The joke is on you.

Some of you white folks like to joke about us Negroes and watermelon. Well, as it turns out, you white men (and women) of a certain age might want to head to your local supermarket and pick up a few slices.

"Men hoping for some fireworks in their love life this Fourth of July may want to skip the burgers and beer at the barbecue and eat plenty of…instead.

It turns out, watermelon may be a natural Viagra, says a researcher. That’s because the popular summer fruit is richer than experts believed in an amino acid called citrulline, which relaxes and dilates blood vessels much like Viagra and other drugs meant to treat erectile dysfunction (ED).

Until recently, many scientists thought most of the citrulline was in the watermelon rind. But now, experts have discovered that there is more citrulline in the edible part than previously believed.

The amino acid citrulline is converted into the amino acid arginine. This is a precursor for nitric oxide, and the nitric oxide, a blood vessel relaxer that enhances circulation to all your vital parts.

A typical 4-ounce serving of watermelon (about 10 watermelon balls) has about 150 milligrams of citrulline." [Source]

Who is laughing now?

More racism against whites in New York, and a terrorist in Texas.

Liberal, or people with liberal ideas, should not get a pass when they say stupid or ignorant things.

Take, for instance, Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York.

"Appearing with host John Gambling on New York City’s WOR, Mayor Mike Bloomberg attacked opponents of the city’s so-called ‘stop and frisk’ program. 'It’s society’s job to make sure that no one group is disproportionately represented as potential perpetrators,' Bloomberg said. 'I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little.'

“Most crimes in our city – serious crimes – are committed by male, minorities 15 -25,” Bloomberg told Gambling. 'When it comes to policing, the police have to be able to go out and stop, look for, those that fit the description of a witness or a victim after a crime.”' [Source]

"Disproportionately stop whites"? I don't think that there is a single person in New York who believes that statement. In fact, I don't think the Mayor believes it himself.

Finally, republicans really need to get some perspective when it comes to labeling who is a terrorist.

Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. Orchestrating the killing of thousands of innocent people will get you that designation. Wendy Davis, on the other hand, is not. Exercising your legal right to take a principled stance for something you believe in is not terrorism; it's being a good American.

"State Rep. Bill Zedler gave new meaning to the term “lower chamber” when he tweeted, shortly after Democrats successfully put off a vote on the bill, 'We had terrorist in the Texas State Senate opposing SB 5.'"

Not so Mr. Zedler. In fact, you and your fellow wingnut brothers running things in Texas represent something far more terrifying than a woman standing for eleven hours in her tennis shoes ever could.

Who is preventing us from being "post-racial"?

This is a very polarizing time in America, and unfortunately the trial of a certain neighborhood vigilante in Florida is only going to make things worse.

As black folks we are intrigued by our fellow citizens in the majority population who have a great amount of hostility and distaste for all things black, so whenever I find an article that can enlighten us or help us understand that mindset l feel compelled to share.

This one comes from a white woman living in the South who tries her best to explain some white folks in "post racial" America.

"CBS Charlotte) — Racism is an issue that continues to persist in our country because after centuries of slavery and oppression amongst the African-American population, it is deeply ingrained in American history.

And while most of us are familiar with slavery and oppression in American history, according to a study conducted by Tufts University’s School of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Business School, some white Americans believe that they are the victims of reverse racism.

The study confirms that African-Americans and white Americans believe that racism against African-Americans has decreased over the last 60 years, but white people in the study group believe that they are racially targeted more than black people. According to the study, on average, whites rated anti-white bias as more prevalent in the 2000s than anti-black bias — by more than a full point on the 10-point scale.

Did I miss something here? If I wasn’t an active member of society, I might believe this study to be true — oh wait, no I wouldn’t.

It’s important to note that racism against white Americans is rare. Is it possible that other factors exist that were not brought to light by this study?

Indeed. White Americans can not truly call something racism, unless they know without a question of a doubt that they are being racially targeted. Furthermore, how often do you hear on the news that a white American was targeted for being white? Racism is when a person is discriminated against purely on the basis of their skin color.  Discrimination can be based on other things, such as a persons gender, sex, income, etc.

In contrast, even in 2013, African-Americans are still victims of racial profiling and racism. I have personally witnessed such occurrences on many occasions. A few months ago, I was talking with an African-American homeless man in Uptown Charlotte. A Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer targeted the homeless man and began following us around. Once we were out of the officers sight, he turned his police lights on, turned around, and drove up to us and asked if I was in danger.

I was irritated by the police officer, to say the least. I knew as soon as he asked the question, that the homeless man that I was speaking with was the victim of racial profiling. The CMPD officer falsely assumed that I was “in danger” because I was a white woman, talking to a black man. After the police officer reluctantly drove away, I asked the homeless man how often he was the victim of racial profiling. His response was disheartening, “every day.” Moreover, the homeless man was so accepting of being a victim of racial profiling. In his eyes, it was okay for the CMPD to profile him because he is black and homeless. But, in my eyes, this isn’t okay — and as culturally diverse as the city of Charlotte is, African-Americans are still targeted because of their skin color. Now ask yourself, have you ever truly witnessed reverse racism or reverse racial profiling? Have you ever seen a police officer approach a white man who was conversing with a black woman? I sure haven’t!

On a national level, statistically, African-Americans have far less opportunities handed to them, they generate less income than white Americans, own less homes, and have a much higher chance of living in poverty than non-black Americans. In spite of this, I still have never witnessed an African-American racially targeting a white American for being “more privileged” than they are. While I’m sure that there are some black Americans who may not particularly care for white Americans, I cannot fathom that racism against whites is more prevalent than racism against blacks. Additionally, if African-Americans were to racially target white Americans, they lack a system of organized support behind them. However, white Americans who are racist or participate in racially fueled acts of violence, can do so knowing that the KKK will support their “efforts.”

The day that President Barack Obama was elected President of the United States should have been a turning point for our nation. After all, Obama had to break through several barriers and overcome adversity to rise to the top. But, he did so with sheer guts and determination, and despite whether you agree with the way he runs our country or not, he paved the way for other black Americans to believe that they can one day become the President of the United States. Even in his second term, Obama still receives around 30 death threats each day, and many of these threats are fueled by racism.

Before I sat down to write this article, I thought about how one of my co-workers, who is African-American, would be perceived if she wrote this article. Undoubtedly, she’d be called a “racist.” To me, that’s a clear indication that our society still needs to confront the stereotypes and history that surrounds us."

-Nichole Jaworski, CBS Charlotte

Thoughts?


Pic from reverseracism.tumbler.com

"They won't understand her"

I promised myself --and my readers--that I wouldn't write about the George Killerman trial until it was over, so I won't.

But I will post an article from The Atlantic which I found quite interesting:

"Rachel Jeantel was on the phone with Trayvon Martin minutes before George Zimmerman shot and killed him, and she could make or break a murder case that was supposed to be microcosm for race and violence in this country. Rachel Jeantel was also on every cable news network in America for upwards of six hours today in her second straight day on the witness stand, and she really didn't want to be. But that didn't stop Zimmerman's defense attorney, Don West, from repeatedly saying Jeantel was "lying" about Martin's description of his client as a "crazy-ass cracker." And that certainly didn't stop a lot of people on the Internet from watching and laughing at a "dumb and stupid" 19-year-old black girl from the Florida "hood" as she, apparently, handed the case over to Zimmerman.

Kato Kaelin she most certainly is not, but the grilling of Rachel Jeantel today reveals the sad new reality of the Trayvon Martin case as it turns from national conversation into courthouse spectacle: With every televised eye roll, sigh, and deep breath Jeantel takes in the trial this week, we are continuing to bridge the divides so many people saw after those three gun shots outside a gated community two years ago. Can we not just let her be the last friend who spoke to Trayvon? Or must the Trayvon Martin case have its Charles Ramsey/Sugar Brown/Antoine Dodson sideshow character before it can have real justice?
It is a complex puzzle of race, class, and the law, perhaps best put together by Jeantel herself today on the stand at Seminole County Circuit Court in Sanford, Florida:

A predominantly white jury is not going to like Rachel Jeantel. Let's just be real here," Global Grind's Rachel Samara wrote in a powerful essay ahead of today's questioning by the defense. "They won't understand her, especially not her defensive nature, and this will unfortunately work against her. Even though it shouldn't." They didn't, and it did, as the young woman of Haitian descent struggled to make eye contact and grew increasingly bothered by West's increasingly piercing questions about why she had changed her story to remove slang and muddled earlier answers about personal details — indeed, as a nation watching did little else but pile on.

West wasn't wrong about the facts, exactly. Prior to the trial, Jeantel did lie. She lied about going to Martin's memorial service, and she lied about her name, all because she says she didn't want to get dragged into a very public case. She also lied about how old she was: "Jeantel, who was 18 at the time of the shooting, admitted that she lied about her age, claiming to be a minor because she did not want to get involved," writes The Huffington Post's Danielle Cadet, who explains that Jeantel thought minors would get more privacy.


But after the prosecution got the basics out of their key witness on Wednesday, the defense's strategy in the all-day show trial today was clear through hours upon hours of questioning: West wants to connect Jeantel's confusion about herself with an apparent confusion about her story of that fateful night, which paints Zimmerman as the aggressor. West repeatedly asked Jeantel today why she failed to tell Martin's mother, during an interview with the family's lawyer in March, that Martin had described Zimmerman on the phone call as a "creepy-ass cracker" who was following him. West asked her if she had "cleaned up" the language of the call so as not to hurt his mother's feelings. "Yes, sir," Jeantel testified, barely making eye-contact with West, and she barely did all day. Her testimony was also littered with interruptions from the court reporter, who was making absolutely sure she understood Jeantel's mumbled words. 

Rachel Jeantel did not fit in with this courtroom where she very much matters.And the defense really likes that "creepy-ass cracker" line that Martin delivered to his friend. West and his team have accused Jeantel in front of the cameras not so much of toning things down for the mother of dead 16-year-old as that Martin's slang somehow had some deeper meaning. The implication, in this transforming trial, has become that Trayvon Martin was the racist for calling George Zimmerman a "cracker," rather than that Zimmerman was a "creepy-ass" neighborhood watchmen who shot and killed a black kid after he bought some Skittles and an iced tea.

And the defense team has further implied that if Jeantel were really the prosecution's star witness, she'd be able to explain this key line — and the whole call — a little better. But Rachel Jeantel isn't your average TV-ready star witness. Apparently, the defense has made her look, for all the world to see, like a dumb girl who can't keep her story straight:

Mike Rauseo @Doobydoobydo

Breaking: MSNBC signs Jeantel to co-host with Sharpton. Move to boost MSNBC hosts' mean IQ by 10 points.

12:45 PM - 27 Jun 2013

7 Retweets 2 favorites 

 

  

Seeing ppl make excuses for Jeantel's behavior is hilarious. She's not stupid she's just not educated? Wtf? #zimmermantrial

1:32 PM - 27 Jun 2013

2 Retweets 1 favorite   

 

This Rachel Jeantel girl is really blowing me!!! Like u can't really be this dumb and stupid..

1:14 PM - 27 Jun 2013

3 Retweets 1 favorite 

 

 

 

 Conservative sites are having a field day slamming Jeantel and her testimony. And if the not exactly diverse jury — five of the women are white, and one is Latino — ends up with a similar perspective of the key witness as all the other onlookers have apparently obtained, well, Zimmerman's defense team must like its chances again, terrible knock-knock jokes and all. At GlobalGrind, Samara writes:

 

 

I can imagine George Zimmerman's defense is just hoping some of those 5 white jurors have some prejudices (as most people do), or hell, are even racist, because if they are, their tactic to make Rachel out to be less intelligent, rather than less credible than she actually is, might actually work. Less intelligent and more confused. Less intelligent because of the "language barrier" and more confused because of the lawyers' failure to understand who Rachel is, where she comes from, what kind of life she lives.
...
Rachel Jeantel's attitude is exactly what I would expect from someone from the hood who has no media training and who is fully entrenched in a hostile environment. There's nothing wrong with it.

Which us brings us back to the big picture here, which was supposed to be the big picture surrounding the whole case: The only people, aside from the occasional legal expert on CNN today, who seem to be able to making the case that Jeantel's valuable testimony was just that... are people who understand what it's like to be a young black person in this country. The people who understand Rachel Jeantel are not writing conservative commentary blog posts on the Internet, really; they're people who understand that saying "creepy-ass cracker" and "retarded" is just a way of saying things, which Jeantel herself tried reiterated in court. But, no, the worst of the commentariat likes a stupid person, not a serious discussion, and if Jeantel couldn't be Kato, it looks like she's relegated to the same fate as Charles Ramsey, the man who saved three women's lives from slavery in a Cleveland basement but became an Internet "sensation" for talking on TV like an uneducated black man.

 

That said, everyone seemed to like that "retarded" line, as a kind of successful flipping-off of the aggressive West. And not everyone is blind to the fact that this young woman did something today, in front of a national audience, that she really really didn't want to do:

 

  

    

Rachel Jeantel ... Is brave! That's what I see!

1:28 PM - 27 Jun 2013

• Rachel Jeantel is being brave against her damn will and all we can do is poke fun at her like we did Charles Ramsey. We worse than Fox News.

  1:25 PM - 27 Jun 2013
  5 Retweets 2 favorites 
• ✔ @MichaelSkolnik

  Rachel Jeantel is like so many yng people who live in the shadows of America. Never recognized or counted for, so they grow angry and sad.

 

At the end of the (very long) day in court and on television (there's other stuff happening out there, networks!), Jeantel remains the last person Martin spoke to before he was killed — aside, of course, from Zimmerman, who is facing second-degree murder charges in a trial that's expected to wrap up within the next two to three weeks. If you strip away all the commentary, and all the positioning by the defense to make this friend into a dumb backtracker, there is the truth: Trayvon Martin was running for his life, and he made a phone call. USA Today's Yamiche Alcindor reports:
That's pretty simple. What's more complex is the dilemma those six jurors and the general public watching — and watching and watching — are left with: We are being asked to trust this young black woman, a woman who's already double-crossed her stories and doesn't seem to care if we trust her or not. But at the very least, we should remember that it isn't Rachel Jeantel who's on trial for murder in front of all of us. It's that "creepy-ass" guy on the other side of the room." [Source]

 

*Nodding head*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Words to live by if you are a bigot.

Words from two people who will never get it.

“I’ve had to hold black friends in my arms while they’ve sobbed because they know what’s been said about me is not true and I’m having to comfort them,” she said.

Deen told [host Matt] Lauer she could only recall using the “n-word” once. She had earlier said that she remembered using it when retelling a story about when she was held at gunpoint by a robber who was black while working as a bank teller in the 1980s in Georgia. In a deposition for the lawsuit involving an employee in a restaurant owned by Deen and her brother, she had said she may also have used the slur when recalling conversations between black employees at her restaurants.

Looking distressed and her voice breaking, Deen said if there was someone in the audience who had never said something they wished they could take back, “please pick up that stone and throw it as hard at my head so it kills me. I want to meet you. I want to meet you.

“I is what I is and I’m not changing,” she said. “There’s someone evil out there that saw what I worked for and wanted it.” [Source]

Thank you Paula, sorry for all the money you lost and are about to lose, but sometimes ignorance and bigotry can be expensive.

"Dissenting from this morning's opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back.

 

In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race."

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.

In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one's political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today's Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent." [Source]

Thank you for your thoughts Mr. Scalia, but I am glad that you were in the minority this time. Stripping away the human rights of two different groups of people in two days would have been a bit much for even America to handle.

Honestly, when I think of people like Nelson Mandela (keep him in your thoughts, he won't be with us much longer) when compared to the likes of Paula Deen and Antonin Scalia, I can't help but think that if there is a god he/she has a great sense of humor.

Alabama state troopers in black robes.

I was on the phone today with my realtor in Jamaica (honest), and I told him to get ready to do some work for me because I might be heading down there soon.

Honestly, I am sure that the decision by the Supremes today to take us back 50 years has a lot of other people of color thinking the same thing: abandoning the good ship, Apple Pie. 

Of course I know why they did it. The last national election scared the living s*** out of them, and now all this talk of immigration reform and allowing immigrants who are already here in this country to "normalize" their status has them seeing a shift in where the voting power lies.

"But history did not end in 1965. By the time the Act was reauthorized in 2006, there had been 40 more years of it. In assessing the “current need[]” for a preclearance system that treats States differently from one another today, that history cannot be ignored. During that time, largely because of the Voting Rights Act, voting tests were abolished, disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race were erased, and African-Americans attained political office in record numbers. And yet the coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs.

The Fifteenth Amendment commands that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race or color, and it gives Congress the power to enforce that command. The Amendment is not designed to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future."  

No doubt Chief Justice Roberts is hoping for a "better future", because he didn't like this past election very much. He, and others like him, are hoping that the new schemes that republican state houses are coming up with to make it harder and harder for poor people and people of color to vote, will make it easier for them to win elections and impose their extreme will on the rest of us. 

"Bloody Sunday," nearly 50 years ago, Hosea Williams and I led 600 peaceful, nonviolent protesters attempting to march from Selma to Montgomery to dramatize the need for voting rights protection in Alabama. As we crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, we were attacked by state troopers who tear-gassed, clubbed and whipped us and trampled us with horses. I was hit in the head with a nightstick and suffered a concussion on the bridge. Seventeen marchers were hospitalized that day.
 
In response, President Lyndon Johnson introduced the Voting Rights Act and later signed it into law. We have come a great distance since then, in large part thanks to the act, but efforts to undermine the voting power of minorities did not end after 1965. They still persist today.

....These men that voted to strip the Voting Rights Act of its power, they never stood in unmovable lines, they never had to pass a so-called literacy test...It took us almost 100 years to get where we are today. So will it take another 100 years to fix it, to change it?" [Source]

Mr. Lewis I would like to thank you for fighting and literally bleeding for this precious right that we all hold so dear. Sadly, today, men like Clarence Thomas and his four friends in black robes, have put us all back on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. 

Finally, speaking of republicans and voting rights, before some of you Negroes join the party of Lincoln; you might want to consider the following letter a good friend of mine in Louisiana was kind enough to send me. It was sent by a Negro who thought that she could fit in under the republican tent.

"House GOP Focuses on Female Recruits for 2014

June 23, 2013

 

House Republicans are putting the first touches on what they hope will be a formal program to recruit more female candidates for the 2014 midterm elections.

 

My name is Sarah Holliday.  I am very interesting in your article today.  Thanks for a well written article.  I can gave a lot of reasons why their[sic] are issues.  I joined the GOP in 2008.  I am a graduate of LSU and Southern University.  After I changed my party affiliation, I joined the Republican Women of Baton Rouge.  That was an experience.  So, I called upon a group of women and chartered Capital City Republican Women (CCRW) in Baton Rouge on June 17, 2010.  We are the most diverse republican women group in the state.  I was the first black president of a republican women group in the state making history.  I currently serve as the Vice President of the CCRW.  In March 2011, at the biennial Louisiana Federation of Republican Women I ran for Region 6 Vice President and won by five (5) votes in Monroe, Louisiana.  Making history again, the first black to hold that position since LFRW inception.  Then, LFRW changed the rules making it impossible for me to win so I did not seek the office in March 2013.  It is the treatment in the party that is disturbing.  I ran for office in 2011 being the only female republican in the race and no help from the LAGOP. (Louisiana GOP)  I ran in 2012 which consisted of 13 parishes and the only female republican in the race and again no help from LAGOP.  I would love to interview with you to enlighten a list of things regarding your article.  I can be reached at 225-***-****.  Thanks, Sarah

 

Poor Sarah is reaching out to Roll Call because reality has slapped her in the face.

 

Now let's see how long it takes another black Louisianan who recently made a high profile switch to the party of Lincoln to realize that "republican outreach" is just a sham.

 

Of course, with the Supremes in their pockets, they won't need you Negroes anymore.

 

"Stephen" strikes again.

The Supremes punted to the lower court today in the University of Texas affirmative action case. No new groundbreaking law, just a note to the lower court to use a stricter level of scrutiny when considering things such as affirmative action. This is the toughest judicial evaluation allowed to consider whether government action is proper.

No problem. I am quite sure that universities have their ducks in a row and can justify how their admissions process works to create a better student body for learning. 

The Supremes were pretty much unanimous in their decision, except for our favorite Uncle, who, although he wrote a concurring opinion, had to go out of his way to point out why affirmative action is a bad thing. (This from a man who himself benefited from affirmative action.) Clarence actually compared affirmative action to Jim Crow segregation and slavery. Think about that for a minute. Slavery!
 
"Slaveholders argued that slavery was a 'positive good' that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life," Thomas wrote in his separate opinion on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. "A century later, segregationists similarly asserted that segregation was not only benign, but good for black students."

Thomas cited Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 Supreme Court case that led to the desegregation of public schools, in drawing a comparison between segregation and affirmative action.

"Following in these inauspicious footsteps, the University would have us believe that its discrimination is likewise benign. I think the lesson of history is clear enough: Racial discrimination is never benign," he wrote in the 20-page opinion. "The University’s professed good intentions cannot excuse its outright racial discrimination any more than such intentions justified the now-denounced arguments of slaveholders and segregationists." [Source]

But Uncle Clarence, race is but one of many considerations schools such as the University of Texas use to make up a diversified student body. They consider things such as your economic background, geography, family history, and whether you served in the military. Sadly, this Negro is so full of self hate that all he sees is the racial aspect of what schools are trying to do with their student body.

People like Clarence Thomas will never understand this, because he does not live in the real world. The poor man is still running as far away from Pin Point, Georgia as he can.

Anyway, while Clarence was comparing affirmative action to slavery, his fellow republican, Rand Paul, was comparing the NSA surveillance program to slaves being lynched back in the day. Something about the lack of due process.

Excuse me Rand, but there is no moral equivalence between the two. 

"One of them was when we judged the guilt of African Americans by lynching. People say, ‘Oh, that’s a dramatic comparison.’ Well that’s why we have steps and processes you go through to make sure you don’t have adjudication of guilt without a trial, without a lawyer, without a judge involved.”

Yes, but the last time I checked, Edward Snowden was not hanging from a tree with his eyeballs popping out and his skin turning gray.

*Pic from jobsjusticedreams


 

It can't be the shoes.

A man was killed while trying to pick another man's pocket while the other man waited in line for the new $180 LeBron James sneaker.

You Negroes have got to quit this madness. Who waits in line for a pair of $180 sneakers that, from the looks of them, doesn't even look that good?

This love of materialism and our penchant to show off whatever it is we are wearing or driving is a serious Achilles heel in our community. Is it any wonder a dollar lasts only six hours in our community? Compare that to a month in the Asian community and you can see where I am going with this. Black folks have a lot of buying and spending power , so why aren't we saving? We will be spending 1.1 trillion annually by 2015, our purchasing power is currently equal to the GDP of the world's 16th largest country, and we still don't have s*** to show for it.

"Field, you are such a hypocrite. You like to wear nice suits to work and you are always bragging about your sartorial acumen."

Yes, but dressing properly is required in my profession. How many of those clowns dropping $180 for a pair of sneakers are actually getting paid to run ball?

"Greedy shoe companies making select sneakers needlessly exclusive paired together with consumer exuberance, desperation, and American gun culture on Saturday long enough to cost one would-be alleged robber his life. Shoppers waiting in line to purchase the latest incarnation of LeBron James’ signature shoe outside Atlanta were being harassed by a reported pickpocket until one patron decided to pull a gun out and shoot the as-yet unidentified man in what is being considered a move motivated by self-defense." [Source]

Sorry Mr. Dwyer, I can't blame the "greedy shoe companies" for this one. (Although there are other things  that I could get on them about.) If there was no market for them they wouldn't be making those $180 sneakers in the first place.

Blame the folks creating the market for them. As long as we are willing to drop those kinds of ends they are going to make overpriced sneakers for $100 which cost them $20 to make.

"I am taking my talents to South Beach"

LeBron, you need to take a detour and stop by the hood.

Girl fight, and Paula finds a friend in the house.

I just got back from New York. (Shout out to Harlem.) As usual, I had a good time meeting my fellow bloggers at the Blogging While Brown conference and learning some tricks of the blogging trade.

Keep up the good work, people.

So anyway, I am a big tennis fan, and I have enjoyed Serena's recent run to the top of the tennis world at the ripe young age of 31.

Unfortunately for Serena, though, she has found herself in some hot water after her comments about the Steubenville, Ohio rape victim.

"World tennis number one Serena Williams has apologized after reportedly appearing to criticise the victim in a high-profile US rape case.

Rolling Stone magazine quoted her as saying the teenager in the Steubenville, Ohio, case "shouldn't have put herself in that position".

Williams has now released a statement on her website saying she was "deeply sorry for what was written".

I am glad she apologized; it's never good to blame the victim.

But this post isn't so much about Serena's comments as it is the response to it by one of her biggest rivals. Actually, I take that back. Serena has owned Maria Sharapova. This is not a real rivalry.

So anyway, Sharapova had some choice words for Ms. Williams, and she makes it personal by taking a shot at her [Serena's] alleged boyfriend for good measure.

 “At the end of the day, we have a tremendous amount of respect for what we do on the court. I just think she should be talking about her accomplishments, her achievements, rather than everything else that’s just getting attention and controversy,”

...If she wants to talk about something personal, maybe she should talk about her relationship and her boyfriend that was married and is getting a divorce and has kids,” Sharapova continued.

Ouch! I hate to be messy, but dem there is fighting words.

Although, to be fair, maybe she went there because Serena went there first.

"According to the Rolling Stone story, posted online Tuesday, Williams spoke about what the reporter described as “a top-five player who is now in love.”
Williams is quoted as saying: “She begins every interview with ‘I’m so happy. I’m so lucky’ — it’s so boring. She’s still not going to be invited to the cool parties. And, hey, if she wants to be with the guy with a black heart, go for it.”

That is followed by these words in parentheses from the author of the piece, Stephen Rodrick: “An educated guess is she’s talking about Sharapova, who is now dating Grigor Dimitrov, one of Serena’s rumored exes.” [Source]

When does Wimbledon start? I can't wait.

Finally, like death and taxes we knew it was coming: Paula Deen's black friend.

"SAVANNAH, Georgia (CNN) - The Food Network announced Friday that it will not renew the contract of Paula Deen after she admitted using a racial epithet – but a black pastor who is friends with the celebrity chef said she "can't be a racist."

 

Deen apologized Friday for "the wrong that I've done," a move that follows revelations this week that she admitted saying the N-word.

But Pastor Gregory A. Tyson Sr. from First Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church in Savannah, Georgia, defended Deen to WTOC, a CNN affiliate.

"I know her," Tyson said. "My children have been to her house. I've been to her house, I've sat on her furniture. I've been all through her house. What racist would let a black man walk all through her house?"[Source]

Thank you Pastor, you can go back to the house now.

I am so glad that I have the Drop Squad on speed dial.











 

"WAR"

 

"...until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned: That until there are no longer first-class and second class citizens of any nation; That until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; That until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race; That until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained; And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique and in South Africa in subhuman bondage have been toppled and destroyed; Until bigotry and prejudice and malicious and inhuman self-interest have been replaced by understanding and tolerance and good-will; Until all Africans stand and speak as free beings, equal in the eyes of all men, as they are in the eyes of Heaven; Until that day, the African continent will not know peace. We Africans will fight, if necessary, and we know that we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of good over evil..."

~H.I.M. Haile Selassie I Speech to the United Nations (excerpt)
New York City, NY  October 4, 1963~

If Robert Nesta Marley can use excerpts of this speech given by his Majesty for a song, why can't I use it for a blog post?

Words for our current president--- on the eve of his trip to Africa--- to live by.

The racist in the kitchen, and a "Patriot" is in hot water.

So black folks are tripping out after hearing that Paula Deen is a racist.

"What? Paula Dean is a racist? Nooo, not Paula."

Yes, Paula. You Negroes should learn from this. Never assume that you know someone.

"Paula, you disappointed me. You used to channel my black southern grandma so well. I almost believed you were one of us!" 
Oh stop it! Charming Paula, the Southern Belle, was in the kitchen cooking up some wholesome American Southern food while dropping the N-word and planning slavery themed weddings.

Still, to be fair to Paula, she was an equal opportunity hater, and she hated Jews and rednecks as well. It all just goes to show you how far a little talent can go in hiding the demons that lurk within some people.    

Paula, let this be a lesson to you: Always settle those lawsuits. You never know what will come out in a trial.

 "Deen cited a restaurant she had visited: "The whole entire waiter staff was middle-aged black men, and they had on beautiful white jackets with a black bow tie...I mean, it was really impressive. That restaurant represented a certain era in America…after the Civil War, during the Civil War, before the Civil War…It was not only black men, it was black women…I would say they were slaves." [Source]

I would say that you were born about 100 years too late.

Are you all following this Aaron Hernandez story? This is crazy. I sure hope that we don't have another O.J., or Rae Carruth story on our hands, but it's not looking good for the Patriot's tight end.  Apparently Aaron likes his guns.

"Police plan to go back to the home of New England Patriot's tight end Aaron Hernandez today with another warrant based on evidence that "he destroyed his home security system,'' an investigator close to the case told ABC News.

The investigator, and other law enforcement sources, confirmed that the security system - which included video surveillance - was smashed intentionally.
And a cell phone used by Hernandez was handed over to investigators "in pieces'' by his attorneys, the sources said.

Police also want to know why a team of house cleaners were hired on Monday to scrub Hernandez's mansion, sources told ABC News.

The revelations come as multiple sources tell ABC News that the star NFL player has not been ruled out as a suspect in the murder of a semi-pro football player Odin Lloyd, 27, who was Hernandez's friend.

Hernandez has been at the center of the investigation since Lloyd's body was found shot in the back of the head in a scrubby clearing of an industrial park roughly a mile from the Patriots star's million-dollar mansion in North Attleborough Monday." [Source]

Calling Nancy Grace in 5...4...3...2...

Getting an early start.

If any of you fellows reading this are like me you probably have a picture of your palm in your wallet. (Hey, practice makes perfect, right fellows?)

Anyway, thanks to republican Congressman, Michael Burgess, of Texas, we are starting to learn where this love of......self comes from.

"The House's proposed ban on late-term abortions is justified because fetuses masturbate as early as 15 weeks, proving they experience physical feeling, according to a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), a former OB/GYN, suggested Monday that he has witnessed "movements that are purposeful" in fetuses entering the second trimester.

'Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby," Burgess said. "They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?'” [Source]

This explains a lot. So it seems that we have been at this masturbating thing for a very long time.

Thank you Mr. Burgess for that brilliant insightful revelation. I guess you politicians are good for something after all.

I don't know how this war on the female body started again, but at least this time around we are learning something.

Finally, I would like to thank Elijah Cummings for doing what he threatened to do and release the full transcript of the interview with a key IRS employee.

As we expected all along, there was no smoking gun. I suspect that this is why Mr. Issa did not want this transcript released: He wanted to keep the illusion of an IRS scandal going.   

*Pic from Alexparkinson34

When twerking goes wrong.

"Short hair like Nia Long
Loose one she don't need a loan
She start twerking when she hear a song
The stripper pole her income
We get trippy and then some
So nasty when she rolling
She put that ass off in my hands
I remote control it.."

I hear you Juicy J. Everybody has to make a living.

I am not mad at strippers. This is America, and if you can make legal money I say go for it.

Having said that, there is one particular stripper down in Houston who I do have a problem with.

"Popular Houston stripper and model Jhonni Blaze was twerking on stage last Wednesday when she started to bleed profusely.
According to the Examiner:

“Jhonni Blaze is currently in the hospital recovering from a miscarriage that occurred on Wednesday… according to co-workers and patrons at the club, she was dancing at VLive …while on stage she started bleeding profusely…she had apparently suffered a miscarriage… the stripper then left the stage and to the back where she started having convulsions.. she was then rushed to the emergency room where doctors gave her a blood transfusion for the loss of blood… unfortunately they could not save the life of the unborn child.”

The self-proclaimed "Queen of Houston" and "Pole Assassin" hasn't officially confirmed the tragic incident, but if the dance move did cause her miscarriage we just want to send our prayers up." [Source]

I wonder if Jhonni knew that she was pregnant. Just thinking out loud ladies, you might have to help me make some sense of this one.

Finally, these young bucks in Chicago are taking street violence to a whole different level. I am used to killings here in Killadelphia, but seven killings and  30 shootings -over Father's Day weekend no less- is not cool.

Still, I am sick of just blogging about this kind of carnage in our streets that everyone else is ignoring. This includes black leaders and politricksters who seem to just shrug their collective shoulders like the rest of America.

We all better start coming up with some solutions very soon. You can only build but so many prisons and close so many schools. The chickens will come home one day.

There is plenty of blame to go around: Trifling sperm donors, crooked politicians, the NRA, a lack of jobs, lack of a proper family structure.... I could go on, but the list is too long for this particular post.

But enough about all the problems, we all know what they are.

Someone I respect reached out to me recently and they will be launching a solutions based online magazine soon. I don't want to say too much because it is still in its infant stage. But soon I hope to be involved with that project and writing about solutions and engaging in critical thinking with folks who are trying to come up with solutions as well.

I still love my blog (although the partisan trolls and racists who comment can get a little tiresome at times), so I will continue with TFN for now.

Stay tuned.

"Let that Negro go to Africa on his own dime."

I love how hypocrisy rules the day in this country.

So now we are supposed to care that the president is taking a trip oversees because we are still in a recession? I need a break!

Why is this even an issue now with this president? Rhetorical question. I know why.

I suppose we should just kick the Kenyan out of the people's house and rent his family a nice apartment in Northwest Washington. I am sure that would save us some money.

And, while we are at it, why don't we just get Allied Barton to provide him with around the clock security? I mean why pay a secret service agent when we can get a rent a cop for $9 an hour?

"Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer asked White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Sunday morning if President Obama’s $60-100 million proposed trip to Africa was “worth it in a time of sequestration, when we’ve got people in various government agencies working four days a week, taking a twenty percent cut in pay?”

“The Washington Post also said that price tag was fully consistent with the cost we’ve paid for similar trips in the past,” McDonough said, before pointing out that Africa was a center of investment and economic growth. “It’s very important for the President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, and as the representative of this government and the American people, to be able to travel to carry out our foreign policy.” [Source]

Bob Schieffer is now in the home stretch of life. I am sure that the fire department is on standby when he lights his birthday cake, so I am going to cut him some slack. Anyway, the poor guy is probably just saying out loud what folks in Middle America are all thinking.

Of course some of us are wondering why there are so many issues with this particular trip.

"As someone angry over government fraud and waste, I can understand the need for our elected leaders to tighten their financial belts when it some to spending our money. But I’m just a little confused that penny-pinching is becoming the overriding theme behind President Obama’s first long trip to sub-Saharan Africa later this month. Published reports about the trip have focused on the huge expenses attached to the trip that will include visits to Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania.

Authorities say that hundreds of Secret Service agents will be sent to protect the President while in Africa, and a Navy aircraft carrier with a fully staffed medical center will be stationed off of the coast of visited nations in case of an emergency.

But the big time spending won’t stop there.

Fighter jets will provide 24-hour coverage over the President’s airspace and 14 limousines will be reportedly sent over from the United States to provide President Obama safe passage by roadway.....

But when you consider that the President has made trips to Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia while making only a brief stop in Ghana during his presidency, why shouldn’t he go to Africa for a substantial visit, especially when the continent has been coined in several business circles “the New Frontier.”

Countries like Brazil and China have increased their investment in African nations and the United States needs to maintain its influence in the region while promoting trade, democracy, and empowering the youth and women. And with a strong Muslim component in many African countries, the continent is an increasingly important partner in global anti-terrorism efforts.

And Obama isn’t the first president to see Africa’s strategic importance. Presidents Bush and Clinton both visited Africa, with Mrs. Bush going to Africa five times in support of President Bush’s agenda.

I don’t recall the cost of those trips ever being questioned.
But now, as the first president of African descent prepares for his first major visit to Africa, Obama critics are looking to pinch pennies?

The Washington Post report says the costs for the trip are not out of line with what is spent when other presidents travel abroad.

So what gives?" [Source]


What gives? Hmmm, let's see now; Americans don't like tall skinny people?

Stealing a ring and kissing another.

This is Father's Day, and I hope that all of you out there who just happen to be sperm donors took the opportunity to reflect on your lives and what you could have done better.

And, if you are like this guy, you have some serious soul searching to do.

Anyway, this story with Putin and the Super Bowl ring is crazy.  Can you imagine if the owner of a sports franchise accused President Obama of stealing his ring?

Putin, as is to be expected, says that Kraft is lying, and that he [Kraft] gave it to him as a gift.

Kraft says that Putin basically strong armed him and took the bling.

"Kraft returned to the U.S. without his Super Bowl XXXIX ring, which, in 2005, he claimed he had given to Putin as a gift. Now Kraft has a new spin on the story.

Via the New York Post:

Kraft explained the incident happened while Sandy Weill and other business execs were in St. Petersburg. “I took out the ring and showed it to [Putin], and he put it on and he goes, ‘I can kill someone with this ring,’ ” Kraft told the crowd at Carnegie Hall’s Medal of Excellence gala at the Waldorf-Astoria.“I put my hand out and he put it in his pocket, and three KGB guys got around him and walked out.”

That’s right, Vladimir Putin pocketed the New England Patriots’ owner’s Super Bowl ring. Kraft told the crowd that he later received a call from the Bush White House strongly advising him to say he gave the ring as a gift in order to help with U.S.-Russian relations. So Kraft did just that, which I guess was what he figured was his……ahem…..Patriotic duty." [Source]

Honestly, I don't know who to believe. I have never been a Robert Kraft fan, but I can see Putin conveniently forgetting to give the ring back as well.

"I took out the ring and showed it to [Putin], and he put it on and he goes, 'I can kill someone with this ring,'" Kraft told the crowd, according to the New York Post. "I put my hand out and he put it in his pocket, and three KGB guys got around him and walked out."

A spokesman for Putin, however, told CNN on Sunday that the ring was definitely given as a gift.

"What Mr. Kraft is saying now is weird," Dmitry Peskov told CNN. "I was standing 20 centimeters away from him and Mr. Putin and saw and heard how Mr. Kraft gave this ring as a gift.

Peskov told CNN that the ring now is at the Kremlin's library."

Too bad the Patriots didn't have one of their secret video tape machines taping the exchange.

Finally, if the republican party ever wants to be relevant again they are going to have to stop kissing the ring of the likes of Glenn Beck.

He has weighed into the immigration reform battle and is comparing republicans politricksters who oppose immigration reform to civil rights leaders of old who battled injustice here in America.

Hmmm, Medgar Evers or Louis Gohmert. One was shot and lost his life while trying to make this a better country, one shoots off his mouth while making it worse.

"Beck has pledged to put his entire network behind these members (once again turning it into a public policy organization) and, on the program last night, called upon his viewers to rally in support of this effort, saying that if they don't, it will be like Saddam Hussein's slaughter of the Kurds. Comparing them to heroes like George Washington, Beck ended his monologue by comparing these anti-immigration Republicans to civil rights leaders by running a montage of images of Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists alongside the words "we shall not be moved"' [Source]

This country is in some serious trouble.

Erectile and government dysfunction.

I have to drop the following post on the eve of Father's Day, so I honestly don't need any of you ladies laughing at it. Sometimes, as men, we have to suffer through certain trials and tribulations to get our....let's just say reproductive organ working in its proper order. 

Take the case of poor Daniel Metzgar, a man who resides right next to me in the state of Delaware. All Daniel wanted to do was to put some inches on his tool- no doubt to help with his love life- and live happily ever after.

But alas, that was not to be; the poor guy hooked up with a bad plumber.

"Metzgar filed a malpractice lawsuit against the urologist who performed the surgical procedure, and on Monday and Tuesday, he testified in court about how the procedure left him feeling like less of a man, according to The Delaware News Journal.

The 44-year-old truck driver’s penile woes date back to 2009, after receiving a three-part penile implant from Wilmington, Del., urologist Dr. Thomas J. Desperito. After undergoing the procedure, Metzgar’s scrotum reportedly resembled a volleyball in size, which he reportedly thought was just a normal consequence of the surgery.

When Metzgar did finally speak with his physician about the abnormality he was experiencing, which had progressed into an infection, the doctor suggested removing the prosthesis. According to the physician’s defense attorney, Michael C. Heyden (pictured far right), Metzgar unfortunately waited an inordinate amount of time before he made the decision to comply with his doctor’s recommendation.

Metzgar contends that he waited because he lost his insurance and could not afford the procedure at the time.

Metzgar finally had the device, which consisted of inflatable cylinders inside the shaft of his penis, a fluid reservoir under the abdominal wall, and a pump inside the scrotum, removed in August 2010, after it punctured his scrotum during a family trip to Niagara Falls.

The reason why Metzgar opted for the inflatable penile prosthetic in the first place was because he was a longtime diabetic who developed erectile dysfunction." [Source]

The poor guy had an erection for eight months. I hate when that happens.

Anyway, couldn't some of those little blue pills have done the trick?

Finally, while most sane people in America continue to be concerned about jobs and the economy, republicans in Washington continue to focus their efforts on attacking the female body.

"Jobs? All morning this morning the House Judiciary Committee debated what everyone knows is another waste of time bill that will never be signed into law.  Though many in the GOP asked “where are the jobs” during the 2010 election cycle that ended with them capturing the House majority, now the question could easily be: Where is the jobs bill?

Abortion obsessed Republican Rep. Trent Franks, who has brought up an endless string of never-to-become-law abortion related legislation over the years, is back again.  Today the House Judiciary Committee debated the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act all morning and is set to continue arguing on amendments late into the afternoon.  That the Senate would take up, or that the President would actually sign, Franks’ bill hasn’t stopped Franks from burning committee hours to nurse his obsession." [More]

Now we know why they have a 10% approval rating.

A drunk driver kills your child and you face jail. If you are an immigrant you can have another child soon because you are "fertile".

Here in the land of only some are free, we have to constantly shake our heads at how certain people are treated by the justice system.

Take for instance the case of Raquel Nelson down in Georgia.

"Our friends at HLN are discussing a story out of Marietta, Georgia about a mother who is facing two years of jail time after her 4-year-old son was hit and killed by a drunk driver while she and her children were crossing the street. Now, hopefully you're asking yourself how it is that the mother of a boy slain after being hit by a drunk driver while crossing the street could be facing jail time at all, and the answer is because "she chose to cross the street at the bus stop, instead of the nearest crosswalk, three-tenths of a mile away.

 In July 2011, the mom in question, Raquel Nelson (pictured left with her now deceased son), "was convicted of … three misdemeanors: second-degree homicide by a vehicle, crossing roadway elsewhere than a crosswalk and reckless conduct." She received a sentence of one year probation and 40 hours of community service, but has chosen a retrial which begins today. According to HLN, "She now faces up to two years behind bars." 
The driver, Jerry Guy, "fled the scene after the accident but later admitted being involved, according to CNN affiliate WXIA-TV. He was sentenced to five years in prison but served only six months. He is serving the remainder of the sentence on probation," CNN noted in July of 2011. Nelson's son A.J. died in April 2010. This woman has been on trial for three years while grieving for the death of her son in what was an accident caused by a drunk driver. If Nelson were to be ticketed at all, to be made an example of (because she's a black single mother and American society loves to make an example of black single mothers), the only charge that seems reasonable in this case is "crossing roadway elsewhere than a crosswalk." There's no doubt that pedestrians need to obey rules and watch out for their own safety, but as Nelson's attorney, David Savoy, suggested, "the white stripes of a crosswalk are not impenetrable walls of steel that could have prevented a driver from striking someone crossing the street."

The idea that Nelson could be convicted of second-degree homicide by a vehicle makes me truly nauseous, because that is passing the buck from Guy to Nelson. Guy was driving the car, Guy was drunk, Guy struck the child and Guy fled. These charges are so, so sadly reflective of America's victim-blaming culture. A child runs out into the street while crossing from the bus stop and is struck by a car and killed. How does it possibly serve anyone to put his mother in jail? She has two other children to take care of. "

Then the author goes there:

"It's hard to imagine a white mother facing trial in the same circumstance. Then again, it's also hard for some to imagine a white mother in the same circumstance, unless she's poor, and then she too is to be made an example of. Because we're taught in America that if we're not wealthy and successful it's our "fault," and that everyone should want to be an over-scheduled, workaholic consumer, because to be otherwise is unpatriotic. It's un-American to stop feeding the machine. And if you're not feeding it, you're milking it, and that makes you scum. It's immature black-and-white thinking (in more than one sense), but that's what we're best at." [Source]

Personally, I blame Ronnie Reagan. He did such a "great" job of creating the "Welfare Queen" stereotype and making it stick. Poor people and people of color are bad. Rich people and all others are good.

Anyway, fortunately it has all ended well for Ms. Nelson. The vehicular homicide charges have been dropped. 

I guess it's better late than never.

Sometimes a little public scrutiny of an issue can be a good thing.

Finally, if you happen to be a young white person in America with no children I suggest that you start trying to have them. Jeb Bush and others in the republican party really need you to push one out for the home team.

If you don't, those "fertile" immigrants are going to have you in the minority before you can say apple pie.