Seeing Is Believing: Does the Public Need to See Crime Videos?

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

Obama, God, Foley and Ferguson

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.

Hey Black Folks! We Didn’t Teach White People How to Hate Us

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.

Kill A Black Teen And Make Six Figures Soon After

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.

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.