It’s Time For President Obama To Talk Racism

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.

On The Stars and #FreePalestine

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.

Go, Rula Jebreal. Go.

The interesting thing about the notion of “liberal media bias” is that it’s based on the idea that huge media conglomerates would align themselves with liberal principles for the sake of ideology as opposed to a business model. Rupert Murdoch has done a good job of aligning both objectives, but more often than not, for other media companies, cash rules everything around them (C.R.E.A.M. get the money, dollar-dollar bills, y’all). So as much as I enjoy MSNBC, I’m very well aware that the network’s mostly left slant in prime-time and on the early morning weekends is based on creating an outlet to rival FOX News versus standing up for liberalism.

After all, former GOP congressman and political Svengali in his own mind Joe Scarborough sets the tone for MSNBC with “Morning Joe.” And as one MSNBC contributor reminds us, even a “left-wing news network” can have its own biases. While doing a segment on the latest Israeli/Palestinian conflict on “Ronan Farrow Daily,” a defiant Rula Jebreal (pictured) rightly criticized Western-based news stations for their pro-Israeli slant.

While arguing that influence from pro-Israel forces makes the news coverage more favorable to the country and its leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and subsequently sways the majority of American viewers to take the side of Israel, Jebreal explained, “Because of AIPAC, and because of the money behind it, and because of Sheldon Adelson, and because of all of us in the media. We are ridiculous. We are disgustingly biased when it comes to this issue.” She went on to add, “Look at how [much] airtime Netanyahu and his folks have on air on a daily basis. Andrea Mitchell and others. I never see one Palestinian being interviewed on these same issues.”

When the show’s host, Ronan Farrow, pushed back and claimed that Palestinian guests have been interviewed, Jebreal noted, “Maybe 30 seconds! And then you have 25 minutes for Bibi Netanyahu, and then half an hour for Naftali Bennett, and many others.”

Since then, Jebreal claims that all of her TV appearances have been canceled.

Abrupt cancellations don’t make Jebreal’s comments any less credible, though. On the Sunday morning shows that air on broadcast television, Netanyahu’s face was splattered all over each one. The same can be said of those who “stand with Israel.”

Even on entertainment websites like TMZ, the biases are quite apparent. When detailing actress and singer Selena Gomez tweeting and then deleting a message asking for prayers for Gaza, the site wrote:

“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.”

This is supremely biased, wonderfully ignorant, and sadly dangerous. Perhaps Gomez was asking for prayers for the civilians who have suffered thanks to this most-recent military action: Per the United Nations, Palestinian health officials said at least 630 Palestinians had been killed and nearly 4,000 wounded — some 70 percent to 80 percent of them civilians.

But apparently, asking for prayers of the civilians is equivalent to supporting terrorists.

Meanwhile, anyone that offers a counter to this Israel narrative has been relatively silenced — some more harshly than others.

Read the rest at NewsOne.

Can You Just Say You’re Rich And Move On, Hillary?

Media pundits paid to say incredibly asinine and ridiculous things about President Barack Obama in an effort to patronize a bunch of crazy people at home with Nielsen boxes have had a hell of a week. Not surprisingly, three of the greatest offenders work for FOX News. Indeed, conservative radio hostLauren Ingraham, former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, and actress-turned-Black-Elisabeth-Hasselbeck Stacey Dash all tagged themselves into the fracas of foolery. And here I am to recap and mock accordingly.

Lauren Ingraham

Speaking on “The Lauren Ingraham Show,” Ingraham not only refuted any suggestions that she’s misled people about the benefits of marijuana, but also accused the Obama administration of orchestrating some diabolical plot to keep the masses high (off their memories?) in an effort to distract them from America’s problems. Comparing it to “1984,” Ingraham argued that Obama and co. are “happy to have you all stoned up” as cost of living goes up, “illegal immigrants swap the United States,” and wages remain stagnant.

I don’t know want Lauren Ingraham is sipping and/or smoking, but you know how there’s all this news about undocumented immigrant children being caught at the border? That’s proof of border security improving.

Is it the best policy?

Not particularly, but the lack of meaningful immigration reform being passed falls on the shoulders of the House of Representatives, not the Senate and certainly not President Obama.

That said, puff-puff-pass, y’all, and let’s proceed to the next political performance artist.

Stacey Dash

Considering that her “Single Ladies” checks are long gone, one can understand why Stacey Dash would take a job as FOX News’ latest Black friend who trashes the other Blacks on their behalf. Unfortunately, Stacey Dash is to political commentary as Rihanna is to sobriety. I wish Tyler Perry (I can’t see Shonda Rhimes returning her agent’s calls) would’ve found her something to do so Roger Ailes wouldn’t have to.

While talking about the unlikely scenario that young people will get sick of President Obama trying to score them things like health care and ultimately become conservatives, she explained, “My son is going to be 24 on Friday. … He is now a conservative and he says to me, ‘Mom, most of my friends are conservative. We’re capitalists. We want to keep our money.’”

In other words, Stacey Dash made sure to raise her kids in an insulated environment with like-minded people. Here’s a shocker for you, Stacey: Most children end up like their parents as that’s how they were raised. Some will pull away based on life experiences, or in this case, pay better attention, but don’t assume that’s how the rest of the nation’s youth will go.

Meanwhile, Stacey said this about her 11-year-old daughter making fun of Obama: “And my 11-year-old is a conservative as well because she has traditions. You know, there are things that she believes in that I hope I’ve had some input on,” she said. “And, you know, she has referred to the President as gollum, which I think is really clever for an 11-year-old.”

As noted by Tom Kludt over at Talking Points Memo, Gollum is “the spindly, bug-eyed creature from ‘Lord of the Rings.’ Bless your heart, Stacey Dash. You would find that impressive.

Read the rest at NewsOne.

Rick Perry Would Rather Spread Conspiracy Theories Than Shake President’s Hand…Again

Rick Perry  is the village idiot of gubernatorial politics. Those of us who unfortunately have become his victims during his king-like reign as governor of Texas knew about this long before he made a fool of himself in the 2012 Republican presidential primary, but as he looks ahead again toward failing in the 2016 presidential race, Gov. Perry is back on the fool train. Choo choo or whatever, y’all.

On Sunday, Perry served the girls conservative troll realness as he insinuated that President Barack Obama is purposely trying to fill the country up with undocumented immigrants during an interview with ABC News. When offered the chance to step two steps back from the crazy talk, Perry pressed on with the paranoia. Speaking to Martha Raddatz, Perry explained, “When I have written a letter that is dated May of 2012, and I have yet to have a response from this administration, I will tell you they either are inept or don’t care, and that is my position.” Rick Perry, whose solution to the drought in Texas was to pray for rain in stadiums, is calling another administration “inept”? Super.

Continuing on with his rant, Perry repeated the “inept” accusation and said it’s either that or “you have some ulterior motive of which you are functioning from.”

He went on to offer the following ominous warning (via Raw Story):

“Unless we secure our southern border, this is going to continue to be a massive amount of individuals that are coming to the United States. And, frankly, we don’t have a place to house them as it is. And if we have a major event, a hurricane that comes in to the Gulf Coast, I don’t have a place to be housing people who are displaced because this administration….”

Ever responsible, Raddatz interrupted Perry and concluded the interview with, “Okay, Governor, I’m going to have to stop you there, but thank you very much for joining us.” Mind you, days before this interview, Perry said to FOX News’ Sean Hannity, “I mean I hate to be conspiratorial, but I mean, how do you move that many people from Central America across Mexico and then in to the United States without there being a fairly coordinated effort?”

In other words, he very much wants to be conspiratorial. Hello, Republican primary voters, did that moisten your insanity enough?

When Perry isn’t talking crazy, he’s being disrespectful. In Texas for two days for private fundraising, the Obama administration extended an offer to Perry for him to greet Obama at the Austin-Bergstorm Airport. Perry’s response? I don’t want to shake your hand again, boy. No, thank you.

Read the rest at NewsOne.

Can You Just Say You’re Rich And Move On, Hillary?

At the rate we’re going, the second Clinton administration will feel like the longest one of our natural lives. That prediction is based on the longstanding history of the media collectively dissecting every facet of Hillary Clinton no matter how minuscule. The fact that presidential campaigns now begin almost four year’s in advance only magnifies an already maddening problem. Hillary is painfully aware of this, which is why she’s tipped on the tightrope with respect to her massive media campaign to promote her new book, “Hard Choices.” Yet, this also dually serves as a shadow test run for 2016, so if there’s anyone who ought to know what not to say to fuel an unnecessary media storm, it’s Hillary Rodham Clinton. To that end, Hillary, why won’t you just own the reality that you are wealthy and end this non-story already?

In her now-infamous interview with ABC News, Hillary explained to Diane Sawyer that when she and former President Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001, they were “dead broke.” However, as since highlighted over and over and over again, the couple still managed to buy nice homes in exclusive neighborhoods in the real estate crapshoots known as Washington D.C. and New York City, respectively, and go on to earn millions upon millions of dollars in speaking fees and lucrative book deals.

Since then, Hillary has gone on to note that her comments were “inartful,” telling PBS’ Gwen Ifill, “Well, I shouldn’t have said the five or so words that I said, but my inartful use of those few words doesn’t change who I am, what I’ve stood for my entire life, what I stand for today.”

Fair enough, but she’s since told The Guardian that there is a difference between people like her who “pay ordinary income tax” and those who “are truly well off” who don’t.

It’s not hard for me to decipher the crux of Clinton’s comments about her financial state. Her definition of wealth is different from those who have never taken a tour of Scrooge McDuck’s bank of gold — a.k.a. the super wealthy people who can afford Hillary Clinton’s hefty speaking fees. It’s akin to some people thinking that anyone who makes more than $100,000 can vacation with Beyoncé and Jay Z, but in reality, are making meatless Mondays a thing mostly to keep their cable on so they can watch VH1 on Monday.

Most folks don’t get into specifics, though. They merely hear millions are made and make assumptions. They’re not completely off base, but they’re also not in to hearing someone in designer pantsuits complain about being “dead broke” while their rich friends sign mortgages on their behalf knowing full well that his political homies are about to make it rain in a few months’ time.

So again, Hillary, just be rich already.

Fortunately for her, because this is happening in 2014 — again, why are we talking presidential politics this early — it will be much ado about nothing in a year’s time.

Well, if she learns from this mistake anyway.

Commentators like Bill Kristol may find Hillary Clinton to be a “weak candidate,” but as someone still championing war in Iraq, it’s clear he doesn’t have a clue as to what he’s talking about.

Oh, the joys of privilege.

In any event, she’s not Mitt Romney in a bra.

Ann Coulter Continues To Be An Insufferable Shrew

Ann Coulter is the kind of person who makes you question your vow to never wish ill on on a person. I don’t especially care whether her schtick — which is essentially being as offensive as possible to the delight of crotchety racists in need of a wet dream — is genuine, but I can say that if there is indeed a hell, I’m willing to chip in on making sure she gets a first-class ticket to that destination. More, I hope her hell is her being locked inside of a room with minorities of every hue and enough gay people to fill a pride parade. Then, each “other” can take turns throwing greens’ juice in her face while singing old Negro spirituals remixed with Mariachi.

I wish I could be more mature when discussing her, but then again, not really.

She, or at least, the character she portrays for wealth, is evil. Regardless of how you feel about “hashtag activism,” in the case of #BringBackOurGirls it is very much centered on the kidnapping of underaged girls. Girls forced in to marriage, sold as slaves, or any other atrocity you can imagine that, for the decent human being, ought to make one think, “Maybe I shouldn’t be a jackass and mock this.”

But alas, decency is not what makes Ann Coulter, Ann Coulter. So she decided to “satirize” the hashtag about the Nigerian girls who’ve been seized by terrorist group Boko Haram by putting up the hashtag#BringBackOurCountry. That’s so funny I could spit on a Confederate Flag and hand it to her as a bath towel. 

I’m sure some nitwit racist got his or her jollies from it, and to be fair, Twitter collectively clapped back at Ann Coulter’s most-recent display of disgustingness. Still, I can’t help but think, Why won’t you stop being so awful even if temporarily? Not everything deserves mocking, especially not underage children being held against their will.

Just on Tuesday, Mariah Carey released a new single called “Thirsty,” and the chorus — albeit simplistic — pretty much nails what Ann Coulter and so many like her are: “Uh, ya thirsty. Uh, ya thirsty. Uh, ya thirsty. Uh, ya thirsty. Uh, ya thirsty. Uh, ya thirsty.”

Read the rest at NewsOne.

Paul Ryan’s Kinda Racist And It’s Okay To State The Obvious

So if I am to believe select political journalists, Paul Ryan can employ racist tropes to promote policy with racist outcomes, but none of us can call him racist.

There was a bit of an online debate over the Think Progress headline “Paul Ryan Blames Poverty On Lazy ‘Inner City’ Men.” During an appearance on Bill Bennett’s “Morning in America” on Wednesday, Ryan discussed legislative proposals that would focus on creating work requirements for men “in our inner cities” and deal with the “real culture problem” among its inhabitants. Raise your hand if you can see where I’m going with this. Now bury your face in to your palms because of that realization.

Ryan said:

We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.

Ryan went on to cite the work of Charles Murray, a conservative social scientist who believes Blacks collectively are less intelligent than Whites due to genetic differences. As outlined by Think Progress, Murry believes poverty remains a problem given “a lot of poor people are born lazy.”

So let’s refresh. Paul Ryan recently discussed the cycle of poverty, but noted that “in particular,” there is a “real culture problem,” where men living in the “inner city” don’t want to work or even think about work. What is the definition of “lazy” again? Something about “not liking to work hard” or an unwillingness to do so?

Okay, a little word math problem. What’s a synonym for lazy? Shiftless, right? What kind of man lives primarily in the inner city? Reminder: Don’t let those new gentrifiers fool you. Alright now, take Black men add the coded language for lazy and what do you get? Shiftless Negro! I see what you did there, Paul Ryan, no matter if certain reporters want to pretend otherwise.

I’ve read comments like, “And I think things can play on racial stereotypes without someone intending to demean others.” Never mind the fact that by playing on racial stereotypes to make a point, you essentially are already demeaning others.

Then there are whitesplaining articles that counter Think Progress’ summarization of Ryan’s appearancewith:

Ryan’s problem, it seems, is that he’s talking about inner cities while being 1) a Republican who is 2) about to unleash poverty legislation heavy on work requirements. If you’re a Democrat, you can talk about the inner city in the same way Ryan does.

Slate’s Dave Weigel then tried to conflate Ryan’s remarks with those made by President Barack Obama. The difference, though, is that Obama offered a nuance take on the nihilism that exists in inner city communities as a result of the cycle of poverty where as Ryan insinuated that Black men “inner city men” don’t value work and have no desire to work. More importantly, Obama never cited the work of a known racist to lend credence to his point of view.

Meanwhile, others who call a spade and spade (and probably play spades at holiday gatherings), are not trying to excuse the racist sentiments in a clearly racist statement. To wit, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, issued the following statement:  “Let’s be clear, when Mr. Ryan says ‘inner city,’ when he says, ‘culture,’ these are simply code words for what he really means: ‘black.’” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) categorized Ryan’s comments as “shameful and wrong.”

Paul Ryan is now defending himself, claiming he never, ever thought of race when he made those pointed remarks:

This has nothing to do whatsoever with race. It was a long talk and he asked about the culture and I just went off of that. This has nothing to do whatsoever with race. It never even occurred to me. This has nothing to do with race whatsoever. This isn’t a race based comment it’s a breakdown of families, it’s rural poverty in rural areas, and talking about where poverty exists — there are no jobs and we have a breakdown of the family.  This has nothing to do with race.

You know, bringing up rural areas in response to criticism over comments made about inner city men — and again, coupled with the citing of a known racist — isn’t a good defense, Paul.

Read the rest at NewsOne.

[EBONY] The Weekly Read: Dear Ben Carson ’16 Supporters

I would like to believe that there will be another Black president before I go off to join, Jesus, Mohammad, and Beyoncé in the afterlife at Club Eternity, but I cannot be for certain. However, there is one thing I’m willing to bet my liver on: Dr. Ben Carson won’t be Negro POTUS number two, especially not in 2016. So while I hate to be the bearer of bad news to the “National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee,” I would advise them to look for a new hobby.

Now to be fair, #TeamBen, you have done some impressive work thus far. As The Atlantic’s Alex Seitz-Wald notes, “The group that put Carson on the hotel keys has outraised Clinton’s draft committee, Ready for Hillary; has been on the ground in Iowa; and is working from the playbook written by Howard Dean and Barack Obama.” More, according to the group’s Web site, their petition seeking to encourage Carson to run has amassed close to 390,000 signatures.

Nonetheless, you could probably find a million fools in America willing to vote for a brown avocado as president, so that doesn’t necessarily mean anything in the grand scheme of things. And besides, from what I’ve read, you folks over there are running with some very flawed logic as to why Ben Carson is the GOP’s best hope to defeat presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and master of the universe, Hillary Clinton.

Let three-time congressional candidate, George H.W. Bush appointee, and petition-creator Vernon Robinson tell it, Ben Carson is the Republican Party’s best shot at broadening its base beyond old, racist, and easily fooled White dudes.

Robinson says, “At 17 percent, Hillary loses all of the swing states and the Roosevelt Democratic coalition is destroyed. In addition, Ben Carson is able to clearly and calmly articulate conservative positions in a way the average voter can understand.… He’s the only guy who can bond with all of the American people.”

Are we talking about the same Ben Carson here, because the Ben Carson I’m familiar with is about as calm as a second string hypeman at his first Source Awards.

I mean, Ben Carson is the man who once declared: “You know Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care. It was about control.”

Not only is this one of the most asinine false equivalencies that I’ve read since that time I read some misguided White woman compared Beyoncé to Miley Cyrus, it’s despicable for a Black man of all people to diminish the horrors of slavery to make some kind of cheap political point. Ben Carson, may every dream you have for the rest of your natural life be summed up as American Horror Story: Slave, Slap the Stupid Out Of Your Simplistic Self.

Worse, Carson had the following to say about same sex marriage: “[Traditional marriage is] a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group — be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition.” He also said gays don’t deserve “extra rights” and he loathes political correctness.

This is Ben Carson “calmly articulating conservative positions in a way the average voter can understand”?

So private insurance is like slavery and two committed people of the same sex getting married is like boning a dog and/or a pedophile? Mind you, Obamacare is proving to be a success and attitudes about the initiative are rapidly changing now that it’s been implanted and marriage equality is gaining support in the Deep South. Now, Carson did say during his speech at CPAC, “One of the principles of Saul Alinsky is that you make the majority think their ideology is outdated, and nobody thinks that way.”

This must be the old, crotchety conservative Black male equivalent of “The Illuminati” and various other theories found on YouTube. You keep telling yourselves these lies if you want to, but if you nominate Ben Carson for president, you’re going to yield the same results as Herman Cain’s 2012 campaign and Alan Keyes’…well, every time he’s tried to run for something.

Read the rest at EBONY.

NewsOne: NYT Columnist Wants Redemption For Dogs, Not Black Felons

There are some White people who put the interests of animals above those of other human beings — specifically the darker ones. Normally, I’d try to exercise subtlety and restraint when articulating such a sentiment, but since New York Times columnist Juliet Macur (pictured) didn’t mince words in her column “Before Signing a Strong Arm, Teams Should Heed Vick’s Dark Past,” why should I? I knew Macur’s musings would appeal to me as much as the taste of deep fried elephant dung given the way she kicked it off: ” Michael Vick, the quarterback known as much for his rap sheet as his athletic skill.”

Well, that certainly depends on what circles you’re referring to. Perhaps it’s Macur’s circle of influence that is leading this narrative, even though it is highly debatable in everyone else’s.

I do not fault her for writing from her background, but I do loathe how that background has seemed to frame her perspective.

In this hard-to-read diatribe, Macur sends off a warning to teams who may look to sign Vick should the Philadelphia Eagles let him go and allow him to be a starter (he lost his starter job to Nick Foles this season): “They should remember this: Vick was the mastermind behind his dogfighting operation. He bankrolled it, gave it a home base, encouraged it.”

Macur then goes on to discuss some of the dogs who lost their lives due to Vick’s dogfighting ring. You can understand her issue with Vick’s treatment of dogs. After all, in her Twitter bio, Macur notes, “My writing partner is a Labrador retriever.”

So she has a strong love of Lassie. So be it, but her bias clouds her judgment about a larger issue with respect to a felon rightly being given a chance to re-enter society.

Sure, Macur lists some of Vicks’ acts of penance — including donating $200,000 to help renovate a football field in Philadelphia; working with the Humane Society; supporting a bill on Capitol Hill that would make it a felony to bring a child to a dogfight, a measure which would fight the very practice that caused him to go on to perpetuate the culture as an adult.

Still, Macur writes:

 Teams evaluating Vick should think about those horrors before offering him a chance to wear their jersey. They should say, ‘Can’t we give our fans someone better to cheer for?’ Fans should demand someone better.

Someone around Juliet Macur ought to demand she get a damn grip. Assuming she’s never made a mistake in her life, Saint Juliet Macur is essentially arguing that there is no such thing as forgiveness or redemption. That once you commit a wrong, you must walk around with a Scarlet Letter. That there is no act or gesture that would warrant a second chance.

This is a dangerous message to profess in general, but again, even more poisonous when you consider who Michael Vick is outside of a football player: a Black ex-felon. If the Juliet Macurs of the world can’t even give a famous Black football player another chance after paying his debt to society for committing an egregious act, imagine how they would treat their less successful brethren.

Read the rest at NewsOne.