Is Obama Setting Himself Up to Lose a Second Term?

As mistreated as I have been by certain police officers, I of course do not hate cops. I come form an army Military Police background myself (1986-1992) , so I know of what you speak.
Sure there are a disproportionate of blacks in prison over whites, but the supreme court has already ruled that it is documented that black receive harsher prison sentences than whites, so whites aren't committing less crimes, they are just getting out of jail quicker

It's not completely accurate to use per capita numbers, since there are more white males. 5 million white males may only be .7% of all white males, while 3 million black males may be 10% of all black males.

But seriously. It's better than it used to be, but since police forces are a direct representation of society, there are going to be bigots...just like there are in every walk of life.

As far as who would I ask for directions. Neither. I don't trust old ladies who are out late at night., and honestly, my guard is up around pretty much all young males no matter what race they are...it all depends on how they carry themselves.

You can't judge on skin color any more, everybody wants to be a gangster, even suburban white girls.

I blame MTV

 

OHHHH, that damned MTV! My grandma warned me about the type of people that watch MTV!

 

I blame everyone. You're all guilty.

 

hmansfield, I don't hate you. I was in the Army as an MP, and I also worked for CID. When working in Texas I did a lot of things jointly with local police departments, the ATF, FBI, DEA, ICE (INS back then) as well as the US Marshals Service, not counting the POTUS missions I had to do lol. I am working an MP Station in Germany now.

I think what gets me is the fact that people try to say all cops are racist pigs, blah blah blah. My uncle is a police officer in St. Petersburg, FL. In Texas, MP's are recognized as Texas Peace Officers and are afforded the same statutory powers under state law.

The fact of the matter is police work is just like the military. It is a direct representation of society. There are racists and extremists of all types in the military. As a matter of fact, I saw an article in the Stars and Stripes not too long ago about a white power site (can't remember the site name) that had over 45 of 2k members (its like a facebook for racists site) that were claiming to be active duty military on their profiles. The fact of the matter is, if it is still alive in the civilian world, it is still alive in the police and military worlds as well.

This is why police departments have such strict hiring requirements. Police departments are not purposely hiring racists. It sets the department and city/county/state up for a high profile lawsuit quick. They understand this, and in order to gain the trust of the community and keep it, to develop criminal intelligence and confidential informants, departments will usually deal quite harshly with these things.

Unfortunately, most of the time it is a lone cop that is forced to make decisions that will affect whether or not he goes home that night in a body bag or in his car. Regardless of what people want, and what SCOTUS has said, part of the quick decision and evaluation process is racial profiling. It is a SMALL part. 98% of cops now are good people trying to make a difference. Like I say when people start talking about cops just being bullies, there are tens of thousands of successful airliner takeoffs and landings, you'll never hear a word about them. But, one crashes and its all over the news. It's the same concept.

 

I completely agree with you.
I don't think any educated person would say that the majority of cops are racists...that's just silly.

In the case of the Cambridge Police and Professor Gates, based on what I heard and is documented, I didn't see any strange differences in the way the cop handled it, with the exception of how it escalated that a man was arrested in his home if he did in fact prove that he lived there....why was there a need to take it any further after that. But it doesn't seem that race was the issue.

As I watched the Cambridge Police Press conference, I didn't see a department trying to defend themselves, I saw a department that looked as if their feelings were hurt, and mad that they were caught up unfairly in a racial issue.

I think sometimes when people do not agree with Police, or even worse, feel like they are in a position in life that they shouldn't be questioned by police , race is the first thing that comes to mind if one of the parties is a minority, and the cop is white.

Just because someone is a doctor, or professor doesn't give them any special privileges when it comes to cooperating with the police and it seems that a clash of ego's may have been responsible for how this got out of control.

It is an issue that many minorities are sensitive to, because you just don't know if it's because this particular cop is racist. Some cops are just pricks, and they are pricks to everyone, equally. I don't know this cop, but he doesn't come off that way. I have seen racist cops in press conferences over the years..this guy doesn't have the same arrogance. I honestly think this was a misunderstanding.

Every claim of racial profiling is not true, but, there are a lot of cases that are still happening in a lot of areas. But just as unfortunate and unfair that minorities are still at the mercy of some police officers that think they are above the law, is honest people just doing their jobs unfairly accused by hypersensitivity. That almost makes me feel just as bad..because it's not fair, and it hurts race relations more than the real cases of racism.

Some claims are more damaging than others because so many people are quick to jump on a bandwagon without all the facts. A lot of people in America like to point the finger, it's sad, but it's just how so many of us are.

There are still people on both sides of the race card that love to be able to say "See, I told you that's how 'they' are", as some kind of justification for their personal actions or hidden prejudices. I got a friend who's Dad would do it all the time....he could watch 2 hours of news...Terrorist actions, Fires, Corporate white collar crime, serial killers... and not comment on one single story, but the minute there was a story about a crime committed by Blacks or Hispanics the first thing out of his mouth would be "...see..that's what I'm talking about". It was so frustratingly ridiculous that it was sadly funny.

I saw a lady on CNN in Texas that has a sign on her roof that reads "Hispanics Keep Out" and people in the neighborhood were out raged. So I had to watch them interview her to see what was going on, and the minute she opened her mouth, I knew she was a lost cause and no one was going to change her. She blamed Hispanics for everything that was wrong in her life and the country. No need to watch more than 2 minutes of it...just write her off and stay out of her way. The sign needs to come down though. I actually feel sorry for people like that because she will live in bitterness and hate (which is stressful to the heart and body) until she dies. That's sad.

That's America, and that's just how it is. It's ridiculous to think that everyone is going to get along, but Police don't have the luxury of personal feelings when they are on the job. They have to be equal to everyone.

 

If she has a sign on her roof I don't think it's anyones business to tell her to take it down. It's her own property. She is ignorant. I don't dislike hispanics, I hate illegal immigrants. Big difference

Generally though, since departments have gotten so strict with their hiring requirements over the last 10 years or so, most of the newer police officers aren't racist, or at least, are able to contorl it enough for people to not become aware.

 

In a lot of cities the minorities are the majority.

Detroit is No. 1 in homicide rates among big U.S. cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Police_Department

 

As far as minorities keeping the race card going...that is absurd. The last thing most minorities want is to keep having to drum up issues like this, further alienating them from mainstream society in the eyes of some. It keeps coming up because it keeps happening and until the 1960's, you couldn't say anything, no one gave a crap. You just got killed for bringing it up.

It's a difficult thing to all of a sudden continue to turn the other cheek when you, your parents and all of your ancestors were regarded as animals for a few hundred years, and then second class citizens until the 60's. There is a little bit of sensitivity that will take time to go away. You can't expect everyone to switch from anger and persecution for 3 centuries, and then everything is "A - OK' the next day. And it's not just Blacks, Asians Americans still harbor a little anger over their treatment in WWII, Jews are very sensitive to anti Semitic behavior as well and Hispanics are tired of being associated with everything that wrong in America and the hypocrisy of this country being the children of immigrants (not all of them legal) yet targeting them exclusively when it comes to illegal immigration and associating ALL people of Hispanic and Latino decent, legal or not.

The difference is Black people speak up, loudly, where as other groups "MF" you behind your back.

No one ever talks about all the illegals from Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Africa, and India....and there are a lot of them.

As far as Detroit is concerned..that is where I grew up. It's having some hard times , no doubt. But growing up there, there was, and still is, a very high population of Iraqis, Lebanese, and Iranians that were illegal in the area (hundreds of thousands to millions of them) and no one caused the uproar that people do now about people from Mexico, and those countries wanted to kill Americans at the time.

Detroit has always had a predominately black police force, it's a predominately Black city. The cops are home grown, what would you expect ?

And you have your facts wrong, New Orleans has the highest murder rate in the U.S. for 3 years running. Detroit was called "Murder capitol of the world" in an early 1980's news story and that title has followed it ever since.
I am sure that it holds some statistical record when it comes to crime, it is a financially depressed city, but it hasn't been number one in murders in some time. Just recently Dallas TX was the major city with the most crime...it is now number 2. (Yay Dallas)

 

True. It is her property and if she had a sign that said "Go Home Illegals" she would have been talking about all illegals, even hot Swedish college coeds who's visa's have expired.

But we have federal laws against racial, religious and ethnic intimidation and it doesn't matter if it's Hispanics, Blacks, or Scientologists. Billboards are private property too and you can't do that.
Sad part is kids going to school have to see that sign everyday. That's not right to do that. People can take a lot of crap, but when you start messing with peoples kids, all bets are off..people will lose their minds.

If you feel that way, fine, but don't subject everyone else to it. In America you are free to believe and speak, but your freedom ends when it interferes with someone else's, and racial intimidation is not covered in those freedoms.

I'd like to put a sign on my lawn that say's "uneducated backwoods rednecks not welcome" and see who steps up to complain

I think the lady is pretty brave to be so outspokenly racist. I have a few friends that are Latino and Hispanic ( and everything else) that would fire bomb her house for such outward arrogant racism against anyone.

 

There are more than a few things about this that smell of a setup.

A local Boston Police officer that I know told me that he had heard that the person that called 911 was a neighbor. Why would a neighbor call? If a neighbor knows who lives in that house - especially a man with a cane - and he sees a man with a cane attempting to enter the house, that is of the same build as the owner of the house, why call 911?

Also, if Gates is the "expert" on race relations he pretends to be, and if he is an intelligent Harvard professor, wouldn't he have to know that yelling "Racist!", "Do you know who I am?", "This is what happens to black men in America!", and, especially, "Yo' Mama" is something that could be seen as deliberately provoking the police officer?

Also, if Gates is the legal expert he pretends to be, he HAS to know that a police officer can't arrest a homeowner unless he steps outside his home. Gee, anyone who's seen a single episode of "Law and Order" knows that!

And look at the photo. Gates is plainly showing his cuffs, and is looking at the camera with his mouth open in outrage.

Nobody here in Boston even knew this arrest had happened until Obama opened his mouth. I don't remember seeing it in the local papers - so how did Lynn Sweet in Chicago know about the arrest when Boston news had ignored it? And how busy is President Obama that he knew this had happened?

Obama knew that Lynn Sweet from the Chicago Sun Times had the last question, and David Axelrod had set up the question. So Barack "Mr. Teleprompter" Obama obviously already had a prepared answer.

The New Yorker in me says that this whole thing smells of a setup. The neighbor was told to call 911. Gates attempted to provoke the police. He stepped out onto his porch because he wanted to be arrested. The same neighbor who called 911 took the photo and Gates posed for it. Obama's press conference statement was a setup to propel Gates to the national stage. Days earlier, Gates already had setup a legal team, and quickly announced that the event was going to be in a documentary he is producing(!). It's rumored here in Boston that Gates has a video of the arrest.

Gates didn't get the reaction from Officer Crowely he was hoping for - even worse, he didn't count on the arresting officer being an authority on how to avoid racial profiling. The fact that one of the arresting officers was black is being ignored. The original plan was to destroy the life of a good, honest, respected police officer, and damage Boston's reputation, so that Gates could become wealthy. Gates is now hiding in Martha's Vineyard and is receiving intense media training in preparation for his "coming out".

But Obama has Gates covered. His "beer" with Gates & Crowely will provide the originally intended popularity for Gates. Possibly sometime around that beer, there will be leaked reports of police complaints against Crowely - every policemen gets complaints, most of them bogus. But Gates will still make his millions by attempting to damage a good man's career.

 

Um...Police don't have any such rules about arresting a home owner. If there is just cause he can arrest anyone, no matter where they are.
Law and Order is a TV show. I wouldn't count on that as what is legal from state to state, or even legal at all.

I think Gates was drunk.

 

In the cases of misdemeanor arrest warrants, generally (but it varies from state to state) a person can not be arrested within the confine of their home. They also can't be served during the hours of darkness (generally 10pm-6 or 7am). However, when it comes to the initial investigation of a crime a police officer can make a misdemeanor arrest in a persons home. These laws vary from state to state, but, this is the general gist of a law. Also, for the arrest warrant, the judge can specify that it is allowed to be served outside the times and inside the home.

Also, the federal laws prohibit the discrimination for employment. However, they can not make a law telling me I can't put a banner up on my house that says something. That is getting onto dangerous grounds of violating the 1st amendment, and a couple others.

My mom lives in Florida now, about a mile down the street from her is a house. This house has about 14 schwastika flags flying on their property. Everyone tried getting them out, but, the government couldn't do anything because they were just exercising their constitutional rights.

 

Well this would seem to cover just about anything, just by showing up for a 911 call, it's an initial investigation of a possible crime, isn't it ?

That sucks ! I really thought that racial intimidation covered a broad range that would include displaying symbols of hate in public.

 

Barbara Boxer has made a career of using "race politics"

Barry Obama's ancestors owned slaves.

Speaking up, loudly is obviously not the solution.

Illegal aliens are one of the reasons for high unemployment in the inner cities.

I expect that you can't blame racism for Detroit's high crime rate.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin says that New Orleans is a "Chocolate City"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_City_speech

 

Host, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree as to the scope of your presumptions regarding "free speech." It has never been an absolute, and never without at least some proscription - you probably know some of these, but basically the Court has proscribed many tests of "freedom of speech" under a "rational persons" standard, and language or speech which by its nature incites to violence. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942). In part, the Court said:

How Chaplinsky has been applied since has been at issue - in my opinion, the Court has followed a fractious and tortured course in trying to weigh the heavy injunction against state intrusion on free speech, with its Chaplinsky ruling on "speech" - that can include any number of vehicles of expression, not just literal "speech" - that is by its nature designed to incite violence. The famous nazi march in Skokie being one test (the court ruled that swastika-waving before a largely Jewish population could not trip the "fighting words" threshold - bizarrely enough, in my opinion, given the very clear language in Chaplinsky); most relevant here, and wholly a wrong decision, in my opinion, would be R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul.

 

There is quite a difference between being a public area and being on my private property.

The SCOTUS ruling you're talking about does not apply to me having things on my own property. But, it allows for the government to require a license to protest, etc. It is the same thing as other ruling where SCOTUS has decided that you can't shout fire in a crowded building, or exercise your rights while prohibiting others'.

hmansfield, yes, responding to a 911 call or any other call from a person to the police is covered as initial investigation. What exactly initial investigation is is not clearly defined, but left up to the courts to determine. But, its generally the immediate actions taken by responding officers. Also covered is what is called "hot pursuit" or immediate pursuit of a subject. However, in these incidents it is generally required that unless the crime was committed in the officers' presence they must obtain an arrest warrant for misdemeanors. There are exceptions such as the possibility of destruction of evidence, life, limb, or eyesight risks, etc. As with everything though, the officer is required to make an on the spot decision. Most people don't have the maturity and ability to be a police officer. Daily officers risk their lives for the community they serve. Daily they are forced to make decisions that will effect other people for the rest of their life.

 

So what!? That's Barbara Boxer.
So has Al Sharpton, Rush Limbaugh, the late Jessie Helms,
Don't take the actions of one person and apply it to a whole race or an entire group of minorities.
Should I listen to Rush Limbaugh and apply his insane rhetoric to the way ALL fat white Americans, Feel ?

A lot of people's ancestors owned slaves, including politicians....maybe even yours. It's part of American History..thanks for the lesson.

That is easy for you to say, being on the outside looking in. I don't think standing up for your rights or against injustice is a minority issue, I would hope that every American would do the same. Would you remain quiet if someone mistreated your kids, or other family memebers ?

That is the most biased , prejudiced, ridiculous statement I have ever heard. I would expect that to come out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth

The reason for high unemployment in inner cities is lack of jobs to be had, lack of education and training for the jobs that are available.
It's got nothing to do with Illegal aliens since many take jobs that Americans feel are beneath them anyway.
Do you even live in a major city ? You seem to think you know a lot about living in a city like Detroit.

Illegal aliens is a problem, but all of them, not just Mexicans. This country is build on aliens, many of them illegal. I would check your own family history and be absolutely sure that your family "checked in" at Ellis Island when they came over before you start blaming others. Make sure you check both sides, Mom's and Dad's and all of your grandparents, great grandparents and their grandparents and relatives. I'll bet you have at least one person in the last 200 years that "snuck in".

Why ? What's racism got to do with crime. People committing crime is a personal choice of behavior. Sure, some could argue that a mother has to steal bread to feed her kids, but that is not what is going on in Detroit, NY, Chicago, LA, Dallas, or any other city in America.
The main problem is control of drug trafficking and gangs.
When we cut the supply line that brings illegal narcotics into the country, you will cut of the economy.

So what's your point ? They call areas of Miami "Little Havana", "Little Haiti", in Detroit there is a "Greek Town", some call E.Dearborn "The Middle east", New York has "Little Sicily" and many cities in the country have a "China Town".

The term "Chocolate City" comes from a George Clinton/ Parliament /Funkadelic song in the 80's called "Chocolate City", referring to cities with high, or majority African American populations.

In the song many cities are called "Chocolate Cities" including LA, Chicago, Atlanta, New Orleans, Detroit, Gary, and many others.
It is what it is.
What makes you the most uncomfortable, that there is a majority black population, or that there is a nickname for it that comes from a song ?

It's better than some of the terms and "nicknames" that have been used in the past.

I'll take "Chocolate City" over "Shinetown",

 

I think we're conflating a couple of things here, Host. The license requirement is a separate issue from the issue of fighting words or "shouting fire in a crowded building." Words are, or are not deemed to be fighting words, and the requirements for license are not related - unless the license limits approvals based on the content of the speech or event in question.

In the case of the Skokie march, the Court ruled the Swastika was not, on the face of it, a symbol likely to incite public disorder - even if deliberately flaunted in Skokie, IL. (I think the Court should simply either adhere to Chaplinsky, or toss it out - the Skokie decision was ridiculous, in my opinion, given Chaplinsky, as was the R.A.V. decision).

On the issue of private speech on private property, I'd agree with you that the Court has moved more and more narrow to reverse course on speech limitations made by earlier decisions. At the same time, the Court has tried to define what truly is "private" speech, and at least from my memory, certain kinds of speech - such as amplified speech, or signs that effectively "broadcast" the speech outside what could be construed as the "private" boundary, have effectively tripped the "public" threshold; both breach the truly "private" as they are speech that reaches outside the limits of the private property.

Where it can be construed that something taking place on private property can indeed be seen as a means to incite a public response, the Court has tended to get a bit more wary. In Spence v. Washington, for instance, even though the Court ruled for the appellant, the Court said in making its case, in part:

Implicit in this argument is that were there to be an issue of public incitement, or public communication of any kind (that under the "fighting words" doctrine, would likely lead to disorder) even if from private property, as could conceivably be made in your race-baiting cards in Florida case, we would see a different result. Because the Court does not try cases, but only rule on the constitutionality of lower court decisions or actions taken against a private citizen, it would require your mom's Florida neighbor to be cited for disorderly conduct, or something like that, and for the case to reach SCOTUS (you know this, others may not).

(As to speech being more than just "spoken" speech, lots of cases - further down in Spencer, for example).

 

I lived in the Detroit suburbs during the 1990's, selling semiconductors to the Automotive companies and helping them build cars. I can tell you that the reason for Detroit's problems and crime has little to do with garden-variety racism and nothing to do with illegal aliens. It's because of pathetic mismanagement on the part of local politicians (Democrats) which resulted in full-blown puss-filled racism. The only concern of the politicians seemed to be finding new and unique ways to get more money from the Automotive companies and their suppliers. And God only knows what the politicians did with the money, because it certainly didn't go into the community.

The meager police force is overworked and under-appreciated, which led to a lowering of standards to enter the department (I once saw a rookie officer so thin I thought he was on a hunger strike) as well as many officers who, shall we say, were openly receptive to financial considerations in exchange for selective law enforcement. It didn't help that everyone knew that the Democratic politicians that ran the city were openly corrupt.

But the politicians did find the time to set up social and employment programs that seemed designed to pit African Americans and Arab Americans against each other in lethal ways.

Here's an excellent example: Chrysler used to have a huge, 2,000 person engineering facility in Highland Park in a part of town that just got worse and worse. To get to the facility, you had to drive through a crime-infested part of town on a main road littered with potholes that we called "The Ho-Chi Men Trail". Chrysler eventually put a high (~30ft) wall around the facility with well-trained guards at every gate.

Highland Park kept raising taxes, raising taxes, and squeezing Chrysler. Meanwhile the community got worse and worse.

Finally, after the third Chrysler employee in three years was killed on their way to work - the THIRD EMPLOYEE - got that? THREE EMPLOYEES WERE KILLED IN THEIR WAY TO WORK IN THREE YEARS (and the papers played it down) - Chrysler announced that they were shutting down the Highland Park facility and moving all 2,000 employees 25 miles north to a new Auburn Hills building. Guess what the Democrat Highland Park politicians did? First, they tried ways, both legal and very illegal, to prevent Chrysler from moving. Then, they tried to pass a law saying that Chrysler had to pay full taxes for five years after they left - as if they were still in the facility! As I remember it, I think Chrysler countered by filing a suit demanding that Highland Park account for every cent of taxes paid by Chrysler to the city. I don't know what happened after that.

Meanwhile, office space in the city of Detroit was at a 60% vacancy. There is only one nice skyscraper in Detroit, the tall silver Renaissance Center, which is the only building they show when displaying Detroit in a good light.

The crime in Detroit is because incompetant Democratic politicians are more interested in themselves than the community.

 

I can't disagree with you on much of what you said. Detroit city government has been questionable over the years.
By the way, Highland Park is no more. It went bankrupt a few years ago and is now part of Detroit.