In the speech Obama gave after the grand jury decided not to indict
Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting of black teenager Michael Brown, he called
for getting rid of white police officers across the nation!
Obama squarely blamed police officers for the shooting. Incoherently, he said there were “good
people on all sides of this debate,” and then listed those who want “best
practices” for police and those who want “criminal justice reform.” That list does
not convey “all sides,” or even two sides, it names one side: anti-police.
Among the reforms he listed, Obama urged, “working with law enforcement
officials to make sure their ranks are
representative of the communities they serve.” What does that mean?
It can only imply hiring more minority police officers or getting rid of
white police officers. Either way,
this statement defines the problem as white police officers.
Read about the rest of this outrage HERE.
www.culturism.us
And why are there not more blacks in law enforcement?
ReplyDeleteWell, for one reason, a clean criminal record and no history of past drug use are two of the requirements for being on many police forces.
Most police forces run a polygraph to try to ascertain if there has been past drug use on the part of applicants.
I have a cousin (white) who tried to join several police forces here in the D.C. ares. No go. She had, some 4-5 years before, been a cocaine user.
There are other requirements as well -- including two years of college.
It certainly does mean a form of Affirmative Action.
ReplyDeleteWitness the quality of intellect this country can anticipate from more "affirmative action" hires, just by examining the "achievements"(discord) of early generation affirmative action hires - i.e. elected (Obama), appointed (Holder, Jarrett), or assumed ('Me'chelle) which this administration in the past 6 years.
ReplyDeletebho a raaacist-
ReplyDeleteC-CS