Friday, September 03, 2010

Donate to defend Arizona's 1070

Wyoming man donates $1.5 million to Gov. Jan Brewer's defense fund for the illegal immigration battle.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Masses Have Opinions on Arizona Immigration Law, But No One Has Read It

My best friends, associates at work, Eric Holder, President Obama. These are some of the people who have admitted they have not read SB 1070, now the Arizona Immigration Bill, yet each of them have opinions of whether it is legal, has civil rights issues, the right or wrong thing for the country....

I read the law, first page to last page. It took just 20 minutes. Most of the law is in plain, easily understood English, and most ordinary people can make sense of the verbage.

Not one person who has debated with me on the merits or legality of the law have read the law. I am the only person I know who has read it. And would say this is in particular more embarrassing for my friends and associates. I have politically active friends, well educated friends, including one who is a professor and helps to shape policy. Lastly I am a patrol officer in the Valley of the Sun and have many officer friends who disagree with the law. But no one has read it. Not the politically connected and powerful among them, not the police officers, not my smartest of friends. This is embarrassing because with each of them I listened as they explained why the law is too expensive to enforce, or they said it is not the responsibility of city patrol officers to enforce immigration, there are civil rights issues, it's illegal. All these opinions were argued and others. But not one of them read the law. They could not even quote me a line nor paraphrase any portion of the law. How did they think this is objective, or to quote them fair?

Eric Holder has admitted he has not read it. Article - "Has anyone read it?"

All state laws are enforced by city patrol officers. All officers make judgement calls and look for reasonable suspicion and build their case for probable cause for an arrest. Officers make decisions based on their education, experience and opinions of their squad mates in a round table and maybe with their seargent included in the decision making.

There are rogue cops. They are vetted steadily by problems with their professionalism, performance, complaints by peers, aggression, civil rights violations and sometimes even whether they called someone an asshole. The above problems are investigated by their department, another department, private attorneys, prosecutors, and by their own moral compass. A bad apple will inevitably fall from the bunch.

But all laws are handled by the same officers. Whether they make the right decision or wrong. It is in the best interest of the individual officer to make the correct decisions. They want to stay clear of internal or external investigations and lawsuits. Because they want to keep their jobs.

This immigration law will likely be enforced fairly. When there is a problem, it will be dealt with have no doubt. There are plenty of attorneys, politicians and even other officers who want to make a name for themselves. They want to be the enforcers and get a pat on the back.

In the mean time, most of us patrol officers will do our jobs in good faith and enforce the laws, voting Arizonans, expected of us.

Saturday, November 08, 2008

Most Who Voted Obama, Did Not Know Why

Prior to the election I asked as many Obama supporters as I could find why they were voting for him? I had one friend give me a reasonable argument for an Obama presidency.

I had asked about ten others, including one of my roomates why they were voting for him. The only three answers I received from these individuals were the following (paraphrased):

1) He is going bring the troops home and end this war.
2) He is going to bring back US respect in the world. (However not one could explain to me how?)
3) He is going to be the first black president.

When asked what Barack had done to prove he would be a great president, I asked each person to name one thing he did. Barack voters were 0 for 10 with answers.

The following youtube clip is of a British journalist who recently made it to the online news. Good example of Obama supporters.

Thursday, November 06, 2008

It is a new time. A story has been made.

Read the text message I received at 11:08pm on November 4, 08 from my friend Brian. I replied back "I hope so." "Give him a chance for me," he said. And my last message said, "I plan to, for you as well."

Now Barack is our President elect. I will support him as our new commander in chief. He deserves all the respect the office demands and he will get the respect he deserves from me.

Not sure what to think of the media saying, "President Obama, president of the world." Maybe it is supposed to be poetry or symbolism? So far I do not get it. Perhaps it is in response from people like supposed entire countries wanting Obama to be our new president and individuals like Achmedinajad congradulating Barack?

Off come the McCain bumper stickers.

Thursday, April 03, 2008


I support John McCain. "624787"

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Benedict Undermining Peace by Demanding Peace?

The Vatican has strongly opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and the article lists statements and subjects the Pontiff made to broadcast his disgust for the Iraq war. Or is he disgusted with the terrorist murderers?

The Associated Press article says, ...Benedict said Rahho's dedication to the Church and his death compelled him to "raise a strong and sorrowful cry" to denounce the violence in Iraq spawned by the war that he said had destroyed civilian life... The quotations surrounds just a small part of this sentence, so I call into question the end of the thought after the quotations, "to denounce the violence in Iraq spawned by the war..." Who said this? Because it is not in quotations, the Press seems to have taken the liberty to define what the Pontiff meant by his own words.

The Vatican strongly opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. In its aftermath, Benedict has frequently criticized attacks against Iraqi Christians by Islamic extremists. Last year, he urged U.S. President George W. Bush to keep the safety of Iraqi Christians in mind.. The previous may lead a reader to believe another untruth. The first sentence highlights the Vatican's opposition to the "U.S. led invasion. The next sentence he finds Islamic extremists attacks on Christians to be horrible, and then ask Pres Bush to protect Christians against extremists. This paragraph suggests the US invasion caused extremists to start attacking Christians and now the US must clean up it's own mess and protect Christians?

Finally the Popes homily was a speech about looking at everything including the war in Iraq through the eyes of a child or like a child. Perhaps the Press again took another quote of the Popes out of context because such idealism is hardly a strategy for peace.

I understand the Pope's position may not allow him to appear in anyway to promote or agree with the taking of lives of anyone, good or evil. Here in again lies the problem. Ideally there are no extremists Ideally all these murderers of Christians, Jews, other Muslims and American Troops could be reasoned with and negotiated. However those willing to blow themselves and 20 innocents are well beyond negotiating. Does he believe after this speech by him or any other, the terrorists will suddently realize they are wrong, the Pope is right and immediately stop killing?

I am glad the Pope is the leader of a church and not a general. Perhaps his position only allows him to speak from a vacuum which is the Vatican. But outside those walls there are people who want to kill even him. Thank you United States for fighting a war in which everyone would have been a target of terrorism and victims. Thank you President Bush for not deciding what is popular and staying with principal. The only ideal President Bush is guilty of, is the one he feels all people are created equal, and is willing to put his Presidency in historical jeopardy for winning a war and winning peace through strength.

Friday, October 05, 2007

Your Black World, Boyce Watkins wrote...

ed Juan Williams a “Happy Negro” on CNN – And why He and Bill O’Reilly Are Not Happy About it

By Dr. Boyce D. Watkins

A friend (Valencia Roner) called me one night to ask if I watch “The O’Reilly Factor”. I said “No, I don’t watch stupid, racist television programs.” She then informed me that I might want to watch this particular episode.

Why? Because I was the topic of conversation….for the entire show. I set the DVR and went to sleep. I woke up the next morning to watch what had been recorded. Valencia was right. They were showing images of my CNN appearances, and playing my comments repeatedly, like Sports Center Highlights. I’ve never seen so many guests asked to comment about someone else’s comments.

The kicker was watching Juan Williams and Bill O’Reilly congratulate each other like brothers for winning the “smear campaign” placed upon them by CNN. I listened to O’Reilly tell the world that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and other news organizations were all corrupt, but not him. Williams even wrote a piece about me in Time Magazine. During the show, I honestly thought Williams was going to cry. This brought back memories, since I remember making a lot of conservatives cry in college. My mother said I shouldn’t make grown men cry, and I felt bad.

I was asked on CNN (and other shows) about Bill O’Reilly’s racist remarks about Sylvia’s, a black restaurant in Harlem. In his comments, O’Reilly said that he could not get over the fact that the people were civil and well-behaved. He commended black people for finally learning to “think for themselves” and was relieved that there was no one in the restaurant saying “mf-er I want more ice tea.” (Good thing no one was really thirsty!).

O’Reilly tried to argue that his comments were meant to compliment the black community. He said that they were meant to defy stereotypes. As humbly and naive as a school girl, he argued that he was only intending to shed light on how racial stereotypes are bad for our society. Suddenly, Bill O'Reilly was Martin Luther King Jr.

On CNN, I essentially explained that anyone who thought Bill O’Reilly was suddenly a reformed racist who’d seen the light has been getting high with Bobby and Whitney too long. I’ve been on this man’s show before, and he has consistently demeaned, degraded and devalued everything about black culture he could get his hands on. I also mentioned that I was unimpressed with Juan Williams’ agreement and defense of O’Reilly. Seeing Williams sitting there congratulating O’Reilly for his bigotry reminded me of the Negro in the white suit defending “massa” at all costs. His attitudes were consistent with his latest and most terrible book, which does nothing but blast black culture and black people, as if we are the sole causes of socioeconomic inequality.

Therefore, I could only use terms I felt appropriate. I defined Williams as “The Happy Negro”. On CNN, I compared O’Reilly’s use of Williams to Hugh Hefner hiring a stripper to tell him that he’s not a sexist. The “Happy Negro” was no longer happy when he heard what I had to say.

I am not sure how smart or dumb Williams is (I have 3 times more education than him, but I guess he is of at least average intelligence). I hope that he has enough sense to know that he is being used by a man who has consistently and reliably shown himself to be an enemy of black people.

I have, through my books “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about College” and “What if George Bush were a Black Man?” consistently attacked problems in the black community. I have spoken to millions of African-Americans about the value of getting an education and managing their money. I support the black family and even proposed to my future spouse in front of millions of people, in order to give black men the courage to express love for our beautiful black women. I wish I could tell you how many times I argued with CNN producers to cover the Jena 6 story long before it was popular to do so. So, everything that Juan Williams might say about advancing the community has been consistently on my radar screen.

But here is where we differ. I am very hard on the black community about improving our plight. But I am also man enough to challenge the white community for their role in creating racial inequality. Racism is a disease that lies within the fabric of nearly every American institution. So, any conversation about racial inequality that does not include White America’s flaws and roles in the process is ridiculous, misguided and counter productive.

If a young lady is sexually molested by her father and grows up to become a prostitute, any weak man can say “Miss, your life is in shambles because you’re choosing to be a whore.” This might even be an obvious point, but it will also continue to erode her self-esteem and ignore the critical half of the equation. It takes a stronger man to first challenge the young lady and then go inside the home and confront her father for what he has done to create the problem. There is no denying that her father should pay for his daughter’s counseling, apologize, get psychiatric help and face punishment for what he has done. He cannot expect that his family will be peaceful as long as he has not acknowledged his role in the creation of his family’s devastation. At that point, you also teach the daughter personal responsibility.

Why won’t many men do this? Because the daughter is an easy target, and her father might kick you in the ass. That is why many black conservatives won’t challenge white America to have personal responsibility for their role in racism, for this is biting the hand that feeds them (how long would Juan be on the Fox News payroll if he were to tell White America that their institutions and attitudes are a large cause of racial inequality? Contrary to O'Reilly's indication, I am not compensated by CNN or any other networks for what I say). It also feeds directly into white supremacy to say “The black community is in shambles because black people are making bad choices. The 400 years of oppression have nothing to do with the last 30 years of expression.” Hence, we have Bill O’Reilly getting his rear-end rubbed by Juan Williams, as they both agree that the little girl is nothing but a whore.

O’Reilly claimed that Rev. Jesse Jackson (another guest on the show) was appalled by what I said about Williams, but of course he could not validate his claims on camera. I got a call the very next morning from Jackson’s daughter Santita and received no indication of disapproval from the Jackson family. I am sure that if they had disagreed, they would have told me personally.

Williams, for some reason, thinks that he is contributing to the advancement of black people by teaming up with a proven racist who has KKK members and Neo-Nazis watching his show (you should see my hate mail). A man who has a problem with President Bush would not team up with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to go after Bush. No matter how valid his arguments might be, the fact is that such actions amount to TREASON and are ultimately destructive. Having a black face does not mean you care about the black race. Clarence Thomas taught us that.

Hence, at the end of the day, I still call Juan Williams the “Happy Negro”. I stand by my remarks and might even put it on a t-shirt. From the response I've gotten so far, I wouldn't be the only one wearing it.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor at Syracuse University and author of “What if George Bush were a Black Man?” He does regular commentary in national media, including CNN, FOX, ESPN, and BET. For more information, please visit