William Barber responds to NC SPIN
Published January 12, 2015
Editor's note: This is a letter sent to NC SPIN by Reverend William Barber, State President of NAACP in response to the NC SPIN program that aired January 11, 2015. It was not edited.
Mr. Tom Campbell NC Spin WRAL-TV Raleigh, NC
Dear Tom,
I have the deepest respect for you and your program that tries to be fair to the different views on critical issues facing North Carolina. But I must say we are deeply troubled by the way our Brother Joe Mavretic engaged in blatant misuse and abuse of your media platform
For him to describe the tens of thousands of North Carolina citizens of diverse multi cultural political, racial and religious backgrounds and persuasions who have exercised their moral and constitutional duty and rights as a "mob" is a mean-spirited mischaracterization. His words sounded like what people of the past said about the Civil Rights movement. The courts have found, after we successfully argued that we have a constitutional right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of our grievances, that we are not a mob. . .we are good citizens with every right to protest.
Our nonviolent campaign, which has brought our moral analysis of the policies promoted by the right wing extremists to tens of thousands of North Carolinians in every part of our state for more than 100 straight weeks, shows we are not a mob . . .we are good citizens raising valid criticisms of the direction the extremists are taking our beloved state.
But worse than Mr. Mavretic's mischaracterization was his unchallenged linking of our efforts to the possibility of infantile zealots intentionally engaging in violence at the People's House. Does Mr. Mavretic not remember when this irresponsible and unsubstantiated linkage was made by officials in the media in Memphis in March of 1968 leading up to the sanitation march? When public media allows this irresponsible linking of peaceful mass protests of thousands to undisciplined and infantile behavior of deranged individuals, obviously done to derail the mass movement, it sows thoughts of linkage in the public mind, although there is absolutely no basis for the the connection and implied prediction. We believe it was irresponsible for him to use your show to state an opinion about "mobs" and possible violence that has no basis. His bald-accusations were outrageous. He should be called on his irresponsible attempt to define the Forward Together Moral Monday movement as a 'mob' and predict violence in the General Assembly chambers.
It's tantamount to Mr. Mavretic "unintentionally" broadcasting an idea and "unintentionally"setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy, so he will then be able to say, "I told you so"
I would hope your show would distance yourself from his baseless statements. I would hope you will challenge your guests to stick with legitimate issues and critique. We don't mind debate with people who want to talk about the direction North Carolina ought to take in this critical time in history. But allowing these innuendoes went beyond the pale of professional journalism.
With regards and respect,
Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, President (2005-2016) of the North Carolina Conference of over 100 NAACP Branches and Convener of the HKONJ Coalition of over 160 partners
January 12, 2015 at 8:51 am
Frank Burns says:
I don't know about anyone else, but when a group beats drums, chants and generally disrupts meetings, they are generally referred to as a mob.
January 12, 2015 at 9:09 am
Rip Arrowood says:
Only if you fear them, Frank.
January 12, 2015 at 10:58 am
Frank Burns says:
Rip, Who says the definition of a mob includes fear? I don't think anyone fears them, do you? But when the noise and hubbub prevents our representatives from doing their business, it's a mob that needs to be removed. They can make their noise outside where it won't cause a disturbance.
January 12, 2015 at 3:43 pm
Richard Bunce says:
January 12, 2015 at 5:05 pm
Rip Arrowood says:
Here's the definition of a mob.... "a large or disorderly crowd; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action."
How would our legislators ever hear the voice of the people if the people didn't go to them?
Why are you in favor of denying these people their rights under The U.S Constitution?
I'm sure you are familiar with the story of The Boston Tea Party when Patriots caused noise and hubbub....
January 12, 2015 at 6:14 pm
Richard Bunce says:
You say you want a revolution?
First amendment is quite clear... Congress (government) shall make NO law... They want to shut down the legislature, fine with me, government does far more harm than good, just don't complain when it is a Democratic Party majority legislature being shut down by the right.
January 13, 2015 at 8:17 am
Frank Burns says:
They can have their rights outside without being a disruptive mob, inside.
January 12, 2015 at 9:18 am
Richard Bunce says:
"right wing extremists"
It seems the Reverend has a double standard on labels... the NC Legislature is elected by the people of NC... the Moral Monday group is just whoever decides to show up.
January 12, 2015 at 9:27 am
Norm Kelly says:
Here we go again, paying way too much attention to a fringe group with a definite agenda. Mr. Barber needs to be routinely ignored, not promoted at every opportunity. He's learned well from his lib leaders - whenever there's an opportunity to make yourself the center of attention, run don't walk to the nearest mic. Let's parse Mr. Barber's words.
'We don't mind debate with people who want to talk about the direction North Carolina ought to take'. Really? Let's contrast this with HIS OWN WORDS: 'of the policies promoted by the right wing extremists'. This is how the Rev buffet slayer describes those he disagrees with. The ones that the majority of voters elected to change direction of the state from where libs were taking us. This is what the rev calls debate? Hardly. How does the rev describe the lefties that were rejected by the majority of voters? Does he describe his allies as 'left wing extremists' or even 'socialist wanna-bes'? Does he refer to Republicans in his letter in a nicer, kinder, fashion that MIGHT indicate he's willing to have an intelligent discussion instead of eliminating his opponents? Sure he does. Just a few words later, the rev calms his words and refers to his opponents lovingly as 'the direction the extremists are taking our beloved state'. See, when you disagree with the rev, you are an extremist. Does the rev give an example of what he considers extremist about the direction duly elected Republicans are taking our state? Not this time, but he has referred in the past to such ridiculous examples as trying to reduce or eliminate voter fraud. Somehow trying to reduce voter fraud is seen as a racist step for the im'moral' leader of this mob.
When the rev refers to people who show up to his protests to cause mayhem, he says they are 'infantile zealots'. When the libs in Washington were referring to TEA people as racists, violent, anarchists, and various other friendly, loving, kind words, did the rev step out to defend peaceful protestors? Did the rev step out to say that these people had the right to protest and that their right needed to be defended? Did the rev point out that it was an outside minority of people who were causing the problems? When libs in Washington accused TEA people of spitting on libs as they walked to chamber for a vote, and it was proven to be another lib lie, did the rev step out to point out the lie of his allies? Or was the rev silent at that time? Is the rev showing his fair minded attitude here when pointing out the lies of his allies at the same time he's pointing out the 'lies' of Joe, and at the same time he's referring to his opponents as extremists? Is this being open minded, fair, non-confrontational? Is he showing his willingness to meet face-to-face to discuss intelligently with his opponents? Or is he proving that his mind is closed and that there is no reason to discuss intelligently with duly elected Republicans because he simply opposes them being in office to start with?
The rev ends with 'stick with legitimate issues and critique'. So, the rev wants NC Spin to do something he himself is unwilling to do. The rev fights voter id to reduce voter fraud and uses bogus arguments about racism as his basis. This is an illegitimate argument, and the usual claim of 'racism' when there's no other argument. Any time libs can't come up with a legitimate reason to oppose Republicans, they claim racism. People like me don't dislike/oppose the current occupier because he's a socialist, because he has complete disregard for the law, because he's a blatant racist who believes white's are incapable of being fair-minded, but people like me are constantly told we oppose the occupier because and only because we are racist. We are supposed to ignore his socialist schemes, his law-breaking, his racist statements because he's a (mostly) black man and therefore above reproach. No opposition allowed because and only because he's black. Same goes for Holder. Since he's black, we are not allowed to express our dislike of his racist attitude, his disregard for the law, his statements about white people and how white's despise blacks and white cops are out to kill black males. It's not his attitude that we oppose Holder, they tell us. They consistently tell us that we oppose Holder because he's black.
Barber constantly does the same kind of thing. Voter id is racist. No validation required. The words were spoken by a black man, a man of the cloth, so we are not allowed to question. The mob dislikes the elected Republican majority, therefore the majority vote should be put aside and the schemes of the rev and his allies should be implemented, forced upon us, anyway.
January 12, 2015 at 7:10 pm
chris oravits says:
well said norm kelly !!!!!!
January 13, 2015 at 1:51 pm
Kim Shaftner says:
Norm, thanks for your incisive comments.
You left out the fact that Mr. Barber desperately needs remedial instruction in writing. His essay is a fourth-grade bombast.
And, "...moral analysis..."? More like unidimensional tripe.
January 12, 2015 at 9:36 am
Vicky Hutter says:
I agree with the original column. Rev. Barber and his group yell "racism" any time someone does something or doesn't do something they "demand". Trying to take the "Moral Mondays" national seems to be the same as certain other self-proclaimed "leaders" showing up anywhere they can get some publicity and who attempt to come across as a national spokesperson for minorities. If you cry wolf too often it certainly affects your group's credibility and makes it less likely for the response needed to bring about change for legitimate cases of unfairness or needs not adequately addressed for minorities.
January 12, 2015 at 12:44 pm
Vicky Hutter says:
Norm, bravo! A very comprehensive and accurate assessment.
January 12, 2015 at 3:13 pm
Thomas Southern says:
and Convener of the HKONJ Coalition of over 160 partners??? Are these partners like partners of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's organizations who are shook down every year for bribery payoffs?
January 12, 2015 at 6:17 pm
Richard Bunce says:
Gotta raise that walkin' around money for 2016 somehow... just being outraged didn't get it done in 2014.
January 12, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Bill Worley says:
When citizens are denied the right to voice their opinions; when citizens who rise together in protest over the actions of their political leaders and are referred to as mobs, and accused of being potential felons who commit violence; well then we have ceased being the United States of America.
When citizens prefer to disrespect their duly (and twice) elected president by calling him despicable names, socialist, terrorist, and ascribe to him the goal of destroying the country he leads, those citizens show themselves to be hypocrites who retain their right to criticize, but would deny it to others.
The founding fathers were ever so sensitive to the rights of the minority to express their displeasure about perceived abuses by the elected majority. We have an electoral college precisely so that majority vote alone is not enough to name a President. The founding fathers knew well that those in power were potentially abusers of that power, and therefore they ensured that the right to express your displeasure and the right to do it in peaceful assembly was constitutionally protected.
It's odd how some insight on the sanctity of only the parts of the constitution they like, and are more than willing to deny others their rights to the parts they aren't so keen on. The hypocrisy runs hard and deep on both sides of the political spectrum. We fail to see or grasp that elation over the denial of rights to your opponent is terribly shortsighted - it could be your rights they come for next.
Both "sides" need to get over themselves, end their personal oppression and pity parties, and re-find the ability to compromise and find the middle ground. Name calling is a sign of a weak and undisciplined mind, and it never leads to peace and agreement. Time for the grown-ups to grow up.
January 12, 2015 at 8:09 pm
Norm Kelly says:
Sorry, Bill. Sometimes the truth hurts. I don't refer lightly to the current occupier as a socialist, a racist, someone who has total disregard for the law. I don't point out lightly that he said elections have consequences; that is until his side is the loser. Then elections seem not to matter as his reaction was that he heard loud & clear the message of the 60some percent who chose NOT to vote. He is a socialist. Which is why he is/was such a strong advocate of socialized medicine. Such a strong advocate, actually, that he would consider NO OTHER OPTION and even lied to the American people about it. He repeatedly said that Republicans had put forth NO OTHER options, no other plans; a provable lie. He repeatedly told us that we could keep our doctors, our insurance, if we wanted. The lie was that he KNEW before he said it that it was an 'untruth' as libs like to call it. Honest people call it a lie, cuz that's what it is!
And besides, calling a socialist a 'socialist' is not a despicable name. Since it's true, it's simply the label that fits.
Remember how libs spoke so vehemently against George W. Remember when Billary said that protest was the most honored form of patriotism. I ascribe his attempts to destroy the country he leads not because he's a lib/demoncrat/socialist. I ascribe attempts to destroy the nation he leads because he is. And he said that's what he wanted to do. Remember when he said he wanted to fundamentally transform the nation? What exactly did that mean if it didn't mean increasing the amount of socialism in the nation? How does free community college fit into the socialist agenda? Simple. People get benefits without paying for them. The people who benefit have NO skin in the game. Which is a quick, easy, short definition of socialism. Central planners handing out benefits to keep the masses happy and distracted.
I have no interest in denying others of their Constitutional rights. I'm just tired of lefties who are trying to take away my rights. And take away things that aren't even listed in the Constitution as 'my rights'. Kinda like forcing me to buy health insurance whether I want to or not! The commerce clause is designed to prevent people who CHOOSE to participate in a market from being taken advantage of. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution about government being allowed to FORCE me to participate in any market. And when the central planners believe they have the right to force me to participate in a given market, and we let them get away with it, do you wonder what will be next on their hit list? At what point does their right end? At what point am I allowed by my benevolent central planner to choose NOT to participate in a given market? And if forcing me to participate in a given market is really a good thing, then the US Constitution says that it must occur at the state level, not the central planner level.
I don't want to stop the rev or anyone else from protesting. Even if they are libs, and hate, despise, vilify Republicans, they must still follow the same rules/laws that other protestors follow. But I also don't want to hear lefties tell me I'm a racist because I oppose the current occupant. And that's all lefties do, call people racists. I protest in my way against the socialism being wrought upon this country. I expect no one to stop me. But I won't try to force anyone to participate either. I know, the rev doesn't force anyone either. But I also don't think it's good use of ink, paper, time, electronics, or anything to cover people like the rev. When he has something useful to say, maybe give him a mic. But since most of the time, virtually all the time, he has nothing useful to contribute, I wonder why he gets so much coverage. If he got off the racist, whites are haters, rant, perhaps he'd have something useful to contribute and be heard. If he would understand that elections have consequences and that he is truly in the minority, and let the process run it's course, with quiet protest, useful protest, at least the appearance of wanting to have an intelligent, honest, open discussion with his opposition, I might have a different attitude toward him. When lefties disagree with conservatives, they refer to 'extremists'. In the case of the rev, he also uses the race rant too often; kinda like chicken little. This is not presenting an attitude of compromise, cooperation, willingness to have an open, intelligent discussion about 'options'. But I don't expect the rev to change his stripes any more than I expect a leopard to change his spots. (and before anyone says otherwise, there was no racial overtone in that comment about his stripes! get over that darn racist crap!)
January 12, 2015 at 11:47 pm
Richard Bunce says:
January 12, 2015 at 11:48 pm
Richard Bunce says:
"despicable names, socialist"
January 13, 2015 at 2:41 pm
Frank Burns says:
There is no need to call the President despicable names. It is best to be honest and simply state that this president is not competent. This president never learned the art of governance unlike every other president in our history. This president is probably one of the worst negotiators in our history, he will be forever remembered as having traded 5 terrorist leaders for one American traitor.
January 13, 2015 at 9:33 am
Rip Arrowood says:
Who wants to shut down the legislature?
January 14, 2015 at 10:49 am
Richard Bunce says:
Otherwise they are looking for Republicans elected by the voters to turn their back on the voters who voted for them and act in a way favored by the voters who did not vote for them...
January 14, 2015 at 7:52 pm
Gene Arnold says:
Rev. Barber seems to have no problem calling the members of the General Assembly 'right wing extremist' but fails to label his own views except by implying his views are appropriate. That is a classic definition of a hypocrite.
When a group of protestors refuse to obey the authorities to the point the protestors are arrested and carted off to jail that defines a 'mob'.
Sorry, we all knew Rev. Martin Luther King,Jr. and Rev. Barber is no MLK.
January 18, 2015 at 3:38 pm
Curmilus Dancy II says:
Mr. Mavretic who used to live just a couple of miles from me here in Edgecombe County called folks who are not afraid to speak up, stand up and sit down for justice a mob.
It is and has always been funny as heck to me how some folks will label folks who fight for the least of these as troublemakers ie: mob. Well ain't that nothing.
I am glad that Rev. William J. Barber II responded to such ignorance but the ony reason is because of just showing the mere fact that that is far from the truth.
So how many folks have been convicted of a crime that has participated in the Moral Monday?
Obviously the NAACP lawyers in which the majority of them are not black, have been doing a great job of advising them during each and every protest because I don't think anyone has been convicted.
I thought former House Rep. Mavretic was better than that but then again maybe that's the reason why he is not referred to as a former rep.
