This is letter to those mentioned in my post What can you do to prevent another Grant, Bell, Diallo, or other police murder?

This letter will be sent to all those named in that post. If you know of other organizations that should receive this, let me know. If you wish to copy and modify this letter for your own use to these individuals, please do.

To whom it may concern,

I am Michael Vass, President of M V Consulting, Inc. and author of Black Entertainment USA. Recently I became aware of the death of Oscar Grant at a BART station in California. This death came at the hands of police - while he laid face down on the ground defenseless, possibly handcuffed, with an officer holding him in place as he was shot in the back - and was video taped and witnesses by a large group of individuals on New Year's Day of 2009.

This news story has been seemingly dismissed by the major news media. I was lucky to notice a 30 second news video by ABC News, that I have not seen since, on January 5th. The national news media has not covered this story beyond that to my knowledge.

The lack of coverage has angered me greatly. I wrote about this tragic event on my blog, and several others that I write for. And I am constantly being made aware that my blog posts of this news event is the first that many people are hearing of this event. Yet in watching the national news coverage I have seen no end to the coverage of the Caylee Anthony case for a almost a year now, discussion on the death of Heath Ledger for a year, and other stories of similar nature. In fact I believe it is easier to know the clothes that Beyonce wore yesterday, how Jennifer Aniston feels about Angelina Jolie, and the new address of Michael Jackson than details in this case.

This is an outrage. The news media has failed America, and the Black community. It is their responsibility to make all law enforcement responsible to the public and to make the public aware of such events. Their job is to represent us when it is not possible for us to be aware of facts across the nation and the world. Their job is to help shed light on events that violate our rights and prevent the abuse of the system. That is not happening.

It is a fact that some news media have made factual errors in their reporting of the case. One such instance is the fact that reports say that only 2 videos of the incident exist. I found in 15 seconds multiple videos of the event from several angles and of lengths from 1 minute to nearly 5 minutes. I have provided some of that additional video on my site. Another fact was the initial statement of the BART police stating that video from the station itself was unavailable, which turns out to be erroneous.

Already we can see that facts are being occluded. Add to this that the internal investigation by police has run into a roadblock. Officer Johannes Mehserle, who fatally shot Oscar Grant while he laid face down, possibly handcuffed, with at least one officer holding him down with a knee on his neck, in his back, resigned. As such I believe that the internal investigation cannot go forward as Mehserle is no longer a police officer. Thus the Oakland D.A. must be motivated to investigate and bring up charges for any justice to go forward.

At the same time Police Chief Gary Gee and others have begun to postulate excuses on how or why this event happened. The most popular excuse is that Johannes Mehserle meant to reach for his taser. A taser is not the same weight, shape, or trigger as a police issue 9mm gun. The time, as seen in several video angles of the event, he took to draw and fire reveal he had ample time to recognize and visually sight the gun in his hands. And beyond all that, there was no imminent life-threatening need to draw any weapon. And that is proven by the 5 or 6 other officers on the scene never drawing or motioning towards any of their weapons at any point in this event.

And I believe that this is a pattern that needs to end. We have seen that more often each year tragic events like this are happening across the nation. Black men killed in a hail of dozens of bullets, beaten by hordes of police officers, abused in police stations, and on and on. More often than not, virtually in each case, the officer responsible never served a day in jail, rarely was fined or disciplined in any manner.

I believe these are connected. If we say nothing, do nothing, then we say to all police officers across the nation that the - in my opinion - outright cold-blooded murder of African Americans is socially acceptable and will not be punished.

Thus I ask you to provide your political and media strength to this issue. The nation needs to be aware of what happened. This should never have happened. This should not go unpunished.

I look forward to your support and the media attention you can bring to this tragic event.

Sincerely,

Michael Vass
President - M V Consulting, Inc.
718-344-6921
info@vassconsult.com

Labels: Al Sharpton, BART, Gary Gee, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Oakland, Oscar Grant, police brutality, race relations, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein

While there is a huge amount of humor being derived in the major news media with the announcement of who recently contributed (questionably goaded by a media source) to Presidential candidate Ron Paul, I’m not laughing. It’s not that Ron Paul has gained massive donations via the internet, in possibly the shortest time ever for any candidate seeking elected office. It’s not the profession of those that gave him the donation. It’s where attention has been focused.

Not long ago, a fugitive from the law made donations to Senator Hilary Clinton that totaled roughly $1,000,000. His name was Norman Hsu. Do you recall the case?

To summarize Mr. Hsu was wanted with a warrant for his arrest from California for over a decade. Mr. Hsu recently started to bundle funds for donation to Sen. Clinton. Initially, when his identity and warrant came to public attention, the Clinton campaign first stated their surprise, and then as pressure mounted offered to give back roughly $32,000. Then as the media checked into the story and it was found that the actual donations made totaled 1 million dollars which was possibly gotten from funds scammed from 3rd parties. The Clinton campaign offered to give the money to charity. The answer was they had not known he made the donations.

We regularly review contributions as we receive them; we will continue our practice of scrutinizing contributions and, should we have a basis to return a contribution, we will do so.

There may be humor in the recent donation of a brothel to the Ron Paul campaign, but there is a bigger issue out there. Donations from bundlers are too far into the grey to be sure who is giving what. There needs to be more accountability.

“Mr. Abdul Rehman Jinnah is another example of a bundle donor that had troubles, and his donations were not given away, or even addressed by Senator Clinton or Sen. Barbara Boxer.”

I have no doubt that every campaign checks the bundlers out and learns all about them. When huge donations come in, and the candidates are in contact with these huge fundraisers, campaigns seek to take advantage where they can. As examples Mr. Hsu was a way into the Asian voter groups. Ms Oprah Winfrey is a connection to women.

But at the same time special interest groups make enormous donations. We are talking millions. So I have to ask, what do the candidates owe these institutions and bundlers?

It’s been long said that no one does anything for free. If that is true, and I think it is, what are candidates giving to say pharmaceutical companies? What effect does that have on the national healthcare debate and the programs being offered by the candidates? What would a known criminal receive?

I mean, what would the top bundling contributor expect after donating $225,000 to then-presidential candidate John Kerry or a $1000 a plate dinner for Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island or Senator Ted Kennedy, or Senator Sherrod Brown.

These are questions we must ask. The issue of a Presidential candidate being beholden to groups they owe favors to is daunting. And the humor being placed on a minor donation by a legal and to date law abiding donor is a mere distraction.

The next President of the United States needs to be focused on the best course for the nation. Can we be sure that with the current state of rules on bundlers and corporate donations, any candidate is really seeking the best course or the one already paid for?

Labels: election donations, Norman Hsu, political donations, Ron Paul, Senator Boxer, Senator Clinton, Senator Ted Kennedy

There seems to be quite an uproar over the recent news about political contribution bundler Norman Hsu. As quickly as it has been found out that Mr. Hsu has a warrant for his arrest, various Democratic presidential candidates have moved to take his donations and given to charity. So far there has not been a reaction similar to the reactions related to the Republican political contribution bundler's. I can attribute that to the press, and separate issues that the Republican Party needs to address currently.

Still, this is a serious matter. The donations made by Mr. Hsu are reputed to total $1 million. This total has been collected over a period of roughly 2 years, which is quite a short amount of time. Surprisingly, very little is known about this man, or why his donations have been so large. One would suspect that some sort of quid pro quo would be a logical expectation.

I am further suspicious of the donations, and their cost, because of the actions that have been taken by the Democratic presidential candidates. It may play well to the media, and the public in general, to donate some of the funds Mr. Hsu has collected to date, but it does not stand up to inspection. By this I mean, what the presidential candidates have done with the bundled funds. There are perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars that Mr. Hsu is responsible for yet mere pittances of all those funds are being addressed by presidential candidates. And this is only one example of questionable donors. Mr. Abdul Rehman Jinnah is another example of a bundle donor that had troubles, and his donations were not given away, or even addressed by Senator Clinton or Sen. Barbara Boxer.

By law, the Democratic presidential candidates, actually all candidates, are not required to divulge how much money comes from any one source of the bundled funds they receive. This I am sure is a failure of the legal system, but little can be done about that now. Yet and quite interesting is the fact that one of the sources of funds that Mr. Hsu, bundled for Senator Clinton is a mailman named Mr. Paw. The reason why Mr. Paw is of interest is because he has donated to Senator Clinton alone, $45,000, which is exactly what he makes in a year. But there's been no statement by Senator Clinton or any of the other Democratic elected officials that have accepted the bundled funds of Mr. Hsu. [Beyond the statement

We regularly review contributions as we receive them; we will continue our practice of scrutinizing contributions and, should we have a basis to return a contribution, we will do so.

]

Some might say, what is the big deal about money that is donated? Some would point out; there are bigger issues in American politics such as the war in Iraq, nationalized health care, and immigration to name a few. They would be right, but the question stands what is it that Mr. Hsu or any other bundling contributor getting for the funds they commit to whichever candidate? Perhaps it's just me but I find it somewhat troubling. I mean, what would the top bundling contributor expect after donating $225,000 to then-presidential candidate John Kerry or a $1000 a plate dinner for Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island or Senator Ted Kennedy, or Senator Sherrod Brown. That does not include the elected officials in California, where Mr. Hsu is facing charges.

Elected officials are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard. That is, what were supposed to believe in America. Obviously, many are as corrupt as officials in countries across the world. The question of what this costs the nation is an unknown, and an unknown factor is something that is not a value in the next potential president.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Demcratic Party, election donations, Norman Hsu, Senator Boxer, Senator Clinton, Senator Ted Kennedy

Who does Senator Boxer think she is? I am speaking directly to the comments Senator Boxer made to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I find the comments insulting and unfair. The implications are insulting, on several levels.

If you are unfamiliar with what was said I quote Senator Boxer, "Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young," Boxer said. "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

In response, later, Secretary of State Rice said, "I guess that means I don't have kids. Was that the purpose of that Well, at the time I just found it a bit confusing frankly. But in retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that. That the only question is are you making good decisions because you have kids?"

White House spokesman Tony Snow state in regard to this, "I don't know if she was intentionally that tacky, but I do think it's outrageous. Here you got a professional woman, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Barbara Boxer is sort of throwing little jabs because Condi doesn't have children, as if that means that she doesn't understand the concerns of parents. Great leap backward for feminism."

Sen. Boxer has since release a statement that tries to clarify what she meant. In essence she tries to make the claim that she only meant to highlight the sacrifices of military families. In my opinion this is a crock.

I have no doubt that the Senator knew exactly what she said and it’s intention was not what she has since stated. To me it sounds as if Sen. Boxer made the claim that any woman without children should have no voice on the war. It can be further implied that a woman without children is somehow incomplete, according to the statement of the Senator.

I’ll even follow the logic a step further. From the statement made, and considering whom it was made to, the logic follows as such. A Black African American woman, that is not a traditional Democrat, that is single, educated, successful, and without children should not speak about a war where someone’s children will serve and is flawed. Whether the flaw is the lack of marriage and children – as Sen. Boxer stated she had – or that Secretary of State Rice is Republican, is unclear.

How dare she. If either point is her logic then I must say to Sen. Boxer that she has no idea of the cost of this war, as she has never served in the military. If, and I do not know the facts on this, Sen. Boxer’s husband and/or children did not serve in the Armed Forces then she, by her logic, is even further removed from speaking on this subject let alone question anyone else on it.

I may not agree with some choices that feminists have decided to take on over the years, but I do recognize that the choices that any woman has made should be respected. The same respect should be given to anyone that has made choices about their life goals. I deserve respect because of what I have done and chosen to do, the fact I am not married nor have children makes me no less of a man nor a success. Any woman deserves the same. Having children does not elevate the position of a woman, just as it does not a man. To imply such difference is rude and wrong.

To imply, or allow to be implied by the nature of the comment and to whom it is stated, that there is something wrong with an individual due to their political affiliation, education, gender, and/or race is deplorable. If this statement were made by a white male to a woman, feminists would be up in arms. If this were a liberal being told this there would be a rage in the media. IF an African American democrat said this to a white woman republican it would be labeled as racist. The race and gender does not change the merit of what was said. But it seems to affect the attention the media is willing to place on this – giving more time to discuss Mr. Donald Trump vs. Ms. Rosie O’Donnell.

Were I a constituent of Senator Boxer, I would contact her and make it clear she did not represent my views with her comments. Thankfully she is not my Senator. But sadly she has made it necessary for me to write this post.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, Condolezza Rice, feminist, Senator Boxer, Tony Snow