Violence at Political Rallies

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

I did not vote for Donald Trump. I voted for one of his rivals. Before that, I donated to Carly Fiorina’s campaign.

The issue in my mind is not whether the violence at Trump rallies is, in whatever degree, Trump’s fault.
Clearly, he is a “get in your face” type of person, at least verbally, and some of his supporters are inspired by that to become physical.

Did I mention that Barack Obama also incited political violence? Did I mention that Democrat congressmen, following Obama’s lead, urged bloodshed?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/5579-democrat-rep-capuanos-speech-to-union-rally-urges-violence
Democrat Congressman Capuano said, referring to the Tea Party. . . “I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once in a while you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” he continued. The crowd cheered and hooted for each [Democrat] Congressman as they spoke — the tougher the talk, the louder the reception.

In another news item,
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-fires-democrats-argue-face-article-1.323400
. . . Democrats urged Obama to get tougher and show more passion. Obama has tried to assure donors and voters that he’s been schooled by Chicago politics. “I’m skinny but I’m tough,” he says.

Below is a video link in which Obama urges his supporters to “Get in their face.”
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=obama+says+get+in+their+face&&view=detail&mid=4C3DFDE15074DA9144E94C3DFDE15074DA9144E9&FORM=VRDGAR

Finally, this video:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=black+panthers+block+polling+place&&view=detail&mid=2B7982312CAC0F3B89E62B7982312CAC0F3B89E6&FORM=VRDGAR

The aim of these acts of political violence is singular. It is to prevent speakers from voicing their disagreements with the socialist left. That is not a small matter. If successful, it will, to quote Barack Obama, fundamentally transform America.
In the words of another famous American, “Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech.” ~ Benjamin Franklin, 1772

Consequences of In Your Face Tactics

by Nadra Enzi, Contributing Writer

John F. McGraw, a 78 year old Donald Trump supporter, was charged with assault after a video surfaced of his sucker-punching Rakeem Jones, a suspected Black Lives Matter (BLM) protester.

The alleged protester was being escorted out of a North Carolina Trump rally by sheriffs deputies and was immediately taken into custody. The assault apparently happened during this process. Observers wonder if local law enforcement saw the assault upon him. The question, while valid, casts light more broadly on Black Lives Matter tactics and the atmosphere of this presidential candidates’ rallies.

A jail house intimidation approach, BLM’s preference, inflames attendees perceiving it as disturbing the peace and disrespectful.

Disrupting an event places police focus upon you, making it harder to identify assailants among the screaming crowd you inflamed. Conversely, if protesters haven’t initiated violence, there’s little cause to forcibly eject them. (It’s also within their First Amendment rights to “peaceably assemble.”)

I don’t support disrupting events. I find it arrogant and rife with negative unintended consequences. As Black Lives Matters evolves, I hope evolution includes creating more respectful protest models. In-your-face tactics can get you punched in the face by crowd cowboys. I’m not endorsing attacking rude protesters, BLM or otherwise, just noting potential trouble gleaned from years as event security and a parade marshal at demonstrations.

The arrested Trump supporter has since made indefensible statements to media. Why throw jet fuel on a political bonfire?

Nadra Enzi aka Cap Black, Your UrbanSafetyist, Brothers and Badges Together Advocate. 504 214-3082
http://www.urbansafetyism.blogspot.com Updates @ http://www.gofundme.com/capblack

Ode To Americas Great Ladies

by Nadra Enzi, Contributing Writer

The death of First Lady Nancy Reagan underscores the centrality of great ladies in maintaining our Republic. Credited with guiding American icon Ronald Reagan on his prodigious path to the White House, she reminds us that great ladies are a resource we can’t afford to lose.

She quietly helped our country win a cold war which threatened humanity and combated illnesses robbing senior citizens of recollection and competence. The same urban war declared when crack cocaine launched itself into Black communities saw Nancy Reagan surrounded by urban children famously telling them to “Just Say No! (to drugs and yes to life)” in defiance of this existential threat to their young lives.

Skeptics scoffed at the initiative and revisionists demonize Reagan era anti-drug trafficking laws as racist, while ignoring the brutal bias of low-income communities under chemical and gang attack. A great lady pulled a national neighborhood becoming a rudderless Hood to her bosom – and by extension – to the forefront of popular consciousness.

Nancy Reagan now joins the ode of American great ladies belonging to eternity. Her example challenges us, men and women alike, to discharge our duties with dignity and diligence. Even political foes unite to trumpet her grand example. She also joins other great ladies like my late grandmothers and mother in Yahweh’s infinite embrace.

Nadra Enzi aka Cap Black, Your UrbanSafetyist, Brothers and Badges Together Advocate. 504 214-3082.
http://www.urbansafetyism.blogspot.com Updates @ http://www.gofundme.com/capblack

If Elected, I Promise . . .

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

Since nobody showed up for my press conference, I am reduced to posting my campaign promises online for all to see, as the cliché would have it.

Although I have been a Ronald Reagan conservative for most of my adult life, I am also a pragmatist. As such, I have come to realize that as things now stand in America, no one can be elected President of the United States by promising to allow people the freedom to make their own way. It is political suicide to preach self-reliance and personal accountability. It is pointless to promise fidelity to a document that very few Americans have any knowledge of, such as the Constitution.

Therefore, in the spirit of contemporary American culture, I have decided to form a new political party that will put Bernie Sanders to shame. I call it the Everything Free Party, with emphasis on the word, party.

My solutions to vexing problems are simple and straightforward. For example, consider the vexing problem of poverty. We all know that millions of impoverished Americans are starving to death. They cannot afford food, medicine or other necessities, such as the latest video game equipment.

Under my plan, these vexing problems will be immediately solved. I will make everyone in America into a billionaire. When elected, my first order of business will be to have the government print up trillions of dollars and send a billion to every American who voted for me. Bingo, vexing problem solved. Why did nobody think of this before?

I will also expand welfare programs to include everybody except people who were already billionaires before I was elected. Everybody will get everything for free, except those rich people who made the free things. I will take from them everything that they have, and give it all to the people who voted for me.

I understand that there will be some people who criticize me. They will claim that if everybody is getting everything free, then nobody will have any incentive to produce free things, and that therefore, there will not be anything to give away. Those are lies, and under my plan, everybody who tells such lies will be thrown into prisons, where they will be forced to make free things for me to give to the people who vote for me.

I will ensure that everybody in America is equal. Anyone who has anything more than you do, will have it taken from them and given to you, assuming of course, that you voted for me.

So vote for me. I will know if you didn’t.

A World Without Cages

by Nadra Enzi, Contributing Writer

As an urbansafetyist, I explore various definitions of public safety. One of the more interesting is the “No Cages (jails and prisons)” theory. A young woman shared it with me last year and I get subsequent updates after hours when the she bar tends is closed. She’s at least an anarchist and thus we share healthy disgust of a super-sized state favored by liberals and conservatives addicted to one.

In her theory, most crimes shouldn’t be punished by imprisonment. Handling things firsthand is her preferred method when persuasion or counselling aren’t options.

Proponents of the criminal justice system consider autonomous problem-solving worse than crime it addresses. My view is somewhere in the middle.

UrbanSafetyism emphasizes creating awareness and responsibility everywhere (CARE) within encounters, workplaces and events, instead of relying upon government. As checkered as corrections history can be for inner citizens, I do recognize a legitimate role for jails and prisons. If society goes the “No Cages” route, problem-solving by default becomes an absolutely personal responsibility in the majority of cases. Some will ask, would the streets run red with blood? I guess we’d have to have a world without cages in order to find out.

Nadra Enzi aka Cap Black, Your UrbanSafetyist, Brothers and Badges Together Advocate504 214-3082. http://www.urbansafetyism.blogspot.com

Freedom or Subjugation?

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

We have two alternatives: freedom or subjugation.

Of the two, subjugation is the easier and (to some people) the more
attractive. Simply hand over all power to some other guys, and trust
that they will be wiser and more noble than we, the unwashed masses,
and wait for them to provide us with security and comfort.

Freedom is by far the more difficult alternative. Freedom is scary, and its
path is strewn with dangers. A free man has to weigh the consequences
of his actions, not merely in the immediate sense, but in the
universal. And when he fails or falls short, the blame falls on him
personally, not on “the system,” or on some nameless distant
bureaucrat.

But when the subjugated man and the free man lay down their heads at
night, it is the subjugated man who, in his heart of hearts, envies
the free man. And it is the free man who despite his fears and
failures, knows that ineffable fulfillment of the soul for which the
subjugated man can only yearn.

The power of government is increasing, and as it does, the erosion of
freedom continues. Whether through the Patriot Act, the IRS code, or
gun control laws, we are squandering our hard-won freedoms for the
false promise of security.

The people to whom we are yielding our freedoms—that is, those
people called the government—are neither wiser nor nobler than we
are. They are simply more powerful.

A Week of Murdered Officers

by Nadra Enzi, Contributing Writer

The murder of six law enforcement officers in a week remind us that blue is a minority too. Their uniforms and operation under color of law make them centers of attention – some of it homicidal.

As an urban advocate, I actively provide balance to a community narrative where police are villified as if none are virtuous. This villification can create wariness in their ranks – which I have experienced – and sets the stage for costly worst case scenarios.

Bringing brothers and badges together will usher an era of far less officer and inner citizen casualties due to new relationships and cooperation. All it takes is the will to do so.

Urban communities aside, police villification is active in the broader society, further isolating this unique minority in blue. Against this backdrop, is it any wonder police are ambushed simply for being themselves?

One extreme takes to the streets calling for police death while the other arms itself and has standoffs on contested land.

Caught in the sometimes literal crossfire are the few in blue who are targeted simply because of their uniforms. Protestors should keep this mind before making public stances which inspire not only anti-police discrimination but actual assassination.

That’s the ugly lesson of a week where six officers were murdered.

Nadra Enzi aka Cap Black, Your UrbanSafetyist!
Brothers & Badges Together Advocate. Contact: 504 214-3082

http://www.urbansafetyism.blogspot.com

NO Blue (Police) Lynching!

by Nadra Enzi, Contributing Writer

Two sheriffs deputies were recently ambushed on the outskirts of besieged Baltimore and once again decent people are shocked. A nation where police officers are routinely ambushed is one aflame from internal friction.

This friction is cooled when everyday citizens and advocates refuse to let blue (police) lynching go unchallenged. Pro-police press conferences, marches, social media campaigns, acts of kindness and literal assistance during crisis tip the scales against ambushers and the blue lynching lobby.

A presidential election cycle tragically promises increased anti-cop rhetoric and violence to advance toxic political agendas. We, who fancy ourselves supporters of law enforcement, either allow blue lynching on our streets and in popular culture or we oppose it!

Silence in this battle emboldens solo thugs and gangs at home while empowering homegrown extremists and foreign terrorists.

Blue lynching has supreme public safety and homeland security consequences which we can’t afford to encourage.

#nobluelynching

Nadra Enzi aka Cap Black, UrbanSafetyist, Brothers and Badges Together Advocate.http://www.urbansafetyism.blogspot.com

It’s Only A Matter of Time, New Orleans

by Nadra Enzi, Contributing Writer

As my brothers and badges together advocacy gains ground with distant departments and forums, it underscores a divide with New Orleans mayor who cherry picks inner citizen spokespeople. My local law enforcement allies, individual officers, executives and the Police Association of New Orleans (PANO), have my support while I oppose this mayor’s anti-advocate, anti-police policies.

Recruitment and retention have been at crisis-level for years and violent criminals exploit our disadvantage. This place is a racial powder keg and its fuse is routinely lit for selfish political purposes.

Posing Black youth and inner city crime scenes for photo ops doesn’t obscure the fact that we’re one officer-involved shooting and politicized investigation away from rioting.

Ignoring independent Black male advocates who support police will cost lives of inner citizens and urban officers, a tragedy having brothers and badges together could avoid.

Sadly, I’m fully prepared to tell powers-that-be I told you so when the inevitable smoke clears.

A brew of gentrification stirred economic apartheid and sock puppet spokespeople is going to boil over and New Orleans will be spoken in the same breath as Ferguson, Baltimore, Watts and Los Angeles. It’s only a matter of time when independent advocates closest to the problem are ignored and police/community relations eventually erupt.

#brothersandbadgestogether

Nadra Enzi aka Cap Black, UrbanSafetyist!, Brothers and Badges Together Advocate.
http://www.urbansafetyism.blogspot.com

Why Not Satanic Prayer?

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

According to a recent news report, “Arizona lawmakers are scrambling to change the rules regarding prayer at council meetings in an effort to keep The Satanic Temple from delivering an invocation at a February session.”[i]

There is no need for them to scramble. A proper understanding of the Constitution resolves their problem, and prohibits Satanic prayer in their venue. Let me explain.

One of the founding principles of the United States is freedom of religion. More explicitly, the First Amendment prescribes that, quoting from the text:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”

For about two hundred years, this rule was rarely if ever controversial. It was applied in a commonsense manner. If you choose to go to Church “A,” and I choose to go to Church “B,” the law must not force either of us to suffer any penalty for that. Jews are likewise accommodated.

Problems did indeed exist, for example, sometimes a requirement to work on the Sabbath, but these were addressed in a manner that at least seemed sensible to most people.

What was sensible was that the government is not permitted to prefer any one religion over any other.

Wait. That’s not completely true. Not all religions are equal. What the actual amendment really says is that the government is not allowed to respect any “establishment” of religion. While this may seem to be a minor detail, in context it is not. In the context of our nation’s history, the Amendment prohibits the government from forming a state religion, such was the case with the Church of England, which was supported with tax dollars.

Government neutrality with respect to religion has over the years been misinterpreted to mean, in practice, two things. One of them is a government hostility to religion, and not only to religion, but even to religious principles. The other misinterpretation is that anything calling itself a religion is entitled to all the protections of the Constitution.

Both of these misinterpretations cry out for reform. Failure to clarify the principle of religious freedom will make a farce of the Constitution.

It needs to be clarified that our freedoms come from God, the Creator, not from an anti-God such as a satanic entity. It also needs to be emphasized that our Constitution was designed to protect those specific freedoms, the God-given freedoms. It does not protect the freedoms which, for example under Sharia Law, permit men to subjugate women, and to punish those who change their religion.

The founding documents make this clear, as do the subsequent letters and literature written by those who founded our Republic. We do not burn witches, nor permit any religion to do so. At the same time, the Constitution does not protect religions which profess evil, such as religions of witchcraft.

Finally, while no one is forced to believe in any God, government neutrality regarding religion must not be construed to mean that the government must assume an atheistic perspective. Quite the opposite, our nation’s founding is predicated on what the Declaration of Independence terms, “a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.”

The Satanists in Arizona proclaim that they do not worship an evil entity. They even deny believing in Satan. They simply proclaim an atheistic basis for human secular morality.

Their argument is fraught with confusion and contradictions, one of them being that in demanding their right to offer prayer at a public meeting, they fail to answer, to whom are they praying?

The issue, however is much larger. It involves the soul of our nation.

[i] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/31/lawmakers-work-to-block-satanist-group-from-saying-prayer-at-council-meeting.html?intcmp=hpbt4