Dear Mr. Obama,
I was wondering if you had ever really thought much about racial profiling. Have you? Permit me to ask you a few questions.
How many times a day in America's cities do you think a white police officer hears something about racism from the African-American men and women he (or she) arrests or detains? Do you think white policemen hear this sort of thing only rarely? Do you think white policemen rarely hear from a black man or woman that white law enforcement officers single out the "black man" because he's black and the officers are white?
From your comments tonight, I am tempted to conclude that you've never really thought about this issue all that much.
When Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, MA police department walked up to Henry Louis Gates Jr. and asked him to produce some sort of identification to prove he had not just broken into someone else's home, do you think he would have expected that a man of Mr. Gates' standing and ability would play the race card? Do you think he expected that a man like Mr. Gates would commit racial profiling of a WHITE man? And do you think he expected Mr. Gates to start raving and screaming in his face when all he was doing was protecting Mr. Gates and his property?
Mr. Obama, you need to apologize immediately to America, and to Sgt. Crowley. And then you should resign. Your remark uttered before the world -- remarks rooted in your self-admitted ignorance -- that Sgt. Crowley behaved "stupidly" is an affront to every law enforcement officer in America. Shame on you. It is you who has acted stupidly.
Sgt. Crowley was called to Mr. Gates' home by a concerned neighbor who saw someone attempting to forcibly enter through Mr. Gates' front door. The details of the story reported today indicate that Mr. Gates' door had been damaged by an earlier break-in, one that Mr. Gates himself reported; it was this door that Mr. Gates himself was trying to enter forcibly because it was still damaged. A neighbor saw this; a policeman responded. (Other reports have indicated that Mr. Gates' neighborhood had seen a recent increase in daytime burglaries.)
Mr. Obama, have you ever responded to a burglary in progress? Had you ever spent any REAL time on America's streets, you would have known what was going through Sgt. Crowley's heart and head as he pulled up to Mr. Gates' lovely home. Sgt. Crowley was, for all he knew, stepping into a life-threatening situation. And what does he find? An ungrateful, abusive, caustic man who accuses him -- in front of eyewitnesses -- of being a racist, a bigot. Perhaps this was easy for Mr. Gates because he knew he was in greater Boston talking to a cop named Crowley.
But that Mr. Gates should have chosen belligerence when he is such a high-brow intellectual is simply dumbfounding. And it must have bewildered the good sergeant. But surely you have the capacity, don't you, to see that Mr. Gates' identity is irrelevant to his disorderly conduct? Just because Mr. Gates PROVED he was the owner of the home it does not follow that he should not have been arrested, as your statements implied. After all, even someone as steeped in law as you allegedly are MUST know disorderly conduct could EASILY HAPPEN AFTER Mr. Gates proved he was the homeowner and not some hapless criminal. Surely you MUST know that countless people have been arrested after traffic stops of alleged stolen vehicles; when the drivers have proven that the vehicle is NOT STOLEN, they still have been arrested for disorderly conduct, failure to obey a police officer, and so on.
No doubt Mr. Gates escalated things; one can see it from the photographs taken at the scene. Of course, it is quite possible he was provoked. OK. Let's stipulate that he was. Does that give him license to act like a lunatic? Does that give him license to resist the police or turn abusive and unruly? I think you should know that the law does not permit him to act like an ass if the police act like asses first.
But, and here's the point: BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION you DO NOT know what transpired in Mr. Gates' home, and thus you should have said NOTHING. Sorry. But you even admitted that you were a "friend" of Mr. Gates; that you were biased. Doesn't a REAL president in such circumstances deliberately and thoughtfully choose silence rather than take sides or inflame a situation that has been nearly extinguished? The answer is yes, a REAL president chooses silence. Yes, a REAL president does defend the rule of law. And a FRIEND of the alleged victim would choose to recuse himself from making public comment, particularly when that friend is the presumptive chief law enforcement officer in the United States, and thus is also assumed to be a friend of every police officer on the job.
You may think that because the Cambridge police department dropped the charge of disorderly conduct against Mr. Gates that charge was unwarranted. But we are not so stupid. Those of us with REAL street credibility know how the game is played: people who in the strictest technical sense deserve to be charged with a crime frequently find those charges dropped. You know this, or you should know this. Moreover, dropped charges do not imply innocence of those initially charged, nor does it even NECESSARILY imply that a case against the alleged perpetrator could not be successfully tried in a court of law.
And what were you thinking when you said that you did not know "all the facts" and yet went on to speculate on the incident, even to the point of getting the facts you said you did not know so dreadfully wrong?
Lastly, your conspicuous use of the words "jimmy" and "jigger" were in rather poor taste, don't you think (and are, at least phonetically, racially insinuative)?
If it is true, as I have heard, that you vetted the questions you would be asked before your press conference tonight, then your reckless and injudicious remarks were premeditated. Is this the BEST we can expect from you? If so, you really have no right being in the White House.
Someone should show up at your house and ask you for proof that you know who and what you really are.
(Sorry. I don't mean to be so insensitive.)
©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
I was wondering if you had ever really thought much about racial profiling. Have you? Permit me to ask you a few questions.
How many times a day in America's cities do you think a white police officer hears something about racism from the African-American men and women he (or she) arrests or detains? Do you think white policemen hear this sort of thing only rarely? Do you think white policemen rarely hear from a black man or woman that white law enforcement officers single out the "black man" because he's black and the officers are white?
From your comments tonight, I am tempted to conclude that you've never really thought about this issue all that much.
When Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, MA police department walked up to Henry Louis Gates Jr. and asked him to produce some sort of identification to prove he had not just broken into someone else's home, do you think he would have expected that a man of Mr. Gates' standing and ability would play the race card? Do you think he expected that a man like Mr. Gates would commit racial profiling of a WHITE man? And do you think he expected Mr. Gates to start raving and screaming in his face when all he was doing was protecting Mr. Gates and his property?
Mr. Obama, you need to apologize immediately to America, and to Sgt. Crowley. And then you should resign. Your remark uttered before the world -- remarks rooted in your self-admitted ignorance -- that Sgt. Crowley behaved "stupidly" is an affront to every law enforcement officer in America. Shame on you. It is you who has acted stupidly.
Sgt. Crowley was called to Mr. Gates' home by a concerned neighbor who saw someone attempting to forcibly enter through Mr. Gates' front door. The details of the story reported today indicate that Mr. Gates' door had been damaged by an earlier break-in, one that Mr. Gates himself reported; it was this door that Mr. Gates himself was trying to enter forcibly because it was still damaged. A neighbor saw this; a policeman responded. (Other reports have indicated that Mr. Gates' neighborhood had seen a recent increase in daytime burglaries.)
Mr. Obama, have you ever responded to a burglary in progress? Had you ever spent any REAL time on America's streets, you would have known what was going through Sgt. Crowley's heart and head as he pulled up to Mr. Gates' lovely home. Sgt. Crowley was, for all he knew, stepping into a life-threatening situation. And what does he find? An ungrateful, abusive, caustic man who accuses him -- in front of eyewitnesses -- of being a racist, a bigot. Perhaps this was easy for Mr. Gates because he knew he was in greater Boston talking to a cop named Crowley.
But that Mr. Gates should have chosen belligerence when he is such a high-brow intellectual is simply dumbfounding. And it must have bewildered the good sergeant. But surely you have the capacity, don't you, to see that Mr. Gates' identity is irrelevant to his disorderly conduct? Just because Mr. Gates PROVED he was the owner of the home it does not follow that he should not have been arrested, as your statements implied. After all, even someone as steeped in law as you allegedly are MUST know disorderly conduct could EASILY HAPPEN AFTER Mr. Gates proved he was the homeowner and not some hapless criminal. Surely you MUST know that countless people have been arrested after traffic stops of alleged stolen vehicles; when the drivers have proven that the vehicle is NOT STOLEN, they still have been arrested for disorderly conduct, failure to obey a police officer, and so on.
No doubt Mr. Gates escalated things; one can see it from the photographs taken at the scene. Of course, it is quite possible he was provoked. OK. Let's stipulate that he was. Does that give him license to act like a lunatic? Does that give him license to resist the police or turn abusive and unruly? I think you should know that the law does not permit him to act like an ass if the police act like asses first.
But, and here's the point: BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION you DO NOT know what transpired in Mr. Gates' home, and thus you should have said NOTHING. Sorry. But you even admitted that you were a "friend" of Mr. Gates; that you were biased. Doesn't a REAL president in such circumstances deliberately and thoughtfully choose silence rather than take sides or inflame a situation that has been nearly extinguished? The answer is yes, a REAL president chooses silence. Yes, a REAL president does defend the rule of law. And a FRIEND of the alleged victim would choose to recuse himself from making public comment, particularly when that friend is the presumptive chief law enforcement officer in the United States, and thus is also assumed to be a friend of every police officer on the job.
You may think that because the Cambridge police department dropped the charge of disorderly conduct against Mr. Gates that charge was unwarranted. But we are not so stupid. Those of us with REAL street credibility know how the game is played: people who in the strictest technical sense deserve to be charged with a crime frequently find those charges dropped. You know this, or you should know this. Moreover, dropped charges do not imply innocence of those initially charged, nor does it even NECESSARILY imply that a case against the alleged perpetrator could not be successfully tried in a court of law.
And what were you thinking when you said that you did not know "all the facts" and yet went on to speculate on the incident, even to the point of getting the facts you said you did not know so dreadfully wrong?
Lastly, your conspicuous use of the words "jimmy" and "jigger" were in rather poor taste, don't you think (and are, at least phonetically, racially insinuative)?
If it is true, as I have heard, that you vetted the questions you would be asked before your press conference tonight, then your reckless and injudicious remarks were premeditated. Is this the BEST we can expect from you? If so, you really have no right being in the White House.
Someone should show up at your house and ask you for proof that you know who and what you really are.
(Sorry. I don't mean to be so insensitive.)
©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
