Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

In theory, the historic victories of Tim Scott and Mia Love are worthy of celebration. After Sen. Jim DeMint resigned in November 2012, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley appointed Scott to the office – thus his win on Tuesday makes him not only the first Black senator elected by South Carolina, but the first Black politician to win stateside election in South Carolina since Reconstruction. And thanks to voters in Utah, Mia Love became the first Black Republican woman – as well as the first Haitian American – to be elected to Congress.

For a party who counts only a minuscule amount of Black people in its fold, to have two Black faces serve in two powerful positions sounds like progress for both the GOP and the rest of the country. However, as common as these remarks from Zora Neale Hurston may read, they are no less powerful or truthful: “All my skinfolk ain’t kinfolk.”

Fellow South Carolinian and Congressman James Clyburn understands this point, and like me, is not impressed with Scott’s victory. Speaking with the Washington Post, Clyburn explained, “If you call progress electing a person with the pigmentation that he has, who votes against the interest and aspirations of 95 percent of the Black people in South Carolina, then I guess that’s progress.”

This would include Scott openly speaking to the necessity of impeaching President Barack Obama; voting to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act; voting to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress; voting to delay funding a settlement between the United States and Black farmers who accused the federal government of refusing them loans because of their race; calling for the tightening of food stamp restrictions; and slicing the HIV/AIDS budget for South Carolina.

Scott also notoriously refused an invitation to join the Congressional Black Caucus, saying, “My campaign was never about race.” Like Scott, Mia Love also discounts the role of race in her win. Some people just like to pretend.

When asked why it took so long for Republicans to elect a Black woman by CNN’s John Berman, Love said:

“This has nothing do with race. Understand that Utahans have made a statement that they’re not interested in dividing Americans based on race or gender, that they want to make sure that they are electing people who are honest and who have integrity. That’s really what made history here. It’s that race, gender, had nothing to do with it, principles had everything to do with it.”

Love’s response is a cake full of lies topped with way too much disingenuous icing; it’s nasty, stale, and worth immediate trashing. Love and Scott managing to be Black Republicans who can win elections in 2014 despite a clear opposition to Black voters, Black political interests, and our first Black president has everything to do with race, only not in a way either would imagine.

Love and Scott can succeed as Black Republicans in Republican territory because they are Black faces to political views typically associated with White men.

Love of all people should know the role race plays in politics because she fell victim to it only two years ago when she was running in office. Both she and Scott choose to ignore race, though, because it is benefits them professionally. That doesn’t negate the role race plays, however, and their choice only confirms that they are two people who are willing to uphold a standard molded by White supremacy for the sake of self-interests. Congratulations to them on their victory, but forgive some of us for not being impressed with the soulless.

That said, this is not a direct shot at all Black Republicans.

Read the rest at NewsOne.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

In what was formally a confidential memo that has since been exposed by the New York Times, a former pollster for President Obama offered a very blunt assessment of what Democrats can expect on Election Day. Cornell Belcher warned of “crushing Democratic losses across the country” if the party did not do secure more Black votes.

Belcher went on to explain why such a feat may be unattainable given when “over half aren’t even sure when the midterm elections are taking place.” So now, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is pouring tens of millions into an initiative that directly targets the kind of voters needed to maintain control of the Senate – particularly for races in states like North Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia. Meanwhile, prominent Back elected officials and surrogates (good day, pastors) are being deployed to encourage us Negroes to get to the polls.

These efforts would be more impressive if they didn’t reek of desperation. If Black votes matter so much to the Democratic Party, where was the attention to our needs 18 months ago? It seems as if the Democrats’ original plans to maintain control of the Senate still appeared within reach, there would not be this sudden rush to boost Black voter turnout.

If there’s any one Democrat who could prompt more Blacks to turnout in a traditionally low voting year overall, it would be President Obama. Unfortunately, many Democratic candidates have placed distance between themselves and Obama. To the point that he has only been booked to appear in less than 10 campaign events. Some call this independence, but I consider it an act of cowardice.

Ken Salazar, a former senator from Colorado who served as Interior secretary during Obama’s first term, argued that in order for, Senator Mark Udall (D-Co) to win, Udall must show that he stands for “the Colorado way, not the Obama way or the Democratic way.” Yes, vote for the Democrat who doesn’t stand for the Democratic platform or the Democratic president who helped Udall get elected in the first place.

Then there is Kentucky Democratic candidate for Senate, who not only initially refused to acknowledge whether or not she voted for Obama, but also ran an attack ad leveled against Obama this summer. Never mind the reality that while many Kentuckians have never liked Obama, they despise Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for opposing the health care reform that is Obama’s creation. The same can be said of doing everything in his power to make sure nothing gets done in Washington.

Although Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) was brave enough to admit that he voted for his party’s nominee in an interview with the Washington Examiner, he added, “The president’s not relevant. He’s gone in two years.” Vote for Mark Begich: So Democrats can keep the Senate and do absolutely nothing because the president is irrelevant. Are you fired up and ready to go, y’all?

And while it’s less harmful to bash the nation’s first Black president in states like Kentucky and Alaska, Michelle Nunn, the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate in Georgia, did admit voting for Obama, but also complained about an attack ad by her Republican opponent, David Perdue, for featuring a “misleading photo of her” with the president. Surprise, surprise: The only way Nunn wins this race is if she boosts Black voter turnout in key areas like ATL, shawty.

Georgia Democrats recently released a flyer with two Black children holding up “Don’t Shoot” signs coupled with the caption, “If you want to prevent another Ferguson in their future — vote. It’s up to you to make change happen.”

It is as patronizing as it is misleading. After all, much of the blame in the mishandling of Michael Brown’s killing in Ferguson goes to Missouri Democrats presently wasting space in office. Just ask some of the St. Louis County residents now asking Black voters to consider voting GOP next month in order to punish those very Democrats.

Read more at EBONY.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Even if it included too much techno and not enough rhythm, the “#TURNOUTFORWHAT” ad, brought to us by the nonpartisan group Rock The Vote, pushed a simple yet important message to young people: vote. For whomever and whatever, just vote. Meanwhile, back at the ranch that hosts the conservative media industrial complex, Media Matters notes that they are peddling a more dangerous sentiment: Women, when it comes to voting, do yourself a favor and opt not to. I suppose they don’t have to bother relaying such a message to Black people as various Republican state legislatures and the Supreme Court are doing that work for them.

The Mario and Luigi of this “If You Ain’t Got A Penis Stay Far Away From The Polls” are the National Review and FOX News.

In response to the Rock The Vote ad, which starred Lil’ Jon and Lena Dunham, the National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson complains about those who “need Lena Dunham to tell you why and how you should be voting” and takes shots at those who get “news from television comedians.” This, despite numerous studies that show those sort of viewers are more informed than FOX and CNN viewers. Williamson would rather these people do other things besides voting, including entertaining the option of becoming a nun.

Taking the baton not long after was FOX News’ Tucker Carlson, the bow tie-wearing curmudgeon who consistently makes blatantly racist and sexist to the delight of aging bigots watching at home. During an appearance on Outnumbered, Carlson complains, “You want your government run by people … who’s favorite show is Say Yes To The Dress.” Well, do I want my government run by people who watch shows that essentially think women belong in the kitchen and Black folks way in the back, shining shoes and shutting up about racism?

Then there is Bill O’Reilly, who slammed women altogether by claiming that due to emotion, women voters skew Democratic “no matter what happens to the nation.”

It’s not surprising to witness white men condescend towards young people, and in particular, young women, but as FOX News has shown repeatedly over the years, they know how to present classic white male branded patriarchy (and racism) with a diverse face.

During the October 21 edition of Fox News’ The Five, co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle agreed with fellow co-host Greg Gutfeld that young women lack the wisdom to vote as conservatives. Yes, young women lack the “wisdom” to know that these gray haired, women-bashing men have their best interest at heart when they try to police their uteruses.

In any event, Guilfoyle not only lent her female voice to this sexist point of view, but went further and added that young women should also be excused from jury duty given they “lack life experience.” Moreover, when it comes to voting, they just “don’t get it” because they’re not paying mortgages and having babies. So what should they be doing instead? According to Guilfoyle, “They’re [young women] like healthy and hot and running around without a care in the world. They can go back on Tinder or Match.com.”

Guilfoyle is a 45-year-old woman, proving that even if you’re closer to menopause in life than you are your first period, you can still sound as ignorant as any toddler learning how to use the potty.

Read more at EBONY.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

1. Why So Hostile To The Gay, GOP?: House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is many things: Orange, conservative, and awful at his job, and consistent victim of unnecessary scolding from the kookiest sect of his party. We’ll never know what Boehner might’ve been able to accomplish had he not been so willing to bend to the whim of the House hooligans, but I will give him a solitary cool point for deciding to help fundraise for openly gay Republican California congressional candidate Carl DeMaio. Yes, despite my prejudicial belief that gay Republicans are more times than not, just like Black Republicans: useless as a can of greens.

In any event, Boehner’s decision has reportedly drawn the ire of social conservatives in the party. You know, those people who just can’t get over the fact that some people don’t want to spend their lives having boring missionary sex with someone of the opposite gender the way their distorted view of Jesus intended. It’s a shame that even when presented with a chance to win and make further gains in their corporatist agenda (the real God of the GOP, FYI), these geniuses would actively campaign against someone of their own party ‘cause he makes the sex with another man. Get help, idiots, or better yet, get over it already.

2. Paula, Please: Like a few of you, I caught the premiere of TV One’s latest reality series, Hollywood Divas.  The show made me sad for a few reasons, but I did get quite the chuckle out of Paula Jai Parker who claims that she was blackballed by the industry because she married and procreated with an “outsider.” Now, I don’t like to put fellow Howard University alum on blast, but c’mon nah Bison. Sandra Bullock, among, many, many others have dated outside the Hollywood pool and managed to keep booking gigs. Yes, I know you’re not a White woman, but who do you know who is gullible enough to fall for that excuse? Elise Neal called her out on that in the premiere, too, so there’s something else there. Like, I don’t know, you being combative and taking random shots at your peers mere moments into casual conversation. Or that your acting thus far in the confessionals gives Cruella de Vil after one too many well drinks at happy hour realness. Try again, girl.

3. No New NeNe, No, No, NO:  Even if she’s not my favorite Atlanta housewife anymore, I salute NeNe Leakes for being able to take the popularity she gained from her persona on the show – a dash of Shirley from What’s Happening!!, Black gay slang sprinkles mixed with any evil queen from a Disney movie you can think – and flipping that to other opportunities i.e. acting gigs on network TV and Broadway, but I really hope she doesn’t become the new host of Fashion Police.

On the rumors, she recently said: “I have to say Joan is unreplacable, we all love her, she’s fantastic, she’s given me some amazing advice about my career, I love Joan…If the opportunity comes it’s a possibility I might, I might not…I’m a fashion designer, love fashion and I’ll give you a good read every now and then so it may not be a bad place for me to be.”

A who, what, and how? No thank you. I imagine she can find some other vehicle to threw her shade, but not in Joan Rivers’ chair.

Read more at EBONY.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Despite pleas from the family, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine will not release surveillance footage surrounding the shooting death of John Crawford III. Crawford’s father, John Crawford II, says the footage make it clear in no uncertain terms about what happened in that Beavercreek Wal-Mart. Speaking with The Guardian, Crawford II claims, “It was an execution, no doubt about it. It was flat-out murder. And when you see the footage, it will illustrate that.”

DeWine has argued that releasing the footage would be “playing with dynamite” and prevent any trial from being fair. And yet, the narrative about what preceded Crawford III’s death remains: He, with his Black and menacing self, walked around the store brandishing a gun, forcing them to believe that they were under direct and imminent threat. That gun turned out to be a BB gun for sale in the store and the person who called 911 has since recanted his story. Also speaking with The Guardian, Ronald Ritchie now says, “At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody.” Ritchie, maintains Crawford was still taking the toy gun and “waving it around,” but he nonetheless soiled the minds of a potential jury pool, too – his own ability to bend the truth be damned (his claims of being an “ex-marine” have been proven false.)

Nonetheless, a Beavercreek police spokesman maintains their version of events, claiming in a statement: “Preliminary indications are that the officers acted appropriately under the circumstances.”

I bet, but a tape will likely confirm what most of us already know: this death should not have happened.

Personally, I don’t have to see video footage of a horrific incident when the surrounding details are crystal clear. I feel confident in concluded that based on the facts, an unarmed Black man lost his life for no good reason. The same goes for knowing that now former Baltimore Ravens star Ray Rice assaulted his then fiancée, Janay Palmer and that justice was not served by the NJ prosecutor, nor by a permissive NFL commissioner. But while I don’t need to see the gory details of something in order to comprehend its ugliness, but I do recognize that this is the case for others.

For varying reasons – lack of empathy or the effects of being bombarded with desensitizing imagery for far too long – many often have to see horror to interpret it as such.

Yes, in a perfect world, it should not have required TMZ leaking footage of Ray Rice knocking out his partner, stepping over her as if she did not matter in the least to him, and spitting on her motionless body to get the public riled up to the extent to which even NFL commissioner Roger Goodell may soon find himself unemployed, but it did. The same can be said of the site publishing photos of Rihanna after her brutal beating from then-boyfriend Chris Brown. Had we not viewed those images, Chris Brown might’ve been able to sing about disloyal “hoes” mere months after the incident as opposed to five years.

That does not in any way make TMZ a crusader. They are not releasing this sort of footage out of the goodness of their hearts. It is about profit and securing it through wetting the public’s insatiable appetite for all things celebrity. Still, no matter their intentions, their actions have yielded real consequences for abusers and those who enable them for those who may have otherwise simply skated by.

There is an obvious cost to that, though. Rihanna did not want the world to see those pictures. The same can seemingly be said about Janay Palmer Rice. Victims often do not want to be viewed as such. Not to mention, there is gross embarrassment in having your victimization ready available for consumption to anyone with an Internet connection.

Read more at EBONY

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Politicians often employ the name of God to convey a sense of morality. It’s usually an ironic exercise for them though, given God is seemingly pure and just as opposed to politicians—who often prove to be calculated, hard to trust and, in select cases, audaciously hypocritical. President Obama recently invoked the name of God in the wake of a horrific, unjust killing of an American citizen at the hands of a terrorist organization. That citizen was journalist James Foley, who was executed by the terrorist group ISIL.

In his remarks about Foley’s execution, Obama spoke with great fervor, professing, “James was taken from us in an act of violence that shocks the conscience of the entire world.” Indeed, it was, and I salute Obama for quickly addressing his execution, which was released to the Internet by ISIL because all too often do Americans turn a blind eye to the horrors of war.

Yet when Obama talks of “an act of violence that shocks the conscience of the entire world,” one can’t help but think about that other act of violence involving Michael Brown, the antics of area law enforcement after that, and the shock it has spurred across the globe—along with the tepidness of Obama’s remarks about what’s going on in Ferguson issued the day beforehand.

So my frustrations only magnified as Obama continued: “Jim Foley’s life stands in stark contrast to his killers. Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages killing unarmed citizens in cowardly acts of violence… No faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day.”

Like other jihadists groups, ISIL is as close to godlike in its actions as consuming chicken bones off hot cement is to fine dining. The same can be said of America though. Perhaps it’s been a long time since President Obama reflected on a Rev. Wright sermon, particularly the now infamous one that perfectly encapsulated America’s frenemy relationship with Judeo-Christian values. But one doesn’t even have to go back that far to see how peculiar Obama’s criticism sounds given what’s currently going on stateside.

Just as no just God would stand for what ISIL did to James Foley, no just God would look at the death of Michael Brown and the treatment of peaceful protesters simply looking for answers. This would include Ferguson police officers threatening to kill people on the scene, plus shooting them with rubber bullets or tear gas. Even Don Lemon, who often sounds like a cheerleader for whiteness, revealed that one of his producers had a run-in with a member of the National Guard who categorized protesters as “ni**ers.”

As for the remark that “Jim Foley’s life stands in stark contrast to his killers,” the same can be said of all of the unarmed Black men who have been shot in cold blood by monsters hiding behind a badge. Interestingly enough, minutes after Obama slammed ISIL for bastardizing the word of God, protestors took to Twitter to reveal that Ferguson police officers were raiding Greater St. Mark’s church and taking their supplies. What just God would stand for this?

What presumably God-fearing leader would stand for any of it?

Numerous Obama apologists have cited Ezra Klein’s essay “Why Obama won’t give the Ferguson speech his supporters want.” In it, Klein explains that the White House point of view on Obama offering speeches on politically charged topics is that they are “as likely to make things worse as to make things better.” Moreover, that Obama is “a divisive figure who needs to govern the whole country.”

The majority of us are well aware of the fact Obama is “the president of the United States, not Black America” and that he is a divisive figure who is often damned if he do, damned if he don’t. We’re also just as aware that no matter how passive Obama is on politically charged issues—primarily associated with race—he will be no less divisive a figure.

So, at what point does President Obama realize that not only is his passivity on addressing racism and police brutality unhelpful, it’s hurtful?

Read more at EBONY.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Why are Black people expected to play the role of both patient and doctor when dealing with the disease of racism?

No matter the players or the circumstances, if a story rooted in racism and injustice reaches the national level, you can count on someone to say the following: “What about Black-on-Black crime?” It’s as disingenuous a retort as it is clueless and often comes from someone who clings to conservative ideology, particularly the notion of “personal responsibility.” Yet, it’s also a line of thinking found in many Black folks who have political ideologies, but nonetheless share this idea that the Black community needs to look within itself for answers whenever one of our own falls victim to systematic racism.

Sure, self-reflection is important, but it should never supersede a complete assessment of a particular grievance. To survey a multifaceted problem with a linear line of thinking is senseless as it is pointless. Like buying a case of Icy Hot to cure a migraine. To truly fix something, or at least, make it more manageable, it requires you look at everything. It also requires a certain of level focus. Say, on the person who shot someone in cold blood and left him in the street for several hours in his own blood as opposed to members of the community rightfully salty over it.

As much as I respect Al Sharpton as an orator, community organizer, and political activist, I was troubled to see him turn Michael Brown’s funeral into a rally for his viewpoints about Black youth. The MSNBC host said during his remarks, “Now you wanna be a nigga and call your woman a ho, you lost where you come from. We’ve got to clean up our community so we can clean up the United States of America!”

On a Ferguson-themed episode of Iyanla, Fix My Life, Iyanla Vanzant echoed this sentiment on camera with the claim, “But if we’re not respecting ourselves, we’re teaching them how to treat us.”

Oh, beloveds, you spew crocks that will never earn credence no matter the level of repetition.

This country made our mess, so why are we the only ones expected to be on clean-up duty? Why is that burden placed on us? Sharpton is free to dislike the use of “nigga,” but as far as the end of that somehow preventing a police officer more qualified to be a Grand Wizard from killing some unarmed Black man, woman, or child: Negro, please.

Last time I checked, President Obama is always in suits and belted mom and dad jeans yet he still gets routinely disrespected. As do you Rev. Sharpton. You have been vilified in a tracksuit on the same scale you have been in a suit. Ditto for Don Lemon, who found himself manhandled by a Ferguson police officer on camera, despite wearing his paints to his waist.

No matter what Black people call themselves, a racist gon’ be a racist.

Then there is the self-loathing line of commentary from the likes of people like rapper Nelly, who was recently quoting saying: “Every other race I know play chess. Black people play checkers.” Turn off his mic. In fact, throw his mic in the trashcan and then set that trashcan on fire.

Others include James Clark, the head of Better Family Lives, who claimed in an interview: “No one treats African-Americans worse than we treat each other. We were outraged when George Zimmerman killed a black boy, but Zimmerman was taught by watching black people kill Black people. He learned it from us. We planted the seed.”

In real life, White people kill other white people at virtually the same rate as Black people murder other Black people. After all, three quarters of White people don’t have non-White friends. By the way, George Zimmerman’s kin don’t speak too kindly of our kind, Mr. Clarke. Don’t put Zimmerman’s issues on our backs. He’s done enough to Black people as is.

Read more at EBONY.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

When you shoot and kill an unarmed Black teenager, you can expect the racists of America to crack their piggy banks open and reward you a six-figure sum.

Over the weekend, Darren Wilson’s supporters gathered for a rally, and sadly, they had much to celebrate now that it’s being reported that they’ve managed to best supporters of Michael Brown’sfamily in online fundraising. Indeed, the page in support of Wilson raised $235,010 from 5,902 people before organizers stopped accepting donations on Friday. They surpassed their goal of $100,000 in just four days. They have since opened another fundraising page, which has already amassed more than $100,000.

Meanwhile, a fundraising page in support of the Michael Brown Memorial Fund raised $214,000. According to Brown family laywer Benjamin Crump, “the funds will assist his family with costs that they will acquire as they seek justice on Michael’s behalf.”

What exactly does Darren Wilson need money for? He’s on paid leave, and wherever he is, I presume it’s on the state’s dime. After all, Darren Wilson was concealed long enough to get out of town before the national media arrived.

Making it even worse is the page is being bombarded with explicit racism throughout the comments section. GoFundMe has since removed the content — though only after widespread protest. They refused to take the page itself down, but did step in to delete racist commentary that violate their terms of service.

And yet, you would think it was Wilson who was the persecuted as opposed to what he actually is: the persecutor. Even his cheerleaders fancy themselves as victims, too. As one supporter explained to USA Today, “Many of us have received death threats toward ourselves and our families. We will not hide. We will no longer live in fear … If you support Darren Wilson, make your voices heard.”

Have you seen any Darren Wilson supporters being shot with rubber bullets, tear gas, or sprayed with mace? Yeah, me neither. But hey, whine on. When prompted for her name, the Wilson supporter quipped, “You want my name? I am Darren Wilson. We are Darren Wilson.”

Wave your white sheet if you feel her, fam.

It’s remarkable how some White people manage to always position themselves as victims. I could stand to gussy up that sentence, make it sound more politically correct or what have you. But what’s the point? When it comes to those rallying behind Michael Brown’s killer, Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, they are not mincing words. Why should I?

Read the rest at NewsOne.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Whenever a story centered on race, or better yet, racism reaches the national media, those looking for President Barack Obama to address the situation are met with a singular question: “What do you expect Obama to do?” It is a question that is as ardent as it is asinine and is an inquiry prefaced on the notion that the most-powerful man in the world is impotent when it comes to instances of hatred and horror taking place on the very land that is the source of his power. It’s as if those posing this question don’t know much about precedence let alone the executive orders and tone-setting speeches associated with it.

After watching a paramilitary police force tear gas peaceful protesters, threaten journalists with mace on-air, and even attempt to block the camera broadcasting these gross violations of civil liberties, the question, “What do you expect Obama to do?” ought to yield very easy answers: to lead, to set the tone, to help restore order, to be a statesman, to be the President he was elected twice to be.

Last Thursday, President Obama exercised his trademark “measured tone” while addressing the clashes between protestors and police, after the shooting death of Michael Brown at the hands of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. Not surprisingly, Obama wagged his finger at all parties involved. President Obama said, “There is never an excuse for violence against police, or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting, nor is there an excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protestors.”

No, there’s no excuse for vandalism and looting, though once again, the anger is palpable and understandable. Even so, the problem with Obama’s remarks is that he’s giving an even-handed shaming on a matter where the imbalance should be obvious: As much as this country currently loves to pretend that corporations and the businesses they profit from are our equals, damaged property is in no way on equal footing with the loss of human life. A broken window or stolen packs of silky Brazilian weave is not on par with an officer shooting a teenage boy in cold blood and leaving him to lie in his own blood for several hours.

As the newly released preliminary private autopsy confirms, Michael Brown was shot at least six times — including twice in the head. We have to wait for more intel, but as of now, it looks as if Michael Brown was shot execution-style. But no matter how he was killed, his death remains the grievance. Moreover, it is Darren Wilson’s character that should be currently under a microscope, not Michael Brown’s.

After all, this is the monster who shot and killed Brown and could not even be burdened with the task of calling for an ambulance. Meanwhile, an officer who shot a dog in Illinois was quickly fired. One can only imagine the kind of swift justice Michael Brown’s parents would have received if they had raised their child to bark on command.

This is why I was frustrated when I heard Obama say last week, “Now’s the time for healing, now’s the time for peace and calm on the streets of Ferguson.”

And on Monday, Obama reiterated much of these same remarks, only with even less emotion coupled with a plug for his My Brother’s Keeper initiative. These remarks are just as useless on Monday as they were last Thursday.

They are passive words and I’m sick of hearing racism discussed in weaker tones. I admire and respect President Obama, but if he can go to a Morehouse College commencement andlecture graduates about the importance of education, he can speak to a nation about the evils of racism — directly in Ferguson. Obama has no issue being stern when it comes to addressing Blacks about our faults, but holds “beer summits” with racist cops.

Black people are suffering.

Our disproportional economic struggles have still yet to be properly addressed, but at the very least, can we finally see our very lives acknowledged in a meaningful way? My Brother’s Keeper is a good initiative, but your brother cannot keep you safe from the increasing terror of a militarized police force that unjustly targets Black men and women.

One of Obama’s most-infamous quotes is, “I’m not the president of Black America. I’m the president of the United States of America.”

Indeed, but at one point does President Obama recognize that Black people are a part of America too, and that our concerns are as worthy as everyone else’s?

Read the rest at NewsOne.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

As the climate stands now, it would be more beneficial to most celebrities to bare their ass cheeks on Instagram than share any sort of political view on social media.

The latter is a safer bet, given how quickly people are to pounce the second anyone of note steps outside of the bounds of political correctness — with a media cycle all too eager to hop on the issue in the name of clicks and ratings.

Yet, given the widespread coverage of recent events related to the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, some stars have decided to express themselves anyway — particularly with respect to expressing empathy for those suffering in the Gaza Strip.

Not surprisingly, some have already quickly backed away after tipping their toe outside their comfort zones.

Two weeks ago, Rihanna made headlines after tweeting “#FreePalestine,” but got rid of the tweet less than 10 minutes later. A source close to Rihanna told TMZ, ”She deleted it because it was never meant to be tweeted.

She didn’t even realize it was a tweet until she started hearing from her fans.

More like her publicist shot her a text that read, ‘I know you’ve never listened to me before, but please, pretty please listen to me now and delete that damn tweet, gyal!’

I’m sure NBA star Dwight Howard was sent a similar message that prompted him to delete his “#FreePalestine” tweet, too.

Though the move prompted “Howard the Coward” cries from some people online, it’s easy to understand why both Dwight and Rih-Rih backed away. There is very much a pro-Israeli bias in Western media as recently described by journalist and MSNBC contributor Rula Jebreal.

There have been cracks made at it as of late, but there remains a hypersensitivity to any commentary that doesn’t explicitly condemn one side over the other.

Even Amar’e Stoudamire, who is Jewish and has reportedly funded an Israeli basketball camp, felt compelled to delete an Instagram picture of of Israeli and Palestinian children locking arms with the caption “Pray for Palestine.” 

You literally cannot convey sadness over civilian casualties without being considered some sort of terrorist sympathizer.

We can also look to Selena Gomez, who after posting a picture on Instagram that read “It’s About Humanity. Pray For Gaza,” received this dubious coverage over at TMZ:

Maybe she doesn’t realize Hamas has launched an untold number of missiles in an effort to destroy Israel, or maybe she supports it… we don’t know. Maybe she just wants peace for everyone. We just don’t know.

“We just don’t know.” Really? Like, it’s Selena Gomez. The girl from “Wizards of Waverly Place” and Justin Bieber’s on again, off again bae. They’re acting as if she said “to hell with it all, let’s all get with Sharia law.”

Perhaps TMZ should just go back to its designated lane — digging through Kardashian trash — and forgo dissecting foreign policy.

Case in point, the site went out of its way to point out that One Direction singer Zayn Malik wasraised Muslim after he tweeted “Free Palestine.”

Even more despicable is the site republishing some of the more vile comments sent in response (Malik has also received death threats) and one sad little message about how he purportedly disappointed all of his friends in Israel.

However, when Joan Rivers recorded a pro-Israel diatribe for TMZ, her Jewish faith was left out of the write up and readers were informed “you gotta see it” given it came “from the heart and the gut.”

I sure hope Us Weekly and People never dive into political issues because I would hate to see Beyoncé branded a Stalinist for whatever random stance she takes on a given issue.

You can read the rest at Elite Daily.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone