If you are accustomed to sprinkling salt on your food, you might be surprised to learn that the salt cravings that so many of us have learned are not innate. While it is possible to retrain your taste buds to desire less salty foods rather than being compelled to add more salt to uncover hidden flavors in natural foods, there is one more potent, taste hiding factor at play in most processed foods: sodium. Much of the sodium in our diet comes from processed foods like bread, canned soups, pizzas, and cold cuts, affecting heart health, kidney function and blood pressure negatively with each passing day. Here’s what you need to know about salt and sodium and how to enjoy your food with less of both.

Salt and Sodium Are Not the Same Thing

Table salt or sodium chloride is what most people refer to when talking about salt. It is made up of approximately 40% sodium and 60% of chloride. It is the sodium found in salt that can have detrimental effects on the body including elevating blood pressure and putting additional strain on the kidneys. In extreme cases the body can even begin to pull calcium from the bones. According to the T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard University, the average American consumes more than 7 times the amount of sodium that the human body requires for proper function of the body (3,400mg versus 500mg).

Sodium in diets is found in processed foods that have been made in a factory before they even get transported to the grocery store and on to your plate. In addition, many restaurant meals are also salty and are commonly served in restaurants. That bread you had for lunch, how about can of soup, that deli turkey that you had in your sandwich — none of them taste salty. But each of them is contributing to your daily total of sodium.

Salt Is an Acquired Taste — and That’s Good News

Here’s the thing about salt: our preference for it is not fixed. In fact, it can be learned. In a series of studies, participants slowly reduced their intake of sodium over the course of several weeks. In as little as a few weeks, participants reported that they could no longer taste the excess sodium that they were used to. Within a few weeks, for example, people found that bland food tasted lovely and became aware of the amount of salt in foods that they once thought to be well seasoned.

If you have ever switched from whole milk to skim milk for example, the first glass of skim milk tasted watery. A month later, whole milk tasted too rich. The same thing happens with salt. Within a few short weeks the palate will have adapted to the reduction in sodium intake. You will get used to not tasting the extra sodium within 4-8 weeks.

Eating flavorless food is a habit and most herbs, citrus, vinegar, garlic, black pepper, smoked paprika and fresh ginger add lots of flavor to food without any sodium.

What Too Much Sodium Actually Does to Your Body

Eating too much sodium puts a strain on the kidneys. It can only excrete what it can, and the excess is left in the blood. The body responds to excess sodium by holding on to water in order to dilute the sodium. Blood vessels are then forced to face more pressure. The blood pressure increases because the heart has to pump blood of greater volume at higher pressure. Eventually the blood vessels can become rigid, leading to heart attacks, strokes and heart failure.

The DASH study is one of the largest diet studies ever conducted. In the study, participants from many different backgrounds were on either a high sodium diet or a reduced-sodium diet and were monitored for blood pressure. People on a reduced-sodium diet were found to have lower blood pressure when they were compared to people that remained on their normal diet. Furthermore, those who followed a reduced-sodium diet in combination with a diet rich in fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy products had the greatest decrease in blood pressure. Those who continued to eat a low-sodium diet for 10-15 years were 25% less likely to have a heart attack or stroke.

It does not stop at the heart. A diet of high sodium also can lead to the loss of calcium in your bones, accelerating the development of bone thinning or osteoporosis. Salty foods can also increase the chance of getting stomach cancer, according to The World Cancer Research Fund. People with kidney and liver disease and those who experience other kinds of illness also can suffer more seriously from excessive intake of sodium.

Where the Salt Is Really Hiding

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention lists the typical American’s sources of sodium in the graph below, noting that the salt shaker on your table is not the main contributor of sodium to your diet.

You will also notice that this list does not include fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, unseasoned meats and legumes – all unprocessed foods that are naturally low in sodium. A large amount of packaged snacks such as chips, pretzels and crackers are specifically designed to trigger our salt cravings. The more food you cook from scratch will most certainly give you more control over what you eat.

The Potassium Counterbalance You Probably Don’t Know About

The other side of sodium is potassium. Potassium has the reverse effect of sodium. It can decrease blood pressure and create healthy blood vessels. People with the highest sodium to potassium ratios have twice the heart attack mortality as those with the lowest sodium to potassium ratios according to a study published by the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Eating more fruits and vegetables can lower blood pressure. Most of these foods are high in potassium and low in sodium. Here is a list of fruits high in potassium and a list of the high potassium containing vegetables: Sweet Potatoes, Spinach, Beets, Broccoli, Carrots. Other examples of foods high in potassium include white beans, salmon and almond milk.

Practical Steps to Start Right Now

You don’t have to quit sodium dramatically overnight but rather can start lowering sodium slowly. Start with a few minor changes to your routine and allow time for your taste buds to acclimate to the newer flavors before proceeding to the next change. And trust, it does compound quickly.

Cook more frequently at home. Instead of salt, use lemon juice, fresh herbs or spices to add flavor to your food. Salt is acceptable in small quantities at the end of cooking but use less than the recipe calls for. Look for low-sodium or no-salt versions of canned foods. Most canned and cooked beans are high in sodium. Often 40% or more of the sodium can be removed by rinsing the beans before cooking them.

Ask your server to hold the dressing or sauces in a separate bowl when you are at a restaurant. Compare products of similar kinds when you are at the grocery store to see how much sodium there is in each of them. Some brands of the same soup can differ by as much as 400 mg per serving.

The Payoff: Food That Actually Tastes Like Something

Food tastes better with less sodium. Once your taste buds have adjusted to not needing salt so much, you can taste other flavors too. A roasted carrot tastes sweet. Fresh, raw tomatoes are so bright and wonderful. The whole grain tastes nutty. These flavors are natural and always there. The salt just must be out of the way.

You can enjoy the taste of all kinds of flavors of your favorite foods without over-salting. As Harvard’s Nutrition Source puts it, sodium is not a nutrient that you need to seek out – it finds you. Limiting foods with high amounts of sodium can be healthy for your heart, kidneys and bones. You will even start to enjoy and appreciate the more subtle flavors of many whole foods. For those of you that would like to know more about the challenges of cooking tasty dishes with less salt please consider this writers new book; Lower Your Sodium and Still Enjoy Food; written expressly for those of us cutting back on salt for all the right reasons. This wonderful publication is now available at Amazon.com; Bon appetite.

Associate Editor; Stanley G. Buford

Feel free to connect with this brother via Twitter; Stanley G. and also facebook; http://www.facebook.com/sgbuford.

Also his email addy is; StanleyG@ThyBlackMan.com.

[Verse 1]

Laura Loomer please stop attacking Black women in the press!

You are viewed in the world as a total hot mess.

Sonny Charles and the Checkmates would be ashamed of you,

Espousing racism in the way that you do.

Picking on Black women that are the cream of the crop,

Shut your mouth gal…it’s got to stop.

[Chorus]

You probably had no friends of distinction in your high school days,

Hatred is the only tool you recognize anyways.

Stop this madness and apologize…

Don’t let your life be compromised.

[Verse 2]

I know you must have a lot of time to fill,

Trying to impress likeminded friends on Capitol Hill.

The world is watching as you make a fool of yourself,

Put your foolish pride and the racism on the shelf.

Denigrating sisters who have made the world a better place,

That’s not the way it’s done according to God’s Grace.

[Chorus]

Please remember the Golden Rule,

Your deeds are coming back to you…don’t be a fool!

One day you’ll look back with regret at what you’ve done,

Especially in the eyes of your daughter or son.

[Bridge]

You know full well you sought to curry favor with a party of one…DJT,

The White House is surely proud of you,

Please stop these foolish verbal attacks… it only shows the brains you lack.

[Outro]

So take a moment, pause, and reflect,

The impact of your words can cause so much wreck,

Choose love over hate, let kindness drop,

Laura Loomer please stop, just let it stop.

Laura Loomer Please Stop!

Copyright (c) 2026

TriDreams Productions Inc

Stanley G Buford

What Laura Loomer Actually Said

Last week, Laura Loomer attacked five college educated black women who are among the most influential individuals in the United States via a video on Twitter. In the video, Laura refers to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Democratic Congresswomen Angie Nixon, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Cori Bush as “ghetto Black b****es” among other derogatory terms. The word “ghetto” is very important here and holds centuries of pain and intent to demean and insult people of lower socioeconomic status who are often Black and of marginalization compared to people of higher status and of other races. Her justification? “Stereotypes exist for a reason,” she concluded emphatically.

Congresswoman Angie Nixon responded the way that a woman who has been dealing with this her whole life responds – with crystal clearness and without ducking. “Been called a dog, a m*nkey, an a*e and g*rilla” Angie Nixon told Newsweek. “But I’m going to keep speaking truth to power.” Even Marjorie Taylor Greene saw fit to disown Loomer, writing that “The Republican Party owns Laura Loomer and her nonstop vitriol.” When Marjorie Taylor Greene is the voice of reason in a battle, you know that you’ve crossed a line.

This Is Not New. This Is the Old Playbook.

Scholars have long named the hatred of Black women that combines racism and sexism as “misogynoir”. So, what Laura Loomer did isn’t random, it is strategic and intended to accomplish one goal: to make black women seem less, to diminish their credentials, and to reduce a Supreme Court Justice to a slur.

The word “ghetto” is inscribed with centuries of racism and hatred toward black people. Initially it described bad neighborhoods where marginalized people lived due to segregation, redlining, and other forms of government neglect. But today it’s largely used by a further emancipated class to denigrate people of a lower socioeconomic status. Loomer knows exactly what she is doing when she uses it. This is a choice, not ignorance.

The scholar Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote that the wealth gap in America is not an accident but the logical result of deliberate policy decisions. The same is true of these attacks on Black women in public life. They follow an old, well-documented playbook: weaponize ugly stereotypes to distract from the substance of what these women are actually doing and saying.

Black Pearl: The Song That Stayed With Me

As I began writing Laura Loomer Please Stop, I couldn’t get out of my head one other song in the archives of a bygone era. In 1969, Sonny Charles & The Checkmates recorded “Black Pearl,” which was produced by Phil Spector and penned by Tony Wine, Irwin Levine and Spector himself. The single hit its peak at No. 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 Chart and No. 8 on the R&B Chart. But its impact far exceeded any chart success. 

Toni Wine – who wrote it – explains why he wrote it: “It was a very tough period. A lot of the Black women were depicted as being housekeepers, rather than having positions in companies, whether they were capable or not. And it was about time to have a song putting them on a pedestal.”

I thought the chorus of this song from decades ago was so pretty and I still sing in the chorus: “Black pearl, precious little girl — you’ve been in the background much too long.” The song was inspired by the Sidney Poitier film For Love of Ivy about a Black woman who had spent 9 years of her life as a maid and finally went back to school to pursue her education and her life. This song was a declaration in 1969 when it was written. The declaration still needs to be made in 2026.

That is where my song comes from. Laura Loomer Please Stop is my version of that same declaration — updated for a moment when the Supreme Court has a Black woman on it, when Black women chair congressional committees and pass legislation, and when one particular loud voice keeps trying to drag them back into a box they were never meant to fit inside.

My Daughter, Kathryn Cherise

I have to tell you about my daughter. Kathryn Cherise recently finished her PhD. at the University of Maryland. She has gone further than anyone in my family ever has to attain such height. When she walked across that stage, I thought about all of the generations before her who were dismissed by the world and told to stay in the background and to be quiet, and to be small. I thought about women in Sonny Charles’ song – carrying other peoples’ children while their own dreams wait. 

I told Stinky, a nickname given to her at birth; shortly after I changed her first diaper. “Kathryn the sky is  the limit,” I believed that then and I believe it now. But when I heard Laura Loomer call educated, accomplished Black women in public office those names — I felt something shift inside me. Not just anger. Grief. Because Kathryn is stepping into a world where some people still see her and think of her only in slurs, no matter her credentials.

That is why I wrote the song, not to argue politics and not to score points. I wrote this song for my daughter to know that her achievements will be recognized and her excellence celebrated and acknowledged and not perceived through someone else’s fear.

What the Song Says

Laura Loomer Please Stop is not a hate song. It is not even an angry song, exactly. The song is exhausted. So am I. It is the type of song that is written from exhaustion of watching attacks repeat themselves across generations with different names but the same bile.

It says: we see you and we know what you are doing. And we are not going back. The women you sought to destroy through hate filled rants on public media- Ketanji, Angie, Ilhan, Ayanna and Cori – worked their way up to public office through hard work and sacrifice. Their credentials cannot be touched by your racist slurs.

Sonny Charles sang in 1969 that the Black woman had been in the background much too long. More than fifty years later, she is at the highest levels of American public life — on the Supreme Court, on the floor of Congress, in laboratories and lecture halls and operating rooms. The background is not where she belongs. With all due respect, Laura Loomer, please stop pretending otherwise.

Closing Thoughts: The Sky Still Has No Limit

I am very proud of what I created in my home  studio. The song was derived from true feelings of love of a father to his daughter, her accomplishments, and anger at the destruction of achievements that people have given their lives, sweat and everything to earn.

Black Pearl was written for a generation of Black women to place them on a pedestal for whom they could be adored. Laura Loomer Please Stop was composed fifty-seven years later to defend that same principle with equal urgency and love.

To Kathryn Cherise: the sky is still the limit for you. Let no loud voice, old playbook or threatened ego convince you otherwise. You worked very hard to earn that PhD. You sacrificed a lot to get to where you are today. You are not in the background anymore.  Amen!

Associate Editor; Stanley G. Buford

Feel free to connect with this brother via Twitter; Stanley G. and also facebook; http://www.facebook.com/sgbuford.

Also his email addy is; StanleyG@ThyBlackMan.com.

The Song That Built a Neighborhood

Dolly Parton wrote “I Will Always Love You” in 1973 as a goodbye letter to her boss, Porter Wagoner, who she was leaving to go out on her own as a solo artist. This was the song that built a neighborhood. The tender song of love and heartache was written by the then young Parton and has become one of the most covered songs in history.

Some 20-odd years later, Whitney Houston would record her own version of the song for a film, creating one of the best-selling singles of all time. The Bodyguard was a global phenomenon, in which Parton would again collect all the songwriter royalties from the song’s massive success. And as for the actual money, Parton would later reveal how that was spent too.

The best purchase she made with that cash, according to Parton, was a strip mall in a historically Black neighborhood in Nashville. “It was mostly just Black families and people that lived around there,” she said. “And I thought that this was the perfect place for me to be, considering that it was Whitney. I’m just going to be down here with her people, who are my people as well. This is the house that Whitney built.”

That was not a press release. That was a woman who made about $10 million from the voice of a Black artist and would go on to invest hugely in the Black community.

Whitney Houston: A Friendship Rooted in Respect

Dolly Parton told Andy Cohen that one thing she wished had happened during Whitney’s time on earth is to have had the opportunity to sing with her. “I wish that could’ve happened,” she said. “I would have loved that. But I don’t think I could have come up to snuff with her, though. She’d have out-sung me on that one for sure.”

That kind of humility is rarely seen. Dolly Parton is one of the greatest songwriters of all time and yet here she was handing all of the credit to one of the greatest singers of all time for a fantastic version of her song. She celebrated it by allowing Whitney’s masterpiece to stand on its own unique merit and honored the song’s new meaning by investing the proceeds to help kids from less fortunate backgrounds.

There was clearly a lot of respect between Parton and Whitney – and all of this transcended genre, race, and age. This was proof that true admiration has no boundary lines.

Beyoncé, Cowboy Carter, and a Door Wide Open

Beyoncé released her highly-anticipated studio album, Cowboy Carter, on March 29, 2024. The album which explores the deep roots of country music by Black artists secured multiple Grammy wins for the global superstar. Not only did the Queen reinvent the hit “Jolene” written and recorded by the Queen of Country, Dolly Parton, but Dolly was thrilled with the interpretation.

“She’s giving that girl some trouble,” Parton said about Beyoncé’s Jolene, “and she deserves it!” Dolly appeared on Cowboy Carter performing the album’s interlude “Dolly P” and also the song “Tyrant”. She opened the door wide open and walked through it with Beyoncé.

Dolly Parton died on August 25, 2026, at age 80, and Beyoncé called her “the barometer” and “The North Star.” She also wrote, “You taught so many lessons on how to be uniquely yourself and I’m so honored that I got to work with you. I will treasure that forever.”

That is not a tribute to write to someone you barely knew. That is a tribute to write to someone who has inspired you to see your place in music history.

The Imagination Library: 300 Million Books and Counting

Dolly Parton founded the Imagination Library in 1995. Every month of every year from birth to age five children could receive a brand new, free book in the mail. Regardless of the income of their parents or where they lived in the world.

Her father could not read a book. She wanted to change that for every child on the planet to grow up in a home where there were books, everywhere.

Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library was already distributing free books to children all over the world and by the time of her passing, It had gifted more than 304 million books to children in the United States, Canada, the UK, Australia, and Ireland. For children in Black households and in poverty-stricken communities where the public library is far, that single book every month was frequently the only new book they had. Children who are not reading proficiently by the third grade are four times more likely to not graduate from high school in time, according to research. Dolly Parton was fighting against this long before it became a topic of conversation.

She Said It When It Wasn’t Easy to Say

It was a chaotic time in the world in 2020. George Floyd was killed and the Black Lives Matter movement erupted across the country with protests filling the streets in every town and city. Most celebrities remained silent but Dolly Parton was not one of them.

“Of course Black lives matter,” she said. Simple. Direct. No hedging. This statement was especially courageous and risky for a country music singer who has a mostly white fan base, but she said it anyway.

Dolly Parton also donated $1 million to the Vanderbilt University Medical Center to support both the research and the treatment for the coronavirus which was rapidly spreading across the world in that same year. Funding from her donation helped to develop the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. The pandemic — and its resulting hospitalizations and deaths — have hit Black communities particularly hard. Dolly’s contribution to coronavirus research, therefore, is in part a racial-justice donation.

She even took “Dixie” off of one of her own branded attractions in 2018, rebranding it quietly without any form of drama. “As soon as you realize something is wrong you should fix it,” she told Billboard. Wise words and a good show of accountability without debate.

Closing Thoughts: Whose Celebration Is This, Really?

Dolly Parton hailed from a very small cabin in the hills of East Tennessee with 12 other siblings, and they had very little money and few opportunities. That origin shaped her in terms of being generous and of knowing what it is like to need something and not able to have it.

She also knew that it was Black artists, Black audiences and Black cultural institutions that had lifted her to her highest height. Whitney Houston made her a global songwriter. Beyoncé made her a country music revolutionary. And Black fans chose to embrace her as one of their own and made her a legend.

Dolly Parton repaid the favor in the form of strip malls, a scholarship program, millions of children’s books and two simple words of praise at the precise moment to deliver them.

As Beyoncé said, she was the North Star. And our beloved friend will be deeply missed by the Black community that she so adored and that so adored her as well.

Associate Editor; Stanley G. Buford

Feel free to connect with this brother via Twitter; Stanley G. and also facebook; http://www.facebook.com/sgbuford.

Also his email addy is; StanleyG@ThyBlackMan.com.

1. Dolan Accepted Without Asking the Players

Dolan accepted the invitation before even asking the players if they would attend. In an interview with New York Magazine, Jalen Brunson explained that he and the other players hadn’t even discussed the possibility of visiting the White House before Dolan announced that the team would be going. “We haven’t discussed it,” Brunson said. “But as a team, we’ll discuss it, and we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.” That was not agreement from the players. This is a player being as diplomatic as possible in expressing his team’s position on visiting the White House.

2. This Is a Personal Favor, Not a Presidential Honor

Dolan and Trump have been friends for thirty years. In fact, in Game 3 of the NBA Finals, Dolan personally extended an invitation for Trump to attend the game and then even sat with him in the owner’s box. As political strategist Antjuan Seawright told ESPN, “I think the only reason the Knicks received the invite is because of the relationship with the owner and Donald Trump.’’ This is just a friend doing a favor for a friend and the players will be nothing more than props in Dolan’s attempt to repay a favor to Trump.

3. Trump Was Booed Inside Madison Square Garden

New York spoke on June 8th and it was clear. When the jumbotron at MSG showed an image of Trump at Game 3 of the NBA Finals, the crowd at the home of the Knicks erupted in loud, sustained, and intense booing. The fans who supported this club through 53 years of disappointment made their opinions on Trump’s attendance very clear. Why would the team honor that attendance with a party?

4. The “Trump Curse” Is Real in Knicks Lore Now

Game 3 was the only game in which the Knicks lost in the entire NBA Finals series. It was also the only game in which Donald Trump appeared to root for them. Following the loss, Knicks fans went to MSG to burn sage and try to clear the space of any negative energy left behind by Trump’s visit. That may sound superstitious, but the sentiment is totally real: Trump’s presence at the game felt like a bad omen, not an honor. Visiting him now would be a strange way for the team to celebrate.

5. Josh Hart Has Already Made His Position Clear

On the other hand, another player for the Knicks, Josh Hart, let his voice be heard during the 2020 presidential election. When referring to Donald Trump, Hart stated that Trump is a “dumbass” and wrote this on his social media account not once but twice. For this reason, if the Knicks were to be invited to the White House, Hart would have to be left out of the occasion. This in turn could lead to a huge media circus, with Hart as the center of attention, which would be very awkward for the team.

6. Every NBA Champion During Trump’s First Term Said No

Not a single NBA championship team during Trump’s first term in office traveled to the White House for a celebratory visit. The Golden State Warriors publicly declined two separate invites for the White House visit. With the highly politicized atmosphere of Trump’s White House and the already very divided politics, the players played it safe. The politics would be too much for most of the players, and as we have all come to realize, they are not naive to the political implications that come with a White House visit for a sports team. The Knicks would not just be ending the streak for NBA championship teams, but would add an even greater layer of complexity as fans and media compare the situations to the two previous declines by the Golden State Warriors.

7. New York City’s Mayor Wasn’t Subtle About It Either

Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who led the Keys to the City ceremony, represents the political opposite of Donald Trump. The city that hosted this championship parade, packing the Canyon of Heroes for the parade of Jalen Brunson and the rest of the team, voted overwhelmingly against Trump in the last elections. So for the team to celebrate with Mamdani and the rest of New Yorkers in the days following their championship, and then turn around and celebrate with Trump at the White House, would send a contradictory message to the city that made this possible.

8. The Celebration Already Happened — And It Was Perfect

Millions turned out for the ticker-tape parade through the Canyon of Heroes after the Knicks won their first NBA championship in 53 years. Jalen Brunson held the Larry O’Brien Trophy on a float while the city lost its collective mind. They got to hold the championship trophy, and then they got to hold the keys to the city. That celebration was enough. There is nothing that a visit to the White House could add to that, and nothing that the fans would want added to it.

9. The Timing Looks Like a Political Statement

Visiting the White House is a tradition for teams right after winning a championship. But that does not mean it is mandatory. When a team decides not to visit the White House after winning a championship, it is news for a day, and then it is forgotten for good. But when a team does visit the White House after winning a championship and the visit turns into a political flashpoint, the team and its players are then harassed for years by the visit and the way that it is perceived. Given the current national politics, when the Knicks visit the White House, it will not be perceived as a neutral sports tradition but rather as an endorsement. That is not how the Knicks’ legacy should be defined. The Knicks’ legacy should be defined by the players and by the fans, not by the friendship of one owner and the President of the United States.

10. The Players Earned This Championship. The Choice Should Be Theirs.

Jalen Brunson played through injury and pressure to put the team in position to win its first title in over half a century. His teammates grinded through a 13 game winning streak. The players earned this championship. They deserve to decide how it is celebrated and by who. The locker room has yet to discuss whether or not the team should celebrate at the White House but James Dolan has already signed them up for the event before the team has even discussed it. That was a mistake and the players should have the final say.

Whose Celebration Is This, Really? 

The Knicks won a championship for all of New York — the fans, the city, and the kids who grew up all across the city waiting for a moment like this. The way they celebrate matters greatly. This is not a celebration of a championship that will be enhanced by a White House visit driven by the owner’s personal relationship with the President. It will be a complicated event and the players should determine for themselves whether or not they wish to cross that bridge.

Associate Editor; Stanley G. Buford

Feel free to connect with this brother via Twitter; Stanley G. and also facebook; http://www.facebook.com/sgbuford.

Also his email addy is; StanleyG@ThyBlackMan.com.

Instead of another press release criticizing the unlawful actions of certain states, the NAACP would launch a campaign focused on an area in which those states are highly concerned — money, sports, and the talent that the two bring to a state.

The Ruling That Started All of This

The case at issue was Louisiana v. Callais. In April, the Supreme Court’s six-justice conservative majority found that a congressional map drawn up by the legislature to create two majority-black districts for two members of Congress constituted an illegal racial gerrymander. Essentially, the lines were drawn to aid in the creation of districts in which Black voters would have a majority and thus real representation in Congress. But according to the court, that was discriminatory.

Justice Elena Kagan in a scathing dissent noted that her colleagues’ decision effectively renders Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — the part that protected the interests of minority voters when maps were gerrymandered to silence their votes — into oblivion. This was the core part of the Act that had been used since 1982 to challenge prejudiced mapmaking all over the country. The decision of the six justices was going to allow states for the first time in decades to redraw the lines of their congressional districts without much fear of being challenged in court.

States like Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina began redrawing districts within months. Mississippi and Texas followed suit. The maps showed a marked decline in the number of majority-black congressional districts for black voters.

“Out of Bounds”: The NAACP’s Answer

The NAACP responded to the court’s ruling two weeks later with the launch of “Out of Bounds” campaign. Simply stated, the campaign asks that if a state is taking away the political power of Black people, then Black athletes should not help build the wealth of that same state through college athletics.

“Out of Bounds” started with a simple observation from NAACP President, Derrick Johnson. He said Black athletes have built up some of the country’s most profitable college sports programs. The revenue from these programs are pouring into the coffers of the states that are simultaneously stripping away the voting power of their Black citizens. Johnson’s message was clear — until something changes, Black athletes should take their money elsewhere.

The campaign asks Black student-athletes, recruits, alumni and fans to take their support away from public universities in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. These are the states where almost every school on the list is a member of the Southeastern Conference (SEC), the most profitable college sports operation in the country.

Why Sports? Why Now?

Nothing else has moved fast enough and lawsuits can take years to be heard in a court of law. Elections are held months away. Protests bring attention for a moment and then typically fade away within a matter of days or weeks, without forcing any changes within the state’s legislative bodies. Money, on the other hand, brings a response by morning.

D.L. Hughley recently explained why a boycott would be effective in bringing attention to this cause. He said that if the top athletes in the country stopped going to Tennessee and Louisiana then the university presidents, ESPN executives, and local chambers of commerce would be making phone calls in a short amount of time. The economic pressure of a serious boycott is one of the few things that will prompt action in a short amount of time and that is why this approach is effective than protests alone.

Some notable boycotts in the past have yielded similar results. The NFL moved the 1993 Super Bowl from Arizona after the state refused to recognize a federal holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. day. The NCAA similarly moved several championship events from North Carolina after the state passed the anti-LGBTQ bathroom bill. Both states later reversed the laws in question. The important thing to note here is that the playbook works when institutions have much to lose.

The Congressional Black Caucus Adds Pressure

But the NAACP wasn’t alone in its response to the illegal redistricting. The Congressional Black Caucus sent a letter the day before the “Out of Bounds” campaign launched to the commissioners of the Southeastern Conference and Atlantic Coast conference, and to the president of the NCAA, Charlie Baker.

In a strongly worded message, the Congressional Black Caucus expressed its absolute outrage that the redistricting happening in member states, is being condemned by conference leaders. Unless conference leaders across the country publicly denounce the unconstitutional actions taking place in the states where their member schools reside, the CBC vowed to oppose the SCORE Act currently making its way through Congress. The SCORE Act would allow college athletes to sign contracts with anyone, standardizing athlete rights across the country. Conference leaders would be loathe to see the SCORE Act taken down. Holding that bill hostage was a very serious threat.

The CBC stated in their letter that all institutions who profit from the talent of Black athletes have a responsibility to stand with the Black community when their fundamental rights are being attacked. The silence from the conferences and from the NCAA will not be interpreted as neutrality, but rather, as a choice.

What This Actually Means for the SEC

Black athletes make up a substantial majority of rosters on top teams in both SEC football and basketball. A serious boycott of recruitment to these programs could therefore affect depth charts and scholarship classes within one or two seasons. These changes would affect how a team would fare in comparison to other schools in terms of rankings. Programs that rely so heavily on their ability to land the very best young talents from Georgia, Alabama, and Florida would quickly feel the effect of a boycott.

The counter from some governors such as South Carolina’s was immediate. They claimed that the athletes should not be used as political pawns. The NAACP had framed the campaign in a way that anticipated this response however. Instead of arguing over whether athletes should be used for politics, the question was whether they would choose to be used for their politics or someone else’s.

What’s Actually at Stake

This is not really about football. It’s about what happens to a community that has lost its voice in politics and has turned to find another lever to pull.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed into law after peaceful marchers were beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama while attempting to exercise their right to vote. The law was put into place because the courts and Congress realized that without federal protection, the voting rights of African Americans would be taken away state by state.

That is what is happening today — only instead of fire hoses and beatings, maps and legal briefs are being used to deny citizens their right to vote. Being angry about this is appropriate. The NAACP’s response says: don’t just stay angry — make the anger count. If the institutions won’t protect your vote, make them feel what your absence look like.

Associate Editor; Stanley G. Buford

Feel free to connect with this brother via Twitter; Stanley G. and also facebook; http://www.facebook.com/sgbuford.

Also his email addy is; StanleyG@ThyBlackMan.com.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday struck down the most potent tool for Black Americans and other communities of color to fight discriminatory voting districts. The case was called Louisiana v. Callais, and the court’s decision to gut the tool feels like a body blow.

Let’s Back Up. What Was the Voting Rights Act?

The Voting Rights Act was signed into law in 1965, a pivotal moment in the history of American democracy emerging from the turmoil of the Civil Rights Movement marked by images of fire hoses spraying and police dogs biting at the feet of peaceful protesters as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma on what became known as Bloody Sunday. But that burst of dramatic imagery was followed by a steadfast resolve and Congress finally said enough. Poll taxes and literacy tests were to be no more, and, more importantly, other dirty tricks that had long been employed to keep large numbers of African Americans from being able to vote would henceforth be scrutinized by Justice Department lawyers and examined by federal courts before being allowed to remain in effect.

Section 2 of the law focuses on a specific way that states have been known to water down minority communities’ voting power. Thanks to this law, politicians cannot use district maps as a weapon to silence your neighborhood.

The law was designed to protect the voting rights of Black citizens and provided a safeguard for other minorities as well. In reality, it worked. For decades, this law helped ensure that Black citizens had real representation in Congress as well as at the state and local levels. Latino communities and Native American communities also gained representation as they earned the right to send people who actually looked them to Congress. Yes, the law was not perfect, but it was a safeguard – a necessary one given the country’s dark history of disenfranchising minority citizens.

So, What Just Happened?

Louisiana had been ordered to redraw its Congressional map to create a second majority-Black district. Once remapped, Black voters in the state elected their own choice of representatives to Congress for the first time. Then a group of white voters sued, claiming the map was an illegal “racial gerrymander.”

The Supreme Court agreed with the white voters and ruled in their favor. The Supreme Court majority, which consists of six-justice conservatives, says using race in redistricting is nearly always unacceptable — even when it is used to counteract a history of exclusion.

Justice Elena Kagan was not pleased. She wrote a furious dissent to the majority’s decision to strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Three words jump out from her opinion: dead, letter, law.

What Does This Mean for Your Household?

I’m wondering if anyone has even noticed that this court decision has nothing to do with the state of Louisiana. But everything to do with every state in the country. And that’s because under this new standard, districts can be gerrymandered to exclude Black and brown people from the voting pool – so long as you call it partisan politics instead of racism, the courts will likely let it stand.

Other states such as Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi and South Carolina will soon be contending with the redistricting process as well. In Florida, legislators held a special legislative session within hours of the Supreme Court’s ruling and began redrawing Congressional districts.

An NPR analysis of congressional districts found that under a new plan for redistricting, white candidates might win 15 seats now held by Black members of Congress, the largest reduction in Black congressional representation since the end of the Reconstruction era in the 1870s. Another NPR analysis found that as many as 19 districts that currently have majority, or plural minority populations could flip to Republican candidates.

So, what does this mean in real life? Less Black representation in Congress, fewer voices advocating for the school funding your kids need, fewer voices pushing back on policies that impact your health care, housing, and neighborhood development.

But I Thought My Vote Still Counts?

Every vote counts. But where you vote may count for more. That’s because of a practice called gerrymandering, in which politicians redraw the boundaries of voting districts to include the voters of their choice rather than the other way around. Just recently, the Supreme Court made it even easier for politicians to engage in this practice by race.

Redistricting can change the neighborhood you live in. If your block is 80% Black under current district lines, chances are that you live in a district where your neighborhood is grouped together with other predominantly Black areas to create a strong voting district. Under new district lines, that same block could be carved up and divided amongst three or more different legislative districts, which could result in your neighborhood becoming a minority in each of those districts. Your vote would still count, but it wouldn’t matter as much.

What Can Actually Be Done?

The fight is not over but it’s moving to a different arena.

While some forms of voting reform are seemingly beyond Congress’ power to implement, legislation is still pending that could inject federal protections back into the democratic process. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act would achieve this purpose, though they have previously stalled. There is, however, a difference between failing to pass legislation during a Republican-dominated Congress as opposed to a Democratic-controlled one, and the political reality shifts considerably with the approach of midterm elections and a surge of public awareness on the issue. It remains to be seen whether these factors are enough to drive the legislation over the finish line.

Although federal voting rights laws are frozen, states are free to enact their own voting rights law. And some are already doing it—so why not where you live? If your state legislature included members who actually represent your community of work, your community of color, your senior citizens, people with disabilities, then they should be acting on your behalf to protect your voting rights now.

These races matter a lot — especially locally, city councils, school boards, state legislatures. Redistricting happens at every level of government, not just Congress.

“The Supreme Court betrayed Black voters, they betrayed America, and they betrayed our democracy” — NAACP President Derrick Johnson. But despite this setback, the communities that have been told they’re beneath the status quo of American democracy have suffered the greatest losses, and it is they who will not be deterred by the Supreme Court’s regression. In fact, they will redouble their efforts and take to the streets and the polling places for the next election.

The anger is legitimate, and this is not the end of the fight. It is the beginning of a new phase of it.

Associate Editor; Stanley G. Buford

Feel free to connect with this brother via Twitter; Stanley G. and also facebook; http://www.facebook.com/sgbuford.

Also his email addy is; StanleyG@ThyBlackMan.com.

If passed, it would:

Require a passport or birth certificate just to register or update your information.

Ban most online and mail voter registration.

Purge voters from the rolls without notice.

Disenfranchise married women voters.

Every couple of years, it becomes apparent that another U.S. election is headed to a runoff. Most people have no idea who comes up with these rules. Even fewer understand why they were put in place. This is the story of Denmark Groover and the election law that was never about ensuring that the voting process was equitable.

In 1958, a Georgia politician named Denmark Groover was upset that he was defeated in his bid for re-election to the state House of Representatives. He had no criticisms of the way he ran his campaign or the positions he took. He was simply outraged that so many black voters chose to support his opponent.

He claimed that he lost because of a growing Negro voting bloc. Black voters in Georgia voted as a group and helped defeat him. To Groover, that was an issue that needed to be addressed, and he spent the next five years trying to address it.

The System That Came Before

Eventually, we’ll get to Groover’s fix, but it’s helpful to have a general understanding of the voting system in Georgia prior to 1963.

For decades, Georgia had used the county unit system. It’s a bit like the Electoral College, but different. Each of the 159 counties in Georgia got a certain number of “unit votes” based on their population. Small rural counties were given the same number of votes as large cities like Atlanta. This means that a vote in a small rural county had significantly greater impact than a vote in Atlanta.

It was a way to preserve power in the countryside for white voters. It worked exactly as it was intended until the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963 ruled it unconstitutional on grounds of “one person, one vote,” that votes must count equally for all citizens.

For Groover and his fellow segregationists, the losses were devastating. The old shield had fallen. Now they needed to acquire a new one in a hurry.

Groover’s Plan

After being ousted as the House Speaker, Groover reappeared in the legislature in 1962. His mission was to curb the growing voting strength of African Americans. During a speech in the House of Georgia, he alerted fellow legislators to an impending danger in elections, arguing that unless there was a change in voting procedures, blacks would soon gain electoral control, and that was a threat. To counter this perceived threat, Groover urged his colleagues to implement voter registration requirements that would make it more difficult for minorities to vote.

Under the old plurality system, whoever gets the most votes wins, it’s pretty cut and dry. Groover’s idea was to change the threshold of votes to more than 50% to be deemed the victor. If no one is able to reach that benchmark, then the person with the most and second-most votes would advance to a runoff election.

In most elections in Georgia, several white candidates would run, and the white voters would fragment their votes over several candidates. This fragmentation allowed the Black-supported candidate to win the election, though black voters were fewer in number, but could unite behind a single candidate and push them to victory under the plurality system.

Groover’s runoff eliminated that possibility. If a black-supported candidate would have made it to the runoff, the strategy was to have white voters from each side of the partisan unite to vote for the white candidate. The odds were always with the majority. Groover himself articulated his purpose. He promoted his measure as a means to “prevent the Negro bloc vote from controlling the elections.”

It Became Law

In 1964, Georgia’s General Assembly passed a bill called the Groover runoff bill and it got signed into law by the governor. Tucked away in the bill as a preamble to the voting changes was a section calling for a literacy test. A test that had long been a device to keep Black people from being allowed to vote in the first place.

The runoff was introduced in primary elections. It was adopted for general elections following the contentious 1966 contest for governor. By then, Georgia had one of the more stringent majority vote requirements in the nation. It was the only state to require a runoff in every general election in which no candidate obtained a majority of more than 50 percent of the vote.

Louisiana would later implement a comparable system. But Georgia’s system is unique because the paper trail leads back to a man who, two decades after this compact was signed, would admit to what he had done.

His Own Words

Years after the fact, Groover would candidly testify in a legal deposition about his actions on election day. “I was a segregationist,” he said. “I was a county unit man. But if you want to find out whether I was racially prejudiced, I was. If you want to find out that some of my political activity was racially motivated, it was.”

That’s rare in the history of American politics. While most architects of voter suppression have never acknowledged the racial motivations behind their efforts, Groover did. And to his credit, he later changed his views on this issue too. Before he died in 2001, he came out in favor of revising the official state flag of Georgia, which has at its center the Confederate battle emblem — another symbol he came to regret promoting. At the age of seventy-eight, while in poor health, he went to the statehouse to ask the legislature to retire it.

But later changing your mind won’t change what the law did, nor does it change what the law is still doing today.

The Legacy Lives On

If it sounds like an old story, that is because it is an old story. However, what makes it new is the fact that a regulation created by Groover, concerning runoff election rules in Georgia, is still active and used in every state election when a candidate does not receive over 50% of the vote. It’s been noted by historians and political scientists that modern-era minorities are also impacted by the rules Groover set in motion — despite there being no written intent today, the negative effect of the rules remain present.

Turnout typically drops in runoff elections. Fewer people vote the second time around. And the voters who tend to sit out second rounds are often those who face the most barriers: people without easy access to transportation, people working two jobs, people with less of a tradition of voting because, for generations, they were actively kept from doing so.

Professor Morgan Kousser of the California Institute of Technology put it simply: when voting is racially polarized, majority-vote rules discriminate against whoever is in the minority.

A law or policy does not have to mention the word “race” in order to have a disparate impact on racial groups. That is what Denmark Groover sought to avoid. Now you will think of Denmark Groover every time you hear the term “runoff” — and the reason it exists.

Associate Editor; Stanley G. Buford

Feel free to connect with this brother via Twitter; Stanley G. and also facebook; http://www.facebook.com/sgbuford.

Also his email addy is; StanleyG@ThyBlackMan.com.

There is a point, a space in time, somewhere above the clouds, but before the stars appear. Where the noise of our daily lives — drops away. And all that is left is a vast, empty, silent space where we are left with our own presence in that space. A silence that astronaut Victor J. Glover has seen 3,000 times as he resides above the Earth on the International Space Station (ISS) for nearly six months. And will again experience in March when he travels to the moon aboard the NASA Orion spacecraft for the Artemis mission.

A historic moment in space exploration is about to be reached. Astronaut Glover and his team are set to board the Artemis II spaceship. This will be the first time humans have visited the moon since the Apollo 17 mission over half a century ago. However, this is more than just about traveling in space or reaching a planet. It is also about the historic feat of the person who will set foot on the moon. Victor Glover, an astronaut in the Artemis II mission, is expected to become the first Black person in space to visit the moon. He will be followed by becoming the first Black man to walk on the moon in a subsequent mission of the Artemis program. Glover will have achieved two remarkable records in a relatively short period of time.

This is an exploration story for many, but for me, this is also a story of connection. Victor Glover and this writer share three things in common. Three values that define us as people and define the way we view the world. First, we are followers of Christ. Second, we are believers in science and technology. Third, we are members of the noble fraternity of Phi Beta Sigma. As I watch my brother ascend into space, I know that I would be witnessing something special happen. Not only will I be witnessing history being written, but I’ll be also watching him take our shared values to new heights in space.

Faith in the Cockpit

Glover says he is an “open” practicing Christian, affiliated with the Church of Christ. He prays before every flight he takes everything from an F/A-18 ride to launching a mission to the moon atop a rocket. His faith, he explains, is not an emergency generator; it is the foundation upon which everything else rests.

He has plainly said that his faith was the “money in the bank” that paid off in his military and scientific career. He was once asked about the old saying that there were no atheists in foxholes, and he agrees, but smiles and adds, “And there aren’t no atheists on top of a rocket either.” He goes on to add that his faith is deeper than just a last-minute prayer in an emergency. Rather, it is an attitude of humble submission to the unknown and wonder for the mysterious — and nowhere is that attitude more naturally at home than in the cosmos.

During his six months aboard the International Space Station, Glover took communion in orbit. In a photo posted on Twitter, Glover is shown floating near the ceiling of the International Space Station (ISS) receiving the elements of the Eucharist using pre-packaged wafer and cup. “It taught me that space didn’t make the Lord’s Supper any more special,” Glover tweeted later in the month. “The act was already sacred. Location is incidental. The promise is everything.”

“I should have known that before getting here,” he admitted. “But now I know that in my bones.”

Science and Scripture: A False Divide

Glover is a Navy test pilot, an engineer, and a 26-year veteran of the military. He has done spacewalks in the emptiness of space. He knows the equations. He also opens the Bible. And he has given considerable thought to why so many people feel that those two things cannot be mixed.

He waves away the supposed “war” between Genesis and physics with the air of someone who has been having this conversation for years. “Tell me what cosmology says about the origin of the universe,” he invites. The Big Bang—the explosion that scatters light and energy in space. The universe cools and grows dark. The first stars are ignited, and then heavy elements are formed into planets with atmospheres and oceans. “Now, read Genesis 1:1-19,” he invites. He’s simply pointing out the obvious coincidence between cosmology and Genesis.

The fact that the theoretical physics of the origin of the universe is confirmed, even supported, by the Bible and the Bible confirmed and supported by the findings of science doesn’t necessarily mean that there are two separate accounts of two separate events. As Glover puts it: “Two different languages describe one tremendous event.”

Glover is due to become the first black person to walk around the periphery of the moon in March of this year. An obvious reason why the moon is very special to him. It is estimated by scientists to be around 4.5 billion years old, which is a snapshot of the very early days of our solar system. Some religious people find this hard to reconcile with the Bible, but it doesn’t cause any issues for Glover. He said: “The power of the Gospel is not in a timeline. It’s in that message, in that promise.” He doesn’t need the universe to be young to be convinced that the universe is loved.

A Phi Beta Sigma Man Among the Stars

What NASA isn’t reporting is another side of Victor Glover that we in the fraternity need to acknowledge. Victor Glover is a member of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Incorporated. Black Greek-letter organizations were founded in 1906 on the campus of Howard University, and Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity was chartered at the Alpha chapter on January 9, 1914, on the principles of Brotherhood, Scholarship, and Service.

For millions of Sigma men worldwide, Glover’s accomplishments will evoke a very special feeling. Phi Beta Sigma fraternity was founded upon the creed of brotherhood, and brotherhood is not just a word – it is a promise, a solemn pledge, and an unbreakable bond of principles that transcend time and space, education and profession. Every Sigma man in the world will feel a very personal attachment to the Sigma brother who navigates in a space suit while orbiting the moon.

One aspect of Glover’s achievement is lost in the discussion of him being the first Black astronaut selected for a moon mission by NASA—although that aspect is certainly a part of his achievement. What is more important is the fact that for Glover, his love of Christ, his love of science and technology, and his love of Phi Beta Sigma have been blended into such a unique mixture that history will have to take note of him for the rest of time.

Three Pillars, One Launch

In March, the Orion capsule; Artemis II, that will take people to the lunar surface for the first time in more than 50 years will at last leave the tower that supports it, rise up from the launch pad, break free of Earth’s gravitational pull, and take up into space. And Victor J. Glover will be at the controls of this rocket. He’ll be focusing, of course, on the mission plan, on navigation, and on a million and one details that he’s no doubt mastered during years of preparation. But he’ll most certainly be praying, as this writer will; for a safe journey for the entire crew.

And somewhere here, across the world, there will be millions of people who feel an irreplaceable connection to this man – loved ones, acquaintances, or strangers – watching profoundly because of his special place in their lives. And as the rocket carrying one of their number rises, ascends on a parabola, and disappears into the distance on its journey to the moon, millions of people will also be carrying a load. An invisible load that cannot be measured or assessed in any way. A load of faith, of identity, of brotherhood.

The heavens declare the glory of God, the Psalmist wrote. In March, a Sigma man — a Christian, an engineer, a pilot, a father — will go up to listen. And when he comes back down, he will report to the rest of us what he heard. Godspeed to Victor J. Glover!

Associate Editor; Stanley G. Buford

Feel free to connect with this brother via Twitter; Stanley G. and also facebook; http://www.facebook.com/sgbuford.

Also his email addy is; StanleyG@ThyBlackMan.com.

Close to the 2026 midterms, tension spreads across the U.S., not only over outcomes but over doubts about election stability. Though Donald Trump serves his second year in office again, slipping support, financial stress, and public frustration grow stronger. Because of this mix, certain Democrats along with oversight groups now wonder – could he twist the rules in 2026 by stretching presidential authority beyond normal limits?

This isn’t saying it will occur. Just looking at how it might unfold – because new shifts are making people pay closer attention now. Still, nothing confirms it’s coming.

A Tough Political Landscape for 2026

Not looking good for the party holding the White House when past patterns show up. Voters tend to punish the president during midterms, especially if things feel off by election time. Signs already hint that 2026 might hit Republicans hard. As tariff-driven price hikes spread, Trump’s favor numbers may dip further. On top of that, growing splits within the GOP could make matters worse.

Should Democrats make gains in Congress, control might shift in ways that limit what the current White House can push through. With one or both houses possibly changing hands, efforts built on tight alignment and top-down decisions may stall. A loss of firm grip often follows when outside forces gain footing. Momentum now leans toward disruption of long-held strategies. What was once shielded by majority support could face repeated delays. Power reshuffled tends to slow down bold moves. Fewer allies in key rooms makes advancement harder. Plans once fast-tracked might get stuck in debate. Influence fades when numbers slip. Room for maneuver shrinks under new math.

It depends on the situation. When leaders sense their power slipping, they often push against rules – particularly if they think the system was never on their side to begin with.

Emergency Powers Are Lawful, Broad—and Vulnerable to Abuse

Fifty years back, the power sat mostly unused. Now it triggers with a signature. A crisis claim flips access to toolkits buried in law books. One pen stroke opens paths once blocked. Military shifts follow. Rules pause without debate. Authority grows quiet, then sudden.

Back then, leaders tapped into these authorities during crises like war or disease outbreaks. Still, some point out the word “emergency” bends easily – especially since presidents get first call on when it applies.

A situation like mass election meddling, online attacks, chaos at polling sites, or lies spread by rivals might be called a crisis big enough for Washington to step in. Though calling off voting completely would likely spark lawsuits, declaring an emergency still lets officials boost monitoring, send soldiers, or push hard on security measures – each of which can quietly reshape how people show up and cast ballots.

Funny thing is, the real risk isn’t the rule on paper. It’s what happens when someone twists it to fit a hidden agenda.

Election Security Sparks Concerns

A strange scene unfolded lately when ex-Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard showed up amid an FBI move on voting safety – something party insiders called odd, even sketchy. Though officials at the presidential residence backed her presence, calling it key to safeguarding ballots, others saw only bad appearances. Because trust matters just as much as facts.

What stands out is not Gabbard alone. Instead, it’s a steady trend showing how election oversight now leans more on security logic than public participation. Elections seen less as democratic duties but more as dangers tend to hand control upward – to officials, not citizens. Power moves where attention goes; lately, that path leads from ballots straight into bureaucratic hands.

When paired with talk designed to question election honesty before anything even happens, that change feels more troubling.

The Precedent Problem

History shows why people worry now. When Trump lost in 2020, he did not accept it. False stories about voting errors spread through his words. Officials in key states faced pressure from him directly. That path led straight to what happened on January sixth. Back then, systems managed to survive – but cracks appeared. Exploiting those weak spots became part of the pattern.

Now what worries skeptics isn’t a rerun of January 6. Instead, it’s a quieter shift – reshaping election conditions through official powers instead of public demands. The concern grows not from chaos, yet from structured moves hiding behind legal forms. Power bends not by force, but by redefining rules where few are watching.

A crisis labeled an emergency over election safety might stick around longer, tougher to brush off or fix fast – particularly when lawmakers back the leader calling it. Happens easier when both branches move in step.

The Role of a Loyal Congress

Few things stand alone when crisis rules take effect. Ending such a state rests with lawmakers – yet it takes resolve along with numbers on roll call. Should the GOP keep either house after 2026, especially if loyalty within ranks stays tight, checks and balances might loosen right when they matter most.

This fear of a “puppet Congress” shows up here – not as name-calling, yet rooted in how systems break. One party holding both White House and lawmakers shifts balance toward personal refusal to go along. Should such resistance fade, unchecked authority finds firmer ground.

Why This Is Not Alarmism

Here’s the thing – looking into what might happen isn’t about claiming it will. The reason democracies endure. Folks start noticing warning signs long before trouble shows up.

When legal experts probe weak spots in a nation’s rules, they imagine what might happen if leaders twisted those rules. This kind of thinking does not weaken democratic foundations – instead, it arms them against harm. A test of law under pressure reveals more than flaws; it shows where guardrails hold.

Facing 2026 head-on means skipping these questions isn’t an option – too much rides on who gains ground then. With Trump’s path still taking shape, staying silent shifts things quietly behind the scenes.

What Protections Remain

Even with these worries, the American setup still has ways to respond. When needed, courts step in – sometimes without warning. Control of elections mostly stays with individual states. Watchdog groups keep close tabs on efforts to block voters. Pressure from citizens can still shift outcomes.

Declaring an emergency might backfire. Pushing too hard may spark pushback, speed up political setbacks, while stirring long-term defiance even among government workers. Still, leaders take that gamble when crisis hits.

Built-in protections mean nothing unless checked ahead of time. A test run matters more than plans on paper. Without trial, even strong barriers might fail when called upon. Waiting until crisis strikes is too late to verify defenses. Proof comes only through practice under real conditions.

Why Being Alert Is Important Today

It’s unusual for democracy to fall in a single moment. Usually, it fades by degrees, slipping away as odd changes become routine. One adjustment alone might look harmless. Yet stitched together, they pull the whole structure apart.

Close to 2026, people aren’t asking if Trump might shake up how elections work – just whether things can hold together when surprises come. Right now, claiming an emergency about voting safety could seem odd. Yet past events show it’s often the strange ideas we should watch most closely.

What we’ve learned lately shows something clear: trust lasts just as long as folks push for it to last. Starting those pushes means probing tough doubts early, way before lines get crossed by force.

Associate Editor; Stanley G. Buford

Feel free to connect with this brother via Twitter; Stanley G. and also facebook; http://www.facebook.com/sgbuford.

Also his email addy is; StanleyG@ThyBlackMan.com.

It stings when someone you admired shifts in ways you did not expect. What stood out was Nicki Minaj cheering on Trump and JD Vance during that AmericaFest rally in Phoenix. Instead of speaking up for those who rarely get heard, she called them examples worth looking up to. That moment cracked something inside me. My respect began long ago, back when her mixtapes roared through speakers, loud and unapologetic, lifting women’s voices in a space that often silenced them.

Who would have guessed Nicki Minaj might back MAGA? Her earlier words pointed elsewhere. Against every expectation, things look different today.

This wasn’t just some casual remark. Right there in a packed arena buzzing with devoted fans, Trump made it clear – he stood behind his ally.

The Artist Many of Us Believed In

What first got me was how bold Nicki Minaj sounded in her music. Her courage stood out most of all. From Trinidad originally, she moved somewhere new and pushed forward despite setbacks. Success came not because it was handed to her but due to drive and raw talent. A male-heavy industry didn’t stop her claiming her spot. Genre lines faded when she rapped or sang. Questions about who she really is often showed up in lyrics. Fitting in just to be accepted? That never seemed to interest her.

That year when the U.S. argued over border separations, Nicki Minaj spoke up – clear and firm – against Trump’s approach. Her voice carried weight because she had lived part of that journey herself, arriving long ago from Trinidad. When kids were taken from parents at checkpoints, she recalled how it might have felt if that happened to her. By 2020, she made another thing clear: riding along with Trump wasn’t something she’d do. It wasn’t just opinion – it came from watching what his presence stirred across the country. At the time, what he stood for didn’t match where she stood. What makes her sudden shift so shocking lies in what came before.

The AmericaFest Moment Wasn’t Neutral

A cheer rose that evening when Nicki Minaj stepped onto the stage at AmericaFest. Not neutrality, but clear alignment colored her words under the bright lights on December 21st, 2025. She spoke warmly about officials serving in Trump’s administration – calling them full of heart, driven by soul. Beside the President stood well-known figures from the conservative world. Hope, she claimed, flickered brighter under a possible second term for Trump. Her message pulsed with energy familiar to supporters of the ‘Make America Great Again’ slogan.

Few things shaped public view like the way he treated people with disabilities – ridiculing them without pause. His pattern of targeting immigrants stood out just as much as his habit of pushing unfounded claims. Authority always leaned heavily toward control, not dialogue. Prejudice weaved through speech after speech, year after year. Leadership during unrest did not bring calm but amplified division. Disregard for facts became routine rather than rare.

Mocking those who speak against Trump, rapper Nicki Minaj echoed Donald Trump’s harsh words. She repeated his mocking labels for rivals while making fun of how others see their gender. Not a vague statement, not support with hesitation – this was full-on backing. Her stance carried no confusion, just clear excitement on one side.

From Conviction to Access

Now fans wonder what’s changed with Nicki Minaj. Open about the shift, she called it a move toward standing on her own two feet – fed up with pressure from critics and the entertainment industry grinding daily. Standing by her backing of Trump, she framed it less as politics, more as refusing to bend when others expect silence.

Some believe bravery means feeling no fear at all. Standing alone for something you hold true can come with real challenges. It usually takes less effort to follow the crowd than to speak out. When facing tough odds, protecting vulnerable individuals remains a shared duty. In Phoenix, her presence did not simply show support for Trump – it slipped quietly into the halls of power. Changing your mind is fine. Yet not all shifts are equal.

Legacy Is About More Than Music

Who’d have thought pink wigs and punchlines would shift culture so hard? Her voice cut through noise nobody else dared touch. While others waited for permission, she claimed space loud and unapologetic. Lines sharp as knives, yet crowds sang every word like anthems. That kind of reach doesn’t come around often. History won’t forget how she rewrote the rules just by living them.

A mark that sticks around – one most artists never reach – shows up after the applause fades. Wealth, fame during active years matter less than what remains when curtains close. Speaking for people means getting their truths right, not just your own. A striking choice surfaced recently: Nicki Minaj leaning toward alignment with Donald Trump, despite past stances pointing elsewhere.

The Fanbase Divide Is Real

Some fans who stood by Nicki Minaj now stand apart, split into clear groups. Old loyalists feel betrayed, while others – especially people from Black circles, immigrant backgrounds, and LGBTQ+ spaces – voice sharp criticism. Scandal touched her, true. Still, she carried a spirit that refused to bend, a quiet strength worn like armor.

Expressing political opinions seems only fair to many artists. Trouble often shows up once ideas suggest improper behavior. Supporting a disliked regime among minority groups can reflect bias that weakens those very communities.

Now people see her differently. Praise for Donald Trump changed things fast. Onstage flirtation didn’t help. Standing beside Charlie Kirk’s widow added more weight. Ten million fans reached one clear conclusion together by unfollowing her on Instagram, which led to her deleting her Instagram account. This wasn’t just poor timing or awkward words. Calling him “handsome and dashing” stood out. So did claiming deep admiration. For someone whose actions hurt so many who backed her, it felt like a break. Not a mistake. A choice.

When fans started vanishing like this, things finally came into focus. Not loud outrage drove them away, nor any organized push against her. A slow drift carried people off, step by step. Silence marked their exit, no demands shouted, no petitions signed. What pulled them back wasn’t anger but misalignment – her words now clashed with who they were. Support slipped through fingers without drama. Only in absence does truth show its face.

When Disappointment Is Earned

Looking back, people often project their values onto artists, which clouds how complex humans really are. Wisdom does not necessarily come with insight or steady ethics – oddly enough. Yet right now, it somehow seems different.

Now supporting what she once spoke against, Nicki Minaj has shifted her stance on immigration despite past criticism of Trump’s approach. Her current alignment contradicts previous statements made in strong defense of immigrant rights. Though once firm in opposition, she appears to stand differently today than before.

Changing your mind is fine, she said during the talk. Even if doubts remain, even when feelings shift, movement toward fairness and shared respect tends to happen as nations and markets evolve – not the opposite.

Where That Leaves Me

Folks might not agree on Nicki Minaj backing Trump. One person separates music from politics. Another watches closely before deciding. Someone else already has reasons ready to explain her move.

A shift like this stands out, impossible to miss. Once, I looked up to Nicki Minaj – beyond just her songs. Her presence mattered because she came from a place rarely seen on stage. That absence, especially around ethnic identity, suddenly felt visible.

It seemed clear to me, back then, that knowing hardship firsthand shaped how she moved through the world. Her choices often leaned toward lifting people up instead of chasing status or connections.

Maybe her thoughts will shift. This current partnership might not last forever. Honestly, it feels disappointing when you look at everything. Finding out she wasn’t who I believed hurt the most. That realisation stung more than anything else.

She lost the crown which she wore not because someone took it away from her, but because she willingly gave it up. She chose to remain an important figure within the cultural scene; however, her priority was political validation.

That’s not growth in music.

That’s a trade.

A principle that many people find hard to respect. Nicki come to your senses because the same ones that made you will trade you!

Associate Editor; Stanley G. Buford

Feel free to connect with this brother via Twitter; Stanley G. and also facebook; http://www.facebook.com/sgbuford.

Also his email addy is; StanleyG@ThyBlackMan.com.