Obama; "(Gun Violence) is something we should politicize."

Before we delve into the left politicizing gun violence, lets look at the facts behind violent crime itself. Over the last 20 years, the American people have certainly showed a great deal of responsibility as violent crime has been reduced by nearly 50% while ownership has and continues to explode.

Any poll, data, study or graph by the anti-gun zealots must be consistent with this fact, and pretty much always fail in this respect; polls can be rigged, studies depend on the data used and graph's are  dependent on the data used. The only independent and reliable data available for violent crimes and homicide rates comes from the FBI UCR totals and end result tells us the 1) Violent crimes and homicide rates have been falling for over 20 years  2)  The number of guns owned by the citizenry have no relationship to violent crime. Mythbusting Gun Ownership Decline in US

What is interesting about fact #2 is there does seem to be a disconnect between guns bought and guns owned. As you see below, gun manufacturers show guns sold have increased every year; the NCIC background checks for gun sales have increased every year, yet the gun ownership graph shows ownership decreasing (and it's not like guns are a commensurable product). The reason is the elephant in the room. While data for gun sales and NCIC are from verifiable sources, gun ownership data  come from telephone polls; these polls have become notoriously inaccurate, add to that the widely accepted fact most people are hesitant to talk about their gun ownership, any result would be guaranteed inaccurate; most likely exceedingly low. The stale claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks

 The other facts are those cities with the most strict gun laws tend to have the highest rate of violent crime; especially gun crimes. The whole anti-gun movement is propaganda by liberals and Democrats that have created a strawman to use politically; in this case the Democrats want the citizenry to believe gun crime crimes are approaching an epidemic, when they actually maxed out on the 70's and have been steadily falling ever since. The truth is Democrats have a horrible record with crimes in the cities they run, a fact that is consistently ignored by the main street media; black on black crime in these Democrat run cities are the only instances where violent crime is on the rise.

 


po·lit·i·cize 1. to give a political character or bias to: to politicize a religious debate.

There was a time when to politicize a tragedy was considered almost a morale sin; the idea that one would take human pain and give it a political spin or bias in order to further a political agenda, without regard for the victim(s), was an anathema. Well no more, not since President Obama. The first indication that politicizing human tragedy was now blatantly acceptable to President Obama, started when his former White House Chief of Staff (and currently mayor of Chicago) Rahm Emanuel stated publicly the White House world view,"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."  Then President then confirmed that blatantly politicizing human tragedy would be his standard course, when he spoke on limiting gun ownership , “Of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere, will comment and say, ‘Obama politicized this issue.’ Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.”  Obama; Gun Control Politicizing Not Politics


What the President is saying,  when he says mass murder should be politicized, is to infer that the victims are a faceless collective and the Democrats have the right to declare mass murder as a for and against issue; in other words one can declare ownership of the high ground saying we are the only party that is against mass shootings. One way this is done to is insinuate that their policies will stop mass shootings, while other parties either do nothing or make it worse.  Unfortunately the Democrats, and liberals are on the wrong side of the Gun Safety argument, considering violent crime has decreased near 50% in the last 20 years while gun possession has significantly increased; US Gun Homocide Study However the Democrats have pushed a lie on the American people that violent crime is an epidemic, so if you want this to stop, they need to votes for Democrats. However when one has only to look at cities they have their gun-control policies, and one sees rampant and out of control crime,  the same cities (Chicago being the most obvious) have the strictest gun laws in the country. Harvard Study; Gun Control is Counterproductive


Then you have Hillary Clinton harping on the less guns less crimes myth saying she is for Australian style gun confiscation;  leading the NRA to rightfully exclaim, "This validates what the NRA has said all along. The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement Friday. "Hillary Clinton's extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people." Hillary Clinton Calls for Gun Confiscation ; The Democrats are so sure of themselves, that they have politisized this myth of a gun violence epidemic, that you have the likes of California  Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom pushing  a anti-gun initiative for background checks for ammunition, to try and up his popularity to win the upcoming Governors election. (As an prime example of the politicizing of gun violence, it's worth noting that a similar bill "SB-53" was co-sponsored by California State Senator Leland Yee; the bill died in the Assembly about the time Yee was indited for gun smuggling. You can't make this stuff up).  This  pushed by Newsom, would cost tens of millions of dollars and generate reams of useless data, as once in the hands of the purchaser there is no way to traceit, even if it was used for illegal purposes.. But more important, it politicizes recent mass shootings and continues to push the myth of a gun violence epidemic; when the real culprits are a handful of sociopathic terrorists, that plan these monstrous acts for months or even years.  These terrorists that came before all passed the background checks the Democrats are pushing and waited the appropriate waiting periods to buy guns and ammo.

"Those policies, from background checks to “assault weapon” bans, to magazine restrictions, are the abstract ideas and concepts...Where these ideas/concepts continually fail in the real world is when they are forced to go beyond fuzzy “feel good” concepts into actual language in legislation, and people get to see the details… and the concrete liberties that would be lost for vague promises of “safety” that have never materialized when a gun control bill passes." Gun Control Supporters Losing Culture War

In regards to large capacity their is no evidence that they are any deadlier simply changing a larger number of low capacity magazines (something that can be easily be done in less than 5 seconds). In a recent press conference the Washington DC Chief of Police Cathy Lanier, blamed high-capacity magazines for DC's high murder rate, “Multiple of our cases have high-capacity magazines and multiple rounds fired making the shots more lethal,” However, COP Lanier was stymied when it was revealed that the Washington DC Police Dept does not keep records on the capacity of the magazines with the firearms that are seized. Scapegoat Alert! D.C. Murders Increase, Police Chief Blames Large Capacity Magazines It's just more smoke coming from liberals trying to divert responsibility from their failed leadership.


So, as we look at the anti-gun zealots, we see a manufactured crisis, egged on by the left, politicizing the rise in  a very narrowly defined type of mass shootings, (ignoring the slaughter of black on black crime in many urban cities) that involved a sociopath usually targeting schools and churches. However these mass shootings were so limited in number, that even an increase does not rise to anything close to an epidemic. As I quoted in my last posting US Enjoying Lowest Crime Rate in Decades ; "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.) F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000 So the so called sharp rise in Mass shootings is 10 more shootings a year than before 16.4 vs 6.4 previously; hardly enough to call for wholesale gun restrictions that regardless, would have no affect on these extremely limited type of shootings.

As a final caveat it would be dishonest to presume that all those calling out for more gun restrictions are politically motivated. While this may be the case with most politicians, the majority honestly feel that more guns equals more violent crimes, and this seems to be the totality of their world view.  Gun control advocates are utopians. Their perspective is that, if guns are no longer readily available, violence will evaporate. But there are so many guns in circulation that it would take decades to reduce their availability — unless legislators adopt the police-state policy of sending cops door-to-door to confiscate firearms. California Lawmakers Train Sights on Gun Ownership

US Enjoying the Lowest Violent Crime Rate in Decades

The left continues to use the false narrative that we are having a gun crime epidemic and something needs to be done right now. The truth of the matter that violent crimes have been falling for the last 20 years. Yes there has been spikes in urban cities run by Democrats, but over all "Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and s@x crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades". http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...

 The liberal mantra is, to reduce the "epidemic" of gun crime,s there is a need to reduce the number of guns. But the facts show that violent crime numbers have continued to fall as the number of guns has significantly increased; IOW, rather than having an epidemic of violent crime, we are enjoying a drop in crime that has not been seen since the the 1930-1940s and to a level not seen since the end of the 19th century.





But that hasn't stopped the left rigging their studies try to demonize guns. One of my favorite has been passed around recently after the Oregon shooting; that armed citizens have never stopped a mass shooting. Two liberal magazine web sites www.thenation.com  and  www.rawstory.com  floated two stories written by a supposed combat veteran and Navy SEAL, that good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns is a fantasy. However it appears neither publication vetted the guy who turned out to be a complete fraud. Further, when one looks at the argument that armed citizens haven't stopped any mass shootings, it quickly becomes obvious that it is base the false premise that someone is documenting mass shootings that didn't happen. In other words, mass shootings either happened or they don't, one can only speculate whether the actions of an armed citizen stopped a mass killing or not. Here is one of the many lists where armed citizens stopped violent crimes (or maybe thwarted a mass shooting).
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The fact there has been a considerable rise in mass shootings, but it's really a false argument because it fails to address how few there have been to begin with. "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09...  So we are talking about an average of 10 additional mass shootings a year; and for this you want to take tens or hundreds of millions of guns from law abiding citizens. IOW this demonisation of guns from the anti-gun lobby (and it's followers) is not about public safety, it's about liberal social engineering to fit their agenda. But they keep repeating this false narrative over and over, hoping that will make people believe it. And why not? It's the same tactic used by liberals/fascists/Marxists and other collectivists all through modern history.

The Right to Bear Arms, Gun Laws and Mental Illness

Once again a cowardly psychotic killer takes a gun(s) to a gun-free zone and does the unthinkable. So what is the answer? Well, it should be noted that where the more stringent gun laws are, the more gun violence occurs. In Chicago, the city with arguably the strictest anti-ownership/anti-carry gun laws in the nation, they are approaching a new record this year (bucking the national trend downward) with already more than 2,000 shooting injuries and near 400 deaths. President Obama says it’s clearly a political issue, and Hillary Clinton wants another assault-weapon ban even though the first had no effect on gun crime at all; according to the FBI, there are five times more people killed with knives. The only demonstrational response that has worked has been to eliminate most gun-free zones and allow more citizens to carry firearms. But the anti-gun lobby doesn’t really care about public safety, they just want to eliminate gun ownership. Contrary to the anti-gun lobby, more law abiding citizens than ever are buying guns, which has resulted is the demonisation of the NRA as the cause; but  the NRA did nothing than their usual advocacy of gun safety and legal possession. Most citizens, even if they don't own a firearm, are comfortable in the fact they would be able to buy one if needed. The increase of gun sales was simply a reaction to Obama pushing for more restrictions on gun sales, showing President Obama may be the best thing that has ever come along for gun manufacturers.

Most of these mass, more accurately called "'rampage killers', tend to follow a definite pattern, what he called a "program for murder and suicide." The shooter, almost always a young man, enters an area filled with many people. He is heavily armed. He may begin by targeting a few specific victims, but he soon moves on to "indiscriminate killings where just killing people is the prime aim." He typically has no plan for escape and kills himself or is killed by police". What Mass Killers Want—And How to Stop Them We have also seen a trend that these rampage killers are on psychotropic drugs, showing a connection between mass killings and mental illness. Now certainly the vast majority of those with mental illness, or on mood stabilizing drugs are not violent, many of which live a unassuming normal life aided by these mood stabilizing drugs.

But, there has been a disturbing trend that school psychologist tend to diagnose the condition de jour, causing parents to demand request psychotropic drugs from their doctor.

The mother of the shooter Oregon Jr College stated that her son had Asbergers Syndrome (AS), a disability related to Autism. However if one has even a cursory understanding of AS, one would know that such a diagnoses was extremely unlikely. AS is also defined as a non-verbal learning disability, a child with AS would have inability to understand  non-verbal communication, such as body language or tone; a condition that results in a lack of eye contact. AS kids also have a very limited understanding of the world around them, and will become anxious if familiar routines are not followed and can be overwhelmed by sensory stimulation, sometimes called an AS meltdown. Further, AS kids tend to be internally motivated (rather than trying to fit in or receive praise). This leads AS kids with a lack of understanding social norms. And while an AS kid is capable of anger, it is usually directed at an individual an not something so removed as organized religion.

The age of the Oregon shooter shows that he was diagnosed with the condition de jour in the 1990's; every 15 years or so a different developmental disorder becomes the most commonly diagnosed disorder (the end result these diagnoses result in rampant over-medication). In the 1980's it was ADD and later ADHD (these two alone account for most the over-medication, often prescribed simply to control the child's behavior and not treat a disorder), in the 1990/2000's it was Asperger's Syndrome/ Autism Spectrum, and now since it appeared in the DSM-5, (The official list of recognized disorders) Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder, or DMDD. While the shooters true disorder has not been released, the suspect did go by the online name "Lithium Love", and was reported to have been institutionalized for not taking his medication. Lithium is a powerful psychotropic mood stabilizer, most commonly used to treat Bipolar Disorder, a condition defined by extreme mood shifts. Bipolar Disorder can sometimes lead to related condition called Dysphoric Mania, where a person will experience depression and mania at the same time. This a full-blown psychosis ,where individuals  lose the ability to determine the difference between what is real and not real, they have visual and audio hallucinations, which can lead to extreme behaviors, such as paranoia, suicidal and/or homicidal tendencies, rage, extreme violence and/or a lashing out at imagined enemies. Progression of Psychosis in Bipolar Disorder

 "Mass shooters aim to tell a story through their actions. They create a narrative about how the world has forced them to act, and then must persuade themselves to believe it. The final step is crafting the story for others and telling it through spoken warnings beforehand, taunting words to victims or manifestos created for public airing." What Mass Killers Want—And How to Stop Them


There is not one gun restriction the anti-gun lobby has ever been proposed that can or will stop rampage killers or even gun crimes in general. The fact the laws that have been implemented tend to be a one size fits all in what is a multi-faceted that rarely resulted in any reduction in these crimes makes one wonders why the anti-gun lobby keeps demanding the same failed restrictions hoping for different result. Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship The only policies that have been shown to work in the real world is to arm the citizenry. Rampage killers, like other sociopaths, know enough to stay clear of locations were the targets may be armed. The result of  of doing away with these gun-free zones, will probably result in the citizenry stopping more gun crimes, instead it will result in criminals going elsewhere where they feel safe; but if a rampage killer does attack a group where one or more is armed, at the very least there will be some ability to stop the carnage.

So what is the answer? It's important to know that these rampage killer meticulously plan their attacks; often study previous rampage killings in great detail. Further they see a great rational in what they have planned. They often have paranoid delusions and see themselves as a victim of an unjust society.  The  Oregon rampage shooter posted “A man who was known by no one is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight. To these rampage killers they often see the killings as a means to an end, and that end is to garner the largest audience possible. So the rampage killer of his act will try and out do previous mass killers to create more notoriety himself. And while fame is a objective by itself, the rampage killer wants everyone to know why he did what he did, his life story and grievances; so in many was mass media is as much to blame for this phenomena and anything else. The answer is to mitigate the audience; which means media needs to tone down their reporting. First law enforcement should shut down all social media attached to the suspect; the media should hold back the killers name and photo; the press already does this with juvenile suspects, so it could certainly do the same for rampage killers. Give all the attention to the victims and survivors, and be indifferent to the shooter. Report on the victims life stories, but not how they died; and praise the heroics of the survivors. Do not release any information on the shooters rational for the shooting (ie manifest); it generally won't make sense to the average citizen anyway. Hopefully, when those contemplating a rampage shooting, sees how little a shooter is reported on, and how their grievances are ignored they will pursue other avenues to place themselves in the limelight. 

US Complains Russia Bombs CIA Trained al Qaeda Forces

The White House has complained that Russia bombed the al Qaeda forces the US has been training to fight Assad. US Complains As Russia Bombs Its Terrorists

Yes the US/CIA has been training al Qaeda aligned jihadists (Div 30 mercenaries) to fight against Syria and ISIL, the problem being these so called "moderate" Syrian rebels are almost all affiliated with al Qaeda. $500 million has been spent for this training (supposedly for a 5000 Syrian Rebel fighters), which has resulted in massive desertions, leaving a total "4 or 5" still fighting in Syria. The most recent graduating class of 54 Div 30 fighters, promptly handed over all their US supplied weaponry to al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra. US-trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria Isn't al Qaeda our enemy? Didn't they hijack and crash 4 commercial airlines, brought down the Twin Trade Towers and killed 3000 Americans? Can you imagine if President Obama would have campaigned on training al Qaeda to fight against Syria? I don't get it

..

Is Pope Francis Moving the World Toward Fasicsm?

Pope Francis lived under  Perónism in Argentina during his early life and talk of Liberation Theology in his later life. Perónism was a fascists personality cult, which like most fascists states provided numerous benefits for those collectively defined as the "workers"; ie  100% employment, universal healthcare, good wages and vacations. Of course it is fascism, meaning an alliance where government and corporations tend to blur together, and the market is controlled and redistribution of wealth; with Perónism redistribution leaned heavily toward the workers, which he used as a voting block to keep himself in office.

"(Juan) Perón and his administration resorted to organized violence and dictatorial rule. Perón showed contempt for any opponents, and regularly characterized them as traitors and agents of foreign powers. Perón maintained the institutions of democratic rule, but subverted freedoms through such actions as nationalizing the broadcasting system, centralizing the unions under his control, and monopolizing the supply of newspaper print. At times, Perón also resorted to tactics such as illegally imprisoning opposition politicians and journalists.  Wikipedia-Peronism

Latin American Liberation Theology (LT) was a movement within the Catholic Church in Latin America in the 1950s and 1960s. Gustavo Gutiérrez is credited one of the principal founders of liberation theology in Latin America; "According to Gutiérrez true “liberation” has three main dimensions: First, it involves political and social liberation, the elimination of the immediate causes of poverty and injustice. Second, liberation involves the emancipation of the poor, the marginalised, the downtrodden and the oppressed from all “those things that limit their capacity to develop themselves freely and in dignity”. Third, liberation theology involves liberation from selfishness and sin, a re-establishment of a relationship with God and with other people. Gustavo Gutiérrez /

LT is supposed to be based on the original Christians that dedicated their lives to helping the sick and poor. The purpose of LT is to alleviate the poor of their suffering, primarily through activism, controlled economies and redistribution (aka social justice). LT is heavily influenced by Marxists doctrine and viewing the poor as a collective; LT is anti-capitalist, anti-bourgeois (middle class), anti-consumerist, advocating a single workers class (proletariat).  After the fall of the Soviet Union, evidence was turned over that showed LT was developed by the Soviet Union in order to align the Catholic Church with communism. principles. Former Soviet Spy We Created Liberation Theology 
 
Pope John Paul ll viewed LT, with it's collective salvation as too political and diverging to far from the individual relationship and salvation that is the core of Christianity; preferring orthopraxy (ethical and liturgical conduct), in the absence of faith or grace. Through Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, John Paul's explained that main enemy of the church was modern secularism and that liberation theology is part of this secularism. "All human activity", John Paul has said, "must have reference to the ultimate meaning of life, which is eternal salvation. While seeking to concentrate their efforts on life here and now, modern people have forgotten this essential truth." The Retreat Of Liberation 
 Theology" 

FOIA Docs Show CIA Stood by as Arms Shipments from Benghazi Enabled the Rise of ISIS

 Note: most this information comes from the ultra-left Salon.com

If the Middle East explodes into full scale war, the fact that Iran has been delayed creating their nuclear weapon will be lost on the 100,000's that will be wounded or killed. Thanks to Obama, the Middle East is devolving into a quagmire. First Hillary Clinton took out Gaddafi (much like Bush took out Hussien) with no apparent long range strategy. Today Libya is a quagmire of rebel factions fighting for control as ISIS is making their own inroads into the country. It has now been confirmed through FOIA documents that show "how the CIA stood by as arms shipments from Libya enabled the rise of ISIS...weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya, to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria...

The Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the State Department and CIA facilities in Benghazi at the same time that the flow of weapons stopped." This dispersal of weapons is what led to the birth of ISIS. “[w]estern countries, the Gulf states, and Turkey are supporting rebel efforts against the Assad regime in a proxy war, putting them on the same side as, if not working together with, the terrorists now overrunning Iraq".

The conclusion of the final House report is clear: “From the Annex in Benghazi, the CIA was collecting intelligence about foreign entities that were themselves collecting weapons in Libya and facilitating their passage to Syria.” Long story short: The CIA was watching closely as our allies transferred weapons to Syrian rebels. Then after the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi 9.11.2012, Hillary Clinton and her US State Department launched into damage control, using the YouTube video as a red herring to cover the CIA program in Benghazi. Another interesting fact is the US State Department publicly apologized to Egypt on Egyptian radio and TV, for the YouTube anti-Islam video prior to the demonstration in Cairo; it's almost as though the State Department meant to draw attention to the video, which would make sense if they received advanced notice of the attack and needed to spark a demonstration that could be used as a subterfuge to divert attention from the Benghazi gun running operation by the CIA..

AQI was pushed out of Iraq as a result of Bush's Iraq War troop surge of 2007 (While AQI formed as a result of the US invasion of Iraq, they remained a Sunni insurgency in Iraq, until western forces contracted and trained them to join Syrian rebels fighting against Syria). AQI at this point was in disarray with few military bases in Iraq. When the US pulled out of Iraq (2011) a civil war ensued in Iraq resulting in AQI reforming and made significant head way in Iraq. It was at this point that AQI was armed and trained by western forces to fight along side the Syrian rebels. When the US stopped it's military assault on Syria (a truce brokered by Putin to rid Syria of it's chemical weapons) , AQI, along with other Sunni insurgency fighters became ISIL; (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) or ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham) or simply IS (for Islamic State). This was something that was completely overlooked and underestimated by the Obama White House and Hillary Clinton (remember a “JV” Terrorist Group?) until they discovered they had created a monster..

So the primary causes of ISIS was western countries arming Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) to fight along with Syrian rebels; The Intelligence Community (IC) knew that AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq) had ties to the rebels in Syria; they knew our Gulf and Turkish allies were happy to strengthen Islamic extremists in a bid to oust Assad; and CIA officers in Benghazi (at a minimum) watched as our allies armed rebels using weapons from Libya. And the IC knew that a surging AQI might lead to the collapse of Iraq.
Salon.com

So NATO inadvertently creates ISIS while trying to overthrow Assad in Syria. And now Iran will be pumping money and arms to Syria and those ISIS forces moving against Saudi Arabia (while some ISIS forces are attacking Syria, like Syria ISIS is Sunni, and their primary enemy is Shia; ie Saudi Arabia). It's just the continuing proxy wars between the US/NATO and Russia/Syria using the Sunnis and Shias. But Iran may not have it's nuclear bomb yet, so all is good. Right?

I'ts Time for Democrats to Come Clean on Their Racsim

Democrats want the country to forget is they are the cause of all the civil unrest in the country. The Blackman's psyche was all but destroyed during the more than 100 years of slavery by the Democrats, and the result of that damage continues through today. Under the Democrats Blacks were bought as slaves; oppressed, beaten, raped, work to death and even murdered with impunity, yet the Democrats want Blacks to forget all this.The usual Democrat response when confronted with this, is it's just history and has no bearing on today; really? Why don't you ask the Black-man if  being enslaved 150 years ago still matters.

After a bloody civil war the Northern armies, lead by the Republicans, finally defeated the Democrats, but the Democrats were not willing to end the oppression of the Black man. During times of reconstruction, the Democrats created new rules to oppress Black. Jim Crow laws (enforced by the KKK) were meant to put Blacks in their "place," resulting in voter suppression and discrimination in all areas of the society, yet the Democrats want Blacks to forget all this. The Democrats were also the craftsman of segregation, pushing oppression under the auspices separate but equal; and again yet the Democrats want Blacks to forget all this. This is the stain on the soul of the Democrats; and in some bizzaro world, Democrats seek to demonize conservatives. There is nothing that conservatives have ever done that even comes close to the inhumanity from the Democrats during the years of Slavery and Jim Crow and Segregation. And even now, Blacks have again been segregated in high crime cities run by Democrats.

After years and years the Democrats keep assuring they're the only ones that care about the Black-man, but their station in life continued to deteriorate. There was a hope that the first Black President would finally get them off the merry-go-round of poverty, broken families, high crime and unemployment, that Blacks have endured under the care of the Democrats. But no. Under Obama the Black-man's poverty rate increased along with unemployment; even as the economy started to recover and jobs vacancies started to open up, instead of foster employment for the Black community, Obama is bringing in 100,000s of immigrants, ignoring that these immigrants will take the very jobs that blacks need. Liberals may say subjectively that Republicans are racists because of their speeches and policies, but we know Democrats are racists because we have history and the consequences of their stewardship of the Black-man. And even if Democrats have turned over a new leaf, it does not alleviate them from the responsibility of what they have done; they can not transfer blame to the Republicans and/or try to re-write history to absolve themselves.

There is a fairy tale the Democrats like to tell. They say the southern Dixiecrats joined the Republican party, and that led to the Republicans becoming the racist party that they are. Really!  You have the Republicans with 100 year head start on civil rights, against the Democrats with a 100 year record of slavery and racism. Then in the 60's the Republicans after a 100 years of civil rights promotion, decided to become the most racist political party, in order to capture the southern racists vote. Simultaneously, the Democrats with their 100 year record of racism, decided to become the party of civil rights. What an incredible story! Unfortunately the timeline just doesn't add up. You see the Dixiecrats, ie the States' Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. They formed in 1948 to try and remove the Truman's name from the ballot in the south and replace it with their own. While this resulted in the Dixiecrats winning Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, but to everyone's surprise Truman won regardless. The Dixicrats were dissolved and it's members filtered back into the still very still very racist Democrat party of the South. Now jump seven years, and the Democrats say that the Dixiecarts became the racist Republican party. The other issue, besides the Dixicrats having dissolved their party 7 years earlier, is that while the Southern states did begin to vote for Republican presidential candidates, it would be several decades before the Southern Democrat's hold on the state houses would be wrested away by the Republicans, and the South was finally free of Democrat racism.    

It's no wonder that Blacks are angry and lashing out at the representatives of the status quo; the police. But it is the Democrats that control the status quo in these cities, but instead of taking responsibility, they demonize the police who are only doing what they are ordered to do by the Democrats! The Democrats will never be able to undo the damage they have done to the Black-man; there is no "re-start"  with this. Today the Democrats keep ripping of the scab of racism and blaming it on the Republicans, who really have nothing to do with it. And the Black-man will never raise up out of their current station in life, until the Democrats start treating the Black-man as equals instead of a voting block.