Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The Supreme Court ruled that the independent redistricting commission in Arizona was legal.  The legislature, led by Republicans challenged it because they felt that it took away too many “safe districts” to “toss-up.”  They claimed that it was only the legislature’s responsibility to draw up redistricting.

The court ruled basically the legislature could be interpreted as the “people” or “electorate.”  So we have a beginning.  Other states have independent commissions as well, but the legislature has much more power in the process than in Arizona.  But they aren’t really working all that well either.

There are a lot of problems when considering redistricting.  One is to make sure that minorities are properly represented.  However, the real problem is that there is too much emphasis on “safe districts.”  That, after all is what gerrymandering is all about.  Once a party takes power, they want to make sure they keep power.

The real answer to some, if not most of our political problems is to make sure there are very few “safe” districts.  We need to have a lot more “toss-up” districts in every state. That will actually make politicians to actually “stand for” something and not just against something because the majority of the district is against it.

Some will say that getting rid of Citizens United is needed, too.  But, if handled properly, Citizens United will collapse under its own weight.  So, here is my proposal.

In every state, each of the two political parties would get about 25% of the districts as “safe.”  That would mean the other 50% of the districts would be “toss-up.”  Wouldn’t it be nice to see politicians earning your vote rather than expecting it simply because you are democratic or republican?

As far as the United Citizens thing goes, if we make 50% of all districts in the U.S. “toss-up” it would make it more difficult for groups like them to actually buy an election.   The money needed to buy an election in every “toss-up” district would be huge even for them.

Yes, this plan is probably over-simple.  But it should be the starting point in any redistricting that any state undertakes.  In order for this to work the way it is supposed to, the “legislature” would need to be taken out of the process.  I don’t think either party would like that, but too bad.

The Supreme Court opened the door to make this plan possible.  Now it is up to each of us to make our states to follow through with it.  More competition for office is what we need not less.  I have never believed in “safe districts” and I never will.  I want the fool to “earn” my vote.  Now is the time to make that possible.


Read Full Post »

As with all tragedies there is an emerging bright spot in the Charleston shooting.  I don’t say things like this lightly.  But, if anyone really cares to listen to all of the talk about the shooting, one pattern emerges more than anything else.  That one pattern is that race is still a huge issue in America.

Since the shooting we have seen the Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, state publicly that the Confederate Flag should be taken down permanently.  Senator Reid has said that we need better background checks for people buying guns.  More and more people, even Republicans, are talking about race in America.

But that isn’t what I am talking about when I say there is an emerging bright spot in this horrible tragedy.  I am talking about the obvious denial syndrome that has taken control of the right-wing.  The Republican Party openly recruited this wing into their party.  They always talk about the very things that the right-wing wants to hear.  Now, if anyone cares to really listen, they are telling you that when it comes to racial issues, they don’t give a damn.

Naturally, Fox News is taking the lead in this denial syndrome.  Sean Hannity claims there is no institutional racism in America.  Why?  Because slavery doesn’t exist anymore.  Bill O’Reilly last night went into a tantrum saying that anyone talking about racial issues in America is really an anti-American “hater”.

Ann Coulter even got into the act.  On last night’s edition of “Kennedy” on Fox Business she said that she really wanted to like Nikki Haley because she is a Republican.  But, she couldn’t really like Nikki Haley “because she is an immigrant and doesn’t understand American history.”

She explained this by saying:

The Confederate flag we’re talking about never flew over an official Confederate building. It was a battle flag. It is to honor Robert E. Lee. And anyone who knows the first thing about military history, knows that there is no greater army that ever took the field than the Confederate Army.”

I guess Ann studied different history books than I did.  I must write my American History professors, if they are still alive, and complain.  The books I read and the history I learned stated rather clearly that the “Confederate Flag” was not just a battle banner.  It was the “official flag of the Confederacy.”  Which means it did fly over official Confederate buildings.

By the way, Nikki Haley is not an immigrant.  For the record, she was born in Bamberg, South Carolina.  Or, maybe the citizens of South Carolina are thrilled to learn that they are a foreign country according to this wise lady!

To follow along, a total of five GOP Presidential hopefuls have refused to take a stand on the Confederate Flag.  These include Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, and Ben Carson.  These candidates don’t even want to be questioned about the issue claiming it is a “small issue.”

While all of this is going on, the Republicans in Congress are quietly dismantling the social safety nets.  They want to throw millions of people off medical insurance.  They are trying to cut food stamps again.  They are trying to reduce Social Security and Medicare.  They are gutting funding for the Department of Education.

All of these cuts in the budget are targeted towards minorities and the elderly.   What they are ignoring is that they will also hurt millions of “conservative” white people.  But, they keep getting away with it because they claim that only the minorities are the “takers” and their white constituency buys into their lies.

We face a myriad of problems in this country.  Not the least of which is racism.  However, when one political party refuses to even acknowledge it as a problem, meaningful debate can never get started, much less help fix the problem.  But then, as I wrote before, that is what conservatism is all about.  Stick your head in the sand and pretend something doesn’t exist and that yesteryear was far better than today.

If anyone cares to listen to this “debate” raging in the media, especially over at Fox News, you will discover that the conservative movement in America is telling you it is okay to be a racist.  As long as you are white and a Christian.  That is the true meaning behind all of their rhetoric.  All the while statistics prove that the biggest “terrorist threats” in America are from White Supremacist Groups not foreigners.

So, yes, there is a potential bright spot in this horrific tragedy.  The right-wing is openly proving what most of us have believed all along.  They are simply racists and proud of it!  I don’t know about you, but these are not the people I want governing our country!

Read Full Post »

On Monday morning, there was a completely odd interview or “conversation” on race.  As you might expect, it took place on Fox News “Fox and Friends.”  I guess it may not be all that odd since the people they were talking to was Erick Erickson and talk radio show host Richard Fowler.

However, even for these folks, it really got bizarre.  They started discussing whether racism was a “mental health issue” or just plain “evil.”  As such, you know they don’t believe that the Republican base is racist since they do not suffer from “mental health issues” or are just plain “evil.”

On Friday, Erickson wrote a piece that blamed the Charleston massacre on America’s inability to confront the fact that certain people — among them, Caitlyn Jenner — are mentally ill, and should be called out as such.  “A society that looks at a 65-year-old male Olympian and, with a straight face, declares him a her and ‘a new normal’ cannot have a conversation about mental health or evil because that society no longer distinguishes normal from crazy and evil from good,” he wrote.

Of course, Doocy just couldn’t resist bouncing off that comment.  He asked Fowler and Erickson whether “the real problem with our culture [is] that we cannot label mental health as an issue because we have accepted too many ‘eccentricities’ as normal.”

Erickson agreed by again linking transgender identity with evil, saying that “we can no longer label mental health issues, we can no longer label evil as ‘evil’ — we try to explain around that and immediately move to the political solution.”

According to Erickson, we shouldn’t be asking GOP potential nominees questions about mental health or evil either as that would “politicize” the issues.  Even though both agreed that the suspect in the church killings was a racist and a terrorist, we shouldn’t be talking about it being a mental health issue, because the suspect isn’t mentally ill.

That leaves us with talking about the “evil” portion of the equation.  But, according to Erickson if we try that, it will just go around to “gun control.”  So, let’s take into consideration several items about pure “evil.”  Do you know that more people are killed in the nation by gun violence than traffic accidents?  Do you know that about 99% of all serial killers or mass murders are white?  I would put that into the category of “evil.”

On the other hand, racism is pure “evil” as well.  There is no other explanation for it.  It started in this country when we began importing slaves to work the plantations in the south.  The simple fact that some believed that it was okay to own fellow humans is nothing short of pure “evil.”

The Civil War was fought with slavery as the backdrop.  Ever since the Civil War, there have been “evil” people in politics that wanted to keep segregation alive and well.  The Jim Crow laws are a perfect example.  The term of “equal but separate” in my interpretation is “evil.”  Denying people their civil rights based on anything other than common law is pure “evil.”  That is what Jim Crow laws did.

Today, we see additional examples of “evil” in our world and politics.  Denying people the right to marry and give them the same rights that other married people have, is “evil.”  Denying a person without a Photo ID card that perfectly matches everything else, is “evil.”  Denying women the same pay for the same work as men do is “evil.”

Allowing mentally ill people and criminals to purchase guns without having to go through a background check is “evil” since it puts guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t own them.  Lumping all members of certain religions as all being terrorists is “evil.”  Denying women to make their own choices about their own health is “evil.”

If the right wants to hold a conversation about evil, let’s have that conversation.  But, they don’t want that conversation either.  Why?  Because it is their policies that I am calling evil.  You cannot have a meaningful discussion about evil if the other side is endorsing policies that most reasonable people find evil.

All of this talk by Erickson and the rest of the right-wing is just a smoke screen so they can continue on their evil progression of taking rights away from everyone but themselves.  This incident even brought up the old argument about the Confederate Flag again.  Lindsey Graham, a Presidential Candidate, says that “it is part of who we are.”

That may be true.  But, I am sure that Lindsey Graham would be screaming at the top of his lungs if the government of Nuremberg, Germany started flying the Swastika over its government buildings.  After all Lindsey, it is “part of who they are.”  I have said for many years, the Confederate Flag is a symbol of “pure evil.”  It is time it goes away, except for maybe some history museums.

The biggest problem with the right-wing is that they not only want to “pick and choose” the parts of the Constitution they want to believe in, they also want to define what is evil and what is not.  If you are a transgender, you are evil.  If you are gay, you are evil.  If you support political policies that deny groups of people their civil rights, you are not evil.

No matter how you paint your picture, racism is pure evil.  Until the right begins to understand that, we will never get away from it.

Read Full Post »

The other day, the U.S. Supreme Court actually shocked me!  That is hard to do in most cases.  However, taking into consideration the conservative view of the current majority of the court, this one actually shocked me.  In case you haven’t heard, the court ruled not to review North Carolina’s Ultrasound Law.

A lower court and then the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law earlier.  This law was one of those draconian laws that forced women who wanted an abortion to go through an ultrasound with the doctor required to read a script detailing what she was seeing.  It didn’t matter of the woman wanted the ultrasound, or even wanted to hear what the doctor told her.  It didn’t matter if the doctor was against this procedure and script reading either.  If the doctor failed to follow the law to the letter, that doctor risked losing his license to practice medicine.

Handing down its decision, the Fourth Circuit stated:

Informed consent frequently consists of a fully-clothed conversation between the patient and physician, often in the physician’s office. It is driven by the “patient’s particular needs and circumstances” … so that the patient receives the information he or she wants in a setting that promotes an informed and thoughtful choice. This provision, however, finds the patient half-naked or disrobed on her back on an examination table, with an ultrasound probe either on her belly or inserted into her vagina… Informed consent has not generally been thought to require a patient to view images from his or her own body much less in a setting in which personal judgment may be altered or impaired. Yet this provision requires that she do so or “avert her eyes.”

Rather than engaging in a conversation calculated to inform, the physician must continue talking regardless of whether the patient is listening… The information is provided irrespective of the needs or wants of the patient, in direct contravention of medical ethics and the principle of patient autonomy. Forcing this experience on a patient over her objections in this manner interferes with the decision of a patient not to receive information that could make an indescribably difficult decision even more traumatic and could “actually cause harm to the patient.” … And it is intended to convey not the risks and benefits of the medical procedure to the patient’s own health, but rather the full weight of the state’s moral condemnation.

This refusal to review the case by SCOTUS is a potential major blow to the anti-choice forces.  One of the key elements of their fight against choice has just been rendered illegal.  There are several states that still have such laws on their books.  And, you can be sure they won’t go down without more legal wrangling.

The Republican base is all for telling people what to do and how to act.  We have seen this nonsense in various forms of stupid laws and legal wrangling in the last several years.  Besides this draconian law, the conservative base of the Republican Party wants to be the sole determining source for many of life’s biggest decisions.

Remember the fight in Florida about when a woman could be taken off of life support?  That was a huge political issue.  Remember the brain-dead woman in Texas that was kept on life-support simply because she was pregnant?  Remember the cases in Tennessee where women were charged with murder of an infant because they had a miscarriage?  These cases were all determined by conservative laws that tell the average person only the conservatives in this country have the right to make decisions for them.

The other factor that no one talks about in these types of cases is fiscal.  The states tell you what you may or may not do, and if you decide to go against them they tell you that you have to undergo very expensive medical procedures before you can go ahead with your decision.  Yet, even though you are forced to undergo these procedures, you are still stuck with the bill.

In the cases in Florida and Texas, the state did not “pick up the bill” for the added useless medical treatment they forced on these women.  None of the states that require an ultrasound prior to an abortion pick up the tab for that procedure either.  The patient and their families are required to pay for these procedures even if they don’t want them.

Let’s be honest, none of these procedures are cheap!  Unfortunately, this type of stupid law may not be limited to stupid conservative states.  Scott Walker is Governor of Wisconsin and is running for President.  Wisconsin passed a similar law to the one in North Carolina that was just struck down.  He said of his law:

I’ll give you an example. I’m pro-life, I’ve passed pro-life legislation. We defunded Planned Parenthood, we signed a law that requires an ultrasound. Which, the thing about that, the media tried to make that sound like that was a crazy idea. Most people I talk to, whether they’re pro-life or not, I find people all the time who’ll get out their iPhone and show me a picture of their grandkids’ ultrasound and how excited they are, so that’s a lovely thing. I think about my sons are 19 and 20, you know we still have their first ultrasound picture. It’s just a cool thing out there.

We just knew if we signed that law, if we provided the information, that more people if they saw that unborn child would, would make a decision to protect and keep the life of that unborn child.

Yes, the Governor thinks these ultrasounds are “a cool thing.”  But, he also tells you exactly why forced ultrasounds are necessary.  To convince women NOT to have an abortion.  No other reason, just to make women change their minds.

This is the kind of country we are potentially facing.  One where the government will decide what is “moral” and what is not.  If they consider something “amoral” based on its narrow interpretation of some ancient book, then they will tell you what you can and cannot do.  One thing fascists all around the world throughout history has advocated for is that women have as many children as possible.  It is the only way to ensure enough “soldiers” to fight their wars of aggression.

Maybe it is time to ask if these laws forcing people to undergo treatment they don’t want is really a step in that direction?  Thankfully, at least for now, the courts, including SCOTUS says this kind of law is illegal.  Maybe, just maybe, that is a step away from Republican interference in our personal lives.

Read Full Post »

There is a new budget proposal that Republicans are saying will save the government $4 Billion dollars.  They claim this money should be used for “more important programs” that will benefit the American People.  Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole said:  “This is a fiscally responsible bill that reduces discretionary spending by nearly $4 billion.  At the same time, by carefully reprioritizing where taxpayer dollars are spent, the bill increases funding for important programs that benefit the American people.”

That all sounds great.  Except, there is a major problem with Cole’s statement, and the proposal being put forth.  This “savings” will be at the expense of 4.7 million low-income people who rely on Title X for their preventative health services.  What it essentially does is kill Title X by taking away all of its funding.

Title X became official in 1970, under that great Republican Richard Nixon.  It helps connect these 4.7 million Americans to things like pap smears, cancer screenings, STD tests, birth control and counseling about how to space out pregnancies and plan for the families they want.  Title X was instituted for women who are not eligible for Medicaid and cannot afford to see a doctor.

In many cases, the services they receive at Title X clinics are literally life-saving.  “For many of these women and men, a Title X-funded health center is their only access point to the health system and the only health care they receive all year,” Clare Coleman, president & CEO of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, said in a statement on the proposal.

But, in their current fever of denying poor people the Republicans on the Labor, Health and Human Services subcommittee say this is “discretionary” spending that the country can do without.  Besides including language to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, the language they put in this proposal is outright dreadful.  They added language that would eliminate Title X funding unless the program meets a certain ideological (read: abstinence-focused) criteria:

None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be made available to any entity under title X of the PHS Act unless the applicant for the award certifies to the Secretary that it encourages family participation in the decision of minors to seek family planning services and that it provides counseling to minors on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in sexual activities.

But just to make sure you have no control over your health care, they added other wording that allows your school or boss to determine which forms of contraception or other health care procedure you can be covered under because they man they may not like them:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no provision of this title (and no amendment made by any such provision) shall… require a sponsor (or, in the case of health insurance coverage offered to students through an institution of higher education, the institution of higher education offering such coverage) to sponsor, purchase, or provide any health benefits coverage or group health plan that includes coverage of an abortion or other item or service to which such sponsor or institution, respectively, has a moral or religious objection, or prevent an issuer from offering or issuing to such sponsor or institution, respectively, health insurance coverage that excludes such item or service.

The other thing that these Republicans have failed to recognize, is the financial benefits to the government, especially state governments that eliminating Title X funding will have.  According to the Guttmacher Institute, each dollar invested in Title X saves $3.80 in Medicaid expenses related to pregnancy and childbirth.  In other words, this $4 Billion spent each year results in a return of over $12 Billion.

Another Guttmacher analysis found that the services provided by Kansas’ Title X clinics in 2010 helped save the state more than $61,000,000 in public funds. “That accounts for savings from reduced maternity and birth-related costs, along with reduced costs related to miscarriage and abortion and savings related to [sexually transmitted infection] screening and cervical cancer prevention services,” according to the report.

In other words, it could easily be argued that Title X funding contributes to “family values” that Republicans are always claiming to support.  Yet, they are very willing to eliminate the program all together.  One can only ask, why?  Is it because they have an aversion to helping low-income women?  Is it because they are more interested in saving money than lives?  Or, is it simply they want to control your life?

I have said before I believe they simply want to control your life!  There is no other explanation for these constant attacks against programs like Title X.  Or, allowing your boss to decide what type of health care you are allowed to have under their plains.  Or, allowing your boss to decide if you actually need birth control, and what forms they are willing to let you use.

Low-income people will be hurt dramatically by these proposed cuts.  It is almost like the Republicans, led by Rep. Cole are setting up their own “death squads” when it comes to health care.  If you deny people access to preventative medicine, they are more likely to die form something that could have been prevented.

This is just another case of those “god fearing, good Christians” denying those in need the services they require.  How very Christ-like of them.


Read Full Post »

Every person who serves in public office, a judgeship, or any other government job is required to take an Oath of Office.  That Oath of Office varies depending on which position you are going to serve in.  When I joined the Coast Guard all those years ago, I took an Oath as well.

In that Oath, I swore to “defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  I also swore to uphold all “legal commands” issued by senior authority and uphold the laws of the U.S.  This oath has been issued to service members for as long as I can remember, and far longer than that.

Even the President of the United States is required to take an oath as well.  I don’t know of a single position in federal, state, county, or local employment that is not required to take a similar oath.  These oaths are designed to ensure that all employees of the government are sworn to uphold the laws they are to serve.

That is until now.  In North Carolina, there was a law passed that was vetoed by the Governor, and then overridden by the State Legislature that allows Magistrates to disobey the law.  This is being dressed up under the guise of “religious liberty.”  But, in essence, Magistrates in North Carolina are allowed by law to violate the very laws they have sworn to uphold.

The law is known as SB2.  We all know that Gov. McCrory is a total nut-job himself.  However, even he was smart enough to veto the law when it was first passed.  SB2 states:  “Every magistrate has the right to recuse from performing all lawful marriages under this Chapter based on sincerely held religious objection.”  Note this particular part, the emphasis will be mine:  all lawful marriages.”  That is correct, a Magistrate can now recuse from performing all lawful marriages just by saying he has religious objection against it.

Now, we all know that this is intended to stop same-sex marriages.  But, the Legislature knows very well that would immediately draw a court objection striking it down since it would limit the action to only “some” marriages.  This law has more far-reaching consequences than you may think.

Just as an example, a Magistrate is Catholic.  That Magistrate does not believe in divorce and re-marriage.  As a result, that Magistrate could “recuse” himself from issuing a marriage license and performing a marriage that involves a couple where at least one of them was divorced.  Although this marriage is “legal” the Magistrate is allowed to take it upon himself to not perform said service.

This can run the whole gamut.  Inter-racial marriages, same-sex marriages, inter-faith marriage, all of which are “legal” but not recognized by certain “religious beliefs.”  What about a Magistrate who believes in polygamy?  That Magistrate  can now deny to perform a monogamous marriage based on his “religious beliefs.

You may read this and think I am being insane.  But, what would have happened back in 1967 when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia. It was in Loving—decided 48 years ago —that the court ruled it unconstitutional for states to prevent mixed-race marriages.  If SB2 had been on the books back then, a Magistrate could have denied to marry any inter-racial couple.

If you think I am kidding, in 1976, Carol Ann and Thomas Person, she white and he black, walked into their local courthouse in North Carolina to get their marriage license.  As she recently told the story in a column in the Raleigh News & Observer, the magistrate said no. A second magistrate on duty said the same thing, and one of them “took out a Bible and began to lecture us about their religious views and why Thomas and I should not be together.” This was nearly a full decade after Loving.

Religious Freedom is supposed to mean that you may believe or not believe in any form of religion you choose.  The one part of American History that the Conservative Christian Cult fail to remember is that the many of our Founding Fathers were not Christian as we now say.  They were Deists.  These included such figures as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and others.  Deists believed in the existence of god.  But, they did not believe in the story of Genesis.  They held that god started the universe and sat back and let nature take its course.  They did not believe in god’s interference in day-to-day life.

Since most of these Founding Fathers who were Deists were also member of the Free Mason’s it stands they would hold such beliefs.  In order to be a member of the Free Masons, you must believe in a god.  They call that god the “Great Architect”.  But, Free Masons do not necessarily follow normal Christianity.

As a result, our Founding Fathers put into our Constitution the Separation of Church and State.  They founded a “secular” form of government.  Democracy can only exist as a secular government.  Once Religion is brought into government, Democracy ceases to exist and you fall back to Theocracies that masquerade as Monarchies.  That was the one thing our Founding Fathers did not want to happen here.

As I wrote before, bigotry will not simply die and go away.  It must rear its ugly head and make life miserable for everyone.  Laws like SB2 are perfect examples of bigotry rearing its ugly head.  This law serves no purpose except to allow individual bigotry to invade the public trust.  It is allowing Magistrates to hide behind their religious bigotry and deny people “legal marriages” simply because they don’t agree with the couple wishing to be married.

It took until 1960 until a Catholic was elected President.  The primary rally against a Catholic becoming the President was because Protestants believed that a Catholic President would “take his orders from the Pope.”  John Kennedy needed to give his infamous speech telling the country that he was American first and that his religion would not hinder his allegiance to America.

Today, that “fear” has been turned on its head.  More than once, during an election cycle, I have been handed a list of candidates from people I knew.  They told me that I needed to vote for this slate of candidates because they were the “most God-fearing Christians” running for office.  These candidates were suppose to make sure God’s law was America’s law.  I don’t think I need say I did not vote for any of them.

Which brings me back to the main point.  Should a person’s Religious Belief trump their Oath of Office?  I say absolutely not!  When I took my oath, there was nothing that said “unless you have a religious belief against it.”  Neither should any other oath taken by any public official.

By not performing “legal” marriages in North Carolina, a Magistrate is violating that oath of office.  That Magistrate is supposed to “serve all of the citizens of North Carolina.”  They are bound by the State Constitution to do so.  If a Magistrate is so against performing “legal” marriages for whatever reason, he should resign his post.

In all honesty, if such a law were passed at the Federal Level, I would not hesitate to call it treasonous!  If you choose to work for a government, you are choosing to serve the people represented by that government.  Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with how you carry out your duties.  You are obligated to uphold all legal orders.

This law is a perfect example of how the right-wing is perverting our laws.  They are openly defying the very “law of the land”, the Constitution, that they claim they want to defend.  And, as I wrote before, this is how Fascism begins.

Read Full Post »

Last week in McKinney, TX a white police officer was recorded on video body slamming a 15-year-old black girl to the ground.  When other teens moved towards him, he took out his gun and pointed it at them.  One teen leaned over to the girl and reportedly said: “it is okay.  We will call your mother.”  He was later arrested, the only person arrested in the incident.

This all happened in a suburban community near Dallas, TX that has a community swimming pool.  One of the residents, with permission from her mother who was present, threw a “pool party” for her friends as an end of school celebration.  The party was attended by multi-racial children.

Later police were called because someone claimed that there were teens “jumping over the fence and using the pool without authorization.”  Police Officer Cpl. David Casebolt arrived on the scene.  Another teen started to video the incident.  This teen, who is white, said Casebolt rushed passed him yelling at the non-white teens to sit down.  He said in a statement that he felt Casebolt passed him simply because he was white.

Apparently, a 15-year-old black girl did not respond quickly enough to Casebolt’s orders.  She may have even said something to Casebolt, but that isn’t on the video.  She was grabbed by him, forced to the ground, told to “put you face on the ground” and then had Casebolt’s knees placed on her back.

When a couple of black teens started moving forward to help this girl, Casebolt pulled his gun.  Other officers did arrive and told Casebolt to holster his weapon, which he did.  The video which was posted on You-Tube went viral.  The officer, Casebolt, resigned his position on the police force.

The Chief of Police in McKinney said Casebolt’s actions were indefensible.  His attorney says that Casebolt was suffering from distress when he arrived on the scene.  She claims he had been called to two suicide events just prior to this event and was “emotionally upset.”

Supporters for the teens are calling for Casebolt to be prosecuted for his actions.  Others, in their usual coded language, are calling Casebolt a “hero” for upholding the law.  The conservative movement is saying the kids should have listened to the police and then none of this would have happened.

Others are praising two white teens who attended the party for their “courage to tell what actually happened.”  They claim this shows that our youth are getting over the race issue.  To me both sides are just offering the usual excuses.  They are both missing the real point behind this incident.

This incident took place in a predominantly white suburban area of Dallas, TX.  This incident took place simply because two white women started it!  Remember that.  Two white women started the whole thing.  According to the reports, a white woman started yelling that these black teens “should go back to the Section 8 housing where they belong.”

The white teenage girl who was sponsoring the party went up to the woman and complained about her behavior.  According to reports, one of the women slapped the girl in the face.  This was the action that started the whole problem.  It has also been reported that some other teens, seeing the party, did jump over the fence to join in, as teens do.  That was what was said in the 911 call.

Casebolt over-reacted in my opinion.  The fact, as shown in the video, proves he was targeting the non-white teens and leaving the white teens alone.  I don’t know what his emotional state was at the time.  But, if he did attend two suicide calls prior to this call, the department should have pulled him from his patrol to make sure he was okay.  As a result, if he was “emotionally distressed” as his lawyer claims, that is the fault of the McKinney Police Department for allowing him to continue with his shift.

But, the emotional distress argument does not excuse his targeting non-white teens.  Yes, his attorney claims he “detained” a white teen but she was never arrested, and nothing was said about why he detained her.

The real question behind this incident is why the two white women, both adults, were never charged with inciting the problem in the first place?  Why are all the so-called pundits on both the left and the right ignoring this simple fact?  In the least, the woman who slapped the girl in the face should face criminal battery charges.

Yet, no one is talking about these two obvious racist women who instigated the whole situation.  No one is castigating them for their rude behavior.  No one is calling for their heads.  It is the behavior of these two women that should be the center of attention.  They should be shamed for their openly racist views.

But, no, they are kept in anonymity.  Their names are never mentioned.  Megyn Kelly says that the girl who was body slammed to the ground “was no saint.”  But, she ignores the real culprits in this case, the two white women who started the melee with their racist rants and assault on a teen-age girl.  I imagine even if Kelly did mention these two women, she would defend their “free speech” rights to hurl racial insults.

The real reason we continue to have to deal with racism and violence in our country is because we don’t put the blame where it belongs.  We continuously ignore the real inciter.  We ignore the cultural facts that some people are just plain racists and  pooh-pooh their racism as being “ignorant.”

Instead, the McKinney police should have investigated exactly what happened before they were called to the scene.  They should have discovered the battery of the teen-age girl by two adults.  They should have understood that these women started the melee, and they should have arrested them.

But, no, as usual the police targeted the teens.  They did no investigation into the ignition point, and simply believed that the teens were at fault.  The behavior of these two white women is what should be talked about.  But, in order to intelligently talk about them, we must face up to the truth that some people are simply racist.  That is something the media is not willing to openly discuss.

As a result, we will see more incidents like this one.  We always seem to let the real culprits off-the-hook.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 392 other followers