Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Examining Sabrina Fulton's Endorsement of H. Clinton

Everybody has a right to endorse whomever they want for president (or any other elected office). They can do so for any reason they want as well. Personally, I am of the opinion that your voting decisions ought to be private. The reason for this is that some people will attempt to bully others for not sharing their preferred candidate. In some countries, support for the "wrong" candidate can get one killed. On the other hand, I think that if you are going to publicly declare your support for a candidate your public statements as to the reasons are fair game. To this end I have to discuss the issues with Fulton's endorsement of Clinton.

Of course we know why she was picked rather than say the family of Kate Steinle. Don't know who she is? Well that's partially the point ennit?

So lets get on with it.

(CNN)Today, throughout many communities of color, our young people go about their lives feeling as if they are a target in their country. It's become a sad fact of life that senseless gun violence can strike with little or no warning, either from neighborhoods that have become flooded with firearms, or police who are too quick to resort to deadly force.
"A target in their country"? Target of whom? Isn't that a relevant question? guns do not "commit" violence. People use guns to commit violence. Who are the people committing these acts of senseless violence. The statistics, as we have shown that police are the least likely agent of death of black males in the US. Statistics also show that the vast majority of the time the people who are killed by the police were either involved in a crime or failed to follow directions. Therefore, they, the dead, are often directly responsible for their own demise by the decisions they made.
Gun violence is an epidemic that kills 33,000 men, women, boys and girls every year. On top of those needless deaths, law enforcement agencies in America kill more people in a month than many other countries' police forces kill in years.
How does Mrs. Fulton know what all 33,000 persons killed did not "need" to happen? Does Ms Fulton think that those who take a life to defend their own are wrong for doing so? And that includes police who are tasked with dealing with people whom the vast majority of us are too scared to deal with. As for other countries, we should note a few things:

1) The US has the highest level of violent crime of all western countries when we do NOT account for immigrant/refugee crimes. Where there is less crime there is less interaction with police, where there are less interactions with police there are less chances of a suspect/criminal to be killed.

2) As we have seen in Rotherham and Germany and Sweden and France, etc. European police, at the orders of their governments have been not enforcing laws when certain non-white groups commit them. In some cases police have given up on policing certain places.

3) In places such as Japan, you do not have many persons there who are not the native population AND you have a shame culture that discourages much of the criminal activity that we witness in the US. Of course in America, if you discuss cultural roots of crime you are labeled a racist/sellout depending on your ancestry.

4) Has Ms. Fulton seen the crime stats out of South Africa? Continuing:

Losing a child is any parent's worst fear. As a mother who has had to live that horrible nightmare in a very public spotlight, I hope that by speaking out, it will help focus some of that light onto a path that can help our nation find its way out of this darkness.
People who's worst fear is to lose a child does everything in their power to make sure the environment that they live in is safe and that their kids are properly socialized. Fact is that for a lot of parents in "communities of color" their worst fear is their kid being "soft".
Last week, President Barack Obama took some important steps that included strengthening the background check system for purchasing guns without diminishing our Second Amendment rights. I was glad to see these actions put in place, and was moved by the tears of not just our President but of a father who clearly understands my anguish.
None of the "actions" taken by Obama would have changed a single shooting, including the one that took Ms. Fulton's son's life. Of course in the case of San Bernadino, that shooting could have been prevented, and SHOULD have been prevented by a sane immigration policy. Kate would be alive today if those elected officials did their job and removed illegal immigrants from their states. Of course Ms. Fulton doesn't mention any of that, after all, her dead son is more important than some dead white chick or workers at a party.

As for the "diminishing" second amendment rights, I saw similar arguments over the weekend. People like Fulton seem to be unaware of gradualism. We have had cases in Conn and NY where there were new gun laws passed, usually in speedy sessions with little if any public input in which the population is compelled to turn in guns that they legally purchased. Many of the citizens have rightfully refused to give up their arms and munitions. This is how "rights are diminished". It's like a cancer. Cancer ALWAYS starts out small. A single mutated cell. You don't even KNOW the mutated cell is there and a threat to your life. In many cases, by the time you notice the cancer, it's already too late. Oh you might get lucky and get a bit of extra time with some medication, but most times, in spite of all the commercials you see, you're soon dead.

Those of us who understand the nature of gradualism know the danger of "small laws". Just as importantly, these laws, that simply punish the law abiding, which is the vast majority of us, and do nothing to address the criminal class who, hint hint, don't care about the law. For example, a lawmaker was talking about guns brought from gun shows "down south" that make their way to Connecticut and are used in crimes. He said they trace those guns to those shows. Well we have a law against purchasing a gun that is not for yourself. That's called a straw purchase and it is illegal. There's a law for that.

But next year we will have a new president. And everything Obama has done -- even common-sense reforms that a majority of gun owners agree with -- will be overturned if that president is a Republican. In fact, the Republican candidates have vowed to roll back all of these sensible measures. And many of them have shown open contempt for the simple notion that Black Lives Matter.
I'm not a Republican and I have contempt for the Black Lives Matter movement. The BLM movement has shown itself to be opposed to facts and they ought to be treated with the contempt that is owed to those who peddle in lies. See, I'm not one of those people who fall in line because someone uses the phrase "common sense". This is because most of the time those who claim to be using "common sense" don't have any. Common sense says that if black lives matter and black lives are 95% taken by other blacks, that the issue isn't police but blacks. But doing so means we can't be making excuses for our failures. As I've said before the BLM movement is like the alcoholic who insists that his problem is the bar and the bartender. The fact of the matter is that unless the second amendment is repealed there are no constitutional gun laws that will reduce homicides in black communities (or suicides in white ones).
With so many of our children's lives on the line or taken, we simply can't afford to elect a Republican who refuses even to acknowledge the problem of senseless gun violence. The rising generation of our young people need a president who will stand up to inaction from Republicans and indifference from the National Rifle Association.
Because Republicans are responsible for black men shooting other black men.

This is the most assinine statement so far. It's not black folks fault that we shoot each other at 7x the white population. It's the fault of Republicans, most of whom do not live in, do business in or otherwise interact with our people. And if you believe that Republicans do no acknowledge the problem of gun violence you really shouldn't be allowed to vote. Seriously. Not even allowed in the place of polling. What Republicans generally don't agree with is the idea that law abiding people should be restricted and punished for those who are determined to commit crimes.

I believe that person is Hillary Clinton.
Well you can believe in Santa Clause too if you want.
I know Clinton is tough enough to wage this fight. I've seen her do it for years. As first lady, she advocated for the Brady Bill and convened meetings on school violence. As a senator, she voted to extend the assault weapons ban and against an immunity law that protects irresponsible gun makers and dealers from liability.

What exactly is an "irresponsible gun maker"? Are we talking about product liability? Is this like if a gun is poorly manufactured and kills someone as a result? Or is this trying to displace blame for a homicide onto a lawfully operating business?

n spending some time with her in person, I also found a mother and a grandmother who truly heard me, and understood the depth of my loss.
Because leadership should be based on feelings.
She knew all the statistics. But like so many, I've long since grown numb to the numbers. So instead, we talked about Trayvon and other families who have lost a loved one to gun violence.
If she "knew the statistics" then she was looking at you like a damn fool. But I wont comment negatively on Trayvon since the facts as I know them point to him defending himself against an armed stalker who killed his target. But I wouldn't pass a law over that.
And knowing we can never get them back, we discussed how to prevent more moms from losing their sons to gun violence.
Ahh the perpetual liberal fantasy pitch. There will be a world where people don't die and are not raped. We can pass enough laws to make it so. It's the liberal version of "When We All Get To Heaven". No wonder so many people describe liberalism as a religion.
Just as importantly, Clinton also wants to address the larger, systemic problems. She has a plan to begin to heal the distrust and divide that too often exists between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
Simple solution to the "distrust". "Snitch" and stop making heros out of criminals.
She has called for key reforms -- from better training for officers to eliminating racial profiling and investing in body cameras for every police department. She sees what I see: a criminal justice system that is not always just. A system that has contributed to creating a reality where just selling cigarettes, playing loud music, looking at a cop the wrong way or walking home from the store are now activities that can get you killed.
Now if she had said an end to "stop and frisk" I would have been on board. But when black males are committing crimes at 7X the rate of whites and in some cities are responsible for 100% of gun homicides, a level of profiling is going to happen. It is good policing. There are ways to profile that do not violate the constitution, but acting as if everyone is committing the same crimes at the same rates is wishful thinking.

The reference to Eric Garner is a good example of liberal laws gone bad. Selling loosies affects two things liberals go for:

1) Taxes on cigarettes. This goes to raise money for the state. You want all those social programs? You gotta find money for them. So the state goes after untaxed cigarette sales in order to make sure they get that money. So take that up with the governors.

2) "Think about the kids": This is the other argument agains the sales of loosies. Supposedly those selling cigarettes on the street are leading minors into cigarette smoking, heavily frowned upon by liberals (I do not smoke). So the enforcement of these laws are to protect the vulnerable children. Is Fulton FOR endangering the lives of children?

People need to think about the laws they pass. The state WILL use force, including deadly force, to enforce the laws passed by legislative bodies. If you won't kill to enforce a law, then don't pass it. Recently in NY a "person of color" was arrested for "manspreading" on a subway. You can thank a feminist liberal from criminalizing how man sit. Hillary for president indeed.

If you look at the numbers, America is missing 1.5 million men of color -- lost to a system of violence and mass incarceration that seems to have long since forgotten them, but we haven't.
Keys go missing. People who commit crimes and end up in jail because of them are not "missing". We know where they are, why they are there and often when they will be released. The biggest problem with statements such as the above is that it is so passive. Violence and "mass incarceration" just "happen" to black men. Like they woke up one morning, stepped out their homes and got grabbed up by masked men in a dark van and rendered to some black site (well that has been happening in Chicago but that's another discussion).

Here's the problem with this endorsement: It is Democratic Party talking points set in an essay. It externalizes the problems facing black people and externalizes the solutions. It fails to hold the Democratic governors, mayors and legislators (among others) for their multiple failures and asks us to ignore all that and vote for another Democrat. It is emblematic of the serious problem with current American politics. It isn't fact based. It is emotion based. Emotion based governance is getting people killed. Time to put a stop to it.