings ― and winning similar victories.

➡️ The 1976 convention saw other victories for women, like the keynote address from Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-Texas), the first woman and first African-American to deliver such a speech at the Democrats’ big event. Jordan had come to national attention two years earlier, with her eloquently thunderous denunciations of President Richard Nixon during the Watergate hearings.

Feminist leaders succeeded in getting an equal division rule adopted at the Democrats’ 1978 midterm gathering. It went into effect at the 1980 convention, again in New York, and remains the rule today.
➡️ “The big thing that went on at these conventions was the fancy parties,” said Pat Schroeder, who went to her first convention in 1980 as a congresswoman from Colorado. “And usually, women weren’t invited to the fancy parties. Women usually had a couple of women’s caucus meetings and things like that. We were going to meetings. The guys were going to parties.”
➡️ Ellen Malcolm, a former NWPC press secretary, said that many of the existing women’s groups simply didn’t have the resources to make a difference in elections.
“By and large, except for a handful of congresswomen, when it came to big-time politics, women were nothing more than envelope stuffers,” she wrote in her autobiography, When Women Win.“Washington was essentially a men’s club.”

So Malcolm and 20 other women decided to create a donor network of women and men who would contribute money to certain approved female candidates. The plan was to get money to them early in their campaigns ― a way of convincing the old boys’ network that female candidates could be viable and deserving of establishment support. That effort became EMILY’s List, which today has more than 3 million members and is a powerhouse in the Democratic Party. (EMILY originally stood for “Early Money Is Like Yeast.”)

Eleanor Smeal, then president of the National Organization for Women, was one of the first people to notice that women were voting differently from men. She looked at the data from the 1980 presidential election and saw that women’s support for Jimmy Carter exceeded men’s by 8 percentage points, while men leaned more toward Ronald Reagan.


Against that backdrop, people began to suggest that the Democrats might pick a woman to run for vice president in 1984.



➡️ (Geraldine) Ferraro’s nomination remains a defining moment for many Democratic women.

In the end, Mondale and Ferraro lost by a landslide, and Americans would have to wait a long time to see another woman on a major-party ticket.



➡️ I'm just going to note the subtitle here: “‘I Guess Togas Don’t Come In A Size 14 Petite’” and tell you it is a Senator Mikulski quote!
➡️ Other female politicians were also criticized, sometimes harshly, for not fitting a male mold.

Then-Rep. Pat Schroeder chaired the presidential campaign of fellow Coloradan Gary Hart. The former senator was a strong candidate for the 1988 Democratic nomination until his scandal-tinged withdrawal in early 1987. Schroeder explored running in his place but eventually announced she wouldn’t do so in an emotional press conference ― at which she cried some. 

The backlash was intense. 
➡️ But the 1988 Democratic convention did offer a memorable high point for women, when Ann Richards, then the Texas state treasurer, became just the second woman in 160 years to give the convention’s keynote address. She delivered these unforgettable lines about the power of women: “But if you give us a chance, we can perform. After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels.”
➡️ Another sub-title here: “The Anita Hill Wake-Up Call” (Not a good time for either side of the aisle.)
➡️ The fact that there were no women on the Senate committee hearing Hill’s complaint stirred up greater interest in electing women, said Malcolm, the EMILY’s List founder. Congresswomen in the House were infuriated with what was happening in the upper chamber, and a number of them took to the floor on Oct. 9, 1991, to deliver 60-second speeches on the issue. Seven female House members interrupted a Senate Democratic caucus lunch to request a hearing for Hill. 

“It electrified the country ― I don’t think there’s any question about it,” said Rep. Slaughter, one of the members who stormed the Senate.

That fury helped drive major gains in the 1992 elections, which swept four more women into the Senate, Democrats all ― Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California, Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, and Patty Murray of Washington. Twenty new Democratic women were elected to the House, and EMILY’s List grew from 3,000 to 24,000 members. It was dubbed the “Year of the Woman.” 



➡️ Clinton will claim the Democratic nomination 144 years after Victoria Woodhull first launched a presidential bid with the Equal Rights Party, 44 years after Shirley Chisholm became the first woman to seek the Democratic nomination and 32 years after Geraldine Ferraro made her historic vice presidential bid. Many women today never thought they’d see a real chance of electing a female president in their lifetime. Others wonder what the hell took so long.

Clinton supporters stress over and over that they don’t back the former secretary of state just because she is a woman. But she is a woman who has managed to get this far in an arena that long shut women out. And they’re excited about what a Clinton win could mean for future generations.

Lewis anticipates that the country will see “the second great wave” of women entering politics if Clinton is victorious in November.

“You cannot want what you can’t even imagine,” she said. “It’s very hard to get up every day and work for something that seems absolutely out-of-sight impossible. A woman in the White House means to everybody, ‘Oh, I can do this.’ Not just, by the way, for women, but anyone who has thought you’re ruled out.”


You can read the story in it's entirety with accompanying photographs and video here!



Thank you for reading!


G., aka Partisan Democrat

( Please follow at http://gkmtnblogs.blogspot.com/
and sign up for an e-mail notification when GKMTNblogs posts! You can also follow me @ http://networkforhillary.blogspot.com/ for an opportunity to help Hillary win daily! )














Sunday, July 10, 2016

Acting on Behalf of The Common Good, "Hillary Clinton Calls for Action in Wake of Recent Shootings..."

 "It Takes A Village" (1996) and a "Call for Action in Wake of Recent Shootings" (2016) speaks to The Common Good through compromise as a constant value/principle of Hillary Clinton's.


I have many reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton in the November 2016 Presidential Election but my support of her did not begin the day she declared her run for the White House in 2015, it began in the mid-90's when I first saw that she and I share a belief in the American value/principle ~ The Common Good through compromise.

Personally, I am of the mind that we have nothing without The Common Good through as the lens through which we view governing.

I saw that in her 1996 book, “It Takes A Village.” I saw that in her vision, backed up by her policy proposals and votes. I saw that in her 2016 speech at the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) General Conference in Philadelphia. That continuity of that value/principle tells me I can trust that the health and welfare of our nation is a core belief of Hillary's and not a big lie told to the electorate for political expediency.

In fact, truth be told, believing in The Common Good in the 21st Century is not an expedient political stand at all as evidenced in the near electoral take over of our nation by the GOP in recent years – which supports survival of the fittest and state supremacy and not interdependence and federal supremacy.

*

What follows are 2 dozen highlights from the AME speech ~ excerpted by me.

 (For those who may have trouble with the small print, I have included the full text of the speech, a 3-5 minute read (I had better control over formatting that!), and for those who may like to hear her deliver the speech, I have included a video of the speech, just under 30 minutes.)

*

" At the AME General Conference in Philadelphia on Friday, July 8th, Hillary Clinton addressed the tragic deaths of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and the five Dallas police officers—Lorne Ahrens, Michael Krol, Michael Smith, Brent Thompson, and Patrick Zamarripa—saying, "We have to find a way to repair these wounds and close these divides. The great genius and salvation of the United States is our capacity to do and be better. We need to find a way to do that again today—because it’s critical to everything else we want to achieve."

Clinton emphasized her commitment to reforming our criminal justice system, supporting great police departments, and reducing gun violence, reiterating the bold and progressive platform she has set on these issues. … "

( The introduction and the excerpts are courtesy of The Briefing )


*
















































*

The Full Text


Clinton’s remarks, as transcribed, are below:

“[…] Giving all praise and honor to God. Thank you for that welcome, and for letting me be a part of this anniversary celebration for the AME Church. I want to thank Bishop Green as well as Bishop Bryant, Bishop White, Bishop Ingram, Bishop Young, Bishop McKenzie, Bishop Jackson, Dr. Richard Allen Lewis, Sr., Reverend Dr. Jeffery B. Cooper, Sr., Bishop Snorton, Reverend […] and the AME General Conference Choir, which I had the great pleasure of hearing from backstage.

There is no better place to mark this milestone for the AME Church than right here in Philadelphia, the city where this church was founded by a former slave 200 years ago.

Today, we join to celebrate your esteemed history, the leaders and congregants who built this community and kept it strong, and your legacy of service. You seek to meet what the Book of Micah tells us are the Lord’s requirements for each of us: ‘To do justice, love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.’

As President Obama has said, the church is the ‘beating heart’ of the African American community. This is the place where people worship, study, grieve and rejoice without fear of persecution or mistreatment. That is a precious thing, my friends, in this world. I know that, from my experience as a lifelong Methodist, how important my own church community has been to me.

So I come here today, first and foremost, to say thank you. Thank you for being part of this historic institution, and for carrying its work forward, as Bishop Green said. I also come tonightas a mother, and a grandmother to two beautiful little children. And like so many parents and grandparents across America, I have been following the news of the past few days with horror and grief.

On Tuesday, Alton Sterling, father of five, was killed in Baton Rouge – approached by the police for selling CDs outside a convenience store. On Wednesday, Philando Castile, 32 years old, was killed outside St. Paul – pulled over by the police for a broken tail light. And last night in Dallas, during a peaceful protest related to those killings, there was a vicious, appalling attack. A sniper targeted police officers. He said he wanted to hurt white people. Twelve officers were shot, along with two civilians. Five – five – officers have died. We now know all their names: Brent Thompson, Michael Krol, Michael Smith, Lorne Ahrens, and Patrick Zamarripa. And as I was on my way here today, we heard reports of another shooting yesterday morning in Tennessee.

What can one say about events like these? What can people and leaders of faith say about events like these? It’s hard, isn’t it, even to know where to start. But let’s start here – let’s take a moment to pray for all the families and the loved ones suffering today. For Alton’s grieving children. For the four-year-old girl who bravely comforted her mother while Philando died in front of them. For the families of those police officers who lived every day with the fear that something like this could happen, and will always be proud of their service and sacrifice.

We pray for those families, and for the souls of everyone we lost this week and in all weeks preceding. May they rest in God’s peace.

Now, there are many unanswered questions about each of these incidents. We will learn more in the days ahead. And when we know as much as we can, there must be a just accounting.
For now, let’s focus on what we already know – deep in our hearts. We know there is something wrong with our country. There is too much violence, too much hate, too much senseless killing, too many people dead who shouldn’t be. And we know there is clear evidence that African Americans are much more likely to be killed in police incidents than any other group of Americans.And we know there is too little trust in too many places between police and the communities they are sworn to protect. With so little common ground, it can feel impossible to have the conversations we need to have, to begin fixing what’s broken. We owe our children better than this. We owe ourselves better than this.

No one has all the answers. We need to find them together. Indeed, that is the only way we can find them. Those are the truest things I can offer today. We must do better, together. Let’s begin with something simple but vital: listening to each other. For Scripture tells us to ‘incline our ears to wisdom and apply our hearts to understanding.’

The deaths of Alton and Philando are the latest in a long and painful litany of African Americans killed in police incidents – 123 so far this year alone. We know the names of other victims, too:

Tamir Rice.

Sandra Bland.

Walter Scott.

Dontre Hamilton.

Laquan McDonald.

Eric Garner.

Michael Brown.

Freddie Gray.

Brandon Tate-Brown, whose mother Tanya is here today, and who was killed not far from here a year and a half ago.

Tragically, we could go on and on, couldn’t we. The families of the lost are trying to tell us. We need to listen. People are crying out for criminal justice reform. Families are being torn apart by excessive incarceration. Young people are being threatened and humiliated by racial profiling. Children are growing up in homes shattered by prison and poverty.

They’re trying to tell us. We need to listen.

Brave police officers are working hard every day to inspire trust and confidence. As we mourn the Dallas police officers who died and pray for those wounded, let’s not forget how the Dallas Police Department in particular has earned a reputation for excellence. They’ve worked hard for years to improve policing and strengthen their bonds with the community. And they’ve gotten results.

Police officers across the country are pouring their hearts into this work, because they know how vital it is to the peace, tranquility, justice, and equality of America. They’re trying to tell us. And we need to listen.

People are crying out for relief from gun violence. We remember Reverend Clementa Pinckney, eight congregants at Mother Emanuel in Charleston – and thousands more killed every year by guns across our nation. Things have become so broken in Washington that to just try to get a vote on compromise gun safety reforms, John Lewis himself had to stage a sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Gun violence is ripping apart people’s lives. They’re trying to tell us. And we need to listen.

I know that, just by saying all these things together, I may upset some people. I’m talking about criminal justice reform the day after a horrific attack on police officers. I’m talking about courageous, honorable police officers just a few days after officer-involved killings in Louisiana and Minnesota. I’m bringing up guns in a country where merely talking about comprehensive background checks and getting assault weapons off our streets gets you demonized.

But all these things can be true at once. We do need police and criminal justice reforms, to save lives and make sure all Americans are treated equally in rights and dignity. We do need to support police departments and stand up for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect us. And we do need to reduce gun violence. We may disagree about how to do all these things, but surely we can all agree with those basic premises. Surely this week showed us how true they are.

Now, I have set forth plans for over a year to reduce excessive violence, reform our sentencing laws, support police departments that are doing things right, make it harder for the wrong people to get their hands on guns. For example, there are two important steps that I will take as president.

First, I will bring law enforcement and communities together to develop national guidelines on the use of force by police officers. We will make it clear for everyone to see when deadly force is warranted, and when it isn’t. And we will emphasize proven methods for de-escalating situations before they reach that point.

And second, let’s be honest – let’s acknowledge that implicit bias still exists across our society and even in the best police departments. We have to tackle it together, which is why in my first budget, I will commit $1 billion to find and fund the best training programs, support new research, and make this a national policing priority. Let’s learn from those police departments like Dallas that have been making progress, apply their lessons nationwide.

Now, plans like these are important. But we have to acknowledge that – on their own – they won’t be enough. On their own, our thoughts and prayers aren’t enough, either. We need to do some hard work inside ourselves, too.

Today, there are people all across America sick over what happened in Dallas, and fearful that the murders of these police officers will mean that vital questions raised by Alton’s and Philando’s deaths will go unanswered. That is a reasonable fear. Today, there are people all across America who watched what happened in Dallas last night and are thinking, no frustration with the police could ever justify this bloodshed. How did we get here? And is there more to come? That’s a reasonable fear, too.

It is up to all of us to make sure those fears don’t come true. We cannot, we must not vilify police officers. Remember what those officers were doing when they died. They were protecting a peaceful march. They were people in authority, making sure their fellow citizens had the right to protest authority. And there is nothing more vital to our democracy than that. And they died for it.

Ending the systemic racism that plagues our country – and rebuilding our communities where the police and citizens all see themselves as being on the same side – will require contributions from all of us. White Americans need to do a better job of listening when African Americans talk – talk about the seen and unseen barriers you face every day. We need to try, as best we can, to walk in one another’s shoes – to imagine what it would be like if people followed us around stores, or locked their car doors when we walked past. Or if every time our children went to play in the park, or went for a ride, or just to the store to buy iced tea and Skittles, we said a prayer –‘Please, God – please, God – don’t let anything happen to my baby.’

And let’s put ourselves in the shoes of police officers, kissing their kids and spouses goodbye every day and heading off to a dangerous job we need them to do. When gunfire broke out yesterday night, and everyone ran to safety, the police officers ran the other way – into the gunfire. That’s the kind of courage our police and first responders show every single day somewhere across America. And let’s remember – let’s think about what Dallas Police Chief David Brown said this morning. He said, ‘Please join me in applauding these brave men and women, who do this job under great scrutiny, under great vulnerability, who literally risk their lives to protect our democracy.’ He went on to say, ‘We don’t feel much support most days. Let’s not make today most days.’

Let’s remember that – not just today but every day. Let’s ask ourselves, what can I do? What can I personally do to stop violence and promote justice? How can I show that your life matters to me? That I have a stake in your safety and wellbeing?

Elie Wiesel, who died last week, once clarified for us that ‘the opposite of love is not hate – it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death – it’s indifference.’ None of us can afford to be indifferent toward each other – not now, not ever. And I’m going to keep talking about these issues with every audience. And if I’m elected, I’ll start working on this on day one – and keep at it every single day after that.

I want you to know the 24-hour news cycle moves on – I won’t. This is so important to who we are, what kind of nation we are making for our children and our grandchildren. As President Obama said yesterday, and as we all know in our hearts to be true: We are better than this. And if we push hard enough, and long enough, we can bend the arc of history toward justice. We can avoid that choice that Dr. King posed for us between chaos and community.

So yes, this is about our country. It’s also about our kids. There’s nothing more important than that. And I think it’s about our faith. We have a lot of work to do. We don’t have a moment to lose. But I would not be here tonight if I did not believe we can come together with a sense of shared purpose and belief in our shared humanity, and if I did not know we must, because truly we are stronger together. Not separated into factions or sides; not shouting over each other about who matters more or who has more cause to be upset; but together, facing these challenges together. And if we do this right and have the hard conversations we need to have, we will become even stronger – like steel tempered by fire.

Fierce debates are part of who we are – just like freedom and order, justice and security – complimentary values of American life. They are not easy. They challenge us to dig deep, and constantly seek the right balance. But in the end, if we do that work, we will become a better nation. If we stand with each other now, we can build a future where no one is left out or left behind, and everyone can share in the promise of America – which is big enough for everyone, not to be reserved for a few.

But we know something – we know that work is hard, don’t we? I’m calling on this historic church, and all of our churches, to think hard about what special role you can play. Every day, you teach and show us about the Golden Rule and so much else. Why can’t we really believe in and act on it? To treat others as we would want to be treated.

In the 13th chapter of First Corinthians, St. Paul extols the virtues of faith, hope, and love for our fellow human beings. He says we need them all in this life, because of our imperfections: we ‘see through a glass darkly’ and only ‘know in part.’ He proclaims love the greatest virtue, necessary to keep faith and hope alive and to give us direction.

I’ve tried to say for some time now that our country needs more love and kindness. I know it’s not the kind of thing presidential candidates usually say. But we have to find ways to repair these wounds and close these divides. The great genius and salvation of the United States is our capacity to do and to be better. And we must answer the call to do that again. It’s critical to everything else we want to achieve – more jobs with rising income; good education no matter what ZIP code a child lives in; affordable college; paying back debts; health care for everyone. We must never give up on the dream of this nation.

I want to close with a favorite passage – a passage that you all know – that means a great deal to me and I’m sure to many of you, from Galatians. ‘Let us not grow weary in doing good’ – ‘or in due season, we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.’

My friends, let us not grow weary. Let us plan the path forward for all of God’s children. There are lost lives to redeem, bright futures to claim. Let us go forth – go forward, Bishop – with a sense of heartfelt love and commitment. And may the memory of those we’ve lost light our way toward the future our children and grandchildren deserve.

Thank you, AME, and God bless you.”

( The full transcript is courtesy of The Briefing/You can find the direct link here )

*

The Video





( The full video is courtesy of Hillary Clinton Speeches )


Thank you for reading!


G., aka Partisan Democrat

( Please follow at http://gkmtnblogs.blogspot.com/
and sign up for an e-mail notification when GKMTNblogs posts! You can also follow me @ Network for Hillary for an opportunity to help Hillary win daily! )