Woman: My 12 year old son had issue with your use of immigrant v. slave…, “he said to me you can’t be an immigrant when you are brought here against your will in chains.”

Ben Carson: “Yes you can, you can be an involuntary immigrant.”

Later in his answer, “We should be proud of the fact that our ancestors were able to survive slavery.”

Carson’s final point was “people need to look up the word immigrant. Whether voluntary or involuntary, you’re still an immigrant… slaves came here as involuntary immigrants but still had the strength to hold on.” 🤔

What the what?!?!

1. There is no such thing as involuntary immigrants — that’s called slavery. An immigrant, as defined by the dictionary: a person that comes to a country to take up permanent residence. Slavery is not immigration. We should be very weary that a policy maker in the Trump administration has rationalized in his mind that slavery was merely a form immigration policy that was used at some point in this country’s history. That’s called erasure. Following his logic, we should ask Ben Carson if he believes the 13th Amendment (to supposedly abolish slavery) was unnecessary?
2. Ben Carson, don’t use the resilience and spiritual strength of Black folks to persuade us that slavery was somehow only an immigration policy and not a morally heinous original sin of this country. A sin this country still can’t acknowledge, apologize
3. What’s scarier is that Ben Carson still has not, through this whole thing, denounced slavery and the institutions involved.

The power of Mother Earth is undeniable. We continue to protect her even when man tries to desecrate her. Pray for our brothers and sister at Standing Rock.

It’s a long read, but please take a moment if you can.

Today at 2pm CST, the Army Corps and Dept of Defense have announced they will forcibly remove and arrest any water protectors still at the Oceti Oyate Standing Rock camp.

This country has an exceptionalism complex. I truly believe my job is to question that exceptionalism, to critique it, and to resist against it.

It’s this exceptionalism complex, a complex that allows the US to believe it is somehow a country superior to any other and can operate with some magical righteous impunity, that has murdered, enslaved and oppressed people of color, the poor, and “other.”

This exceptionalism complex has allowed this country to be unapologetic of its original and continued sins. In 1997, Bill Clinton while providing an apology to the black soldiers that were survivors of the vile and inhumane Tuskegee experiments, was asked whether he and the U.S. would apologize for slavery. He said he would think about it.

The blinding exceptionalism has made the vast majority of people believe we live in a just and suitable society. A society where, in 2015, not a single officer in the entire country was found guilty of murder after 1000+ people were killed by U.S. police. But we live in a just world, remember?

An exceptionalism that allows the CIA to directly and knowingly bring cocaine into the urban cities in the the 1980’s, devastating generations of people of color, but specifically Black folks, in order to raise black market money to send to the US supported troops in Nicaragua fighting Ronald Raegan’s hidden war against a leftist government. Yes, this really happened (look it up). This government single handily created the crack epidemic in our urban cities — with impunity.

It’s this exceptionalism the granted the US government the obscene gall in 1823, through a US Supreme Court decision, to exercise the despicable “Doctrine of Discovery” that states natives were only allowed to occupy land, but not own land because their “right of occupancy” was declared “subordinate” to the US’ “Right of Discover.” That means, if a white man discovered land that had been occupied by Natives, it legally became his under the law.

What about the exceptionalism of Andrew Jackson, in 1830, passing the Indian Removal Bill, to forcibly remove natives from their land in order for the US Gov’t to take the land and sell it off.

Let’s not forget when natives were demanded, in the late 1800s, to move to their newly-created reservation, and if they didn’t, they would be considered “hostile” and would be arrested or killed by US cavalry. They were massacred. Sound familiar?

To this day, the exceptionalism this country blinds itself with is cancerous and oppressive. We are witnessing the modern-day cavalry, land grabs, and violence. Cancerous exceptionalism is violent and harmful no matter what century, 1800s or 2000s, it is still the same result: oppression of the people for the sole purpose of money.

We are oppressed people. It is real, it is tangible, it is visible, and it is felt. If you need proof, look at Standing Rock. The Gov’t stealing land from natives, selling it to private corporations, without the consideration of potential harm.

It’s our time to wake up. It’s out time to bring enlistment to ourselves and our world. We are on a crash course with history, and unfortunately we are winning — a century of oppression that is set to be worst that the past.

The most patriotic thing we can do — hold this government accountable for its intentional terror, violence, and economic oppression. I will no longer stand for it. Our government can no longer act with impunity. We must charge it with the crimes it has committed.

If they are willing to eviscerate the first people of this land, the people with the moral and natural right to this land; what stops this same system from pushing anyone else out of the way to ensure they have access to the financial capital they want?

There’s much more to write…. but my thoughts end here for the moment.

In solidarity and love for the oppressed people of the world.

We will win.

A few weeks ago, I was traveling back home for the first of many times from being on the front lines at Standing Rock (the sacred land in North Dakota where indigenous and native people are fighting for clean water and their lives against corporate greed). Standing Rock and the water protectors have proven to be the moral authority of this country. If the moral arc of the universe, as Dr. King said, “bends towards justice,” then the end of the arc slum land in Standing Rock. This was a place that gave me hope. Hope given to me in the midst of the chilling tectonic shifts among the global, political power structures of the U.S., France, and Cuba; but that hope was quickly interrupted by a reporter’s call seeking my thoughts on Hillary Clinton joining election recount efforts.

I’ve got to tell you, as someone who has stood with the people on the front lines of many social justice efforts and seeing the suffering this government has perpetuated on its people: from the larceny of indigenous land (e.g. Standing Rock) to state-sanctioned murder of communities of color by police, I nearly blurted out to the reporter, “who gives a f*%k?”

The fact is, Hillary Clinton hasn’t and, very likely, will not denounce the Electoral College, which gives superpowers to less populous states in the Midwest and South, effectively consolidating the last bastion of white political power, despite our browning electorate. It says to me that she is neither concerned about true democracy nor the true representation of the American people. Let me be honest, Hillary Clinton is not the savior. While the KKK may not have endorsed her, she was endorsed by the banks and economic elite, aka the 1%. The same 1% that has benefited from systems of white supremacy and economic injustice that continues, to this day, to exploit working class communities — white and otherwise.

Hillary may not say “things” that offend people like the president-elect, but she, like he, also does not have a track record of doing “things” to serve working class and marginalized people in America. Her neo-liberal policies may even make you feel comfortable, compared to Trump, but her domestic and foreign policy has certainly made millions of poor people in America and around the world devastatingly uncomfortable.

The people of this country must stop being dragged into the malignant game of choosing the least of two evils — why has this line of thinking even considered normal? Average Democrats and Republicans. reject it. Americans, voting and non-voting, reject it. Millennial and college-age voters reject it. High school and middle school students reject it. Many of us have been asking, why do we have to choose evil at all? There are other ways. While at Standing Rock, a sovereign nation governed by the Lakota people, I witnessed first hand that evil does not have to be “choice.”

Just because one candidate is more palatable or possibly even less overt in her injustice, doesn’t mean they aren’t complicit to injustice. Look, I am always open to negotiate and sometimes even willing to settle. But there are two things we cannot do: 1) negotiate with injustice; and 2) settle for injustice. It is neither our job nor our responsibility — the only responsibilities we have in this search for freedom is to speak truth to power and be resistant in the face of injustice.

In all honesty, considering our current situation of democratic purgatory, we should be more inclined to face off with the enemy we can name and see, alas Donald Trump, rather than the snake in the grass that bites when we least expect.

Remember, 46.9% of people, the majority in this country, didn’t vote for a presidential candidate and chose to not participate in this perverse system of democracy, for one reason or another. And people must stop shaming others who chose not to vote — can you blame them? I voted, but who am I to tell someone else to vote for something they don’t believe in? No one should have to participate in a process that was never designed to work for them, that has been rigged to benefit the rich since the founders’ ink dried, and was created to protect the wealth of a small corral of elites (who were and are typically, at least in this country, white men).

To those who say, “People died for the right vote! How dare you not vote?” Let’s be very clear here, people died in search of their freedom not just the right to vote. Why do I believe this to be true? Because freedom will never be on a ballot. We must not conflate voting and freedom. Voting may be a right, but freedom is a constant struggle of resistance. In 1965, when the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed, prohibiting racial discrimination in voting, was it freedom that was achieved? No. It was a right that was achieved; in search of freedom. To this day, Blacks continue to fight for equal jobs, schools, housing, and human dignity.

If we truly want people in this country to vote, then our government must earn those votes, enacting policies that actually benefit the people who have been relegated to the fringes of justice.

Democracy is on life-support in this country. Hillary is not the answer and Trump is the Klansman that decided to take his hood off.

So what are we left with? This: A system dominated by a two-party system that is not only financially corrupt but also an international spectacle of xenophobia, sexism, racism and neoliberalism raising eyebrows in nations around the globe. The founders of this country; rich, white, land owning men, referred to the United States as the “Grand Experiment.” Well, it’s about time we go back to the drawing board and be innovative — because, clearly, this experiment hasn’t worked for the vast majority of people. We need a new hypothesis. Instead of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; maybe what we really need is Dignity, Humanity, and Liberation.

Let us never forget that pre-WWII Germany, a country with democratic ideals, allowed a fascist dictator to rule. Hitler rose to power by calling to the fears of disenfranchised people, scapegoating minority groups as the reason for their poverty and instability, and promising to “Make Germany Great Again.” Sound familiar?

On November 8, 2016, the United States elected an aspiring fascist. The proposed policies, proven rhetoric, and disgraceful acts are eerily similar to the scrawny, mustached killer who led one of the most horrific acts of Genocide on the planet. I don’t say this lightly and we must take it serious.

Democracy as we’ve known it — the cherished value of one person one vote — was never a reality in this country with the Electoral College, but even the perceived notion of democracy is dying in this country. It is the collective responsibility of the people to bring it back to life. No recount is going to restore faith in our broken political system, neither is putting Hillary Clinton. Neither candidate was good for this country. Unfortunately, we are constantly left with candidates that rather seek power and cater to the economic elite than do what is in the best interest of average, working class folks.

My prediction: Democracy in this country will take its last breath if it doesn’t exorcise itself of its debilitating greed and its constant treasure hunt for more capital.

Edwin Lindo is a professor of Race and the Law at the University of Washington School Of Law.

I for certain will not.

In a 2016 preseason game against the Green Bay Packers, Quarterback Colin Kaepernick (AKA “Kap”) of the San Francisco 49ers, made a bold political statement against police terror and the murdering of black people and people of color (If you don’t know, please get caught up.) Kaepernick protested the police terror by staying seated during the pre-game national anthem. This was not a silent protest or a protest of symbolism — this was a protest of livelihood and awakening.

This article is not about how much I dislike the 49ers franchise for leaving San Francisco — which I do. This is an article about how racist the Star Spangled Banner is and the dark history of Francis Scott Key, the creator of the national anthem.

In the press conference after his protest game, Kaepernick made his reasons very clear, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

The oppressive environment of living in this country, seeing black and brown bodies dead in the streets at the hand of police, and seeing yourself in each of those bodies catches up to anyone. Kaepernick made clear his consciousness of all that is happening,“To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Kaepernick understood the consequences he might face, but in spite of the lurking shadow of losing money, the hate, and fierce political backlash, he firmly stood by his actions.

“This is not something that I am going to run by anybody,” he said. “I am not looking for approval. I have to stand up for people that are oppressed. … If they take football away, my endorsements from me, I know that I stood up for what is right.”

And of course, the ignorant people of this country lost their minds.

Erik on Twitter

Yeah. How dare Colin Kaepernick criticize the treatment of black people in America.

Unequivocally, this is the most significant political statement made by any athlete in recent history. In this piece you will know why I stand today and forever with with our brother Kaepernick, and why you all should too.

What Kaepernick did was cut his chains of silence, repression, and self-hate. Kaep showed his love for his people and its now our turn to show him the love he deserves.

Let’s get our lesson started.

Know Your History — Star Spangled Racism

Many of us know the National Anthem ritual at sporting events — the announcer asks all those in attendance to standup and face the United States flag. Many place their right hand over their heart, others take their cap of and place it over their heart, and all uniformed military salute the flag with their right hand. It’s become something of “patriotic tradition” with famous singers asked to sing the “Star Spangled Banner” at the beginning of many high profile events.

For many, this ritual is the epitome of patriotism. Therefore, for Kaepernick to stay seated during this so-called “patriotic” ritual is profound and inspiring.

I call it “so-called” because we must first understand the history of the song that became the national anthem in 1931. I must say, I had not known the entire history of the song’s origins, but I have to give thanks to our resident educator and scholar, Dave D. for reminding us that we must always do our research.

What most don’t know is that this song written in 1814 by Francis Scott Key in a Baltimore city bar, is more than just the one verse we sing during the national anthem. In reality, the song is much longer and darker than any of us thought. Even for me, a former college athlete that heard the song thousands of times before, I blindly took my hat off and would place it over my heart. But I ask myself now, why? Is it really to show my patriotism for the United States? Is it truly representing freedom? I argue that is exactly what it’s not.

The first verse of the Star Spangled Banner is what we hear and sing at every sporting event:

O say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O’er the ramparts we watch’d were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson, made the Star-Spangled Banner the official national anthem by executive order. In March 1931, Congress passed law confirming Wilson’s order. Therefore, the song was adopted at the official national anthem. Let’s be clear, it was not just the first verse that was adopted, it was the whole song. Every word of it. Find the rest of the song here.

Let me share a little about our friend, Francis Scott Key — the bigot, racist, and anti-black attorney that later became the District Attorney of Washington, D.C. Key was adamantly against all abolitionist efforts because he could not stand for seeing free blacks — though he did support free blacks being sent to Africa, because he believed that a country with free blacks would lead to chaos and rioting.

Key was the District Attorney during the 1835 ‘Snow Riots’ (white-led riots against blacks to squash the organizing of slavery abolitionists). To show a strong position against blacks and the abolitionist movement, Key, as District Attorney, filed criminal charges seeking death by hanging against Arthur Bowen, an innocent black man and slave who allegedly entered a white women’s bedroom with an axe while intoxicated. This act of prosecution by Key was an effort to calm the “Snow Riots” in D.C., by making example of a black man and that he took no mercy. This, even after the woman who was said to be assaulted, asked for Arthur Bowen’s pardon.

Key is the epitome of our country’s historical contradictions, a slave owner and a person of the law. He had such disdain towards abolitionists and the abolitionist movement that in 1836, a year after the ‘Snow Riots,’ he served as the prosecutor for one of the “Most important cases ever tried” in Washington, D.C., according to Key. This is the case of U.S. v. Reuben Crandall. In this case, Key tried Reuben Crandall, a white abolitionist, for distributing abolitionist literature in the nation’s capital, seeking to organize and inspire slaves and free blacks to “stir up against slave owners.” Key charged Crandall with sedition (Sedition: the subversion of the constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.)

Crandall was eventually found not guilty by a jury, but in the trial Key did not hold any punches. He goes on to highlight his fear and disgust for blacks. In the transcript of the trial, Key attempts to persuade the jury by arguing, “Are you willing, gentlemen, to abandon your country; to permit it to be taken from you, and occupied by the Abolitionist, according to whose taste it is to associate and amalgamate with the Negro?”

He goes on with the jury, “Or, gentlemen, on the other hand, are there laws in this community to defend you from the immediate Abolitionist, who would open upon you the floodgates of such extensive wickedness and mischief?” We definitely can’t let free black people roam the streets, it’s so scary to even think it! What’s scary is there are people that still believe this nonsense today, too scared to even walk on the same side of the street as a black person. Believe me, I’ve seen it first hand.

But let’s get back to the ‘Star-Spangled Banner.’ What has always been omitted from public performance, yet is still part of the official song, are the verses that come immediately after the first verse we always sing. The third verse in particular provides a clear confirmation of Key’s views of blacks:

No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

(Full lyrics here.)

Who Key was referring to when he penned the words “No refuge could save the hireling and slave / From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave” were the black slaves that fled slavery to fight with the British during the War of 1812. Those slaves were offered freedom to fight against the country that enslaved them, the United States. As he wrote this song, Key was probably in immense fear, seeing free blacks and seeing those same free blacks fight against him! But he made it clear in his song, he wanted them dead.

Even knowing of Key’s violent position on slavery and views of blacks in this country, the song was still adopted as the official national anthem.

We should be ashamed that this crock of a song serves as our national anthem. It is so deeply tainted with racism and pro-slavery history that it’s irreconcilable. The song cannot be seen as one of patriotism, but rather a song rooted in the worst of our country’s history. We deserve better and we must demand better.

Kaepernick may not have known the full history of Francis Scott Key and the Star-Spangled Banner, or maybe he did? Either way, we all know it now.

For the reasons of police terror we face in this country and for the reasons I laid out above, I too have chosen to take the political stance of no longer standing for the national anthem.

As you stand and place your right hand over your chest singing the words of the national anthem, remember it is a song written by a slave owner who sought the death penalty (by hanging nonetheless) against an innocent black man because he wanted to prove a point; and carried such a wretched disdain for blacks that he even put it in the lyrics of the Star Spangled Banner. No thank you, I’ll pass, Mr. Key.

We deserve a new national anthem, and we deserve one sooner rather than later. This is not the first request of its kind and it shouldn’t be the last.

Ok, the song is bad, but what about not standing for the flag? That’s the real issue, right? It’s disrespectful to those that serve our country, right? No, it’s not.

The Flag of the United States of American Is A Symbol, not Freedom.

In explaining his protest, Colin Kaepernick stated, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

We must make the very clear distinction between protesting an oppressive government and system and protesting against troops. Never once did Colin diminish the lives that wear military uniforms or that have been killed while on duty. Colin actually made a statement that he understands how poorly our vets get treated after serving in the military, especially those vets of color.

Not standing up for the flag does not mean he disrespected the troops. Quite the contrary. If we take the words of the preamble for the Declaration of Independence, our supposed founding principles, it provides as follows with regards to our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it….” Additionally, there is no enacted law prohibiting anyone from sitting down during the national anthem in protest.

Therefore, it is Colin’s absolute right to express his protest just as he did. Against an oppressive and violent state as we currently have, not showing faith in our government and the flag is demanded of us. Remember, the declaration of independence clearly states that is is our right to alter our government, and it is effectively our duty to do so; that is, if it’s freedom we’re actually looking for.

We know he has the right to protest the flag and national anthem, but is it the right thing to do? Let’s not forget that terror and oppression can be, and has been, perpetuated in our own country by the same system that points to terrorism and oppression around the world and says we must defend freedom. But who or what protects us from the oppression of the same system that is supposed to defend us? The Police? No. The Military? No. Elected Officials? Maybe, when it’s politically expedient and doesn’t upset the “order” of things, which is usually never. So all we have left is us — The People.

What oppression is Colin talking about? I don’t know, let’s think about what that flag of the United States has stood for over the years. We’ll start with the constitution that clearly stated slaves would only count for 3/5ths of a person; allowed hundreds of years of slavery and exploitation, and that’s all before the 1900’s. Let’s not forget the gruesome experiments done to the Tuskegee Airmen, when women couldn’t vote and still, today, make less than men, when Japanese citizens were forced into concentration camps, crack cocaine was introduced into poor black communities by the government (we know what happened with that), and the thousands of Blacks that were hanged in this country — for being Black. We also have the under education of our children and the over criminalization of our poor communities and communities of color for economic interest of 21st century prison slavery (I’ll write a separate piece about this).

And don’t let a black community or community of color have a thriving community in this country, they might burn it all down. Take a look at, Atlanta, Tulsa, Chicago, Rosewood, and others.

Speed up to 2016 and we have more people dying at the hands of police than we do dying at the hands of soldiers dying at the hands of “terrorists,” and that was in 2013.

Today, the number of dead soldiers is 4,491; in 2013, the number of people killed by U.S. police since 2003 was 5,000.

In 2014, 1,039 people were killed by police.

In 2015, that number rose to 1,199, with 574 of those being people of color.

In 2016 alone, 709 people have already been killed by police.

Adding up the numbers, since 2003, 7,947 people have been killed at the hands of police. That is over 3,000 more than the number of soldiers killed in war. We have to ask the question, is there more than one war happening? Is there a war here at home? Who’s blood are we forgetting when we see the red stripes on the flag?

Look, we need to get our priorities straight here. Standing, singing, and looking at a flag will never bring us freedom, it never has. And as was made clear from the inception of our country, freedom is reserved for only certain group of people. While our troops are fighting on the front lines around the world, poor people and people of color are fighting a war of their own back here at home. A war against poverty, racism, exploitation, patriarchy, xenophobia, homophobia, and economic oppression. A war of government sanctioned violence.

Red, White, and Blue. Red, White, and Blue are the official colors of our flag. As always, there is meaning. Well, in this case, the meaning has evolved. The founding members of this country weren’t as clever or intentional as one might think. In 1777, when the flag was adopted, there was no official meaning to the colors of the flag. Story goes that the three colors were used because they were similar to the colors used on the British flag. Eventually, the colors received unofficial meaning. In 1986, Ronald Reagan took a previous interpretation and made his own. “The colors of our flag signify the qualities of the human spirit we Americans cherish,” Reagan said. “Red for courage and readiness to sacrifice; white for pure intentions and high ideals; and blue for vigilance and justice.”

The struggle to make this country one of high ideals, justice and equity is just as patriotic, if not more, than blindly singing a racist song towards the flag as you place your hand over your heart. The resistance of oppression by Kaepernick, Black Lives Matter protestors, Muhammad Ali, Juan Carlos, the Black Panthers, Young Lords, Young Patriots, Malcom X, Assata Shakur, Dr. King, Harriet Tubman, and all those unsung heroes and heroines that have lost their lives struggling for justice “signify the qualities of the human spirit we Americans cherish,” as Reagan said. These social justice warriors embody the red of of the flag, showing courage and sacrifice. We must appreciate that the red of the flag also means the blood lost for freedom on our soil by those who resist oppression and violence against poor people and people of color.

And we must all agree on what freedom means. Does it mean we get cheaper oil from the middle east? Does it mean we flex our oppressive views on other countries because we can in the name of freedom? I think not.

For me, freedom is when the hands that stitch the red, white, and blue cloth of the flag together can make enough money to provide for their family, and not poverty wages. Freedom is when the dignity of a black person in this country is not only perceived equal, but is actually equal. Freedom is when women do not have to constantly fight tooth and nail to make the same wage as their male counterparts. Freedom is not Colin Kaepernick having the right to protest the national anthem; freedom is when Colin Kaepernick has no need to protest the national anthem.

This country was founded on serious contradictions that cost the lives of many. This country is an imperfect social experiment that was supposed to be grounded in the values of Life (taken from many oppressed people in this country), Liberty (aka freedom, something many people in this country have yet to find — look at the prisons, schools, and economic inequity), and a Pursuit of Happiness (Is this supposed to be a constant pursuit? Or is it only reserved for a few people that can afford it?).

This country has failed to acknowledge its original sins, hides from it’s moral corruptness, and stands on a warped pedestal of 21at century manifest destiny. The social experiment of the United States has proven ineffective for so many — let’s reexamine our hypothesis and deliver the justice this country has always promised but fails to deliver.

I sit & stand with Colin Kaepernick and you should too. It’s our responsibility to cut our chains of oppression.

As many know, I am a San Francisco native, whose grandparents moved into the Mission district in 1958. My grandparents left Nicaragua and came to a city where opportunities existed — both of them started and ended their careers as Union employees at Wonder Bread, my grandma a baker and my grandpa a janitor. My father later arrived in the Mission in 1960, and after moving around as a teenager he and the family settled in Bernal Heights where he spent over 30 years of his life and where I eventually grew up.

I mention this because being raised in this city is important. Being the son of this amazing community defines me. And my fight for this city comes from the grit, resolve and knowledge I absorbed from this 7x7 island that was made up of bohemians, queers, scrapers (look it up), hustlers, teachers, pan dulce, rumba, pansit, blacks, open gym, summer reading programs, stern grove, ocean beach, the 9 San Bruno, Mac Dre, Radio Habana Social Club, Bernal Hill, $1 Bleachers & Hot Dogs at the Stick, City Nights, United Playaz, Latinos, Pork Buns, Dolores Park, Aztec Dance, La Boheme, Carnaval, Asians, Church, Polynesians, Cow Palace, Irish, Bronco Baseball, Fog at 5pm, Italians, running from police, and so many more different people, cultures, places, things, and memories.

This city showed me resilience. It showed me that anything was possible, including me: a Latino boy who slurred his words, who was too “gringo” for not speaking good enough Spanish and a “beaner” for knowing how to dance salsa; and later as a young man walking across a law school graduation stage while his immigrant, single father cheered him on.

This awesome city showed me that I can be perfectly imperfect and severely unsure of myself at the exact same time. This city has also shown me that it only takes a few people with a lot of love and conviction to make change.

But it’s not all roses, I’ve seen or experienced the racism, bigotry, homophobia, discrimination, sexism, greed, hate, gentrification, exploitation, abuse, harassment, and execution of oppressed people. These struggles are not unique to San Francisco, nor will they ever be such. These are universal struggles that I have lived through and commit to fight against in the ways I know best.

Throughout my career, I have amassed the supposed “skills” needed by a District 9 Supervisor: Understanding of the law, grasp of how to draft and pass legislation, the ability to work with colleagues, the willingness to stand for what is right, and perhaps more importantly, the ability to win a campaign.

As of today, we’ve had thousands of interactions with voters, enough money raised to mount a successful campaign, and the almighty ‘Name Recognition’ (this is considered important regardless of policy positions). To those who have supported the campaign: thank you for your time, love and donations. For those who did donate, I will be following up with each of you individually to discuss next steps.

Though I never intended this to be the case, thousands if not hundreds of thousands have seen my name as a result of press covering the Frisco Five hunger.

In the eyes of many, this is now a campaign for me to lose.

But after much prayer and meditation, the life-changing experiences of the last month made it very clear that I love my city and my people more than I want to be D9 Supervisor. Therefore, I am suspending my campaign for supervisor.

I must be a free agent. Someone able to speak truth to power, unapologetically and without restraint.

I am well aware that sitting on the Board of Supervisors won’t achieve the change this city needs. The compromising and neoliberal politics that goes by the name of Democratic politics in this city has completely failed, and the progressives and moderates are equal accomplices to the devastating hopelessness this city serves to our people. We need to re-think our systems of governance. We know that the rules are such that a very small number of people are able to greedily hoard so many assets while the vast majority struggle every day.

This is more than a hunger strike about police brutality, it’s more than fighting for scraps from greedy investment companies and building developers. It’s a call to action for each of us to refuse to stand for a system of governance that is exclusively driven by political currency and hope for higher office.

To our city and those watching: May our numbers continue to climb and our voices continue to rise and shout from the mountain tops. Police Chief Suhr’s resignation is not the end, but the beginning. There is a Police Officer’s Association that has a chokehold on elected officials in San Francisco; a Mayor, Ed Lee, who has made clear his loyalties are with developers and monied interests; and the Board of Supervisors, who care more about their own upward mobility than the people who elected them into office. The reason why politics remains so corrupt is because the same type of people stay in office to protect one or the other political machines. I refuse to be part of it and will pressure for needed changes to occur.

Having pulled the veil off “democracy” and seeing behind the scenes of running for office, I realized that San Francisco is not exercising true democracy. San Francisco Democratic politics is a dog and pony show where a handful of democratic clubs, big money endorsements and a few dozen people with influence dictate who gets elected. This process is not conducive to the systemic change needed for true equity and justice, this process is intended to maintain the status quo systems of power and establishments (on both sides). What’s more disgusting is that campaigns in SF are not really ever about people, they are about strengthening, keeping, and fighting for political capital in a way that never includes the people or their needs. It’s time we re-imagine what our democracy, our economic system, or education system, and our governance could look like if it was actually intended to serve the people.

It was the elected officials who fobbed us off with procedures and processes when men of color were being executed in our streets, it was these people who sat idly by as the police officers who shot these men continued to walk our streets. Politicians have been playing politics with our lives for generations. The murders of Alex Nieto, Amilcar Lopez, Mario Woods, Alex Nieto & Jessica Williams (Nelson) are deaths they could have prevented. They said “we’ll have change by the next one;” “it takes time to make changes”; “it takes time to reform;” that time expired long ago and in the meantime we lost Jessica Williams (Nelson).

We’re not playing politics anymore. A movement has been reignited, and this movement will not rest until we have Justice and Equity as a tenant of our political and economic system.

We must move beyond the simple left and right binary that has maintained our current system of inequality. It is time we put justice and humanity above all else.

We are on the precipice of something extremely powerful in America. We are waking up and questioning the structures that shape our lives. We are becoming more aware of our history that shapes our present and influences our future. We are questioning social structures that keep a tiny portion of people on top and the majority working harder and longer at the bottom.

We know militant non-violent resistance does work. Chief Suhr stepped down because of the organizing and power showed by average people and the strength of coalitions like Justice 4 Alex Nieto, Mario Woods, Amilcar Perez-Lopez, and Luis Gongora Pat. We all stood for something unapologetically and we won. Those on the wrong side of justice will not win. People lead us to believe that the justice we envision is not real, that this justice is a fiction; what I say to that is let us write the pages of justice and we will show you how real it is.

This may be the end of the campaign, but it’s the beginning of fulfilling my purpose. I look forward to building with each and everyone one of you that believe in the mission.

Cesar Chavez reminds us that “History will judge societies and their institutions by how effectively they respond to the needs of the poor and the helpless.” We clearly have a lot of work to do.

In solidarity,

Edwin Lindo

Note: This open letter is in response to Mr. Halloran’s most recent newsletter to his rank and file officers.

Dear Martin Halloran,

You and your mob-like leadership of the San Francisco Police Officer Association have proven to be a rotten influence in our beautiful city, preventing us from being the progressive champion we should be. The POA is a para-military organization that fails its creed of being a true union — proving its failure by threatening its members, the public, and elected officials; and taking pride in blocking necessary reforms of the police department. There are good officers that don’t stand with you in your hate-filled positions; and I know, if given the chance, these officers would stand with the community.

I write this letter in response to your immature and sad attempt to discredit an entire community and to suggest that recent killings of black and brown brothers and sisters are either inevitable or the fault of the victims. The letter you published in the June, 2016 edition of the San Francisco Police Officer Association Journal contains a number of lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations. I will address each one accordingly:

1. Victim blaming is not ok. You write: “the death[s] [of Jessica Williams (Nelson) and others] resulted from a failure to comply with lawful commands and an exhaustion by police of all reasonable options.” This is simply false. In every killing since Alex Nieto, all reasonable options were not exhausted. The death of Jessica Williams (Nelson) resulted as a direct consequence of Sergeant Ebd believing he had the right to execute another human being. Stuck in a crashed vehicle, Ms. Williams was attempting unbuckle her seatbelt before she was shot dead. Ms. Williams was 5 months pregnant, and for certain was not going to physically overpower two male police officers. If the officers suspected Ms. Williams had done something wrong, a reasonable option would have been to arrest her -- not to execute her.

We’ve all seen the video of Mario Woods’ execution, we’ve heard the eyewitnesses who saw Luis Gongora’s execution which happened within seconds of the officer exiting his vehicle, and we’ve read the autopsy report, showing the officers lied and actually shot Amilcar Lopez in the back. Each of these leave no doubt whatsoever that all reasonable options were neither attempted nor exhausted. None of these people were a threat to police officers, none of these individuals deserved to die. These are extra-judicial murders, individuals tried and sentenced to death not by a judge, but by the trigger of a police officer; therefore, these officers must be held accountable.

Allow me to provide some context, police in America have killed 479 people this year alone. You and your officers have no right to kill unarmed citizens extra judicially, taking away their right to their constitutional right of due process, if these men were true criminals they should have been tried in court not at the hands of your police officers.

2. Chief Suhr did not deserve to keep his job. You write: “If you look at Greg Suhr’s record and service in the department, he has saved more lives on the street, offered more educational advancements to our youth, and has advanced this department into the 21st century with new tactics”. I’ve looked at Chief Suhr’s record. It’s appalling, truly appalling. It includes involvement in the death of Mark Garcia in 1997; two demotions; a fajita gate scandal and a personal harassment suit that cost the city millions of dollars; he hid two cases of extreme racist and bigoted text messages, did not act on the crime lab scandal within his department; and oversaw the murders of Mario Woods, Alex Nieto, Amilcar Perz-Lopez, Luis Gongora Pat, and Jessica Williams (Nelson).

No other leader could have such a disastrous record and keep their job.

All we’ve seen on the streets is the continuation of a systematic targeting of black and brown people, resulting in multiple executions at the hands of police.

3. The people of San Francisco are being pushed out of the city and you are contributing to the displacement. You write: That it was the “ vocal minority, who are mostly not residents of San Francisco” that were fighting for justice and the removal of Greg Suhr. Let’s be clear, the majority of people who have been organizing against police brutality do live in the city, but what’s even more powerful is that people who have been displaced as a result of gentrification came back to fight for the city they believe in.

Your organization is at the front lines of a concerted and very deliberate effort to gentrify our city. From over criminalizing people of color and the poor, we have very few options but to be displaced or in jail.

In San Francisco, a black male is 11 times more likely than a white male to be arrested and charged for the exact same crime. Is it a crime to be a person of color in San Francisco? The data shows that unfortunately it is a crime.

A report by the Coalition on Homelessness found that 70% of homeless people had been forced by law enforcement to move from public spaces -- what kind of heartless city do we live in? I’ll give you a prime example of how the homeless -- which are also San Francisco residents -- are being criminalized. In Luis Gongora Pat’s case, who by the way was also displaced, there is a video of police officers slashing the tents of homeless witnesses who would have testified to Luis’ innocence. This officer behavior rested on the grounds that the homeless were violating the “Sit/Lie” ordinance. This is a clear example of the criminalization and harassment of poverty that takes place every day in this city.

Mr. Halloran, you and your organization must start caring about protecting life more than you care about protecting property — which has become the sad reality in our city.

4. I lost 25 pounds in 17 days and I wish you would have joined us. You write: “We now have the “Frisco Five” who led a so called “hunger strike” and demanded that the Mayor fire Chief Suhr. They continued this “hunger strike” while they were being nourished by fellow activists at Mission Station.” After 17 days of not eating food we were hospitalized. I lost 25 pounds, suffered from serious emotional and physical issues, and am still recovering. But you are attempting to distract from what really happened— in 17 days, the city of San Francisco cleansed this city, at least momentarily, with pure love and showed that the power of the community, when united, can move mountains. What we did was not sole reason Greg Suhr was fired, he was fired because of the organizing and power showed by average people and the strength of the coalitions like Justice 4 Alex Nieto, Mario Woods, Amilcar Perez-Lopez, and Luis Gongora Pat.

The five of us went on a hunger strike not for political theatre, but to show that after Luis Gongora Pat’s death, we were not going to stand for any more. From the sounds of it, you seem intimidated by the strength demonstrated by the people who exercise their first amendment right — don’t be; those chants you hear are our ancestors speaking justice through us. We’ll all be better off as a result of justice, I promise.

Mr. Halloran, I wish you would have joined us on our spiritually cleansing hunger strike, perhaps you would have lost the heavy burden of hate that sits in your soul.

5. Finally, big money is running our city and you are their enforcer. You write: “Who is running this city and who are our elected representatives answering to? The squeaky wheel from a vocal minority of non-city residents, or from those who live and work and raise their families here and who have voted for our elected officials?” You even go on to suggest that we are “anarchists.” The anarchists here are the influential minority of big money interests who believe they can skirt the law everyday. Where are you when they break the law?

You say it’s wrong that elected officials are listening to the people who are exercising their first amendment right. So are we to not listen to conscious residents who fight for justice? Seeing the examples of your organization, maybe the answer to that is NO. Calling officers in SFPD “snitches,” who should actually be lauded as brave whistleblowers for standing up against racism in the department, is the culture of suppression and code of silence that perhaps you want everyone else to follow? That will not be happening.

We know that change only comes when the people speak truth to power; and power concedes nothing without demand.

To conclude, you end by asking “Okay San Francisco, now what?”

Let’s start with these:

• The community have binding input on the next San Francisco police chief.
• Independent investigations into everyone one of the killings at the hands police under Chief Suhr’s reign.
• District Attorney George Gascón must indict and charge the police officers involved in the Amilcar Perez Lopez, Mario Woods, Luis Gongora, and Jessica Williams shootings. And if found guilty, these officers must go to jail.
• Police Commission must adopt a new Use of Force policy requiring de-escalation and deadly force as absolute last resort. Additionally, Tasers must never be adopted in San Francisco — we will not allow another tool of abuse that has never proven to decrease killings by police.
• Lastly, we must ensure that Ed Lee is either held accountable to the people of this city, because Jessica Williams’ blood is on his hands. He must actually represent the people, not the money, of San Francisco.

Let it be known, the POA cannot continue to bully our city. The bullying ends today and I will make sure it.

Sincerely,

Edwin Lindo

Hunger Striker for Justice and Candidate, District 9 Board of Supervisors

We deserve better. Growing up in San Francisco’s Mission District and Bernal Heights, I grew up being intimidated by SFPD and safety was not the first thing that came to mind when we saw the red and blue lights filling the sky. Our police department should appreciate that crime prevention does not come from the police department. The police department stands on the principles of “protect and serve,” not prevent crime. Almost always, the police arrive after the crime occurs, not before. Crime prevention is found when we invest in our community’s welfare, education, and create jobs for those that need them.

I grew up around the corner from Alex Nieto. His parents knew my parents and grandparents - Alex Nieto and I were less than 1 year apart in age. It does not escape me that I am Alex Nieto. It could have been me, a 28 year-old Latino SF Native with a red 49er jacket. A piece of me was stolen when I learned of Alex’s death.

Another piece of life was ripped from me when we lost Mario Woods. I went to middle school and am childhood friends with the cousin of Mario Woods. We are also close in age, young men of color who were just figuring out how to maneuver this world and this city. Amilcar Perez-Lopez was also shot and killed just a block from where I went to elementary school. It all hits close to home and is personal for me.

Multiple people of color are being killed every day in this country at the hands of law enforcement. As we see, even the most “progressive” city is not immune to the institutional racism and oppression that we see in other parts of the country. We may want to believe we are not Ferguson, Baltimore, or Cleveland -- but all the evils found in those cities are here in San Francisco, whether we like it or not. The data is very clear: we overcriminalize our poor communities and communities of color, we militarize our police force to “protect” against peaceful protests, and we have a police force that doesn’t reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. The racist, sexist, and homophobic text messages also shows the hate-filled culture within the police department.

Let’s be clear - there are more than a handful of openly racist and bigoted officers in the police force, but I believe there are many more individuals that stand for the creed to “protect and serve,” with the heart to do what’s right and we need them to stand with us. But it’s deeper than the individuals, it’s the institution of law enforcement that creates the ugliness we see on a regular basis. It is the systemic shackles we must break to prevent overcriminalization, the consistent use of excessive force, and the permeating racist attitudes in the police department that are bold enough to influence others in law enforcement. We must be more bold and work towards creating a department that is part of the solution, not the problem.

Organizing with our justice warriors in San Francisco, from #BlackLivesMatter members, CCSF BSU, SFSU BSU, organizers for Millions March, organizers for Justice For Mario Woods Coalition, and organizers for Justice For Alex Nieto has been my heartbeat and has given me life. I’ve been told that it’s political suicide to stand with our community demanding justice from our city and police department. I’ve been told that I shouldn’t go up against the Police Officer Association. I’ve been told that people are surprised to see me at rallies and marches for our fallen brothers and sisters because I’m a candidate for supervisor - that candidates aren’t “radical” when they are running. What we are doing is not “radical,” we are seeking justice for the terror our communities face everyday -- there is nothing radical about seeking justice, it should be our responsibility, even when it is uncomfortable. It is my duty to stand for justice -- when my grandchildren are sitting on my lap and they read the horrific stories of Mario Woods, Amilcar Perez-Lopez, Alex Nieto, or Mike Brown and Tamir Rice, and look up at me and ask, “Abuelo, what did you do when they were killed?” I cannot bring myself to say, “Nothing.” It would haunt me if I didn’t stand up for justice in our communities; because I wouldn’t be paying the price of my absence and passiveness, my grandchildren will.

When I think of this, I am reminded of the powerful Navajo Proverb that reminds us of our responsibility to our children, “We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.”

We win when we fight for the love of our people, not by hatred towards a system. I am stepping up to run because of the unconditional, radical love I have for the people in my neighborhoods. Our community is ready for fundamental change and I am ready to stand with them to achieve what we deserve. And let’s never forget that organizing is power for our communities, and that fundamental change will only come by organizing in unity.

May our brothers Alex Nieto, Mario Woods, and Amilcar Perez-Lopez Rest In Power.

So what actions must we take now?

Federal Civil Rights Investigation into SFPD. A thorough federal civil rights investigation must be conducted of SFPD, not one that only looks at procedures to provide recommendations. Substantive changes will only come with a consent decree.

Anti- Racist and Anti- Oppression Trainings of Police Officers. Our officers should not only go through implicit bias trainings, they should be exposed to Anti-Racist and Anti-Oppression practices to understand the effects of their actions and the devastating historic nature of racism and oppression in our communities.

Demilitarization of Police. We must require that our police department divest and return the excessive military weapons and equipment we have purchased from the federal government. Standards must be set, with community input, for when military grade weapons and equipment are used.

Revisit and Removing Discriminatory Gang Injunction. The San Francisco gang injunctions have overstayed their welcome and have served as licenses to harass communities of color. A prime example is this past Holiday Season when community organizations came together on 24th and South Van Ness to bring “Christmas In The Mission,” where toys, bikes, haircuts, and food were being given away. Soon after the event began, the police came to question and intimidate some of the individuals who were giving away free toys to children because they were supposedly on the gang injunction list. This has become another exercise of overcriminalization communities of color -- to a point, where toys and family fun couldn’t even be enjoyed.

Remove Secretive Grand Jury Process for excessive force. It has been rewarding to serve on the Bar Association of San Francisco Social Justice Taskforce where we address and recommend policy positions on a number of criminal justice issues, which include: transparent data collection, on-body cameras, police training & hiring, and the judicial process. One of the issues I’m proud to have been a part of with our task force is that of advocating for and lobbying for the removal of the secretive grand jury process in deadly use of force cases by police officers. We won this battle, but more is needed. We cannot allow secretive grand juries to decide police involved excessive use cases. As we see, overwhelmingly, officers are not indicted for the killings of civilians. But we need to eliminate the grand jury process entirely in excessive use cases, whether deadly or not, and bring those cases to the public jury trial process. This allows for more transparency and accountability.

African-american / Latino Community Oversight Committee. We must implement an oversight committee that is represented by and speaks for our African American and Latino communities -- the communities most impacted by police brutality and overcriminilazation. This committee should have authority to make binding recommendations

Use of force Standards. Use of force standards must be established to create consistency and proper protocol.

Independent investigation For Excessive Use Of Force incidents. Upon excessive use of force or deadly use of force cases, there should only be independent investigations and prosecution of the incident. Those independent teams should be equipped with sufficient and independent resources.

Stop Criminalizing Everything. “Broken Window” laws and similar non-violent crime laws are a direct attack on communities of colors. On a local and state level, we are witnessing an increase in petty crime laws. Last year, California alone created 1,000 new crimes in the past 25 years. Reports estimate that officers spend less than 10% of their time on violent crimes and over 80% of their time

Diversifying The Police Force. If hiring is to take place within the police department, there must be efforts to diversify the classes and recruits. Increasing diversity also increases perspective, with effective training as discussed above.

Effective On-Body Cameras. On-Body cameras are not the solution to all of our problems, but I am confident they will, if recording protocols are transparent, decrease the use of force by police officers. They will also create accurate accounts for us to see the truth of an incident - protecting residents and officers.

Collection of accurate data to expose the truth of our situation. Effective data collection will allow the police department, the public, and the city to see the true practices of the law enforcement agencies. The data will allow us to point to the disproportionate criminalization or harassment of certain demographics. Though we see and feel the disproportionate behavior, the data will draw a very clear picture on how severe it is and can be used as a tool to address poor behavior.

These proposals come from organizing on the ground with community advocates, brainstorming and researching with legal experts, and researching police departments that made similar changes and saw positive results. However, the first step for our department is to acknowledge that there is a problem. Once we reach that point, we can begin to heal and make progress.