When Cromwell’s son Gregory, who became sickened as he watched his father devolving from counselor to monster, learned that an executioner for the queen had been sent for from France a week before her trial, he asked his father what the purpose of her trial was if the king had preordained the queen’s guilt and prepaid the executioner. Cromwell replied that the king needed a jury to give the appearance of legitimacy to her conviction and prevent the public perception of “the tyranny of one man’s opinion.”

In America, we have a Constitution not only to prevent the perception but also the reality of the tyranny of one man’s opinion. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment makes clear that if the government wants life, liberty or property, it cannot take it by executive command, but only by due process — a fair jury trial and all its constitutional protections; and Article I makes it clear that if the government wants war, it cannot commence it by executive command, but only by congressional declaration.

We have a Constitution also to assure the separation of powers in the federal government. Congress writes the laws, appropriates the taxpayers’ money and funds borrowed in their names and declares war when the United States is in danger of imminent foreign threat. The president enforces the laws, spends money as Congress directs and wages the wars Congress has authorized. The judiciary decides what the Constitution and the laws mean and, if properly challenged, determines if the president and Congress or the states have exercised their duties lawfully and constitutionally.

The central constitutional question is not whether a president sincerely believes that his policies are necessary. It is whether the Constitution permits personal liberty and limited government to depend upon the opinion of one man. That is the danger of executive government without effective legislative and judicial checks.

A fair reading of the Constitution begins with a truism: Presidential power is not whatever the president believes it to be. It is only what the Constitution and laws actually confer.

Consider the administration’s attacks on alleged drug-trafficking boats. President Donald Trump says he has directed military forces to strike narcotrafficking vessels and describes the operation as part of his campaign against fentanyl and cartels. But the constitutional question is separate from the president’s characterization of the targets. A person suspected of being a drug trafficker — or even a mass murderer — does not thereby become condemned to death. Criminal guilt always requires accusation, evidence and adjudication according to law, before punishment.

These boat killings are unlawful extrajudicial executions. In the language all Americans can understand, they are murders.

The same principle applies to Iran. The Framers deliberately divided the war powers. Article I gives Congress the power to declare war, authorize military force, regulate the armed forces and control appropriations. Article II makes the president commander in chief. The distinction matters. The president commands forces; Congress determines where and under what circumstances the president does so.

Trump has openly declared an American blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and said that the United States controls which ships pass through it. He has also imposed sanctions which deny food, medicine and currency stability to millions of innocent Iranians. He even threatened to murder all Iranians — beyond the thousands he has already killed — if a peace agreement is not soon reached.

Those statements highlight what the Constitution was designed to prevent one individual from addressing alone: Whether the United States should wage military and economic hostilities against the population of another nation.

Congress has repeatedly resisted treating the Iran conflict as a matter solely for presidential discretion. Just two weeks ago, support for Trump’s war failed to muster majorities in both houses of Congress.

Nor can the president’s personal assessment of Iran’s nuclear intentions settle the matter. In 2018, his State Department’s compliance report said Iran was fulfilling its nuclear-related non-proliferation commitments and U.S. intelligence had assessed with high confidence that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

In 2020, his State Department again said that Iran was not then engaged in key activities associated with designing and developing a nuclear weapon. In 2025, his Director of National Intelligence testified that the entire U.S. intelligence community continued to assess that Iran was not building nuclear weapons.

Those facts alone establish something constitutionally important: The president’s personal belief — whether informed or uninformed — is not evidence or law or a substitute for congressional authorization.

The same textual principle reaches domestic spending and taxation. Article I provides that only Congress can impose taxes, and money may be drawn from the Treasury only pursuant to appropriations made by law. Even though the Supreme Court has invalidated Trump’s tariffs, he continues to impose them. Even though Congress has not authorized funds for Trump’s vanity projects, he continues to spend tax dollars on them.

The Constitution does not grant any branch of government carte blanche. It has separated powers precisely because legislators, presidents and judges can all succumb to the corruption of power — and can all be wrong.

That is the deeper meaning of the tyranny of one man’s opinion. The danger is not merely that one president might be wrong. It is that a constitutional system becomes meaningless if one man’s conclusions about war, crime, taxation, spending, foreign threats or national security become the sole basis for government actions — particularly actions that kill innocents.

The Founders separated the sword from the purse and divided governmental power because they understood a truism: Personal liberty and limited government cannot long survive when entrusted to one man’s opinion.

Written by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Official website; https://twitter.com/Judgenap

Federal debt held by the public now equals the size of the annual economy — and is growing. Yet investors continue buying Treasury securities. No government bond sale has really failed, no one has suddenly refused to finance Washington’s spending, and no unmistakable moment has forced Congress to change course.

That leads some people I cross paths with in academic life to conclude that despite decades of dire warnings, we’ve managed to go from a 35% debt-to-GDP ratio in 2007 to 100% today with no devastating consequences. Their implication is that we can keep going right up to 175% in 2056, which is the trajectory if Congress fails to reform Social Security and Medicare and if interest rates rise only modestly.

The idea that all this debt won’t bring a reckoning may sound tempting, but it’s questionable at best.

First, markets have already reacted. The 2021-2022 inflation spike, the worst in four decades, was the price level adjusting to a $5 trillion flood of deficit spending that investors did not believe future fiscal surpluses would cover.

That fear led to inflation. It’s hard to believe we won’t get another market response when Congress commits to borrowing nearly 16 times what it did during COVID-19, plus interest payments, without any repayment plan.

Incidentally, interest rates are well above what we saw from 2009 to 2021 (back when fiscal doves thought rates would always stay low). Some of the recent increases come from AI investment raising the demand for capital. Also at work, though, is a higher term premium. With inflation still an issue and no fiscal austerity on the horizon, investors — still worried that future debt will be devalued rather than truly repaid — want more compensation for holding long-term treasuries.

But let’s just suppose Washington can stay the course without provoking a bond-market response. Assume that Uncle Sam can borrow an additional $138 trillion, including interest payments over the next 30 years — the amount projected by the Congressional Budget Office — and that there won’t be a market reaction that raises interest rates or inflation.

How? First, it could be that investors expect Congress to eventually reform entitlements by raising taxes, reducing benefits, or both, so it won’t need to increase borrowing. But if future Congresses don’t deliver, the reckoning will come.

Second, it could be that despite all the risks in this scenario, investors would still value treasuries as the safest and easiest assets to trade. The world still needs dollars. Given the messes Europe, the UK and other governments find themselves in, some of this could be true.

Third, there’s AI, which could supercharge economic growth. Faster productivity growth will mean higher incomes and a larger tax base, making debt easier to carry. But even here, there is no free lunch. AI investment may already be pushing up interest rates; a boom capable of substantially easing deficits would be even more likely to do so. So, as existing Treasury debt matures, it would be refinanced at higher prevailing rates.

Thus, faster growth improves the fiscal arithmetic, but whether it is enough depends on how fast the economy grows, how high borrowing costs rise and, ultimately, whether Washington continues running larger primary deficits.

Even if we assume the best-case scenario, this debt accumulation isn’t costless. A bond-market crisis is not the only danger. Government borrowing competes with private borrowers for the economy’s available savings, which is another way to end up with higher interest rates. It also means less private investment than we would otherwise have — in factories, software, housing and, yes, the very AI investments we are counting on to raise future growth.

Financing government spending through high and distortionary taxes carries its own economic costs. And, as my colleague Jack Salmon has documented, higher government debt is associated with slower growth. That matters even in a world where AI makes us richer.

Finally, government debt displaces other spending. Annual net interest payments now cost us more than national defense, and older, cheaper debt is being refinanced at today’s higher rates. Those are dollars that can’t shore up entitlements or help during the next emergency, when the ability to borrow matters most. CBO projects interest payments becoming the largest federal expenditure by 2040, consuming roughly 40% of the government’s revenue by 2056.

I wouldn’t count on markets to stay calm. But even the calm scenario means less investment, slower wage growth and a budget increasingly spent on past obligations. Without action and perhaps a more obvious cue to complacent congresses, the damage will continue, sometimes quietly, and the danger will grow.

Written by Veronique de Rugy

Official website; http://twitter.com/veroderugy

As we reflect on this very important subject, bearing in mind that a single article like this can barely scratch the surface, we do so not in the spirit of condemnation or censure of anyones belief but to understand and ascertain some essential truths that are vital for our spiritual edification. The aim here is for us to look at this subject and see what the Bible says and bring our thinking in line with the inspired and inerrant Word of God. We need to grasp the indispensable truth that every truly born again Christian has experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit and by that process is a child of God.

Let us begin our reflection, then, by looking at three aspects of this baptism.

First we examine the range of this baptism

Baptism of the Holy Spirit was never intended for some believers and not others, nor was it intended for a select few like pastors, deacons, missionaries and the like but not the ordinary layman. This thinking is erroneous and springs from those who want to claim some exclusivity, pretending that they are special, they have something that you, the average believer do not have and moreover they are hence superior. Some people in the church have always been inclined to set themselves apart and become exclusive and then lord it over the membership based on that exclusivity. The early church, and especially the Apostle Paul, fought against such teaching, one such was known then as Gnosticism, and today we must fight against this exclusivity based on wrongly interpreting baptism of the Holy Spirit. The range of this baptism is enormous as we shall see.

It was promised to all believers

John the Baptist while he was baptizing in the River Jordan told his listeners, I indeed baptize you with waterbut he that cometh after mehe shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. (Matthew 3:11) John was setting the stage for all believers, not just a select few and Jesus Christ himself knowing how vital the baptism of the Holy Spirit was, promised all his disciples they would have this experience, For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. (Acts 1:5)

Of course because Christ was not yet glorified, the baptism of the Holy Ghost was a future event at the time Christ spoke. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:39)

The church at Corinth, though faced with many internal challenges, was assured by Paul that they too were baptized with the Holy Spirit as this text shows, For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body (1Corinthians 12:13a.) This baptism was not for some select people under some special circumstances, but for all believers and Paul put it succinctly and clearly that all those in Christ are baptized by the Holy Spirit.

We see its purpose for all believers

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is about enablement. It enables the believer at the time of conversion, upon surrendering himself to the Lordship of Jesus Christ to become a born again Christian. Remember what Jesus said to Nicodemus, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5) This Spirit baptism is universal to all Gods children and Paul affirms it, But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Romans 8:9) All believers have this experience since this is the evidence that we truly belong to Jesus Christ, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. (Romans 8:16)

To reinforce this point and to reassure all those who are saved and have this blessed experience, Paul asserts, For as many are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Romans 8:14) In essence, for believers in todays church, if we have not experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit we have not been converted.

We note its performance in all believers

The early church disciples were saved prior to Pentecost, but they were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, And they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4) This event gave birth to the church and was what Jesus Christ promised to his disciples and it had some spectacular results.

The disciples who hitherto were cowed and secretive became outgoing and bold and assertive in Christian ministry.

The inspired Peter took up his leadership mantle and preached one of historys outstandingly effective sermons winning three thousand souls into Gods kingdom. This is what ministry performance is all about.

All the Apostles and disciples were energized with power and primed for service as promised, But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Acts 1:8)
We perceive the root of this baptism

Many believers, who are not knowledgeable with regards to Spirit baptism, allow others to hoodwink them into believing that Spirit baptism is some special extra that is added on to a fully fledged born again Christian. This is not so and we need to get to the bottom of this so that believers can know the truth of the matter. We must not confuse special anointing with baptism of the Holy Spirit because the two things are different and for clarification we need to examine the root of this baptism and note the following.

It is given on being saved

We are either in the world or we are in Christ. The act of contrition, confession and surrender to God is by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, but it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that takes us out of the world and puts us in Christ, Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5) To enter into the kingdom of God is the same as being in Christ. The Apostle Paul affirmed this when he wrote, In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise. (Ephesians 1:13) When you are saved you are baptized with the Holy Spirit and when you are baptized with the Holy Spirit you are saved and to God be the glory.

It is given by the sovereign will

When we are saved, at the moment of our conversion, God by his sovereign will, and not by any pleadings of believers, pours out his Holy Spirit upon us. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 10:45) These Gentiles were converted and baptized with the Holy Spirit and forthwith Peter took steps to have them baptized with water and the Bible states it like this: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we. (Acts 10:47)

There is no mention here of asking for this experience, just amazement and joy that God had baptized them at their conversion with the Holy Spirit as he had done to the Jews.

It is given to embolden and affirm

Jesus knew the challenges which would face all disciples and the pressing need to stand up under fire and present the gospel, But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Acts 1:8) All believers everywhere were to be witnesses, often at great peril, and undertake their own ministry since that all believers in being converted become part of the priesthood of believers. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthoodthat ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light (1Peter 2:9)

Jesus told the disciples not to bother themselves with premeditated speeches and the like for the Holy Spirit has a marvelous work to do with affirming the gospel, for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost. (Mark 13:11c)

Every born again Christian can testify with confidence to the empowering and guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul very soon after his conversion began to preach the gospel and three years later when he met the other apostles found that he was preaching the very same thing as they were. This is the consequence of being baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Next we investigate the results of this baptism

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the mighty work of God, which brings in its wake a complete and blessed newness. Every born-again believer knows the deep satisfaction and profound joy experienced at conversion and that burning desire to throw off the past and henceforth to do Gods will. This baptism does some significant things and some of them are as follows.

It gives us a new location

Before this baptism of the Holy Spirit and adoption by God, every human being is in Adam both by choice and by nature, Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. (Romans 5:12) When a believer is baptized with the Holy Spirit, he no longer lives in and for the world because he has a new location in Christ, For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22) Jesus confirmed this when he said, At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (John 14:20)

This new location in Christ is conducive to godly living and kills off our worldliness while sustaining a vigorous spiritual life centred on our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Bible puts it like this, For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. (Colossians 3:3)

When all is said and done, the life we live now and the character we display is testimony to our inner life. No one can partner Jesus Christ and not exhibit true godliness.

It gives us new identity

Before we were saved and baptized with the Holy Spirit not only were we Adamic by nature we were also identified with Satan and all he stood for but now we have a new identity with Christ, Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17) God sees us now as being fully in Christ and as a result identified with Christ in all aspects of his life past, present and future.

We identify with Christs righteousness and not that of the law, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Galatians 2:21)

We identify with Christs death in water baptism. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death (Romans 6:4)

We identify with Christs resurrection. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept. (1 Corinthians 15:20)

We identify with Christ in glory now, and even more so later, When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3:4)

It gives us new meaning

All believers because of the baptism of the Holy Spirit are now partakers of the life of Christ and are become important members of the body of Christ, I am the vine, ye are the branches (John 15:5) I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast love them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17:23) It is a mighty and wonderful privilege for sinful mankind to be baptized with the Holy Ghost!

If you have any doubts that you are baptized with the Holy Spirit, then free yourself from them by making sure you are saved and your life committed to the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is willing and able to save you and he will make you truly his by baptizing you with the Holy Spirit. If you know that you are baptized with the Holy Spirit, then rejoice in the God of your salvation and share your testimony with others in renewed self-assurance.

Staff Writer; Henderson W.

You can contact this Christian brother at: HWard@ThyBlackMan.com.

The Capital Area Food Bank reports that 38 percent of households across the Washington region experienced food insecurity during the past year. In Prince George’s County, the figure was 56 percent. Food insecurity means that families could not count on having enough food. Some stretched what they had; some sacrificed the quality of their meals; some went without. Where decisions about the nation’s food programs are made, those numbers should provoke more than a ceremonial food drive.

As Hunger Action Month draws to a close, hunger shows no sign of doing the same. Nor does hunger stop at the Beltway. A new survey finds that 36 percent of Chicago households lacked consistent access to enough food in June; nearly half of households with children were affected. In Los Angeles County, 24 percent of households experienced food insecurity in 2025. These studies cover different places and periods, but their message is unmistakable: too many Americans are making impossible choices at the grocery store.

What does a parent put back when the total at the register is too high? The fruit? The milk? The medicine that must also be paid for this week? Meanwhile, in Washington, somebody can put another steak dinner on an expense account without asking whether it will crowd out the electric bill. Food insecurity is an economist’s term for brutally personal calculations. It is also an indictment of an economy that produces extraordinary wealth without assuring people enough to eat.

Hunger is not evenly distributed. The Washington-area report finds that households of color face food insecurity at two to three times the rate of white households. In Chicago, the highest rates are on the South and West Sides. Unequal pay, insecure work, housing costs and the racial wealth gap determine who has a cushion when groceries become more expensive—and who has none.

Consider that cushion. In the Federal Reserve’s 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances, the median white family held $285,000 in wealth; the median Black family held $44,900. That is roughly six dollars to one. Wealth lets a family absorb a layoff, a rent increase or a medical bill without the grocery budget collapsing. When politicians tell people to tighten their belts, they ignore how many families have run out of notches.

A wealth gap this wide is a policy failure. But families cannot wait for policy to catch up before they eat. Feeding America, the nationwide network of food banks that launched Hunger Action Month, asked us to “play your part.” We should keep doing so after September. Food banks and neighborhood pantries do indispensable work. Donate money. Volunteer. Make sure people know where to find help. But a volunteer cannot replace a paycheck, and a pantry cannot repair a national safety net by itself.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, is part of that safety net. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that participation fell by more than five million people—nearly 13 percent—between July 2025 and June 2026. That figure alone cannot tell us why each person left. But the 2025 law expanded SNAP’s work-related time limits to adults ages 55–64 and parents whose youngest child is 14 or older, and ended exceptions for veterans, people experiencing homelessness and former foster youth. Congress should reverse those restrictions and ensure eligible families can get the benefits they need.

American politics has a perverse habit of demanding proof that poor people deserve dinner while asking remarkably little of those who profit from their labor. The debate becomes a referendum on the shopping carts of SNAP recipients, as though policing purchases could solve low wages, high rents and inadequate benefits. It cannot. If we care what children eat, we must care whether their families can buy food throughout the month.

The enslaved people who built the White House under bondage were denied the fruits of their own work. Their circumstances and today’s are different, but this nation has long taken essential labor while resisting the obligation to provide a decent life to the people who perform it. That history calls for more than sympathy. It calls for economic justice.

Hunger Action Month should leave us with questions for every elected official: Will you protect access to SNAP? Will you support wages that keep pace with the cost of living? Will you tackle the wealth gap that leaves Black families especially exposed to economic shocks? Will you treat a child’s empty refrigerator as an emergency, rather than a talking point? And will you listen to people facing hunger before writing policies in their name?

The campaign may end with September. Families will still need breakfast. Our action must last longer than the month.

Written by Julianne Malveaux

Official website; https://www.juliannemalveaux.com

The Ohio Democrat and former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus is standing virtually alone inside the Kennedy Center’s governing structure against Donald Trump’s attempted seizure of a national cultural institution. Trump has installed loyalists, pushed aside dissenters and tried to plaster his name onto a building Congress designated as a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy.

Beatty sued. And she won—not once, but twice. She did not merely issue a statement; she used the law, reminding Trump and his enablers that public institutions are not presidential playthings and that a board vote cannot erase an act of Congress.

Trump answered with insults and threats. During a virtual board meeting, he reportedly called Beatty “destructive,” claimed she had “never built anything,” and threatened to hold her responsible if the deteriorating building caused a death. That was not argument. It was intimidation dressed up as authority.

Beatty did not fold. She has been pepper-sprayed while protesting police violence and arrested while demanding voting rights. She knows what it means to put her body—not merely her name—behind a principle. Now she is defending a public institution from a president who thinks anything touched by government belongs to him.

Audacity means boldness—nerve, even temerity. It is neither virtue nor vice until we ask: audacity in the service of what?

Trump’s is criminal audacity: the brazen nerve to privatize public memory and turn a national memorial into a vanity project. It is audacity in the service of ego, domination and theft.

Beatty’s is righteous audacity: the moral nerve to confront illegitimate power and refuse to be muted. Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declared, “I have the audacity to believe,” then spoke of food, education, culture, dignity, equality and freedom for people everywhere. That was audacity in the service of justice. That is the tradition Joyce Beatty claims.

Coming out of Congressional Black Caucus week, her example provokes a larger question: What is Black political power for?

The CBC was founded in 1971 by 13 members who understood that representation without collective action was insufficient. They boycotted President Richard Nixon’s State of the Union address and demanded a meeting about Black America. They were not invited to power’s table because the powerful developed good manners. They organized, insisted and disrupted.

Today the CBC is larger and more institutionally powerful than its founders could have imagined. Black members hold seniority, key committee positions and party leadership. Hakeem Jeffries could become the first Black Speaker of the House. But proximity to power is not power, and titles are not transformation.

CBC week brings urgent policy debates about voting rights, economic justice, health, education and Black political power. It gathers ambitious young people, seasoned public servants, advocates and entrepreneurs—along with more receptions than any human can reasonably attend. Yet we must not confuse access with action or networking with movement-building. The measure of the gathering comes after the ballroom lights go dark.

Will voting rights be defended and predatory redistricting challenged? Will Black unemployment, Black maternal mortality and the racial wealth gap be treated as emergencies rather than perennial panel topics? Will elected officials confront authoritarianism when it is risky?

Joyce Beatty has answered with her actions. Her fight is about more than a building. Cultural institutions tell us whose history is honored and whose names endure. Trump’s desire to rename the Kennedy Center is part of his effort to rewrite history, punish dissent and place himself at the center of every American story. He does not simply want power. He wants tribute. Beatty refuses to pay it.

Black women have often supplied the labor and backbone of American democracy while others received the credit. They organize voters, steady institutions, defend the Constitution—and are told to lower their voices. Beatty’s voice was literally muted during a Kennedy Center meeting. She found another microphone: the federal courts.

Resistance is not always a march. Sometimes it is a lawsuit, a vote or a refusal to consent. Sometimes it is one woman in a hostile room saying, “You may have the votes, but you do not have the law.”

Courage deserves to be named. We saw it in Barbara Lee, standing alone against the sweeping 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and warning against a blank check for endless war. We saw it in Barbara Jordan, a freshman on the House Judiciary Committee, making the Constitution thunder during Watergate. We see it in Maxine Waters, using her financial leadership to confront predatory lending, discriminatory finance and attacks on consumers. And we see it now in Joyce Beatty.

The CBC has long called itself the conscience of the Congress. Conscience is not a ceremonial title. It is a duty. At a moment when too many people accommodate the outrageous, normalize the abnormal and calculate the cost of speaking, Beatty has chosen to fight. Her righteous audacity is not simply that she challenged a president. She refused to let public memory become private vanity.

Written by Julianne Malveaux

Official website; https://www.juliannemalveaux.com

1) eliminate affirmative action programs;

2) dismantle corporate set-aside programs for Blacks and other minorities;

3) defeat reforms aimed at making law enforcement less hostile and the criminal justice system more humane in its treatment of Blacks and other minorities; and

4) silence and table any discussion of reparations for Blacks in the US.

Widespread protests took place across the US and world after the murder of George Floyd during the coronavirus pandemic. Attention was directed at the injustice Blacks and other minorities experience at the hands of law enforcement and in the US criminal justice system as well as other facets of daily life.

In addition to discussions around revamping and reforming law enforcement and the criminal justice system there were calls for reparations for Blacks. Reparations for their ancestors having been enslaved in the US and the lingering negative efforts of that enslavement.

Major US corporations, seemingly influenced by the protests and discussions of an unequal society with very little fanfare, quickly and quietly committed to developing or enhancing set-aside programs for Black and minority businesses. They also committed to funding advocacy and community improvement organizations in Black and other minority communities.

Just as quickly and quietly with even less fanfare those commitments vanished from the websites and public communications not long after being first posted and disseminated. Their disappearance occurred way prior to the November 2024 presidential election.

The current federal regime probably would be pleased to receive credit for the removal and disappearances of corporate set-aside programs for Blacks and other minorities. However, the credit belongs to the actions of right-wing activists and organizations.

While Blacks and others were marching in the streets and standing before buildings chanting slogans, right-wing activists and groups quietly and effectively threatened and implemented boycotts of corporations directed at their set-aside policies and programs. Their threats and actual boycotts proved far more effective than the marching and chanting.

It seems the right-wing activists and groups clearly understood what appeared lost on the marchers and protesters. They understood that during the civil right movement it was the threats and implementation of boycotts that touched the pockets and not the hearts and souls of business interests that moved those interests to push governmental officials to do the profitable thing.

Right-wing activists and groups with assistance from right-wing influencers and information peddlers lit fires under police organizations and police unions to push back and raise questions about law enforcement and criminal justice reforms. Reforms that left the public with images of widespread lawlessness if certain restrictions were placed on law enforcement personnel.

The concerns as highlighted by the law enforcement community were such that a frightened public compelled federal lawmakers to quietly and effectively bury legislation that was conceived to help ensure there would be no more George Floyd type murders.

As for the issue of affirmative action, discussions and efforts to dismantle such programs were basically shrugged off by Blacks. The issue may have been important to the parents, grandparents and great-grandparents of today’s Black workers, but not for themselves.

Black workers today look around and see Blacks prominently appearing on network and cable programming, Black executives in the boardrooms and C-suite offices of Fortune 500 corporations, and throughout the offices and hallways of local, state and federal governmental buildings.

Blacks are everywhere and that is not going to change, many Blacks have concluded. Like water and air nothing to concern themselves about. Since they saw affirmative action as an archaic phrase talk by right-wingers about eliminating it was viewed as basically a non-issue. “Nothing to see here, keep it moving.”

As for the issue of reparations, right-wing influencers and other information peddlers went into overdrive to discredit and defeat it. Their approach was not to challenge the validity and merits of the issue, but to try and discredit individuals who publicly raised the issue.

By hook and by crook their smear campaigns seemed to have been effective in forcing those who supported the idea of reparations into silence. The right was successful enough to even make the term “racism” taboo. There was no such thing as racism or a racist, the right racists proclaimed.

To assist with their discrediting efforts right-wingers plucked a few bootlickers and handkerchief heads from under rocks, dusted them off and told them to go fetch. They obediently obeyed while pocketing their thirty pieces of silver and wedge of cheese.

Many civil and human rights activists and organizations focus their lobbying efforts entirely at the federal government level. Right-wing activists and groups on the other hand while focusing efforts at the federal level have also directed considerable attention at the local and state government level, including boards of education. They have been quite successful in promoting their right and far-right agenda.

It is estimated that Blacks in the US have $2.1 trillion in yearly purchasing power. If used strategically and effectively corporate America would not have to be pushed to make sure the well-being of Black consumers mattered. It would not be about hearts and souls for those corporations but their corporate wallets and pocketbooks.

Blacks may also want to ease up on the marching and chanting. It is no longer the 1960s. Instead, they might want to use the tactics of other groups, with far less numbers who have been able to successfully push their agendas.

While Blacks are out in the streets marching, those groups are on the phones, sitting in offices and hovering over the shoulders of decision makers to make sure they do the right thing. What that also means is that Blacks cannot just go to the polling booth on election day cast their votes and then for the next 364 days go back to sleep.

We have to hold people accountable for our votes. It is about being proactive and not reactionary.

Staff Writer; Al Alatunji

Question or comment regarding this article? Feel free to send a message to: Alatunji@ThyBlackMan.com.

They have reason to be excited about their prospects.

Let me state for the record that we Republicans do not deserve to be reelected to the majority in Congress in either body. Far too many of our candidates campaign as a conservatives and then vote as  liberals, but I digress.

To my giddy Democrat friends, allow me to pose a simple question.

When Democrats control Congress and or the White House, can you please point to any legislation specific to the Black community in general and Black entrepreneurs specifically that became law?

I will wait…

During the 117th Congress (January 3, 2021–January 3, 2023), the Democrats controlled the House with a majority, while the Senate was evenly split 50–50. Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris held the tiebreaking vote in the Senate, giving the party effective control of both chambers along with the House majority, where Nancy Pelosi was elected Speaker.

With Joe Biden occupying the White House, the Democrats controlled the whole of government like the Republicans do now.

During this 117th Congress, Blacks chaired several major committees:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) – Chair of the Financial Services Committee, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) – Chair of the Education and Labor Committee, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) – Chair of the House Budget Committee, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-MO) – Chair of the House Select Committee on HHS Oversight, Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) – Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. David Scott (D-GA)—Chairman of Agriculture.

Blacks also chaired twenty-five subcommittees.

Name me one specific benefit to the Black community that was received as a direct result of having these people in positions of power and authority.

Name me one policy or law that was enacted to specifically benefit Black entrepreneurs.

Therefore, relative to the Black community, does it really matter who controls Congress?

Blacks give Democrats north of eighty percent of their vote during Congressional elections, with no corresponding return on their vote.

Can you make it make sense?

Is the symbolism of having a Black hold elective office more important than a specific agenda targeting the Black community, especially entrepreneurs?

Herein lies the problem.  Elite radical liberal Democrats want and expect Blacks to vote for them based on emotion, not policy.

When these Democrats go to the Hispanic community, they talk about amnesty for their family, citizenship, free housing, free medical services, free education and free money.

When these Democrats go to the homosexual community, they talk about people with mental issues playing in girls sports, free genital mutilation surgery, free drag queen shows for their children.

When these Democrats go to the Black community, they talk about slavery, hangings, smoking weed, dancing, voting rights; but never policy!

Voting for a Democrat is like peeing on yourself in a dark blue suit; it gives you a warm feeling but no one ever notices.

In my conversations with friends of mine who are members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), should they win the House in November, their top issues are:  impeaching Trump, investigating Trump’s businesses, free health care for illegals, etc.

So, again I ask what is the benefit of having a Black elected officials when they never address, let alone solve any problems of particular interest to the Black community?

Maxine Waters was Chair of the Financial Services Committee from 2019-2023, how did the Black community benefit? We are down to ten Black owned banks from a high a few years ago of over one hundred.  Bobby Scott was Chair of the Education and Labor Committee from 2021-2023, how did the Black community benefit?  How did Black colleges benefit?  David Scott was Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee from 2021-2023 how did the Black community benefit?  How did Africa benefit?

Democrats have a plethora of Black elected officials from local, state, and federal offices with the Black community having nothing to show for it.

Republicans have few Black elected officials from local, state, and federal offices with the Black community having several substantive things to show for it—higher wages, more funding for HBCUs, lower crime rates to name a few.

I would submit to my readers that it is far more important to have fewer Black elected officials and get issues addressed that are of particular concern to the Black community, verses having more elected Black officials who have no plan to address specific issues impacting the Black community.

We must become more strategic with our vote and less emotional.

I had dinner with one of my buddies this morning, King Solomon, and he told me in Proverbs 4:7, “Wisdom is the principal thing, therefore get wisdom; and with all thy getting, get understanding.”

I challenge my followers to name me one Black organization that has a substantive plan that can be enacted by the next Congress that will address the high unemployment rate in the Black community; that will reconstitute the nuclear family; that will reduce out of wedlock childbirth; that will decrease Black on Black crime; that will spur entrepreneurship.

I will wait…

The NAACP, the National Urban League, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Black Economic Alliance all have plans, but they are not substantive, credible plans that will solve any of the problems facing the Black community.

Their plans are like the sounding brass or the tinkling cymbal; full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Staff Writer; Raynard Jackson

RJ is a Pulitzer Award nominated columnist and President & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC, a Washington, DC based global public affairs consultancy.  Feel free to visit his website at: www.raynardjackson.com.  You can follow Raynard on Twitter @ RealRaynardJ or Gettr @ RaynardJackson.

Our words matter, whether we use them as a weapon to attack or a shield to protect. Our words matter because they reflect our inner conscience and heart. Former U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney once said, “But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside.”

At critical moments of our history, citizens expect our leaders to be conscience-driven servants whose inspiring words are consistently matched with inspiring actions.  Sen. Romney never became president. But a president’s words can shape the nation’s identity, change the political landscape, influence global politics, and set the country’s moral and legal tone.

In times of crisis, presidents rely on speeches to calm a frightened nation, such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt rallying the country after Pearl Harbor or President George W. Bush uniting a grieving public at Ground Zero after 9/11. Roosevelt’s famous phrase, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” came during his first inaugural address at the height of the Great Depression. It was meant to counter the panic, uncertainty, and fear and replace it with public confidence and collective action. Before television, almost every home in America had a radio, and FDR used it to enter every household.

His fireside chats (evening radio addresses) were intimate speeches with a conversational tone and encouraging patriotic themes. He never painted a dark picture of America; instead, he urged people to face the future with patience, understanding, and faith. His calming manner lifted the public’s confidence and their trust in him as president. President Barack Obama’s three words, “Yes we can,” align with FDR’s messages, offering a shared vision of unity and progress. Obama’s vision of unity confronted the nation’s legacy of culture wars when he stated, “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America – there is the United States of America.” His words mattered because they highlighted a nation long divided politically, culturally, and racially.

President Abraham Lincoln navigated the same cultural and racial fault lines. In his House Divided speech, Lincoln stated, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” In doing so, he warned that the United States could not permanently endure being a nation consisting of half slave and half free states. It became one of the defining summaries of the cultural crisis before the Civil War. In a moment of executive accountability, Lincoln also used the five powerful words written by his predecessor, President Thomas Jefferson.  Before Jefferson became the third president of the United States, he was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.

It was written as a formal explanation of why the American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain. It became a point-by-point list of grievances and injustices against King George III and the British government. When Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal” as part of the Declaration of Independence, he did so as a man who was socially oppressed and suffering. “All men are created equal” turned the Declaration of Independence from a list of grievances into a profound commitment to preserving human dignity. Those five powerful words made the Declaration of Independence into a social justice document. Jefferson’s message of justice became timeless. Despite one man being king (King George III) and the other a subject of the king (Thomas Jefferson), in God’s eyes both men are created equal and have basic rights as human beings. Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, used “all men are created equal” as he tied it to the abolition of slavery. Women’s rights advocates used “all men and women are created equal” when fighting to get women the right to vote. Dr. Martin Luther King used “all men are created equal” in his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, which demanded equal rights for Blacks.

As an enslaver, Jefferson was selective in his fight for human dignity. His fight for freedom from British oppression did not result in freedom for Blacks suffering from the oppression of slavery. While diversity, equity, and inclusion were delayed, future generations picked them up. Again, words backed by action matter, and a future president took the baton of DEI and ran with it… even when it meant putting aside personal feelings and political biases. When President Lyndon Johnson spoke the words, “We shall overcome,” he used the civil-rights movement anthem in his 1965 address to Congress urging voting-rights legislation after violence in Selma, Alabama. In doing so, the phrase tied the presidency directly to the mass movement for racial justice.

Johnson was instrumental in changing the political landscape when he stated, “We are not fully free until all of us are free.” Presidential words can also be damaging when setting a fearful tone for the nation. When President Richard Nixon mentioned to an aide, “People react to fear, not love. They don’t teach that in Sunday school, but it’s true,” Nixon was speaking as an elected official who was fully aware of the impact fear plays in building walls and suspicion of others. Nixon’s defining words, “I am not a crook,” made him inseparable from the Watergate scandal. Speaking of crooks, the current president has no words of historical significance. President Harry Truman said it best when he stated, “The buck stops here,” when referring to executive responsibility. This is true even of the current president.

Written by David W. Marshall

Official website; https://davidwmarshallauthor.com/

One may purchase his book, which is titled; God Bless Our Divided America: Unity, Politics and History from a Biblical Perspective.

Should an American who graduated from high school but never went to college — and who now works as a delivery truck driver, earning $43,950 per year (the median annual earnings for that job) — be forced to help pay off the federal student loans of these two college graduates who make $240,000?

If former President Joe Biden had gotten his way, that truck driver and other hardworking American taxpayers would indeed have seen their tax dollars help pay off those loans.

When Biden was running for president in April 2020, he announced his plan for “forgiving student debt.”

“I propose to forgive all undergraduate tuition-related federal student debt from two- and four-year public colleges and universities for debt-holders earning up to $125,000,” Biden said.

His plan, he said, would also “(i)mmediately cancel a minimum of $10,000 of student debt per person.”

After he was elected president, Biden did not get Congress to enact new legislation to implement this plan. Instead, he took unilateral executive action in an attempt to do so — and his administration claimed this action was justified under a law that had been enacted under former President George W. Bush.

In 2003, Bush had signed the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, aka the HEROES Act.

This act, said its official summary, “(a)uthorizes the Secretary of Education to waive or modify any requirement or regulation applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as deemed necessary with respect to an affected individual who: (1) is serving on active duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (2) is performing National Guard duty during a war, operation, or emergency; (3) resides or is employed in an area that is declared a disaster area by any Federal, State, or local official in connection with a national emergency; or (4) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency.”

As the nation headed into the 2022 midterm elections, Biden announced his student loan forgiveness plan. “On August 24, 2022,” explained the Congressional Research Service, “the Biden Administration announced it would invoke the Higher Education Relief Opportunities Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to carry out a ‘one-time student loan debt relief policy’ to ‘address the financial harms of the [COVID-19] pandemic for low- and middle-income borrowers.’ Under the one-time student debt relief policy (HEROES Act policy), ED (Education Department) would have cancelled up to $10,000 in qualifying HEA Title IV federal student loan debt for borrowers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) in 2020 or 2021 of less than $125,000 (for individuals or married borrowers who filed federal income taxes separately) or $250,000 (for married couples filing jointly and certain other individuals).”

So, under Biden’s plan, a law that had been designed to help individuals “serving on active duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency” or had “suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency” could be used to grant general federal student loan forgiveness in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On Sept. 26, 2022, the Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) that estimated the cost of the Biden plan. “As of June 30, 2022, 43 million borrowers held $1.6 trillion in federal student loans,” said this letter. “About $430 billion of that debt will be canceled, CBO estimates.”

Six states, including Nebraska, sued Biden, arguing that he did not have the legal authority to move forward with this loan forgiveness plan. The Supreme Court agreed with the states, voting 6-3 against Biden’s plan.

“The Secretary (of Education) asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion.

“The new program vests authority in the Department of Education to discharge up to $10,000 for every borrower with income below $125,000 and up to $20,000 for every such borrower who has received a Pell Grant,” said the court. “No prior limitation on loan forgiveness is left standing. Instead, every borrower within the specified income cap automatically qualifies for debt cancellation, no matter their circumstances. The Department of Education estimates that the program will cover 98.5% of all borrowers.”

“From a few narrowly delineated situations specified by Congress, the Secretary has expanded forgiveness to nearly every borrower in the country,” said the court.

“But imagine instead asking the enacting Congress a more pertinent question: ‘Can the Secretary use his powers to abolish $430 billion in student loans, completely canceling loan balances for 20 million borrowers, as a pandemic winds down to its end?'” said the court. “We can’t believe the answer would be yes. Congress did not unanimously pass the HEROES Act with such power in mind.”

Despite this loss in the Supreme Court, Democrats in Congress have not given up on trying to find a way to make federal taxpayers pay for someone else’s college costs.

Led by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), a group of nine Democrats in the Senate and 18 in the House are now cosponsoring the Debt-Free College Act. This bill would appropriate $84 billion in fiscal year 2027 alone. It would provide funding to states so that those states could “distribute the grant funds … in a manner designed to best achieve the partnership’s goal of providing debt-free college for all eligible students at in-State public institutions of higher education.”

This month, the Census Bureau released its report on income in the United States in 2025. It showed that the median household income of a high school graduate who did not attend college was $60,790 last year. The median household income of those who earned a bachelor’s degree or higher was $138,300.

Democrat politicians who would like to make taxpayers subsidize the student loan debt of college graduates are seeking to redistribute wealth to the wealthier.

Written by Terence P. Jeffrey

Official website; http://twitter.com/terryjeffrey

Let me lay out what we can confirm. Shannon claims a representative reached out and made it plain that certain clients would not be sitting across from him. To hear him tell it, that’s hypocrisy in plain sight, the same crowd that praises open speech right up until the moment it pinches them. His point was that people support freedom of speech until somebody says something they disagree with, and that argument deserves consideration whether or not the wider tale checks out. Ocho was part of the conversation, and the discussion raised questions about who gets to decide which athletes appear on the program. Social media, being what it is, had plenty to say about the accusation before anybody could establish exactly what happened behind the scenes.

Past the drama, here is where the whole thing turns worth studying. Strip away the mystery agency and the vague callout, and the former tight end stumbled onto a question this culture has circled for years. How much say does a man really hold over his own voice once he signs with a shop?

Because let’s not play. Managing image is the gig. It isn’t some conspiracy, it’s the literal job description. These offices exist to keep talent marketable, to smooth over messes, to whisper “maybe skip that one” when a room looks radioactive. The good ones build crisis plans and walk ballplayers through sitdowns so a bad soundbite doesn’t torch an endorsement. A young athlete with generational money on the table needs somebody watching the blind spots, and a sharp adviser earns that fee by seeing trouble three moves ahead. None of that reads as villainy. That reads as competence.

So a representative urging caution around a host who has faced his share of controversial headlines? Reasonable. Shannon faced a highly publicized civil lawsuit in 2025 involving sexual assault allegations he denied. The case was settled and dismissed that July, and ESPN subsequently parted ways with him. A careful representative might consider that history when weighing whether a multimillion dollar client belongs in that chair, though nobody has established that the lawsuit played any role in the guest restrictions Sharpe described. A family hiring somebody to protect an athlete’s reputation isn’t necessarily looking for a yes man. Sometimes the person earning that fee has to deliver advice the client doesn’t want to hear.

But a canyon sits between guidance and a flat “you cannot go.” One is counsel. The other is a leash.

That gap is the whole ballgame. Somebody online framed it perfectly, asking whether the agent works for the player or the player works for the agent. Sit with that. We’re talking about grown Black men. Fathers. Business owners. Guys who absorbed hits that’ll ache in the knees at fifty. And the notion floating around is that one phone call from a representative could potentially dictate which conversations get had at all. We don’t know whether any athlete actually wanted to appear on Nightcap and was prevented from doing so. That distinction matters. But if a player wants to sit down for an interview and somebody else can override his decision without his consent, it raises a serious question about who’s steering the ship.

Money explains plenty. Endorsement checks, appearance fees, and brand partnerships can give agents considerable influence over an athlete’s public image. A player who depends on that professional relationship might think twice before challenging a representative’s advice, even when the final decision remains his own. Rock the boat, ask one question too many, wander onto the wrong stage, and a man might start wondering whether those opportunities could dry up. That doesn’t mean the unnamed agency threatened anybody financially or interfered with endorsement deals. We have no evidence of that. Still, the possibility of losing valuable business relationships can influence which conversations an athlete chooses to have and which subjects he would rather leave alone.

Still, I’m not handing Shannon a clean pass either. He named nobody, and he provided no correspondence or other evidence that listeners could examine independently. A heavy charge deserves heavy backing, and “y’all know who you are” isn’t backing, it’s a public callout with a gold jacket behind it. Vagueness cuts both ways. It lets the man present himself as somebody being unfairly excluded while leaving the audience without enough information to determine what actually happened. It also lets folks pour whatever meaning they please into the empty space. Once speculation takes over, theories that have nothing to do with a ballplayer’s right to book his own calendar can quickly muddy the discussion.

Aim the lens where it belongs, though, and the core matter survives the noise. Grown professionals ought to pick which rooms to enter. A trainer can tell you to skip leg day. Chaining your ankles is another story entirely. An adviser can flag a risky booking and spell out the downside in plain English. Yanking the decision out of a man’s hands completely, without an agreement giving that representative such authority, crosses into something else. Black men who built a name with nothing but talent and a mouth shouldn’t need a hall pass to speak.

The counter deserves air, because it’s fair. Reputation is fragile, and one loose hour beside the wrong host can cost a guy a shoe deal he spent a decade building. When a client pays a shop to guard the brand, firm boundaries may be part of the arrangement. Tell your people “handle my press, I trust you,” and a refusal to approve an appearance can become that trust in motion, not a betrayal of it. Plenty of quiet stars are happy letting somebody else swallow these headaches. An athlete who voluntarily gives his representatives control over media bookings hasn’t necessarily surrendered his independence. He may simply have decided that managing those decisions is part of the service he’s paying for.

Both truths hold at once. That’s the messy part people want to skip. Protecting somebody can be the right thing to do. Silencing him against his wishes is another matter. Trouble is, from the cheap seats the two look nearly identical, and only the parties inside that arrangement know which one is really unfolding. Until the athletes themselves explain whether they wanted to appear on Nightcap, nobody outside those conversations can say for certain whether their representatives were carrying out their wishes or overriding them.

So who runs the conversation? Not the host, plainly, or there’d be no venting into a mic about empty guest chairs. Maybe the ballplayers made their own decisions and simply had no interest in appearing. Maybe their agents advised them against it, and they agreed. Or perhaps some wanted to participate and were told the booking would never happen. Those are different situations, and the distinction matters. The honest answer is that power in this business doesn’t always sit with the face we see. Sometimes it rests with the athlete, sometimes with the representative he hired, and sometimes with the terms of an agreement the public knows nothing about. Black men who have built careers through their own talent deserve a clear understanding of who controls their public appearances and how much authority they have handed over. Shannon’s complaint, whether he provides evidence or not, at least hauled that question into daylight. Now we find out whether anybody with skin in it has the nerve to answer.

Staff Writer; J.G. Lacour

Covering the NBA, NFL, college basketball, college football, and Major League Baseball from a Black man’s perspective. He loves the full world of sports, but the NFL remains his favorite.

Need to contact this bro, feel free to use this email address; JGLacour@ThyBlackMan.com.