garveybookerx-blog

[garveybookerx-blog]

My Political Opinion: Trump’s Senate

In many ways the House of Representatives is the most powerful organ in the United States. They quite literally control all domestic affairs, choose the President in the event the Electoral College can’t, and only they have complete jurisdiction over the country’s finances. There are over 400 voices in the House and as a group, they can dominate the political agenda for any sitting president. The Speaker of the House, a member who is voted by the controlling party of the House, is the third most powerful person in the US because they control the legislative agenda, or what bills the House will vote on, and they are second in the line of succession should the President be removed or is killed while in office.

Still, Trump is not going to concern himself with the House. Members of the House are voted in by districts which would make Trump’s ability to campaign very difficult when you have so many different people in so many different districts. There are too many people to persuade in the House in order to get anything done, especially if the House Speaker is not strong enough or the “whips” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics) are not strong enough. Members of the House are also on a two-year rotation, which makes it almost impossible to develop long-term strategies and get them to buy into them.

The Senate, however, is much more appealing. The Senate under a Trump administration is the only chamber of Congress, that I believe, he is going to focus on. Only the Senate confirms all presidential appointments, including all federal judges and ambassadors. Only the Senate can approve of treaties. Only the Senate can remove the president from office. There are also fewer Senators (100), and with most decisions requiring a simple majority, he only needs to ensure that 51 members are loyal to him. Senators also stay in office for 6 years. This means that any Senator elected in November will carry him into and through his second term. Campaigning for Senators is also easier since they are state-wide. One or two rallies in a state can make all the difference to getting a Senator elected, and you only need one of the two. Keep in mind, the more Senators he helps to get into office, the more he can control to give him the votes he need.

Federal Judges

We are already seeing how the federal judge game is being played out with Kavanaugh’s nomination, but do we really care about any other federal judges beside the Supreme Court? NOPE. According to Politifact.com, Trump has “appointed more circuit court judges in his first year than any president in history.” Of all federal judge appointments combined (trial, appeals, and Supreme), only five presidents have done more appointments in their first-year. This was a strategic move, as he knew many of his policies would face an endless slew of lawsuits. No one really paid attention in the beginning because the average person doesn’t realize what a federal judge is and how much power they have on the long-term legislative agenda. Before the Supreme Court sees a case, they go before a circuit court judge, and before that, a district court judge, all of which are appointed and confirmed by the President-Senate partnership. The circuit court judges see more cases than the Supreme Court ever will, and the Supreme Court doesn’t have to hear your case, giving the circuit court judges greater power in setting precedence. So on the road to challenging federal laws, treaties, or Presidential acts, you have to make stops along a road that the President-Senate partnership has mined.

Impeachment

In the case of an impeachment, even if he was to lose the Senate majority, the opposition would still need 2/3 or 67 members to agree. This means, at minimum, even if he was to lose the House, he would need to keep 34 pro-Trump Republicans on the Senate, which he has. Not much else needs to be said here. Members of the House have been doing all of the impeachment talking, but haven’t been able to move on it because they know there just aren’t enough votes in the Senate. Democratic Senators have tried to get them to stop talking about it because they can’t do it. House members only bury themselves with such calls because it forces the discussion and it makes their constituents demand that they now do it. Now if they don’t do it, they are seen as not standing up to Trump and they risk losing re-election. And consequently Senators could also lose, even if they weren’t saying anything.

Treaties

Most of his bigger plans are focused in the international arena. Treaties of every type is what he is currently focusing on and what he will be focusing on for the rest of his term and possibly the beginning of his next. Treaties have much broader effects, directly impact international businesses (like his), and influence the stock markets, which have a trickle down effect on everyone. This means that he will only have to focus on getting 67 Senators to agree on his international agenda and he will have to strike deals with countries that will make naysayers look like fools if they were to block him. So far his tactics on the international stage have been questionable, but his results have not been. The new US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is only the beginning. You will see new trade deals with China, North Korea, Britain (once Brexit concludes), the EU, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and possibly Russia (before the end of his next term). He will definitely win the unanimous support of the Republicans on these deals and he might not be too far away from getting the Democratic votes to get to 67.

In the end, Trump is a business man. As a business man, he looks at the short-term investments and the long-term rewards, which is the opposite of almost every other person, especially politicians. He is betting on the Senate, and if he secures that he will get every major agenda item pushed through. 

[garveybookerx-blog]

Another Rant

DISCLAIMER: My rants aren’t designed to provide solutions, just complain about the issues. Hopefully you can determine your own solutions from what I have said.

I was reading this long article in the Atlantic about liberal arts degrees. The article said:

"By its very name, the liberal-arts pathway is tinged with privilege. Blame this on Cicero, the ancient Roman orator, who championed the arts quae libero sunt dignae (cerebral studies suited for freemen), as opposed to the practical, servile arts suited for lower-class tradespeople. Even today, liberal-arts majors in the humanities and social sciences often are portrayed as pursuing elitist specialties that only affluent, well-connected students can afford.” (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/the-unexpected-value-of-the-liberal-arts/535482/)

There's more, but the biggest issue with the article is that it makes it seem as though college education should be equal and fair. Personally, I don't think college should be. College should be for those who are willing to make the serious investment to the betterment of their future. And the ante is always going up. Why? Because we live in a world that is capitalistic in nature. And the very heart of capitalism is competition, followed by scarcity (because scarcity helps to determine value).

We are continuously lying to our children that things should be fair and just. In itself, I agree. Things SHOULD be, but they are not. And that's where we fail our children. We only talk to them from the COULD and SHOULD perspective of life and are afraid to educate them on the IS. I have said, time and time again, that should, could, and is are very different things and not fully explaining the difference to your children will only lead to problems for them in the future.

So people normally retort with statements like, “we have to instill hope in our children that they can become successful and be anything they want.” I’m not saying you shouldn’t, but to get to that place requires work and commitment. You need to fully understand the work and resources getting what you want requires. Our children today know nothing of hard work and they know NOTHING of commitment. Everything in their world needs to be fast and temporary, and ALWAYS on their terms. They don’t like to be challenged and don’t see the point in challenging themselves.

Why do people go to college? Because they were all told that you can’t make it without a degree, which, in itself, is true on many levels. You need some sort of post-secondary education in order to live. If you have certain aspirations it requires specific education and experience that most times come from college. But what happens to a student that just comes to college to get a degree? They learn NOTHING else.

There is another part in the article that mentions salary:

“Pursuing the liberal-arts track isn’t a quick path to riches. First-job salaries tend to be lower than what’s available with vocational degrees in fields such as nursing, accounting, or computer science. That’s especially true for first-generation students, who aren’t as likely to enjoy family-aided access to top employers. NACE found that first-generation students on average received post-graduation starting salaries of $43,320, about 12 percent below the pay packages being landed by peers with multiple generations of college experience.”  (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/the-unexpected-value-of-the-liberal-arts/535482/)

The article sounds like a complete hater here. It stokes the “that’s unfair” argument again. Why? Because someone reading this says, “I should make the same amount as the next person if I’m graduating with the same degree.” NEGATIVE. Don’t be mad that I have a network and you don’t. See, that was the problem with just going to school and getting a degree. Those parents who went through this process before know that a degree only qualifies you for the job, but landing the job is always about who likes you. People make hiring decisions, not robots, and people make decisions based on their experiences, emotions, and understanding. So instead of you just trying to pass a class and make it to the finish line/graduation, you should have been developing your network, picking up additional non-academic skills, like communications, personal branding, and etiquette, and starting/running student organizations to perfect your leadership and organizational skills.

As an educator in higher ed, I continuously see students of all backgrounds, ages, and sexual orientations continually fall short. I would NEVER hire any of them because they just are not good. They have NO personality. They can’t talk, they can’t write, they can’t articulate themselves, they can’t stay on subject when speaking, they are timid, they avoid doing any extra research because they just want me to tell them EVERYTHING, and they are incredibly unsure of themselves. It is a shame how we have raised children to lack confidence and be afraid of criticism. It is disgusting that we have sent our children out into the world and cannot even read and write at a college level!! It’s shocking to see how ill-equipped our children are (and their adult counterparts). It is insane to talk to people who are literally about to graduate in months and you ask them, “what are you going to do now?” And they don’t know. Sure, they give me an answer, but that answer is scripted. You probe deeper by asking, “why are you going to do that?” or “where would you do that at?” and then you start to see that they just made it all up. HAVEN’T A CLUE about the direction of their life. And you know what everyone else says to them? “Oh you’ll figure it out. Everyone is going through the same thing.” HOW IS THAT HELPFUL??? It only encourages them to believe that having no direction for their life is okay! EVERY professional I have met who didn’t have a good mentor or parents to guide them say the same thing: I wish I would have talked this out with someone.

This is why they don’t get the higher paying jobs, this is why they jump from job to job, this is why they get depressed, and this is why they make a series of regrettable decisions.

I’m done.

For now.

[garveybookerx-blog]

Trump2017: Immigration, Part 1

There are folks currently livid over the fact that President Trump has instituted a ban on all travelers from Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and Syria to ensure “extreme vetting” - a campaign promise now fulfilled as of Friday, January 27.

According to the NY Times, the White House has issued an Executive Order that states:

“( c ) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).”

The law referred to in this paragraph, 8 USC 1187(a)(12), states that the President, through his Secretaries, can place a ban on immigrants coming from various countries that is deemed a “concern”. The law specifically states:

“(a)Establishment of program The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State are authorized to establish a program (hereinafter in this section referred to as the “program”) under which the requirement of paragraph (7)(B)(i)(II) of section 1182(a) of this title may be waived by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and in accordance with this section, in the case of an alien who meets the following requirements:

(12) Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern

(A) In general Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and ( C )—(i)the alien has not been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011—

(I)in Iraq or Syria;

(II)in a country that is designated by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or

(III)in any other country or area of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D); and

(ii)regardless of whether the alien is a national of a program country, the alien is not a national of—

(I)Iraq or Syria;

(II)a country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or

(III)any other country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D).”

To Be Continued . . . 

[garveybookerx-blog]

Black Independence in Politics

Published April 2010

“That is certain European programs that have not changed since we first met the Europeans and which are not intended to change. That the superficial changes that we are now experiencing are only brought into to being to maintain constancies. That we must develop the ability to look beyond the superficial changes and see the constancies being maintained by those changes. We are getting ready to elect an Afrikan [president] of this [country] but beware this change is still another version of neo-colonialism. Its intention is ultimately to put a black face on White power. You must recognize the intention of the European is not to give up his power. He may even force integration upon his people. He may even elect our people to offices and so forth because in the good old neo-colonialist fashion these people elected to offices are means by which the ultimate economic, political, social and other controls are maintained. So we must not see these changes as substantial and basic changes.” – Dr. Amos Wilson, 1989 (Wilson, 1989)

In the 2008 presidential election, black voters had the highest turnout compared to other racial/ethnic groups. According to the US Census Bureau, 55.4% of voters age 18-24 and 64% of voters age 25-44 voted from the black racial group. For many, both blacks and non-blacks alike, Americans and non-Americans alike, this election signaled a change from the norm of politics. It marked a significant movement in the direction to which society, globally, was now headed; true representation of all people was at hand, or soon to be. However, if past is prelude, as we often times say, how can we be so confident that the election of a black president will indicate any substantial change in the condition of the oppressed? To know if President Obama will make significant change for minorities, blacks in particular, is still, in all fairness, left to be seen. However, one still cannot ignore the words of Dr. Wilson. Blacks in the United States have never established their own political system. Instead, they have simply sought to be a part of the one already established, established by the very people who have consistently oppressed them.

Prior to the presidency of FDR, blacks in America were adamantly Republican, for it was the “Party of Lincoln” that emancipated the slaves and pushed forward the “Civil War Amendments”. I have always believed that the intention of an act was far more important than the act itself. So in order to make a real determination of whom or what is in support of the black community, we cannot solely evaluate their actions but must also evaluate their intent. Intent is not clear unless you have a working knowledge of the individuals past and personal (often times public) philosophies. The issue of slavery wasn’t a moral one, because slavery, from its inception was a business, and business has no morals. The issue of slavery was centered on fiscal prudence and the advancement of the society in all things. The global market was changing and slavery stood in the way to industrialization.

With the “Louisiana Purchase”, expansion into the West had begun and northern voices were against the perpetuation of slavery into the new states that were to form. Again, it was not for the abolishment of slavery on the grounds of morality, but on the grounds of fiscal practicality. Slavery was becoming inefficient and costly. With the industrial revolution, cash crops could be produced and shipped in quantities that no plantation could hope to produce with slave labor alone. The entire global economic landscape was changing and the bankers, businessmen, and investors of the Northern states knew this – partly because they were the ones who helped usher it in.

It is of my opinion that Abraham Lincoln did not push for the end of slavery because of moral obligations as many historians tend to state and many blacks believe. He ended slavery because he wished only to unite the states again and satisfy key stakeholders. 

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” – Abraham Lincoln, 1862. (Lincoln, Letter to Horace Greeley)

 In fact, Abraham Lincoln never thought that blacks were ever or would ever become equal to whites: 

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” – Abraham Lincoln, 1858. (Lincoln, Political Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas)

 These personal statements should throw his credibility into question, as well as the party who benefited off of the results of his presidency, the Republican Party. The Republican Party has never passed a single legislation that had the intention of granting and ensuring that blacks and whites would be looked upon as equals. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were not, in my opinion, amendments to help those of African ancestry.

An example of the financial impact of slavery could be found in the Panic of 1857. The Panic of 1857 was a sudden economic recession of the United States that was compounded by the Dred Scott case. The Supreme Court decision nullified the key point in the Missouri Compromise: to establish slave-free states above the parallel 36º30’ North. Foreign investors, primarily from Britain, pulled their money out of US banks and out of the railroad industry. The railroad industry at this time was on par to our airline industry of today and the new lines that were invested into were going to run east to west, cutting through these new territories in order to build the new western states. The nullification of the Missouri Compromise frightened investors of the US West. They feared that slavery will be permitted in these regions, which in turn would slow down the global economic agenda of the time. Not saying that slavery was THE reason for the Panic, but the issue of slavery was big enough to play a part in global financial straits. James L. Huston explains many of these points in his book The Panic of 1857 and the Coming of the Civil War. (Huston, 1987)

Blacks, after emancipation, attained political positions within all levels of government by riding on the Republican ticket. They continued this trend for almost 100 years, unwavering. It wasn’t until Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal did the Republican Party notice a shake in the black vote. The New Deal, which supposedly brought the United States out of the Great Depression of the 1920s was seen as a blessing to all of the poor and working class poor. It provided government relief in the form of jobs, health care benefits, and direct funding. Most blacks at the time were part of this demographic and so saw the benefits of the Democrat president’s legislation. President Harry Truman, a Democrat, garnered the next big slice of the black vote when he desegregated the military and established regulations against racial bias in federal employment. However it wasn’t until the election of Lyndon Baines Johnson did 94 percent of the black vote go to a presidential candidate. Only President Obama received more with 96 percent. President Johnson signed into the law the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation on the heels of the Brown v. Board of Education. After the Voting Rights Act of 1965, also passed by Johnson, the Republican Party was never able to recover.

In keeping with the purpose of this document, let us look at the intentions of the acts and the people to determine credibility. We have to look at these three Presidents and the Civil Rights Act. Without going into great detail over each mentioned presidency, let’s look at some of the things they had done that might cause one to question their intentions and their credibility for being proponents of equality and justice. In the book Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past by Bruce Bartlett, these famous presidents are quoted and seen as having supported racist ideals and the people who preach them. When Franklin D. Roosevelt first ran for political office in 1910, the Democratic Party’s platform in 1908 included:

“. . . we are opposed to the admission of Asiatic immigrants who cannot be amalgamated with our population, or whose presence among us would raise a race issue and involve us in diplomatic controversies with Oriental powers.” (Democratic Party Platforms: Democratic Party Platform of 1964, 1964)

In 1933, FDR appointed Josephus Daniels as ambassador to Mexico. Mr. Daniels had been quoted saying:

“The South is serious with regard to its attitude to the Negro in politics. The South understands this subject, and its policy is unalterable and uncompromising. We desire no concessions. We seek no sops. We grasp no shadows on this subject. We take no risks. We abhor a Northern policy of catering to the Negro in politics just as we abhor a Northern policy of social equality.” (Bartlett, 2008)

 In 1941, FDR appointed James Byrnes to the Supreme Court. Mr. Byrnes resigned in just a year and a half to head the Economic Stabilization Office and the then Office of War Mobilization. Mr. Byrnes had been quoted as saying: 

“This is a white man's country, and will always remain a white man's country.” (Bartlett, 2008)

James Byrnes would go off to be appointed Secretary of State by succeeding president, Harry S. Truman. FDR, in 1937, appointed a lifetime member of the Ku Klux Klan by the name of Hugo Black to the US Supreme Court. Mr. Black thanked his fellow Klansmen upon his win as Senator of Alabama by stating:

“This passport which you have given me is a symbol to me of the passport which you have given me before. I do not feel that it would be out of place to state to you here on this occasion that I know that without the support of the members of this organization I would not have been called, even by my enemies, the ‘Junior Senator from Alabama.’” (Bartlett, 2008)

 FDR himself, in 1925, has been quoted as saying the following in regards to US and Japanese interpersonal relations:

“Anyone who has traveled to the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results . . . . The argument works both ways. I know a great many cultivated, highly educated and delightful Japanese. They have all told me that they would feel the same repugnance and objection to have thousands of Americans settle in Japan and intermarry with the Japanese as I would feel in having large numbers of Japanese coming over here and intermarry with the American population. In this question, then, of Japanese exclusion from the United States it is necessary only to advance the true reason--the undesirability of mixing the blood of the two peoples. . . . The Japanese people and the American people are both opposed to intermarriage of the two races--there can be no quarrel there.” (Bartlett, 2008)

 Although of the three Harry S. Truman was the better of them, he still attempted to join the KKK, until questions over hiring Catholics were asked and he said that he would. In a letter to his wife in 1911 he wrote:

“I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a nigger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America.” (Truman, 1983)

 He continues to write dozens of letters to his wife Bess and there are numerous references to blacks as “niggers” and friends of blacks – or perceived friends – as “nigger lovers”. It wasn’t until after the war as President did he work to change the federal government’s stance on the race issue in regards to blacks.

Lyndon B. Johnson was probably one of the most important figures in this write up. Although he was the signer of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, he made a dozen racist comments. As a Representative of Texas in 1948, he called President Truman’s civil rights program “a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty.” He continued on to say: “I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill . . . I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill.” (Bartlett, 2008) As US Senate Majority Leader he stated:

“These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again.” (Bartlett, 2008)

And let us not forget the all true statement he made to two governors:

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” (Kessler, 1996)

President Johnson was a close ally of J. Edgar Hoover, even after the signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. J. Edgar Hoover was known for starting the COINTELPRO which led to the ultimate demise of the Black Panther Party and signaled the end of the black liberation movements and the like. In a 1964 article of the New York Times, LBJ is quoted by saying:

“I know you wouldn’t think of breaking the law” (to Hoover); Mr. Hoover is “a household word, a hero to millions of citizens and an anathema to evil men”; “quiet, humble, and magnificent public servant.” (Times, 1964)

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as of now, has not been truly tested outside of the Commerce Clause, as far as I have seen. However, it was the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Section 1983 that was enacted in 1871, that we should question. It was this law that the current Civil Rights Act did not correct or amend. Section 1983 is the very section that provides for the protection of law enforcement agents and legislatures in matters of civil lawsuits. This Section has been addressed numerous times by the US Supreme Court who has established two types of immunity against civil rights lawsuits: absolute and qualified. So in the case of Sean Bell for instance, who was shot and killed by NYPD police officers, the officers were able to go free because they did not violate Mr. Bell’s Civil Rights. According to the US Department of Justice:

“Under the applicable federal criminal civil rights laws, prosecutors must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a law enforcement officer willfully deprived an individual of a constitutional right, meaning with the deliberate and specific intent to do something the law forbids. This is the highest standard of intent imposed by law, and is different and higher than the intent standard under the relevant state statutes. Neither accident, mistake, fear, negligence nor bad judgment is sufficient to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation.” (Affairs, 2010).

 This law effectively protects State and the Federal officials from committing acts of violence against others. This is why so many other police officers who act “negligently” in the line of duty will be able to walk if someone believes their Civil Rights had been violated. The burden of proof is so high that it is nearly impossible to convict a public official for violating one’s Civil Rights. They would have to look for some alternate route to seek remedy. What Sean Bell’s case did was expose a clause in the law that many of us overlooked and didn’t take the time to fix in the Civil Rights Act of ’64. Or perhaps it was intentionally not addressed.

It is my conclusion that these individuals may not have been racist at all. Ignorant? Quite possibly. Lyndon Johnson often used very little tact when referring to other racial or ethnic groups. I am not willing to call them outright racist because in my understanding I am lead to believe these individuals might have simply been opportunist, adapting to the current political environment. We have seen politicians flip-flop on different platforms and opinions as the feelings of the electorate change. Obama and the Clintons were no different. We have seen time and time again that politicians say what is needed to be said to certain audiences in order to gain their trust and win their votes and financial support.

Still, this article on Black Independence in Politics is not about the actual political leaders, their agendas, or the laws, it’s about answering the question: “why are blacks so quickly to support political parties that have done absolutely nothing – in the much larger scope – for the black community, especially in comparison to other racial and ethnic minorities?” If blacks were aware of all of the preceding information at the time of the elections, would they have been so willing to support these candidates? I don’t believe they would have. The information presented here would have cast heavy doubt on the credibility and the trust of the individuals and the parties they represent and blacks would have looked elsewhere for political security.

It is my belief that blacks must either create their own political party to represent them, or establish their own political system almost reminiscent to the Liberty Halls established by Marcus Garvey and the UNIA. Disputes were settled and laws that the community had abide by were all handled in the Liberty Halls at the height of the Garvey Movement in Harlem. Another option is that blacks could also work within the current political structure and simply dominate the politics within a town or city that they represent a majority of the population. Atlantic City, NJ is an example of such. The city is composed of over 50 percent black, with a black Mayor, and 6 out of the 9 council members are black. Atlantic City has economic and political leverage that very few cities can claim, so it is interesting to see how the black community uses this leverage and to what ends. I personally support the establishment of a separate black national political party. I do not support the claiming of either Democrat or Republican Party by blacks considering that historically, it has gained us nothing.

“Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can’t keep the promises that it made to you during election time, and you’re dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that political party, you’re not only a chump but you’re a traitor to your race.” (X, 1970)

[garveybookerx-blog]

My Thoughts: Accountability, Part 1

We can talk about Trump being the Anti-Christ or the downfall of the United States, but the reality is our lack of accountability is far worse than any dictator.

WE, individually and therefore collectively, are our own worst nightmare; not a man, not a government, and not an economic system.

Our lack of accountability has brought us to this point in time. We have continuously refused to acknowledge the role we play in shaping our destinies. Whenever our choices lead to a negative outcome, we find a way to place the blame on these external factors. Why is it we don’t blame those same factors on our successes?

I just wore myself out debating with someone about their role as a parent in their child's life. Their position, like so many, is that "bad" children are a result of numerous factors including a poorly run government, bad school systems, bad economic system, and that it's not just a matter of parental will.

I completely disagree with these arguments as justifications for your child acting a fool. Not because they are false, for these problems do exist and they have real impact on our lives, but because you knowingly bring a child into the world with the awareness that these are the realities of your community. Once you decide to bring a child into a "bad" condition, you can not push blame for your child's "bad" behavior onto those conditions. If you are aware of the power of these external forces at work, then why subject your child to these same forces?? You say that TV leads to violence but yet you allowed your son to watch TV?? That’s a set up. You live across the street from a home that was shot up by gang violence, but you decide to continue to live there AND raise two more children there?? You’ve never had health insurance but yet you have three children and are now worried that the law is now making it harder for your children to receive health coverage (for free)??

When I see children being sentenced for felonies, I also see parents who are distraught, as if totally unaware that their child could be capable of such acts. They are quick to defend themselves as doing the best they could, and not once do they take ownership for what role they played and publicly admit that they messed up. However, when I see children do great things, their parents are at the front of the line singing their own praises, taking credit for their contribution to their child’s success.

No individual wakes up and decides to kill without showing some previous sign. Psychology teaches us that there are ALWAYS signs, most of which we miss or simply ignore. And those signs are early on and may not show up again for years. So when a fifteen year old kills, I always wish we could have their parents put on trial as well. If parents were held accountable for their children’s crimes, we would have more thoughtful and responsible parents. As a society, we generally hold individuals accountable for the crimes they commit, completely disregarding how their parents raised them, for even when that is taken into account, it is never used as an excuse for the murder but only to show leniency at the time of sentencing.

Parents have an obligation to raise children in the best environments and provide the best opportunities for future success. Why? Because no one asked to be here. As a parent, you determine if you are going to have children, which hospital they are going to be born in, what city/state/country they will be a citizen of, what community they will be raised in, what school they will attend, what television/radio/movies they are exposed to, what technology they have, books they read, all of the inner workings of your home, and, indirectly, these factors will determine their choice of friends, relatives, and romantic relationships. To say that you have nothing to do with the destructive behaviors of your child, or you share equal responsibility with another, is irresponsible and selfish.

And let me be very clear: I am not saying that a parent is intentional in their neglect (although some are). What I am saying is that your best just didn’t cut it. Own it. Learn from it. Do better.