Obama, being the idiot that he is, said that the only people with the right to object to immigration are native Americans. Think about how stupid a statement that is. He said that only people like me (and probably you), that were born here in America, have the right to complain about all the people coming into this country.
What does being born here, have anything to do with one’s ability to reason that a country, like boat, or concert venue, has an ideal maximum capacity? We all have that right, no matter where we were born, no matter who our ancestors were, and no matter which country we are citizens of. I have the right to object to immigration into the United States, England, France, or any other country. It’s called freedom of speech. It’s in the constitution. Obama, obviously is not familiar with that document (Even though he claims to be a constitutional scholar. So much for the quality of education at our colleges and universities.), and maybe that’s why he has been violating it since he took office.
People like Obama, often talk about rights, but it is quite obvious that they don’t understand what rights are, since they appear to be so anxious to claim that certain people don’t have them, or impose policies that infringe upon them.
Here’s the partial, super short course on rights for all you liberals out there. We all have the right to say whatever we want, and we all have the right to own any type of arms we want, without any government infringement upon either of those two rights. There’s more, but I’m sure no liberals are interested. By the time one becomes an adult, a person either understands this concept, or probably never will.
Now, let’s talk about something that many people often confuse with rights, and that is, qualifications. They are two different things. We are all born with rights, and we all have the same rights, regardless of what any government says. A government can violate a person’s rights, but it can’t take them away. People who live under a totalitarian government have the right to criticize that government, although they might get shot if they do.
Qualifications, however are a different animal. They are either assigned or earned. Some good examples are: Obama is not qualified to be president, because he was not born in America, or Obama is not qualified to be president because he has virtually no previous experience in politics, or in the private sector.
Now, if we look at Darlena Cunha and the recent article she wrote, we must all agree that she has the right to say what she did, but does she have the qualifications to be published and taken seriously?
By the standards of the outfits that publish her articles, she absolutely does. She’s a liberal, and I don’t think the publications she contributes to have any other qualifications, but does she have the qualifications for us to take her seriously? We’ll now examine her article, and both you and I can be the judges.
Let’s start with the headline:
Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting
Pretty weak. Imagine a headline that said “In Defense of Murder”, or “In Defense of Rape”, but maybe, this was just an attention getter, so we’ll let that slide.
Then we got the sub headline which contains an obvious factual error:
“The violent protests in Ferguson, Mo., are part of the American experience. Peaceful protesting is a luxury only available to those safely in mainstream culture”
Uh, Darlena, peaceful protesting is something available to anyone, even inmates of prisons and asylums, or is she saying that everything Martin Luther King did was a waste of time?
It continues to get worse as she goes on:
“When a police officer shoots a young, unarmed black man in the streets, then does not face indictment, anger in the community is inevitable. It’s what we do with that anger that counts. In such a case, is rioting so wrong?”
Is she stupid? A person does not have to be armed to be dangerous. What would she do if she was a police officer and someone twice her size was charging at her? If she didn’t shoot him when she had the chance, there would be a high probability that he would overpower her, take her gun, and shoot her.
She is not only stupid, she shows she is a racist by her prejudice. She writes, “anger in the community is inevitable”. Inevitable. So what she is saying that whenever a cop shoots a young unarmed black man, no matter what the circumstances, no matter how obvious it was that the officer was justified in his actions, blacks in the community are always going to automatically ignore everything else, and get “angry”. I give blacks more credit than that, and I believe that I am supported by the fact that the black communities do not riot, every time something similar has happened.
Wait a minute, I think she’s giving all of us a free pass to raise hell:
“Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society. Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there, the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain of the marginalized voices will boil over, spilling out into our streets.”
So she’ll be all OK with it, if conservative groups start burning down buildings because of the government infringing on our second amendment rights, NSA spying, unchecked immigration, or any other issue where our voices have been marginalized?
She goes on:
“Because when you have succeeded, it ceases to be a possibility, in our capitalist society, that anyone else helped you. And if no one helped you succeed, then no one is holding anyone else back from succeeding. Except they did help you, and they are holding people back. So that blaming someone else for your failures in the United States may very well be an astute observation of reality, particularly as it comes to white privilege versus black privilege. And, yes, they are different, and they are tied to race, and that doesn’t make me a racist, it makes me a realist. If anything, I am racist because I am white. Until I have had to walk in a person of color’s skin, I will never understand, I will always take things for granted, and I will be inherently privileged. But by ignoring the very real issues this country still faces in terms of race to promote an as-of-yet imaginary colorblind society, we contribute to the problem at hand, which is centuries of abuses lobbied against other humans on no basis but that of their skin color.”
Who’s holding them back? What other country has bent over farther backwards with legislation designed to help a certain group of people? Darlena, and people like her, love to make excuses for some people’s poor performance and behavior. I have yet to see an example, where making excuses for an individual, or a group of people, has improved their lot in life. As for white privilege, did she ever stop to consider that whites may have earned it?
Darlena, tries to compare the Ferguson riots to the Boston Tea Party:
“However, even the Tea Party gets its name from a riot, The Boston Tea Party. For those who need a quick history brush-up, in 1773 American protesters dumped an entire shipment of tea into the Boston Harbor to protest The Tea Act, which colonists maintained violated their rights. In response to this costly protest and civil unrest, the British government enforced The Coercive Acts, ending local government in Massachusetts, which in turn led to the American Revolution and created our great country.”
She got her history right (Not too hard, you just look it up.), but came up with a pretty twisted conclusion.
That protest back in 1773 was meant to effect political and societal change, and while the destruction of property in that case may not have ended in loss of human life, the revolution that took place afterward certainly did. What separates a heralded victory in history from an attempt at societal change, a cry for help from the country’s trampled, today? The fact that we won.
So, burning down down the buildings in your own neighborhood that belong to people that had absolutely nothing to do a police shooting incident is the same as dumping tea from a British ship to protest a tax on tea? The complaint of the colonists was that they were taxed by the British government without having any representation in that government. The citizens of Ferguson and all other black communities, do have representation in our government. That’s why we have goofballs like Sheila Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters in office. There is absolutely no legitimate comparison between the motivation or the consequences of the Ferguson riots and the Boston Tea Party.
Darlena truly demonstrates that she does not have the qualifications to be taken seriously by anyone:
“Blacks in this country are more apt to riot because they are one of the populations here who still need to.”
Says who? Darlena? Blacks need to riot? What about a farmer whose property rights have been violated? What about law abiding citizens that whose second amendment rights are being violated? What about Tea Party groups that have been targeted by the IRS? Those who were spied upon by the NSA? What about all of us, including and especially blacks, whose livelihoods are threatened by unchecked immigration?
Either rioting can never be justified at all, or it’s OK for any group with a grievance. Saying anything else, is saying that one group has a right that other groups do not have, and what could be more unfair, what could be more un-American than that?
If you think as I do, that Darlena draws erroneous conclusions and simply misses the facts when they are staring her in the face, perhaps it’s because she has experienced so few things, and thus, gained so little knowledge in her life.