The Best Reason To Reelect Obama

Sanity prevailed today as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) let stand what is known as Obama-care. This is a great day for us all. Now, the more important question in my mind is the age of SCOTUS. I guess I should qualify the phrase United States by saying the States are not all that united considering the state of our political divide.

I read an interesting article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times who quoted Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, known for delivering laugh lines, recalled how Justice Elena Kagan, 52, had suggested during an oral argument before the Supreme Court that people born before 1948 were old. Justice Ginsburg said, “Next year I will turn 80, God willing… I’m not all that old”.

This speaks to the current state of the Court. Justice Ginsburg is the eldest member of a court that includes four justices in their 70s, making it among the oldest courts since the New Deal era. Its decisions during this historic “flood season,” as Justice Ginsburg described the end-of-term rush, are likely to make the panel — and the tenure of some of the justices — a significant issue in the presidential campaign. This is the most significant reason to reelect President Obama because “If she dies or leaves soon and Romney wins, the Supreme Court will be the most conservative in history.”

Today, the court is announced its decision on President Obama’s health care law, one of the most consequential cases in decades, with an overwhelming affirmation – it stands. As good as this decision is for the president and the American people – it is not over yet. There is another major case looming this fall, the court will take on an affirmative action case that could end preferential treatment at public universities, and it might hear a case involving same-sex marriage.

The winner of the race for president will inherit a group of justices who frequently split 5 to 4 along ideological lines. That suggests that the next president could have a powerful impact if he gets to replace a justice of the opposing side.

It is, of course, impossible to predict when a vacancy will occur. (Justice John Paul Stevens spent 35 years on the court and retired at 90, while Justice Robert H. Jackson, who served in the 1940s and 1950s, died of a heart attack at 62.) A 2006 study in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy found that the average retirement age for justices was 78.7.

Justice Ginsburg, a stalwart of the court’s liberal bloc, has been treated for pancreatic cancer. Justice Antonin Scalia, the court’s most visible conservative, is 76. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, frequently the swing vote, is 75. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer, like Justice Ginsburg a Democratic appointee, is about to turn 74.

The New York Times provocative article mentioned an interview with Professor Kennedy who said the suggestion that a justice should retire for purely political reasons was “viewed as somewhat unseemly” by many of his colleagues. Those close to Justice Ginsburg say that while she may appear frail, she is in fact in good health.

Of course, Justices leave for a variety of reasons. Sandra Day O’Connor, for instance, left the court at 75 to take care of her husband. Professor Kennedy insists it was “not accidental” that, having been appointed by Ronald Reagan, a Republican, she resigned while George W. Bush was president.

What I want to leave you with is that the next president will have the opportunity to appoint at least two, maybe three, Justices. Only Obama will appoint sanity or dare I say Justices who will have the American people at heart. So this is the best reason to vote, and for the president. And that’s my Thought Provoking Perspective…

http://johntwills.com

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Court Got It Right!!!

Yesterday, the Supreme Court threw out most of the anti-Latino Arizona immigration law and neutered the rest, which was frankly a surprise to me considering the make-up of this gang. To their credit in this instance they did strike a blow for fairness and this ever elusive thing called justice. Being an African American I have seen and know bigotry firsthand so I think this qualifies me to have an opinion with respect to what this law would do if allowed to stand as the law of the land.

Of course, we now wait for the biggest decision of our lifetime – the healthcare decision. I hope Chief Justice Roberts Jr., who by the way sided with the 5 to 3 majority in immigration law remains sane and takes the position of the liberal Justices on the bench when deciding the healthcare issue. The American people could use his vote when it is rendered and expected to be announced Thursday.

This was a huge victory for justice although they did not eliminate the most notorious part of the Arizona law, which was the requirement that police can check the immigration status of anyone who is detained. This is the part known as the “papers, please” that conjures images of a police-state in my mind that could easily be expanded to include other minorities like us or just us. I can recall there was a time when such laws pertained to black people – they were called Black Codes.

However, it appears that the court had this in mind as it wrote “This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect”. Which sounds like - we’ll be watching closely. Thankfully most of the less publicized but equally onerous and un-American provisions are now history.

More importantly, the court’s reinforcement of the main tenet was that the federal government has the responsibility for setting immigration policy, not the states. We do not need — and, thanks to this ruling, will not have — 50 sets of laws specifying who gets to live in this country and who doesn’t. This would open the floodgates to bigotry. Like I said, I have seen this before and not too long ago.

This law had another more ominous design, which would have, if sustained,  make it a state crime for anyone who failed to have proper immigration papers; in other words, failing to produce the right documents when asked could have subjected a person not just to deportation but to criminal penalties. The court ruled that this was preempted by federal law, which imposes no such sanctions.

The danger here is this as it relates to the so called “papers please law” it gives police broad authority to arrest anyone — without a warrant — suspected of some “public offense” that makes the person liable to deportation. The court recognized, and rightfully so, that this is a license for police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants indiscriminately, based solely on the possibility that they might be here without the proper documents. Keep in mind the “Arizona ”.

As the court noted in striking down this provision, “The result could be unnecessary harassment of some aliens (for instance, a veteran, college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation) whom federal officials determine should not be removed.” Need I say this is what African Americans have been saying all along – we call it “racial profiling”.

Thanks to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion for pointing out something that many who seek to participate in the immigration debate fail to understand: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.” I think he was right to say it’s not a crime for “illegal” immigrants to live and work here without the proper documents. By “here” I mean all 50 states. The United States is one country with one immigration policy, and the Supreme Court means to keep it this way.

In closing, until the healthcare verdict, let me ask you to recall not too long ago this state was the last to recognize Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday as a holiday.  Therefore I say, Arizona’s thinking – draconian! VOTE!!! And that’s my Thought Provoking Perspective…

http://johntwills.com

This Court!!!

The Supreme Court is shaping up to be very significant in terms of issues involving race, at least the way I see this session. The justices are poised to decide some high-profile cases that could have long-term effects and certainly a huge impact on African and Hispanic Americans.

This is very serious because Ray Charles can see that the Roberts court is more conservative than any of its recent predecessor which surely does not bode well for minorities. Can I remind you that they do wear robes, which are more dangerous than the folks who wear the white ones.

Their decisions will have a huge impact on the president who suddenly finds himself running for reelection not only against Mitt Romney and the House Republicans, but now against the Court as well. The influence of the four conservative justices has already been witnessed in the January decision on Texas' redistricting maps.

The big thing before them is the future of Healthcare, which is critical but there is another hot-button issue - anti-immigration laws. The top court will hear oral arguments April 25 on the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's controversial law. The administration says such laws are irreconcilable with federal laws. Should the court uphold Arizona's law, Latinos would feel the effects nationwide as other state will surely follow with more to do the same.

More serious, in my opinion, is the court's ideological shift on affirmative action in an upcoming case that could undo the compromise reached in Grutter v. Bollinger. That 2003 ruling barred public colleges from using a point system to boost minority enrollment, but allowed race to be taken into account to achieve academic diversity. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing vote, wrote the majority opinion is not there this time and her replacement, Justice Samuel Alito, reflects the court's extreme rightward turn.

Another indication is that Robert’s made this statement that should provide some insight to his thinking: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race". He wrote this regarding a 2007 decision striking down school desegregation programs in Seattle and Kentucky. If the issues of race and education or poverty were that simple!

The way this court has rendered decisions harkened back to a time I thought was long past. Maybe you can remember the Dread Scott Decision during slavery or Plessey v Ferguson which ushered in what history has recorded as “Separate but Equal”. If that does not ring a bell how about calling it as it was –Apartheid American style.

I am going to go out on a limb and say the fate of Obamacare is not as dire as it appears at this moment. I think it is possible, even likely, that the Court will uphold part if not all of the legislation because the Court is keenly aware of public opinion and hopeful still has a bit of sanity. With the public’s trust of the judicial branch tying a historic low of 63 percent, down thirteen points from just two years ago, it’s doubtful that Roberts—who has wanted to be seen as an impartial “umpire”—would choose to imperil that trust even further with a ruling that would place the Court squarely in the election-season crossfire.

Overturning Obamacare would be a political decision but this is the court that thinks – corporations are people. With that said, the other two issues – all bets are off! And that’s my Thought Provoking Perspective…

http://johntwills.com

Advocate for Justice - Johnnie Cochran Jr.

I hope your have enjoyed, and are enjoying, this journey with me, as I remember the ghost of the greats and those moments significant to the African American Diaspora. I would surely be remised during Black History Month if I did not pay homage to the great advocate for justice - Johnnie Cochran Jr.

This amazingly talented attorney was born Johnnie Cochran Jr., on October 2, 1937, in Shreveport, Louisiana, as the great-grandson of an African-American slave. He grew up in a stable and prosperous family with a father and mother who stressed education, independence, and a color-blind attitude. While Cochran was still young, the family moved to Los Angeles where he attended public schools and earned excellent grades. Although his father had a good job with the Golden State Mutual Life Insurance Company, Cochran always managed to find friends who had more money and more luxuries than he did.

"If you were a person who integrated well, as I did, you got to go to people's houses and envision another life," he recalled. "I knew kids who had things I could only dream of. I remember going to someone's house and seeing a swimming pool. I was like, `That's great!' Another guy had an archery range in his loft. An archery range! I could not believe it. I had never thought about archery! But it made me get off my butt and say, `Hey, I can do this!'

Cochran earned a bachelor's degree from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1959, supporting himself by selling insurance policies for his father's company. He was accepted by the Loyola Marymount University School of Law and began his studies there in the autumn of 1959. Having finished his law studies and passed the California bar by 1963, Cochran took a job with the city of Los Angeles, serving as a deputy city attorney in the criminal division working as a prosecutor.

After a few years, he entered into private practice with the late Gerald Lenoir. Then, forming his own firm, Cochran, Atkins & Evans and his career was launched from this office with a highly-publicized and inflammatory cases dealing with police brutality. Later in his career he attracted celebrity clients like Michael Jackson, and defended O. J. Simpson in the famous 1995 murder trial. Cochran became a celebrity himself, making appearances and writing his memoirs.

Other than what became known for his leadership in “the Trial of the Century”, Mr. Cochran will be remembered for cases like that of a young black man named Leonard Deadwyler who was shot dead by the police as he tried to rush his pregnant wife to the hospital. Although, he lost the civil suit against the Los Angeles Police Department, he never stopped fighting for issues concerning police abuse or injustice inflicted upon the minority community.

There was another memorable case that steered Cochran toward working on behalf of his race. In the early 1970’s, he went to court in defense of Geronimo Pratt, a former Black Panther who stood accused of murder. Cochran lost that case too, but he insists to this day that Pratt was railroaded by the F.B.I. and local police.

"White America just can't come to grips with this," Cochran explained in Essence. "To them the police are as they should be: saving children, acting like heroes in the community. They aren't setting up people, they're not lying, and they aren't using their racist beliefs as an excuse to go after certain people." He fought for Pratt until he was released from prison 27 years later.

These kinds of headline-grabbing cases quickly made Cochran's famous in the black communities of Los Angeles, and by the late 1970s he was handling a number of police brutality and other criminal cases. In an abrupt about face in 1978, he joined the Los Angeles County district attorney's office. Cochran has said that he took the job because he wanted to broaden his political contacts and refashion his image.

Returning to private practice in 1983, Cochran established himself as "the best in the West" to quote Ebony magazine. One of his first major victories occurred in the case of Ron Settles, a college football player who police said had hanged himself in a jail cell after having been picked up for speeding. On the behalf of Settles' family, Cochran demanded that the athlete's body be exhumed and examined. A coroner determined that Settles had been strangled by a police choke hold. A pre-trial settlement brought the grieving family $760,000.

The Settles case settlement was the first in a series of damage awards that Cochran has won for clients—some observers estimate he has won between $40 and $43 million from various California municipalities and police districts in judgments for his clients. Essence reporter Diane Weathers wrote: "Cochran is not just another rich celebrity lawyer. His specialty is suing City Hall on behalf of many fameless people who don't sing, dance or score touchdowns and who have been framed, beaten up, shot at, humiliated and sometimes killed at the hands of the notorious LAPD."

In spite of Cochran’s hard work and local celebrity, it was not until he entered his appearance in the celebrity trial of O. J. Simpson's that he became a national star. In the summer of 1994, Simpson was arrested and charged with the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. Simpson declared that he was innocent, and he engaged Cochran as part of an expensive "dream team" of lawyers dedicated to his defense. Before long, Cochran had replaced Robert Shapiro as leader of the "dream team" as the matter was brought to trial.

The O. J. Simpson trial, in his view, was a "classic rush-to-judgment case and Cochran vowed to win an acquittal for the football star-turned-television celebrity. With his engaging manner and sincerity, Cochran sought to poke holes in the case against Simpson as presented by district attorneys Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden. Piece by piece, he challenged the evidence, paying special attention to the racist attitudes of one of the investigating officers, Mark Fuhrman.

Cochran was effective and controversial in his closing arguments on Simpson's behalf. He claimed his client had been framed by a racist police officer, and that if such injustice were allowed to persist, it could lead to genocide as practiced by Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. Speaking to the jury, Cochran concluded: "If you don't speak out, if you don't stand up, if you don't do what's right, this kind of conduct will continue on forever." After deliberating only four hours, the mostly black jury found Simpson not guilty on all counts. From that statement, the “race card” was entered into the lexicon of American speak.

He has written a book, Journey to Justice, and took part in a daily show for the Court TV channel. Cochran left Court TV in 1999 to create The Cochran Firm, one of the largest personal injury law firms in America. Cochran died of a brain tumor on March 29, 2005 at the age of 67. He was the greatest attorney, in my opinion, since Thurgood Marshall and that’s my Thought Provoking Perspective!

Black History is American History

"Just a Season"

Visit: http://johntwills.com/

AMAZON

Legacy – A New Season the sequel is coming!

Troy Davis † Executed - "Amazing Grace" *RiP*

I am often moved and saddened but never surprised when racism or injustice rears its ugly head. I have lived through the horrible period of segregation so I am keenly aware of unfairness and injustice, which still exists. Having said that it is time for us to take a serious look at the times in which we live. I view the criminal justice system as the new Jim Crow. I am saddened by the murder of one Troy Davis. So let his death remind us that there are thousand living in the belly of the beast and hundreds waiting to die in the same manner as Davis. This system of state sanctioned murder is akin to or nothing more than retroactive abortion at the hand of power.

“In justice anywhere is an injustice everywhere.” And with sadness that is my THOUGHT PROVOKING PERSPECTIVE…

Please watch these powerful videos.

Troy Davis Execution 9/21/2011


Judge Mathis Weighs in on the Execution of Troy Davis

The New Miranda Rules

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that criminal suspects should speak up if they want to preserve their right to remain silent. This is a stunning shift concerning the latest test of the court's famous Miranda rule and shifts the burden to suspects to invoke their right to refuse questioning. If we can go back to 1966 and remember why the original decision was rendered, it is hard to understand the court’s reasoning today. When we consider law enforcement practices prior Miranda it was necessary for the court to require law enforcement to make what became known as the Miranda rights part of routine police procedures to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. This decision is widely viewed as a huge setback to citizen’s rights.

This is a drastic shift from the spirit of the 1966 law that says; “statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them”.

The newest member of the court, Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion that "Today's decision turns Miranda upside down," while accusing the majority of casting aside judicial restraint. "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent … which, counter intuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so."

Justice Sotomayor, a former prosecutor who some had speculated might be less protective of the rights of suspects than other liberals on the court, called the decision "a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination." She was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who wrote for the majority said, "Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, an accused's uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent.” Kennedy was joined, of course, by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

A little history about the landmark Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) case with its 5–4 decision of the 1966 Court, which revolutionized the way the nation's police departments were required to interrogate arrested persons by informing a suspect of their rights under the ruling, termed a Miranda warning. The Miranda decision was widely criticized when it came down, as many felt it was unfair to inform suspected criminals of their rights, as outlined in the decision.

President Nixon and many conservatives denounced Miranda for undermining the efficiency of the police arguing that the ruling would contribute to an increase in crime. Nixon, upon becoming President, promised to appoint judges who would be “strict constructionists” and who would exercise judicial restraint. Many supporters of law enforcement were angered by the decision's negative view of police officers. The federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 purported to overrule Miranda for federal criminal cases and restore the "totality of the circumstances" test that had prevailed prior to Miranda.

The validity of this provision of the law, which is still codified at 18 U.S. Code 3501, was not ruled on for another 30 years because the Justice Department never attempted to rely on it to support the introduction of a confession into evidence at any criminal trial. Miranda was undermined by several subsequent decisions which seemed to grant several exceptions to the "Miranda warnings," undermining its claim to be a necessary corollary of the Fifth Amendment.

In this case the court ruled 5 to 4 that a Michigan defendant who incriminated himself in a fatal shooting by saying one word after nearly three hours of questioning had given up his right to silence, and that the statement could be used against him at trial. In the case before the court, suspect Van Chester Thompkins was read his rights and, at police request, repeated some of them out loud. But he did not sign an offered waiver of the right, and he did not acknowledge that he was willing to talk. Nor did he say that he wanted the questioning to stop.

Detectives persisted in what one called mostly a "monologue" for about two hours and 45 minutes, until one asked Thompkins whether he believed in God. Then a follow up question - "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Thompkins answered "Yes" and looked away. The statement was used against him, along with other testimony, and Thompkins was convicted of killing Samuel Morris outside a strip mall in Southfield, Mich.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit said that Thompkins's prolonged silence "offered a clear and unequivocal message to the officers that Thompkins did not wish to waive his rights." "The fact that Thompkins made a statement about three hours after receiving a Miranda warning does not overcome the fact that he engaged in a course of conduct indicating waiver." Today the conservative arm of the Supreme Court disagreed making the case a president and now law. This decision, I believe will have a far reaching dangerous impact on a society that is becoming largely more diverse.

I am not a lawyer but I was around prior to the 1966 ruling and I will tell you that there was significant reason to establish that law because of what police departments were able to do to suspects in custody, and get away with it. So I would encourage you to advise you children and young people how to conduct themselves once they have been detained by police, and to be aware yourself that anything you say can and will be used against you.

The John T. Wills Chronicles

Arizona on my Mind

I am of the opinion that something’s are right and something’s are wrong. Then there are something’s that I’ve witnessed and something’s I know. As an African American, I can report that I was once Negro, Colored, or worst; so I know mean spirited inhumane laws. The draconian immigration law passed last week in Arizona, directed at a particular group of people, seems like the modern day version of “Separate but equal” or Jim Crow raising like a Phoenix for the “wing nuts", which brings me to Arizona.

In light of what we know, Arizona has passed and signed a law that directs the police to stop anyone under the guise of “reasonable suspicion” to verify that they are not in the state illegally. I guess the real question is how are the police supposed to decide whom they view as a "reasonable suspect" for being in the country illegally? Since the great majority of undocumented immigrants in Arizona are from Mexico, aggressive enforcement of the law would seem to require demanding identification from anybody who looks kind of Mexican. Or maybe just hassling those who are brown and poor. So the state of Arizona wants us to believe that this law is not ripe for abuse. We have been down this road before and know all too well its impact.

This law is appalling, in my opinion, and on so many levels. It stinks of racism; it’s arbitrary, oppressive, and frankly bad policy. It invites racial profiling because it compels police to search for undocumented immigrants based on an ill-defined "reasonable suspicion" of illegality. This means local police will use skin color, accent or limited proficiency in English as the basis for suspicion. There already are many cities in Arizona that have been widely and credibly accused of doing just this in hundreds of lawsuits. When you consider that the police lack any sure fire method for spotting illegal immigrants based on "reasonable suspicion," Arizona police will inevitably target the legal sort as well, in blatant violation of their civil liberties.

Now here comes the insanity. The law allows any citizen to sue local police for failing to enforce immigration law. This means police will be distracted and diverted from other priorities. It is compounded by the threat of fines of up to $5,000 per day for police agencies that fail to enforce the law. It also poisons police relations with immigrant communities. By fomenting the justified fear among immigrants that any contact with law enforcement agencies will lead to questions about their status. The law makes it increasingly unlikely that immigrants will not report crimes, cooperate as witnesses or provide tips to police. Not to mention is it preempts federal law. Federal law treats illegal immigration as a civil violation; Arizona law criminalizes it by using the legally dubious mechanism of equating the mere presence of undocumented immigrants with trespassing.

Now let’s revisit some recent history that speaks to overzealous police actions and we have seen the video’s of what happens. Let’s go back the infamous Rodney King beating, for example, we saw the video and they tried to convince us that we didn’t see what we saw. We must also remember that the cops involved were acquitted at the first trial. You know the “Blue Shield” - protect their own will also happen here. Then there was the young man in New Orleans who was shot in the back multiple times as he ran across a bridge when police said he was charging and shooting at them. Or the bachelor about to be married was murdered leaving a party in New York the day before his wedding.

More recently, there was a situation where a student at the University of Maryland was attached and beaten unmercifully by three officers, who falsified (lied) in the official charging documents. If not for a video surfacing their crime would not have been known. I think it is worth mentioning that this victim was “white”. In Prince George’s County Maryland, it is common knowledge that an interaction with that police force could likely be a death sentence, or a beating for sure, and there history proves this to be true. These are just a few examples to remember in light of this new law. Oh, does anyone remember Professor Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, Jr., B.A., Ph.D. arrested for being in his own home. I don’t have enough paper to list the many occurrences.

Let me take you back to another act of unconsciousness concerning the history of this place in the desert. They were the last state to consider or honor the Martin Luther King Birthday, after it became a federal holiday. The state was boycotted and when the loss of revenue began to hurt, they reluctantly agreed to recognize it. Then there was the guy who ran for president, who was staunchly against the holiday and like then he supports this too. He calls himself a maverick, but said last week he is not a maverick, never called himself a maverick. Dude there is video. However, he proclaims to be a practitioner of “straight talk”. Could this be described as xenophobic or unprincipled?

It sounds like the people who are responsible for this law probably only had contact with those Hispanics who trim their lawns. This is what I know!!! The law requires police to question anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being an undocumented immigrant. It is a mandate for racial profiling on a massive scale. Legal immigrants will be required to carry papers proving that they have a right to be in the United States. Those without documentation can be charged with the crime of trespassing, jailed, or deported.

Don't forget, these were the same types of sanctions imposed upon “Negro” not very long ago. This could very well be what the comedic genius Richard Pryor meant when he famously said, “America got them some new Nigger’s”.

JUST A SEASON

The Hypocrisy of Democracy

If you regularly read, or follow, “Thought Provoking Perspectives” you know that I had a Granddaddy that I loved more than life itself. This man was only formally educated for only one year, yet he was brilliant. I recently posted an article called “Granddaddy’s Lessons” where I shared some of his wisdom virally with the world. He used to recite a number of witty sayings as he guided me into manhood, like “even a fool makes sense sometimes”. Rarely have I ever questioned “Pops” wisdom, but after witnessing the behavior or shall I say racism of today’s Conservatives. I have begun to question the logic of his words; particularly after this weekend’s passage of the long awaited, and much needed, Healthcare Bill.

While growing up my grandfather would shield me from the wretchedness that was the evils of racism. However, I was old enough to witness the brutality of peaceful demonstrations by black people on TV in the early sixties begging for equal rights. This is to include things like the aftermath of the church that was bombed killing four little girl, police attacking marchers, trampling them on house back, beating them with clubs, and assaulting them with high pressure water hoses. When I would ask Pops why did they do these things to us? He would say, “These acts were the lawlessness of the law”. I call it the hypocrisy of democracy.

Today, as I recall those dreadful horrors imposed upon us that were known as the “Law of the Land” they seem eerily similar to the atmosphere and mentality of the time we know live. Now that I have matured, I better understand that there is a philosophy that enables racism to exist. What we thought was removed from the consciousness of the American dogma was simply lying dormant. Therefore, in order to understand the current political environment that is affecting and polarizing society, we must ask the question; is what we are seeing conservatism or racism? To answer that let me provide Webster’s definition of both words:

• Conservatism: 1. a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs.

• Racism: 1. belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. 2: racial prejudice or discrimination.

Over the past week Congressman John Lewis, who was beaten nearly to death on Bloody Sunday, was assaulted with racial epithets on the steps of the Nation’s Capital, which is the symbol, supposedly, of the freest nation on earth. Bricks were thrown through windows, death threats and other threatening messages have been made to Congressman and Government Officials. The President of the United States continue to receive an unprecedented amount of death threats, insulted with disrespectful caricatures, and now being referred to as the Antichrist. I would say this in the manifestation of a hatred that is pure evil.

There is talk of secession and we remember how well that worked out, it was called the Civil War which had its roots in the concepts that are on display now. As a result of the changing face of America the tea baggers espouse predictions of Armageddon because something, as they see it, has gone terribly wrong with the country – which only means that it is living up to the lie that it has lived mean “a government for the people and by the people”. It amazes me that after witnessing the last decade of GOP rule – where were they then with their cries and protest about the government run a mock.

It doesn’t seem like we are not going backward rather that things are turned upside down. For example, Mr. Lewis who marched for equal rights is now a powerful voice in the process of making laws. On the right, the opposite has occurred in the most disheartening and deplorable aspects as the conservatives want to “take back their country”. But for me, what I find most distasteful is seeing the head of the Republican National Committee, a “Colored Man”, which is like a Klansman under a sheet. This guy takes every opportunity to chime in with those who want to take us back to being second class citizens or maybe lynchings as it was during the time “they” say was so great.

With the constant battle cry of “States Rights”, not to mention, the way the news media covering the Tea Baggers protesting will somehow find the only Negro in the crowd to focus on, when in reality only a few African Americas are participating in this insanity. Just like “Manifest Destiny” was devised to justify one race’s superiority. The Conservatives movement is rooted in the psychology of racism and we know that involves pitting one against the other. Often times using the black face of someone who reminds me of my uncle who name is Tom.

When we protested, peacefully, I might add, they called us un-American. They told us to “love it or leave it” – “go back to Africa”. Let me add that we never threatened the lives of others when blacks begged for civil rights, particularly government officials, which in my opinion is treason. Let us remember that once upon a time people who had the same mentality thought slavery was sanctioned by “God”. These conservatives are not just racist but the real “Axis of evil”. Scripture tells us that the first shall be last and the last shell be first. Isn’t it a blessing that the people who were deprived of their rights are now making things right. Is it right yet, NO, but I can see the mountain top!!!

God Bless America and our President...

The Ghost of Jim Crow

In an earlier article someone made a comment and ask a question that, frankly, surprised me. The question was; what do you mean when you say “Jim Crow”? My first thought was, how can history so recent and one that I’ve witnessed, and know to be true, be removed from the consciousness of anyone living in America. I suppose it speaks to the indifference of what is learned today, or not, through the education system.

So I will try to enlighten this young lady by providing a brief history of its origin and hopely empower her. The term Jim Crow originated in a song performed by Daddy Rice, a white minstrel show entertainer in the 1830’s. Rice covered his face with charcoal paste or burnt cork to resemble a black man as he sang and danced a routine in the caricature of a silly black person. By the 1850’s, this cruelly belittling blackface character, one of several stereotypical images of black inferiority in America’s popular culture, was a standard act in minstrel shows of the day.

The term became synonymous with the brutal concept of segregation directed specifically at African Americans in the late nineteenth-century. It is not clear why this term was selected; however, what is clear is that by 1900, the term was generally identified with those racist laws and actions that deprived African Americans of their civil rights by defining blacks as inferior to whites while identifying them as subordinate people.

It was around this time that its inception entered the lexicon of racial bigotry after the landmark U.S Supreme Court decision Plessy verses Ferguson in 1896 resulting from a suit brought by the New Orleans Committee of Citizens. The notion was devised as many southern states tried to thwart the efforts and gains made during Reconstruction following the Civil War.

They, the Committee of Citizens, arranged for Homer Plessy’s arrest in order to challenge Louisiana’s segregation laws. Their argument was, “We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred” referring to the confederacy. The Supreme Court agreed and a policy of segregation became the law of the land lasting more than sixty years as a result of that fateful decision.

As a result of reconstruction African Americans were able to make great progress in building their own institutions, passing civil rights laws, and electing officials to public office. In response to these achievements, southern whites launched a vicious, illegal war against southern blacks and their white allies. In most places, whites carried out this war under the cover of secret organizations such as the KKK. Thousands of African Americans were killed, brutalized, and terrorized in these bloody years. I might add that anywhere south of Canada was "South" as this was the law of the land.

The federal government attempted to stop the bloodshed by sending in troops and holding investigations, but its efforts were far too limited and frankly were not intended to solve the problem. Therefore, black resistance to segregation was difficult because the system of land tenancy, known as sharecropping, left most blacks economically dependent upon planter/landlords and merchant suppliers. In addition, white terror at the hands of lynch mobs threatened all members of the black family - adults and children alike. This reality made it nearly impossible for blacks to stand up to Jim Crow because such actions might bring the wrath of the white mob on one's parents, brothers, spouse, and children.

Few black families were economically well off enough to buck the local white power structure of banks, merchants, and landlords. To put it succinctly: impoverished and often illiterate southern blacks were in a weak position to confront the racist culture of Jim Crow. To enforce the new legal order of segregation, southern whites often resorted to even more brutalizing acts of mob terror, including race riots and ritualized lynchings were regularly practiced to enforce this agenda.

Some historians see this extremely brutal and near epidemic commitment to white supremacy as breaking with the South's more laissez-faire and paternalistic past. Others view this "new order" as a more rigid continuation of the "cult of whiteness" at work in the South since the end of the Civil War. Both perspectives agree that the 1890’s ushered in a more formally racist South and one in which white supremacists used law and mob terror to define the life and popular culture of African American people as an inferior people.

Jessica (who is white) now you know…

JUST A SEASON

HOW SOON WE FORGET

I was the keynote speaker for a Black History Month luncheon - invited by an organization of prominent successful African American business people. It was less than a month after President Obama had been sworn in as the first Black American President. During the speech I said in spite of this “we are still a nation of people, living within a nation, searching for a nationality”. A lady seated near the front spoke out, loudly I might add, saying “I am an American – I know my nationality”. I looked in her direction, noticing not only was she rude, but that she appeared offended by the remark.

It seemed as if the entire room of several hundred people in this very elegant downtown Washington, DC hotel emptied and there was only the two of us in the room. I moved from the podium in her direction and said, “You know, in my lifetime I have been colored, a Negro, Afro-America, Black, African American, and many things I won’t repeat. Nonetheless, thank you for making me aware that we are now Americans. Would this be the result of having entered an era that’s being called post racial?” She replied “Yes”. Hmmm.

I asked her, “Can you meet me later, say about ten o’clock, in front of this very building and let’s try to catch a taxicab to go to your neighborhood?” In this city that some would describe as the capital city of the free world; you will find out very quickly how much of an America you are when the cabbie refuses to pick us up. I assumed this black woman, as well as many black people believe that just because we have a black president that somehow something magical has happened where racism has ended and all is right with the world.

Now, fast forward to last Friday when I received a twitter message about an incident where Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested for trying to break into his own home near Harvard Square. Dr. Gates is a renowned Harvard University Professor, a preeminent African-American scholar, editor-in-chief of TheRoot.com, and one of America’s foremost authorities on race - among many other accolades. More importantly, he is the very best of us - not the least of us. Therefore, I was drawn to this story immediately.

Details about the story were slow to become available, at least for a few days, but as the story began to unfold, as with any situation that involve “Black and White” there were two distinctly different accounts. The officer was there because of a call from a neighbor reporting “a black man breaking into a home” in the white neighborhood of Cambridge, Mass. According to the policeman Dr. Gates was screaming the word “racist” for no apparent reason other than he was a white cop who showed up at his home. The officer also indicated that Gates told him, when asked to step outside, “I’ll speak with your mama outside” and threatened to go after his job. Before I go any further, this incident occurred in one of America’s northern most cities and not Mississippi. However, in America “anywhere south of Canada is in the south”.

According to Dr. Gates, the cop mistreated him because he is black man. The professor asked the officer for his badge number and identification, which is his right as a citizen. Published accounts say the police officer refused to comply with this citizen’s request. At this point both agree that Dr. Gates did produce a driver’s license and his Harvard University ID, when asked by the officer clearly indicating that this was indeed his home. And yet, the police officer arrested Dr. Gates for disorderly conduct because the officer felt threatened, (wink) which is the all too familiar theme or codeword used for justification.

Dr. Gates is a 58-year-old slender built black man who requires a cane to walk. The officer, from the pictures I’ve seen, is a substantially larger and younger individual with a gun and a license to kill. The officer claims that had no choice but to use the four worst words in the English language to a black man “you are under arrest” basically for being home and black. Many people of the other hue are saying the officer’s story must be true because he is the police and Gates shouldn’t have said that to the policeman, who was only doing his job. In addition, they say that Gates’ position as a college professor with no criminal record should not be a factor at all in the story. Wait a minute, haven’t we seen this movie? It’s called, “The Uppity Negro Syndrome” where the black man has not committed a crime but has a big mouth.

By Tuesday, the charges of disorderly conduct against Professor Gates were dropped. The police and Dr. Gates issued a joint statement calling the incident “regrettable and unfortunate.” Because the charges were dropped tells me that once again overreaching by law enforcement was the reason - otherwise Dr. Gates would have to appear in court to face the charge. It also tells me (MESSAGE) that no matter how much education you have as a person of color, you still can’t escape institutional racism making us keenly aware of how many people every day experience abuses in the criminal justice system; a reality for many people of color and black men in particular.

We might be able to understand the reasoning for this philosophy that is the foundation for institutional racism from someone who knows; a well-known cable TV pundit Pat Buchanan. On the Rachel Maddow Show last week he was talking about the Senate Judiciary Committee GOP members who opposite to the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor. Although it was a different topic, it is the same basic theory used to reinforce institutional racism and their inner sense of racial superiority that is viewed systematically as their God given right. And I quote:

“White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks, who were 90% of the nation in 1960 when I was growing up and the other 10% were African-Americans ... That's why. Damn straight! And what were all those black people doing at the time when heroic white people were setting about the important business of founding this great nation of ours? You guessed it! Hanging around fields, picking cotton, like bone idle jerks! None of that ever contributed anything to the common weal, of course! I mean, what is “cotton?” Not exactly THE FABRIC OF OUR LIVES, right?”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/17/rachel-maddow-takes-on-pa_n_237146.html - Source (Huffpost)

I wonder if the lady from the luncheon, wherever she is today, is aware that this incident, aside from the many others tragic and unnecessary situations that happen to African America’s everyday is a reminder that for all the racial progress she feels the country seemed to have made with the election of President Obama - not much has changed in the everyday lives of most people in terms of race relations.

To be continued – I am sure…

Brown v Board of Education fifty five years later

This year we will celebrate the fifty fifth anniversary of the landmark Brown v Board of Education case successfully argued before Supreme Court of the United States. It is also very appropriate at this time to also take this opportunity to recognize the skill of the late great Thurgood Marshall who brilliantly won this case and more than fifty other cases before the Supreme Court - winning all of them.

This case changed the face of America in away unlike any other decision. The Brown case, as it is known, was not the first such case regarding civil rights argued before the court it is worth mentioning. It was just the most significant of what some would say was the final battle in the courts that had been fought by African American parents since 1849, which started with Roberts v. City of Boston, Massachusetts. It is also important to note that Kansas was the site of eleven such cases spanning from 1881 to 1949.

The case was named after Oliver Brown one of 200 plaintiffs. The Brown case was initiated and organized by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) leadership who recruited African American parents in Topeka, Kansas for a class action suit against the local school board. The Supreme Court combined five cases under the heading of Brown v. Board of Education: Delaware, Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The ultimate goal sought by the NAACP was to end the practice of “separate but equal” throughout every segment of society, including public transportation, dining facilities, public schools and all forms of public accommodations.

The Brown Supreme Court ruling determined racial segregation in public education was unconstitutional in Brown I, the first opinion. The court’s implementation mandate of "with all deliberate speed" in 1955 is known as Brown II. In 1979, twenty five years later, there was a Brown III because Topeka was not living up to the earlier Supreme Court ruling, which resulted in Topeka Public Schools building three magnet schools to comply with the court's findings. As had been the case since Homer Plessy, the subject in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a Louisiana law mandating separate but equal accommodations for blacks and whites on intrastate railroads was constitutional. This decision provided the legal foundation to justify many other actions by state and local governments to socially separate blacks and whites.

Now that I have provided some history related to the case let me add my commentary. It has been said that as sure as things change they remain the same. First, it took 60 year to overturn Plessy with Brown and it took “with all deliberate speed” 13 years for integration to begin fully. During this period of time from 1954 to 1967 Governors blocked school entrances and actually closed schools rather than comply with the law of the land. I am not going to touch on the violence that caused President’s to send the US Army and National Guard troops to schools in order to protect the safety of those the ruling was intended benefit as a result of the Brown decision.

Since then and over time many scams have been devised to disenfranchise minorities and African Americans in particular – need I only remind you of “No Child Left Behind”. This brings us to where we are today. Schools are equally as segregated, poorly funded, dilapidated facilities, and a police presence to save, often times, the kids from themselves. The dropout rate averages 2 to 1. These are just a few issues and by any measure of academic standards or common sense – is a failure.

Let’s make sure we understand that public education was not created to develop minds rather it was intended to simply teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. It was created to maintain a permanent underclass. Now maybe the word “class” is the operative word in all of this – the haves have and the have not’s will have not. So as sure as things change they remain the same. That is why it is imperative for us to celebrate this milestone and continue to the struggle as the ghosts of so many who died for the principle that “education is the single most important ingredient necessary to neutralize those forces that breed poverty and despair”.

What do you think???

Torture - why not use the RECO Statue

We have all been hearing about the national debate on torture that has saturated the airways and print media. Let me first say that I am not a lawyer but I am knowledgeable enough to have heard about the RECO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations) statute. This law essentially says the government convicted a person for just about anything including merely knowing of a crime. Now, this is where I am perplexed. I have not heard it mentioned during this entire debate – WHY?

After noticing this I decided to do a web search. So I visited the Legal Information Institute webpage of Cornell Law School and read the US Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_96.html). It seems to me that much of what I read could apply in this situation. Now I know that this law was enacted to address organized crime figures and kingpins to which I would argue that is really what we are dealing with concerning the development and administration of these policies.

What do you think????

Thank you Mr. President

I am a man who believes education is the single most important ingredient necessary to neutralize those forces that breed poverty and despair. Certainly as an African American I know the misery of both and understand that this was/is by design as a result of colonization impose upon people of African heritage dating back to the day the first human cargo landed on the shores of Jamestown, Virginia. What that means is the law of the land. Hence, I have come to understand that education although important is not the most serious problem we face in trying to survive in this place the slaves called “merica”. I submit that the most serious impediment to our survival is the “LAW” – the criminal justice system.

Therefore, I say thank you Mr. President for being a principled man of integrity making me and dare I say a people proud to have witnessed a sea change in the consciousness of America. I believe his presidency will in affect balance the scales of justice thereby giving African Americans something that we have never encountered in the history of this nation, which is fair dealing as it relates to the “law” - but it is far more significant than that. Let me explain.

First he will, possibility, have an opportunity to appoint three or more Supreme Court Justices who will more than likely not be conservative in their approach or assessment of an opinion. Let me add that an appointment to the bench is for life and will effect generations correcting many injustices - long-term. Secondly, and more importantly, he has appointed Mr. Eric Holder to head the Department of Justice who is the first African American head and leader of this critical agency. I believe this will produce immediate relief for a people, and black men in particular, who find that justice usually means “just-us”.

So I say again, thank you Mr. President.

orAMAZON.COM