An NAACP leader, “Rev.” Curtis Gatewood says cops shot a defenseless Dallas man.
The racist hate group leader claims that the man who killed five police officers in Dallas was “defenseless”, and implied that his civil rights had been violated. Clad in tactical gear, and armed with an assault rifle, the defenseless Dallas shooter could not have been the one who committed the heinous acts. So says Curtis Gatewood
Now I’ve heard some spin in my day, but this silly Negro thinks he’s a CLINTON! Hillary Clinton read this story, and had to chuckle a bit inside.
Of whom do I speak?
Curtis Gatewood works as field director for the NAACP’s North Carolina branch. He’s the former 2nd vice president for the North Carolina NAACP State Conference, which should be proof enough that he’s a certified racist.
Did I mention, Gatewood is a “reverend?”
Like black “reverends” before him, Gatewood heard the dinner bell of racism, ergo he’s come to dine.
The call of racism represent the black lotto, and has for decades. No racism actually need exist; the money is in the call of racism. The ruse of racism has supplanted the pipe dreams of being the next LeBron or Beyonce, and racism yields far more dividends. Why be talented when you can simply be Deray.
Gatewood asserted himself into the Dallas cop shooting with what has even the most ardent Leftist scratching his head. On Facebook, Gates defended the man who shot 12 people, and killed 5 police. Gatewood called the shooter “defenseless.”
“Yes, I’m coming to the defense of the defenseless. That includes [Micah] X. Johnson who has been accused of shooting about 12 police officers,” Gatewood wrote on Sunday.
And how can we not hearken back to the days of black oppression?
Note that Curtis Gatewood has concerns about the guilt of the Dallas shooter, saying,
“Even if [Micah] was carrying a gun or riffle [sic], that in of itself does not prove he murdered the police officers.”
People like Curtis Gatewood are dangerous, because ignorance kills. People in his community expect him to be pious, and yes unbiased in right versus wrong. He is not, because there is more money in the lie.