Clinton Pandering to “Victims” of “Police Violence”

Hillary Clinton was pandering when she met with the mothers of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Tamir Rice, among others.  Did her campaign pay the families’ airfare to Chicago? If not, then who did?

Hillary Clinton met privately Monday evening in Chicago with the families of young black people who were killed by police officers, according to her campaign, as the Democratic front-runner pushes forward her plan for criminal justice reform.

The participants included Lesley McSpadden, the mother of Michael Brown, whose death tipped off unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, last year, and Sabrina Fulton, the mother of Trayvon Martin, who was killed by a neighborhood watchman in Florida in 2012.

Also in attendance was Samaria Rice, the mother of Tamir Rice – the 12-year-old killed by police in Ohio while he was holding a toy gun last year – and Maria Hamilton, the mother of Dontre Hamilton, the mentally ill man who was killed by a police officer in Milwaukee in 2014.

The story contains a correction that points out that Clinton also met with the mothers of unnamed female “victims” of “police violence.”

However, the story was not corrected to point out that Trayvon Martin was not a “victim”, which implies innocence, but the aggressor, nor that the person who shot him in self defense was not a policeman.

Similarly, the story was not corrected to point out that Michael Brown was not a “victim” of “police violence” but, again, the aggressor against an officer who sought to question him about a robbery and assault that Brown had just committed.

Again, the story was not corrected to point out that Dontre Hamilton was also shot in self defense [“Officer Manney’s use of force in this incident was justified self-defense and that defense cannot be reasonably overcome to establish a basis to charge Officer Manney with a crime.”], nor does it point out the many sad and unfortunate circumstances that led to the death of Tamir Rice, whose case is still under investigation.

This private meeting Clinton had with the families of “victims of police violence” is apparently part of her outreach to African-Americans. Does she and her campaign staff assume that all African-Americans take the side of these so-called victims and not of the police?

In any case, we can now answer, on Clinton’s behalf, the question asked by the Ferguson protestors:

Which side are you on?

Apparently, Clinton is not on the side of the police, but instead on the side of so-called “victims” of “systemic racism,” in the form of “police violence” and “racial profiling.”

Let’s hope the law enforcement community takes note of the side Clinton has chosen.

This story says that

Clinton has tried to align herself with the Black Lives Matter movement that has been born out of the deaths, often at the hands of police officers, of these young black men.

But her relationship with the group has not been smooth. On Friday, Black Lives Matter activists turned out to protest her rally at a historically black university in Atlanta. When her speech resumed, she called for an end to racial profiling, equal sentencing for crimes involving crack and powder cocaine and reform preventing employers from asking job candidates about criminal history until a conditional offer is on the table.

In a related story, Obama has beat Clinton to the punch, with his pen:

Obama’s “ban the box” executive orders announced Monday follow a massive release of up to 6,000 convicted drug felons Nov. 1. The measures delay the ability of federal hiring personnel and federal contractors to find out if job applicants have a criminal record.

“The president has called on Congress to follow a growing number of states, cities, and private companies that have decided to ‘ban the box’ on job applications. We are encouraged that Congress is considering bipartisan legislation that would ‘ban the box’ for federal hiring and hiring by federal contractors,” the White House said in a statement. “In the meantime, the president is directing the Office of Personnel Management to take action where it can by modifying its rules to delay inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process.”

Changes in federal sentencing rules for drug crimes made by the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 2014 may eventually free up to 46,000 inmates, the Wall Street Journal reported Oct. 6. The White House maintains it is only freeing nonviolent offenders (mostly from California, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina and Texas).

“We’re fooling the public when we tell them we’re releasing nonviolent drug offenders,” Steven Cook, head of the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, told Politico on Monday.

“Fooling” is apparently now an Obama administration synonym for lying.

When, do you think, will Clinton meet with the families of Kate Steinle, Jamiel Andre Shaw II, or any of the many other [actual] victims of criminal illegal alien murderers, as listed here?

When, do you think, will Clinton meet with the families of police officers “feloniously killed,” most of whom are white? [The FBI tells us the race of the victims, but for some reason not the race of the killers.]

When, do you think, will Clinton meet with the families of victims, or with the victims themselves (if they’re lucky enough to be alive), of the hideous Knockout Game [aka Polar Bear Hunting]–these victims who are too numerous to list in full? Clinton might start with this homeless woman who was savagely beaten for fun, or will she instead make common cause with the real “victim”, the poor child who beat the woman for no reason other than her “white privilege” and that he had nothing better to do? The perp, by the way, offered an encore when he attacked a police officer.

I think we know that Clinton will not be meeting with the families of any of these real victims. Perhaps it’s for the best, because she didn’t fare too well with the families of her Benghazi victims.

In any case, keep in mind how Clinton would answer the question:

Which side are you on?

#####