Not Anti-Police Brutality, Just Anti-Police

Not divided? According to who???

My iPhone just tingled, alerting me that President Barack Obama just made the statement the United States is “…not as divided as some have suggested.” I suppose he has to say this following his apparent indictment of police officers involved in the recent shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota. It strikes me that before preliminary investigations are conducted, never mind the comprehensive ones necessary to arrive at legitimate conclusions, America’s president and attorney general, along with several other well-known politicians and political activists, have summarily condemned the officers as “racist murderers.” They don’t even treat radical Islamic terrorists in this manner.

Psychic Governor!

Minnesota’s governor, Mark Dayton (D) made the clairvoyant pronouncement that if the driver had been white, the officer would not have shot him. No wonder the people of Minnesota elected him, possessed of such awe-inspiring psychic powers.

There is a difference!

President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch can’t seem to mention the Dallas police officers and civilians killed and wounded without mentioning (seemingly on equal footing) the two men who were recently killed by cops during law enforcement incidents. Anyone think this is not divisive for traditional Americans who generally, and rightly, trust the police and give them the benefit of the doubt they deserve? It brings up another point in the elevating of the black men shot by police to automatic “hero-victim” status. Anti-police critics tend to talk about the statistics of suspects shot versus police officers shot as if they’re supposed to be equal as if it’s not “fair” that more suspects are killed than cops.

I don’t know what happened and neither do you.

Now, the Minnesota shooting is not clear as to what negative behavior, if any, led up to the officer shooting the driver. The shooting of Philando Castile may be as heinous as critics say, or there may be other factors not yet known. The Facebook video taken by his girlfriend shows only the aftermath and nothing that led up to the shooting. I don’t know what happened and neither do you. However, it’s pretty clear from the video of the Baton Rouge incident that Alton Sterling was resisting the police officers. Whether or not the shooting was justified, I don’t know what happened and neither do you. It’s also clear from so many of these “controversial” police shootings that the majority of the people shot were involved in suspected law breaking at the time. Even Walter L. Scott, the South Carolina man who a police officer inexplicably shot in the back, had violated a traffic law and then committed a felony when he ran from the police officer. I don’t know what the officer, who’s been charged with murder, was thinking. Scott was clearly a victim. However, is it right for the left to elevate him to the rank of some sort of hero as if he’d been shot while leading a civil rights protest?   

Myth: Hands up, don’t shoot.

What is it about these anti-cop groups, continually ranting about their constitutional rights, who then fail to allow for police officers  the same fundamental constitutional right to the presumption of innocence all other Americans have? They want to be judge, jury, and executioner. They see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe, and if evidence is discovered that doesn’t fit their narrative or prove their conclusions, they simply dismiss or ignore it. The “hands up, don’t shoot” myth is a perfect example.

A legal lynching?

As a result of these two shootings, we hear supposedly responsible people saying irresponsible things: Reverend Jesse Jackson called the Alton Sterling shooting, “a legal lynching.” What does he know that I don’t? Lynching is a historically powerful word, especially to black folks, and with good reason. However, it seems that Rev. Jackson’s employing it so irresponsibly and frivolously doesn’t do history, race relations, or intellectual honesty any service.

Obama: Race relations worse.

I’ve written before that the one thing I expected from President Obama’s election would be, at least, an acknowledgment of America’s admirable work toward redemption from its dreadfully racist past. However, this is obviously not the case. Race relations have gotten worse under Obama despite the president’s previously stated view that America is not as divided as some people suggest. A vague statement to be sure, but where is the evidence for that view?

The knee-jerk president.

President Obama is an intentionally divisive political figure. He actively works to divide people. His continual slams against Republicans and conservatives, and his signature legislation are good examples. Obamacare was passed solely by Democrats and is loathed by Republicans—as well as most Americans. He is a one-term senator, community agitator elevated by a historical, harmonic convergence of circumstances to the highest office in the land. His knee has repeatedly jerked, as he made statement after statement, many later proved wrong, that worked to divide Americans. Anyone remember how “stupidly” the Cambridge police acted while investigating a possible burglary at a black professor’s house or his sending administration officials to attend assault and robbery suspect Michael Brown’s funeral?

Why racist if a black liberal president?

Recently CNN did a report on the state of race in America. The story’s main gist came from a statement made by First Lady Michelle Obama: “I didn’t know how racist America was until it elected its first black president.” To arrive at this conclusion, the story pointed to incidents where Republicans had publicly chided the president, such as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s finger-wagging at Obama on an airport tarmac and South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson’s blurting “You lie!” during a state-of-the-union address. Of course, we all know how respectfully Democrats treated President Bush.

Why not racist if  black conservative president?

Let me ask you this: The Democrats deem some Republican politicians racist because they dared to challenge a politically divisive president who happens to belong to the primary opposing political party, right? Well, then, how many of you think Republicans would have been “racist” if America had elected a black conservative president?    

 

Express your thoughts