Clarence Thomas as Malcolm X

•July 7, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Clarence Thomas When I conjour the sole Black Supreme Court Justice’s name I’m often distracted by his personal shortcomings (see: Anita Hill), purported Uncle Tom-esque character (see also: Affirmative Action), and the fact that its widely believed that Thomas has failed to further Thurgood Marshall’s mastery of the court. Most Black Americans accept the charges I’ve levied against Justice Thomas as fact, but in the recently decided case of McDonald v. Chicago the Georgia native wakes from his slumber and strikes a chord that Black Americans should heed and respect.

McDonald v. Chicago is a contemporary Supreme Court case settled by a 5-4 vote, with the plurality voting in favor of McDonald’s (a 76 year old Black American) right to own a handgun in spite of Chicago law preventing said ownership. Clarence Thomas concurred with the majority but went out of his way to amplify the historic importance of the right to bear arms to the Black struggle against violent oppression in America. Thomas believes the 14th Amendment bestowed the booty of the 2nd Amendment on the newly crowned Negro citizens after emancipation, and this combination prevents States or City Townships from limiting these federal entitlements today.

In making his point, Clarence Thomas evokes Malcolm X’s most aggressive and militant prose when he pens “when the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups proliferated, the use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves against mob violence”. This declaration leads Associate Justice Thomas to conclude that “In my view, the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood — just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did — that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty”.

Here Thomas is overtly claiming that his support for the uninhibited realization of the 2nd Amendment in McDonald is due to his experience growing up as a black man in the Jim Crow South. Thomas has made a decision on the nation’s highest court based on the sites he’s seen threw the eyes of a Negro, namely his own. The Justice is also reaffirming the belief that the right to bear arms is needed for the security of Black Americans to remain unchallenged. Huey Newton the great Black Panther predicted Thomas’ current fervor when he said “Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment”. Newton was clearly equating armaments with personal freedom, and as Thomas does correlates the security of Blacks with their ability (or inability) to defend their person.

Clarence Thomas the arch conservative, and enemy of the left leaning Black Lobby, is reminding his critics that he too would have been a slave in the fields. He too would have had to enter Woolworths threw its rear. And he too will fight to ensure that the American Negro never again is unable to defend himself against unabashed hatred and brutality. In McDonald v. Chicago Clarence Thomas has refocused his dedication to protecting the rights of Blacks and all those the 2nd Amendment seeks to empower. And with his fiery opinion Justice Thomas again reminds the Black Community that its folk heroes can/has/will come from personal backgrounds and political spheres of a diverse nature.

Clarence Thomas. Black Revolutionary. Better late than never.


Leaving Las Ghanistan

•October 23, 2009 • Leave a Comment

The Obama Administration has engaged in a review of its Afghanistan policy so that the President can reconsider General Stanley McChrystal’s request of 40,000 American troops to repel the revitalized Taliban insurgency. All signs point to the President approving McChrystal’s recommendation, but American national interests would be better served by a draw down of US Forces in the AfPak theatre.

img-hp-main---mcchrystal-obama_063743133543                               In 2008, Presidential Candidate Obama declared the Afghan conflict a War of Necessity which was essential to the national security of the United States. The rational behind this statement was that the Taliban would infiltrate Afghanistan, and once again establish bases from which they would launch terrorist attacks against the American homeland. US Intelligence however, has revealed that Afghanistan is not the only launching pad available to the Taliban and Al Qaeda networks. Radical Jihads and Mujahideen (holy fighters) forces are present in cell forms in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Pakistan. If the goal of the Afghan War is to destroy Taliban footholds, then President Obama would theoretically need to invade 4 other nations that are infested by Al Qaeda.


Not only is General McChrystal’s counter-insurgency plan short sighted, but it also makes the mistake of importing the lessons learned in the War in Iraq to the Afghan battlefield. The “Surge” waged by General David Petraus in Iraq was effective in large part because of the “Sunni Awakening” that coincided with the increase in US forces. In short, the US Military paid Sunni and Shia tribal leaders to end their offensives against one another and American forces. The resulting cease fire drastically decreased US causalities and put an end to the repetitive cycle of secretarian violence. Without the acquiescence of Iraqi tribal leaders the “Surge” would have fell flat on its face, and the ground war in Iraq would remain in chaos.

This reality means that even if McChrystal is granted additional troops by President Obama, violence in the region will only increase unless said increase is accompanied by diplomatic concessions made to and by the Taliban, the very enemy we seek to exterminate. The Obama Administration refuses to sit down with the fractious Taliban and Al Qaeda leaderships because of their apparent role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This inflexibility is counter productive and limits the counter-insurgency McChrystal seeks to wage.


The alternatives to increasing troop levels in Afghanistan are far from limited. Vice President Joe Biden is on record as suggesting a limited US presence capable of launching US Special Forces, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), and Predator drone attacks against the Taliban’s leadership. American Intelligence has become more effective in recent months, and such strikes have resulted in the deaths of numerous high level terrorists on the battlefield. Biden’s limited approach should receive serious consideration, and at worst be modified so that the current number of US Troops remains stagnant and becomes sufficient to continue an effective pursuit of our enemies.


Another strategic alternative would be for the Obama Administration to proceed in . Afghan poppy productions accounts for over 90% of the world’s heroin production, and most of the profits are funneled to the Taliban. The resources made from the drug trade literally become more bombs, guns, and RPGs that the Taliban can use against US Troops.  US Forces have seem limited strategic success in using pesticides to destroy Afghan poppies, but this action has lead to increased attacks against American forces and backlash from the communities that rely on these crops. The Obama Administration should continue waging a drug war against the cartels of Afghanistan and explore alternatives which concentrate on the problem the opium crops are creating. US Forces should continue to promote the growing of legal and profitable crops such as wheat and fruit trees, which characterized the Afghan plains prior to the Soviet Unions destruction of the agricultural industry after their 1979 invasion.


Afghanistan is a raw and fledgling democracy. Hamid Karzai’s re-election was largely seen as a fraud to neutral observers, and President Obama would be hard pressed to detail why a corrupt partner such as Karzai is worth the investment of 40,000 American soldiers. The War in Afghanistan began for nobel reasons but when considering the new conditions on the ground a greater expenditure of American blood and treasure makes little sense — especially when our strategic objectives can seemingly be met with a substantially smaller and less expensive force. Hopefully President Obama will spur his critics and declare once and for all that the United States is “Leaving Afghanistan”. 40,000 American soldiers and their families are hoping he does exactly that.


•June 16, 2009 • Leave a Comment
I’ve stayed away, far away, from “politiking” since beginning my march toward soldiering because I believe American military should be apolitical, but since i bet only a few of you will stumble upon this i’m going ahead and writing this while i listen to selected tracks from 808s and Heartbreak.

channel cruise

I have been greatly impressed by the foreign policy of the U.S. over last few months under the new administration. My pre-election fears of what i’m calling Diplobamacyn would resemble was based in the fact that he promised wide and sweeping divergences from Bush-era terror policy. Remember that candidate Barack Obama simply and blindly said

1 I’m closing Guantanamo

2 The Era of Torture is over, and I may investigate it

3 I will negiotiate with the Mullahs, Ayatollahs, and strong men of the Mideast without conditions

On the first promise Obama has held steady that he wishes the institution based in Cuba to be put to a quick death, but the reality of what closing the prison would entail has placed a wrench in Obama’s plans. I’m not one who believes the US can’t handle terror in its domestic prisons, because we have international terrorists in our prisons as you read this, and the world has not ceased to exist. But the variable that Obama’s Administration has yet to decipher is what will happen when a Gitmo terrorist–being tried in a US Court– requests information and intelligence that lead to their capture/jailing. Will the Administration hand these classified and very sensitive files over to the enemy? Will we let the enemy know who exposed them, what they told us, where they are currently living, and when they may expose terror activities again ? That would lower America’s ability to undermine and wage war against those trying to kill us, and President Obama has thankfully understood this and delayed ending Gitmo as we know it. It shows the man is the realist and has the safety of the American people as his paramount objective.

Obama has also done a suprisingly effective job of protecting American troops. Cooks and Loons in the ACLU have for months tried to win the right to obtain photos showing US Troops abusing Iraqi prisoners in the vain of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib during the Bush Administration. This issue is simple—-Show Iraqis photos of their bretheren being demoralized by Americans and those same Iraqis will want retribution and attack US Troops and inflicit significant casualties. Obama sees no reason to inflame public opinion in Iraq and has joined with Senators Joe Liberman and Lindsey Graham to ensure that these photos never see the light of day….ever. Again, Obama has prioritized the safety of Americans over the calls and pressure put on by the Left of the Democratic party. When any American President bucks his natural political base to ensure that we are safe he is serving his county–not those who solidify his power.

What those on the right including myself most feared about Obama was that he would go cap in hand to radicals like the President of Iran (Ahmadinejad) and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and beg for better relations. These members of Bush’s Axis of Evil have been embolden by America’s apparent decrease in military and economic hedgemony and have challenged us on many fronts at an increasing rate in the past few months. The Administration responded by trying to extend an olive branch to the Middle East and more specifically the Muslim World in his address in Cairo, Egypt. I hope you have seen that speech because it was simply breathe-taking. President Obama displayed all of his rhetorical skills in being able to relate people of Islamic faith like no US President ever. Obama admitted the mistakes of past American incursions into Middle East politics *e.g. our overthow of the Mossedeq Government in the 1950s) and the need for Israel to soften its stance and begin to come to terms with the idea of a strong and vibrant Palestinian state. The speech dealt radicals in the Muslim World a decisive blow. They calls for more death, carnage, and hate were laid to waste by Obama’s limitless hope of what the Middle East and America can accomplish going forth with a new sense of friendship.

The speech was hailed by some Muslims and trashed by others (see Al Qaeda) but in the immediate aftermath of the speech the Pro Western Coalition in Lebanon defeated the political party supported by the Shiite Militants Hezbollah. The people of Lebanon said “We hear you Obama and we want to build with you on this”. Unfortunately I doubt George W. Bush could ever have inspired this political result and because of that reality I have become intrigued by the possibilities of what change Obama can really bring about. As I type young adults and students are rioting and demonstrating in the streets of Tehran, Iran because the Mullahs and Revolutionary Guard over there have made a mockery of democracy threw the election results they claim have given Mr. Ahmadinejad another term.

Note to Iran, when elections are free and fair, you usually don’t experience loss of internet, cell phone, and text messaging service. When elections are free and fair, you usually don’t have candidates losing their home towns by margins of 10 to 1 or police shooting citizens simply expressing their right to protest their government. I won’t say that Obama is soley responsible for the encouraging signs of revolution in Iran as I believe most of the credit lies with those risking their lives by taking to the streets to express their outrage over the gutter politics of the hardliners in their country. I have to believe though that those demonstrators know that somewhere in America there is a leader observing there actions and hoping that they will lead to the New Beginning Obama asked for when he spoke in Cairo.

Obama is developing his diplomatic swimming legs so to speak, and it is truly exciting to watch.

Open Letter to Conservatives from President Obama

•November 3, 2008 • 6 Comments

Barring a miracle on November 4th I, Barack Obama, will be elected the 44th President of the United States. I am grateful of the support I have received from millions of Americans to defeat John McCain, a tremendous opponent and genuine American hero. My election should stand as an example of how far we (Liberal and Conservative) Americans have come on issues of race and equality in the short history of our great nation. With the divisive election behind us it is my immediate goal to unite our nation and discuss with you the obstacles before us that we will not be able to conquer unless we get our hands dirty and begin to work together.

Abraham Lincoln’s famous words “A house divided against itself cannot stand” have never been more pertinent than it is concerning the current conditions of our politics and government. I campaigned as a Democrat but I intend to govern as an American. No longer will I point fingers and place blame on Republicans when analyzing the dire circumstances our economy, foreign policy, and status as the world’s sole Superpower now face. American strength and prestige is in jeopardy, and my administration will not be able to facilitate our recovery without a united people supporting my policies. We have numerous enemies awaiting our demise, and to them we must show America has reformed a strong coalition that will crush their defiance at a time of our choosing.


President-Elect Barack Obama

President-Elect Barack Obama

There are many things that I will need from (you) my Republican detractors and Conservative rivals that I will need to be successful, and without which I will surely fail. Our national debt has doubled in the last 8 years and it is the result of budget mismanagement and excessive spending and government excesses. I CHALLENGE Conservatives to revert to their principles of smaller bureaucracy and hate of governmental waste and fiscal irresponsibility. With this assistance you will help my administration avoid the pitfalls of the Bush Administration and return our economy to a period of strong growth and economic surpluses. The historic tendency of anti-interventionism needs to be returned by Conservative leaders to restore maturity to American foreign policy. An Obama Administration would be well served if rival Congressional Leaders would mobilize their supporters against the over-extension of our Armed Forces, which has lead to meandering conflicts (the Iraq War) syphoning vital resources from our economy and strategically important theatres in the War on Terror (Afghanistan & Pakistan). America will also be well served if Republicans give me their support to engage our enemies when needed so that the Ayatollahs and Mullahs in Iran know that our people are united and will not stand by idly while they gain a nuclear capability that will threaten the security of our Middle Eastern democratic ally, the sacred state of Israel. 

Although I believe the Democrats will have obtained enough seats in the Senate to pass legislation without the support of Conservative Republicans their are some pieces of my agenda that I will not be able to accomplish without your contributions. As you know I plan on instituting a progressive income tax on those making 250k and higher. My critics feel as though this is a move toward Socialism, but I am only moving our economy away from the Reaganomic top heavy structure that has failed us. Do not move your businesses and private investments abroad to nations with lower tax brackets, or discontinue your engagement in our stock markets and international trade. For my plan to be success I need your wealth and monetary holdings in order to increase our government’s revenues and reinvest those funds toward the betterment of our great nation.

An Obama Administration will also call on Cultural Conservatives to remain engaged in social dialogue on issues that have divided our nation in the past such as abortion and Gay Rights. I doubt that my election will spawn some instant agreement on these issues but I know that the passion Conservatives have on these issues will keep them at the forefront of political discussion, and force me to assume a leadership role that will address these complicated challenges. Like Bill Clinton I want to enact policies that make abortions safe, legal, but rare. Despite our fundamental disagreement on a Women’s Right to choose, I know that the organizational skills of Conservatives can aid me in our mutual hope to reduce the number of abortions completed in America. In the same vain, I know that the compassion and humanity of Evangelicals and other religious Conservatives will lead to the revelation that despite our thoughts on their lifestyle, our Homosexual neighbors are our brethren and have a claim to the same inalienable rights that all Americans enjoy.


One of my favorite artistic renditions of Barack Obama

One of my favorite artistic renditions of Barack Obama

In order to accomplish the goals I have set forward, Bipartisanship will have to exude from every American active in government no matter party affiliation. My election should not discourage my critics from engaging in the political process, rather it should motivate you because without it our nation will continue to drift into mediocrity. 90% of the electorate felt our nation was moving in the wrong direction under George W. Bush, and I believe that that has provided me with a mandate to drastically change the way our government exerts its power and influence. I have the full support of Democrats and many Independents as evident by the size of my electoral victory, but it is you the Conservative that I challenge to not withdraw from the American Political System.

Without you our house cannot stand but with you our house will surely fly.

Decision ’08 Presidential Results

•October 30, 2008 • Leave a Comment
Watch Live 2008 Election Results @ America Lives

[clearspring_widget title=”Decision ’08 Presidential Results” wid=”48f7b94a8845f8a3″ pid=”490962e976af5ce9″ width=”300″ height=”545″ domain=””]

Hudson Tragedy Exposes Overzealous News Media!

•October 30, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Rarely do I venture into celebrity news drama but this story deserves comment.

Tragedy struck the family of American Idol Star Jennifer Hudson, of DreamGirls fame, when her mother Darnell Donerson and brother Jason Hudson were found murdered Friday October 24th in their South Side Chicago home. Hudson’s nephew Julian King was reported missing and later found shot to death in a white SUV a few days after the initial killings. Because of Jennifer Hudson’s fame the stories immediately received national press coverage, and all the major cable networks have explored the savagery that claimed the lives of Hudson’s 3 family members.

Jennifer Hudson of American Idol Fame

As the story gained notoriety threw the 24 hour new cycles, a person of interest (Hudson’s former brother-in-law William Balfour who was involved with Hudson’s sister Julia) was presented to the public as the prime (and likely) suspect in the killings by the media. Balfour’s picture has now been posted on all subsequent news updates on the ongoing investigation, and the average viewer has been made to believe that William Balfour has somehow been found guilty of committing the murders.  However, Chicago police have repeatedly stated that Balfour is simply a person of interest, and that he is being held on a prior parole violation unrelated to the aforementioned crimes.  The Chicago Police have not presented any evidence that contradicts Balfour’s alibis that place him miles away from the Hudson residence the night of the murders, yet the news media has emphasized his role in the crimes.

The mug shot of W. Balfour now made famous by national media

The mug shot of W. Balfour now (unfortunately) made famous by national media

America is the land of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. With no evidence or witnesses placing Balfour at the scene of the crimes the case for him being labeled a murder is thin at best, and even the investigating officers admit that he is being held on an entirely separate matter. 21st Century Journalists are heavily invested in “one-upmanship” and “out scooping” one another, but news competition should not compromise the Constitutional Rights of a (potentially) innocent man.

If Balfour is eventually found guilty he should be prosecuted to the extent of the law and serve a prison sentence that coincides with the crime committed. His face should THEN be plastered on all media outlets and revealed as the man who murdered three innocent Americans. But only THEN. In our United States Mr. Balfour is owed the right of presumed innocence until that fateful time of THEN.

Tapping into the voices of blogger nation !!!

•October 24, 2008 • Leave a Comment