Yet, between managing patient loads, documentation, and administrative responsibilities, staying current with family medicine Continuing Medical Education (CME) requirements often falls to the bottom of the list. It is not optional but a licensing requirement, a professional standard, and a direct factor in patient outcomes.

The right family medicine CME program should fit your schedule, match your specialty, and deliver content you can apply immediately in practice. Let’s learn what these CME courses cover and how to choose a program that works for you.

What Family Medicine CME Actually Requires

Understanding your CME obligations is the first step toward meeting them without unnecessary stress or wasted time.

• American Medical Association (AMA) Category 1 Credits and Maintenance of Certification (MOC) Points

Family medicine physicians must earn AMA Category 1 Credits to maintain licensure and satisfy MOC requirements each cycle. Programs offering both AMA credits and MOC points provide the most efficient path to full compliance.

• American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Accreditation

AAFP accreditation ensures courses carry prescribed credits recognized by most state licensing boards. Verifying this accreditation should be your first step when evaluating any program, as non-accredited courses may not satisfy renewal requirements regardless of clinical quality.

• Board Certification and Recertification Requirements

Initial certification and ongoing recertification are separate but equally important obligations. Structured board prep aligned with current clinical guidelines reduces exam preparation time. Many physicians prefer programs that combine ongoing credits and board prep for efficiency.

Meeting your family medicine CME requirements efficiently starts with knowing exactly which credits count and which platforms are authorized to issue them.

Key Clinical Areas Family Medicine CME Course Should Cover

Family medicine is uniquely broad, and a strong CME program should reflect that breadth without sacrificing clinical depth.

• Primary Care and Ambulatory Medicine

Family medicine CME content covering best practices, clinical controversies, and emerging developments in ambulatory medicine keeps physicians current. This ensures they stay up to date on the conditions they manage most frequently each day.

Evidence-based updates in hypertension management, diabetes care, and preventive screenings are essential components of any well-rounded family medicine CME program worth your time. Physicians who stay current in these areas consistently demonstrate stronger diagnostic accuracy and better patient outcomes across their practice.

• Behavioral and Mental Health in Primary Care

Family medicine physicians routinely serve as the first clinicians patients reach when facing anxiety, depression, substance use disorders, or other behavioral health conditions. CME content in psychopharmacology and addiction medicine equips primary care physicians to screen, manage, and refer these patients with greater clinical confidence.

This is an area where knowledge gaps carry real consequences, given rising rates of mental health presentations in primary care settings nationwide.

• Dermatology for Primary Care Physicians

Skin conditions account for a significant volume of primary care visits, yet dermatology receives limited attention in most family medicine residency training programs. Practical, case-based dermatology CME helps physicians accurately diagnose and manage common conditions without making unnecessary specialist referrals.

Syndrome-based content using real patient cases and clinical images translates directly into stronger diagnostic confidence at the point of care.

• Neurology, Pain Medicine, and Perioperative Care

Neurological presentations, chronic pain management, and perioperative considerations are areas where family medicine physicians frequently need updated, evidence-based clinical guidance. Family medicine CME programs that cover these topics, particularly those developed in collaboration with academic medical centers, provide practical frameworks.

These frameworks improve patient outcomes in complex and often ambiguous clinical scenarios. Faculty from institutions such as Harvard Medical School and Johns Hopkins bring credibility and clinical authority that generalist content cannot replicate.

• Geriatrics, Palliative Medicine, and Care Transitions

An aging US population means family medicine physicians are managing increasingly complex geriatric and end-of-life care needs across their patient panels. Family medicine CME courses in geriatric medicine, palliative care, and patient care transitions prepare physicians to handle these cases with greater clinical and ethical clarity.

The often-overlooked shift from pediatric to adult care is another area where structured CME courses deliver immediate, practical clinical value.

The most effective family medicine CME programs build a connected clinical picture that reflects how patients actually present in real practice settings.

What to Look for in a Family Medicine CME Course Provider?

Not every family medicine CME course provider is equipped to serve the full clinical breadth that family medicine demands.

• Video CME for Deep Clinical Learning

You can engage with expert-led lectures and clinical demonstrations at your own pace. This format excels for board prep and complex material where visual learning strengthens comprehension.

• Audio CME for the On-the-go Physician

Content can be consumed during commutes or between patients without screen time. This removes the scheduling barrier that makes traditional conference learning impractical.

• All-access Subscription Platforms

These combine video, audio, and board prep in one place rather than requiring individual course purchases. Regularly updated content ensures your CME investment stays clinically relevant year-round.

• Specialty-Specific Content Depth

Programs should cover primary care, behavioral health, geriatrics, and pain medicine, not just a general catalog with a specialty filter. True depth separates useful CME from credit padding.

• Faculty Credentials and Institutional Partnerships

Content developed by clinicians at leading academic centers carries greater authority. Peer review and freedom from commercial sponsorship are key markers of trustworthy CME.

• Flexible Credit Options Across Multiple Accreditations

Look for providers offering American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), and American Academy of Physician Assistants (AAPA) credits in one platform. This consolidation simplifies documentation and reduces administrative workload at renewal time.

Providers with long-standing track records, verifiable accreditation, and credentialed faculty deliver greater value than newer, less specialized alternatives.

Find the Right Family Medicine CME Program for Your Practice

Family medicine physicians deserve continuing education that matches the breadth and complexity of what they manage every day. From board exam preparation to primary care updates, the right program covers every corner of family medicine. It should also address geriatrics, behavioral health, and dermatology with genuine clinical depth and accuracy.

Platforms like Oakstone offer accredited family medicine CME content developed by faculty from the country’s most respected medical institutions. Accredited CME programs worth your time are peer-reviewed, clinically grounded, and built for genuine professional growth.

Ready to meet your CME requirements while advancing your clinical knowledge? Explore accredited family medicine CME programs built for physicians who take patient care seriously.

Staff Writer; Jerry Moore

The era of the Greatest Generation, the Silent Generation, and the Baby Boom Generation, each distinguished by a significant record of sacrifice, has concluded. Currently, society must adapt to the eras of Generation X, the Millennials, and Generation Z. These generations are often perceived as possessing numerous suggestions and solutions to various problems, challenges, and situations. Yet, they have contributed comparatively less in terms of sacrifice for their community. Is it to attribute the limited sacrifices of Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z regarding the Black community to their own shortcomings when contrasted with previous generations? The straightforward answer is no.  The true origin of the decline in sacrifices dates to the 1960s, a period when African Americans actively campaigned for their civil rights. During the Nashville student movement in 1960, university students organized boycotts and sit-ins, as in numerous instances, adults gradually withdrew from such efforts.

W. Clement Stone stated, “You are a product of your environment.” During and after the civil rights era, did the adults in Black America adequately teach and exemplify for Black youth how to advocate and sacrifice for the Black community without resorting to a mindset of flight due to perceived high costs, according to some adults’ opinions? Some would argue that the answer is no. In the 1960s, the Baby Boom generation took the lead. Meanwhile, some of their parents and other members of the Silent Generation retreated when the stakes became too high, which indirectly influenced and guided many within the Baby Boom generation to adopt this course of action and belief. This attitude was ultimately passed down to their children and grandchildren, comprising Generation X, the Millennials, and Generation Z.

I do not intend to demean or criticize our ancestors or our Elders of today, as I believe they endeavored to the best of their abilities in most matters. During our struggle for civil rights, many progressive Black Americans opted to leave, and in some instances, to entirely abandon the Black community, the Black church, the inner city, and most cultural aspects associated with Black people, in pursuit of access and acceptance into suburban America. Over the years, White flight has remained a predominant concern because it has significantly and adversely affected most urban centers across the United States, particularly in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Nevertheless, most Black Americans or Americans in general seldom take the time to examine the profound void created by Black flight, as they prioritize suburban living, suburban education for their children, and real estate investments with the potential to appreciate considerably within their lifetimes. While I strongly believe that Black Americans should have the freedom to reside wherever their financial means permit, such liberties should not be at the expense of the broader Black community. As Black Americans, we ought to consistently strive to maintain a connection with and be associated with our brothers and sisters. In the words of Donny Hathaway, always remember “he ain’t heavy, he is my brother.”

The opportunity to assume leadership or serve as the central figure in a movement appears infrequent for young Black men, both within and beyond the Black community. Many contend that Black men across all age groups tend to avoid leadership positions, are often perceived as lacking discipline, and are considered less capable of leading. Additionally, they are frequently regarded as less vocal and less prepared than their young Black female counterparts. Whether consciously acknowledged or not, the NAACP’s appeal for Black student-athletes to boycott predominantly white institutions (PWIs) predominantly serves as a call for young Black males to assume leadership roles, given that men’s football and basketball generate most of the revenue at most collegiate institutions, thereby subsidizing all other men’s and women’s sports. By stating the facts, I am not attempting to exacerbate the ongoing gender conflict that perpetually divides the Black community. I merely wish to emphasize that young Black men continue to possess a vital role in leading within our community. Are our young Black men currently adequately prepared and capable of assuming leadership positions? My response is in the affirmative.

I must acknowledge that, in my lifetime, I served as a proud member of the NAACP. However, regrettably, not all relationships are built to last. The NAACP’s appeal to young Black student-athletes can be likened to politicians’ visits to our community every two to four years without establishing a formal relationship. Often, they remain largely unfamiliar and absent from the daily lives of our younger generations, possibly due to the black flight phenomenon and the diminished importance of community membership. While I understand the NAACP’s invitation to channel our athletic talents elsewhere, their statement inadvertently diminishes us to mere athletes, overshadowing our intellectual capacities. The NAACP might have better served its purpose by advocating for a boycott of all PWIs in the states where voter redistricting is underway, involving students, student-athletes, professors, and Black professional athletes alike.

If we aspire for our young Black sons and daughters to embody selflessness and perfection in their sacrifice for the Black community, it is imperative that older Black adults assume leadership roles and demonstrate to youth what genuine sacrifice and commitment to the community entail, both in words and in action. Adults should never ask or direct youth away from their dreams without first exhausting all possibilities with them for how we can help them achieve them.

Affirmation:

I pursue my dreams with urgency and purpose, knowing my actions today shape my community tomorrow.

Quote to live by:
“Dream big—but don’t let your dreams linger too long, because your sacrifice will always outlive your vision.”

Affirmation:

I am not just talented, I am intellect, leadership, and legacy in motion.

Quote to live by:
“I am more than what I produce; I am a thinker, a leader, and a force capable of changing the direction of my community.”

Affirmation:

I honor my community by staying connected, giving back, and lifting others as I rise.

Quote to live by:
“Success means nothing if it costs connection, never forget, he ain’t heavy, he is my brother.”

Staff Writer; Jamie Seals

May also connect with this brother on Twitter; mychocolatemind.

Also drop an email at; JSeals@ThyBlackMan.com.

The weaponization of compassion has launched a de facto competition of who can be thought to be the most “compassionate” (or, at least, not thought to be uncompassionate). The result of this arms race has been chaos, destruction and depravity.

It’s easy to lose sight of just how often this pernicious dynamic takes place, so it’s worthwhile to point out a few of the disastrous policies that were promoted (and, in some cases, continue to be promoted) as being “compassionate” and to call them out for the societally corrosive lies they are.

1. It wasn’t “compassionate” to close our mental hospitals. The impulse was understandable; plenty of those facilities were substandard. But the results were catastrophic. Until fairly recently in this country’s history, the “homeless” population consisted largely of small numbers of unattached males who drifted from place to place seeking work. But since the 1980s, the homeless population of the U.S. has exploded. Nearly three-quarters of a million people are homeless, and the number jumped 18% from 2023 to 2024. California has 187,000 of the country’s homeless; more than 70,000 are in Los Angeles County alone.

2. It isn’t “compassionate” (nor is it respect for “individual autonomy” or “dignity”) to leave the homeless to live as they do. Homeless encampments are hotbeds of filth (including human urine and feces), crime and diseases like leptospirosis, typhus, hepatitis, tuberculosis and even plague. Across the country, cities are dealing with the economic impact of shuttered stores and declining downtowns attributable to the presence of ever-growing numbers of homeless.

3. It isn’t “compassionate” to hand out needles or create places where addicts can use drugs. Leaving aside what should be an obvious argument that we shouldn’t be encouraging, much less facilitating, the use of dangerous drugs, two-thirds of America’s homeless have a diagnosed mental health illness. A third have a serious substance abuse problem. Approximately half suffer with both. Open-air drug use exacerbates those problems and creates others.

4. It isn’t “compassionate” (or “equitable,” for that matter) to eliminate teaching math, giving grades, standardized tests, advanced academic programs for gifted students or graduation requirements, or to lower entrance qualifications for college and graduate school. It punishes high-achieving students and sends the message to lower-performing students that they aren’t capable of meeting basic standards. That, then, undermines public confidence in the graduates of our high schools, colleges and professional schools.

5. It wasn’t “compassionate” to stop enforcing our immigration laws.

6. It isn’t “compassionate” to allow violent criminals back on the streets.

7. It isn’t “compassionate” to subject children and teenagers with gender dysphoria (and other emotional disorders) to permanent alteration of their bodies with medical and surgical interventions before they are old enough to understand the implications of those decisions.

None of these decisions have had beneficial impacts on their intended populations. Worse still, they are all deeply destructive to other individuals, groups and society at large. Everyone affected should be able to protest the consequences of these failed policies without getting smeared with the false accusation that they “lack compassion.”

Another reason to eliminate “compassion” as a basis for public policy — which we’re seeing daily with painful clarity — is that these policies end up being vehicles for massive fraud. Anyone can set up a 501c3 nonprofit, claim to be working for a charitable purpose, and deceive donors into giving money that does little but line the CEOs’ pockets. And when government grants are involved, there is little oversight (take Minnesota, for example) and more incentive for grift, bribery and payback in the form of pouring money into the campaign coffers of politicians who hold the grants’ pursestrings. What we end up with is a situation where neither the nonprofits nor the politicians have an incentive to solve the underlying problems, since they’re getting rich from their continued existence.

Why has the United States become a nation where “compassion” trumps all other considerations?

Scholars like Helen Andrews argue that the emphasis on “compassion” over logic and methodical analysis is a function of what she calls “the great feminization.” Women, Andrews claims, are hardwired to be maternal, and thus more likely to be persuaded by something that tugs at their empathy than by that which appeals to their reason.

I’m not so sure. First, women have functioning brains, and they are certainly intellectually capable of dispassionate analysis. Second, an awful lot of men seem to be just as hornswoggled by appeals to their “compassion” as are misguided women. And third, I don’t understand how it is “feminine” or “maternal” to witness the collapse of huge sections of our cities into third-world slums; or to know that drugs are pouring into the country, children are being trafficked for sex, and young women are being raped and murdered because the borders are unenforced; or to see people stabbed to death on public transportation, pushed in front of trains or run down by crazed lunatics at Christmas parades because criminals aren’t incarcerated; or to watch as multiple generations of disadvantaged minorities struggle because of schools with weak disciplinary and academic standards; or to want children and emotionally troubled teens to be chemically castrated or surgically sterilized before they’re old enough to drive a car, drink a beer or understand the concepts of sexual satisfaction, fathering, giving birth to or nursing a child, none of which they will experience if they are “transitioned.”

None of this is “compassionate.” It’s objectively irrational. It’s wantonly destructive. It is the deliberate disregard of monumental, systemic, catastrophic failure, the evidence of which is irrefutable. There’s something seriously wrong with anyone who continues to defend these policies and programs, and I’m not persuaded that it’s a matter of chromosomal biology or evolution.

I don’t profess to have a complete solution. But a good start would be to demand meaningful metrics when we discuss proposed (and existing) policies and programs. What matters isn’t “compassion”; it’s consequences.

Written by Laura Hollis

Official website; http://law.nd.edu/directory/laura-hollis/

Hughes connected with people because he sounded natural. Nothing about his style felt forced. Reading him almost feels like hearing an elder speak plainly while music hums somewhere in the background. He understood working class Black life in a way many writers could never imitate. Folks struggling to pay rent, mothers trying to stretch meals, young men chasing dignity, migrants leaving Southern towns searching for a better shot up North, all of that lived inside his poetry. He did not create fancy language just to impress professors. He wrote in a way regular people could carry with them.

That mattered deeply during the Harlem Renaissance. Black artists during that period were fighting against ugly stereotypes pushed across America. Racism shaped nearly every part of daily existence. Hughes stepped into that climate with honesty instead of fear. He wrote about dreams, disappointment, loneliness, survival, music, and race without pretending life was easy. Yet there was still warmth in his voice. He never completely surrendered hope, even while describing painful realities many white Americans wanted ignored.

One reason his poetry still lands today is because the struggles he described never fully disappeared. Young Black men continue wrestling with unfair treatment, pressure, financial stress, and questions about identity. Hughes understood those emotions long ago. A poem like “I, Too” still hits readers hard because exclusion never completely vanished from American life. The language looks simple on paper, but the feeling behind it carries weight. Anybody who has ever felt pushed aside understands that poem immediately.

Another thing helping Hughes remain so recognizable is education. His work became part of school systems throughout America. Children encountered his poetry early in life, sometimes before learning about many other Black writers. Once that happens across generations, a literary figure grows larger than literature alone. Students memorize lines. Teachers repeat them yearly. Families discuss them. Over time the writer turns into a permanent cultural presence.

Music also strengthened his legacy. Hughes loved jazz and blues. That rhythm slipped naturally into his writing. His poems moved with energy instead of stiffness. You could almost hear instruments floating through certain lines. Black artistic traditions have always blended together anyway. Poetry, gospel, soul, spoken word, and rap all pull emotion from similar places. Hughes understood that connection before many scholars even took those forms seriously.

Now to be fair, there are people who strongly believe Maya Angelou deserves the crown instead. Honestly, it is hard arguing against her impact. Angelou carried a presence that immediately captured attention. When she spoke, people listened carefully. Her poem “Still I Rise” became bigger than literature. Folks used those words during hard seasons in life, graduation ceremonies, speeches, and moments requiring courage. Black women especially embraced her because she spoke openly about healing, pain, motherhood, survival, and self respect.

Angelou also arrived during an era dominated by television and mass media. Millions saw her interviews and public appearances. Visibility matters whenever people discuss fame. Some younger readers today may recognize Angelou quicker than Hughes because clips of her speeches still circulate heavily online. Yet Hughes carries tremendous historical weight because he helped build the modern foundation Black poetry stands upon.

Writers like Gwendolyn Brooks deserve much more attention too. Brooks became the first Black person awarded the Pulitzer Prize in poetry. Her work captured neighborhood life with incredible detail. She understood ordinary people deeply. Scholars continue praising her brilliance because she balanced emotional honesty with technical skill beautifully.

Nikki Giovanni brought another kind of energy altogether. Giovanni sounded fearless. Younger audiences especially connected with her confidence and direct approach. She discussed Black identity, politics, love, family, and pride without sounding distant from everyday people. Some poets only feel powerful on paper. Giovanni could walk into a room and command attention immediately.

The discussion grows even richer once names like Paul Laurence Dunbar, Amiri Baraka, and Claude McKay enter the picture. Every one of those men shaped Black literary history in meaningful ways. Dunbar especially faced enormous obstacles during his time. America barely acknowledged Black intellectual achievement then, yet he still carved out space through pure talent and determination.

Still, influence and fame are not always identical. Some writers receive tremendous academic respect without becoming widely recognized by everyday people. Hughes managed to bridge both worlds. Professors studied him seriously while ordinary folks embraced him naturally. That combination rarely happens. Usually artists lean heavily toward either scholarly admiration or public affection. Hughes somehow earned both.

Timing also played a role. Hughes emerged when Black America desperately needed visible cultural voices. Large numbers of Southern families were relocating North hoping for better opportunities and safer lives. Communities were changing quickly. Music, politics, fashion, and identity were all evolving together. Hughes documented much of that emotional transition through poetry. Because of that, his work feels tied directly to major chapters in American history.

At his core, Hughes understood something important about Black life. He knew our people carried sorrow and beauty together. He knew laughter survived alongside hardship. He understood music could heal wounds temporarily, even when society kept reopening them. Most importantly, he believed ordinary Black existence deserved artistic respect. That perspective changed literature permanently.

So who is the most famous Black poet? The safest answer remains Langston Hughes. His words traveled through classrooms, speeches, conversations, music, activism, and generations of families trying to understand themselves inside America. Other legendary writers absolutely belong beside him in the conversation. Some readers may personally prefer another voice, and that is completely fair. Greatness comes in different forms. But when people combine recognition, historical impact, cultural memory, and long term influence together, Hughes still stands near the very top. His poetry never felt trapped in the past. Even now, decades later, the brother still speaks.

Staff Writer; Jamar Jackson

This brother has a passion for poetry and music. One may contact him at; JJackson@ThyBlackMan.com.

That promise remains unfinished.

This year, Brown Day arrived during a season of commencements and reflection. On May 16, 2026, Bennett College celebrated its centennial commencement, honoring one hundred years of Black women pursuing excellence against extraordinary odds. As Bennett’s 15th president from 2007 to 2012, I was especially honored to return for the centennial celebration and witness another generation of Black women stepping boldly into their futures.

To stand on Bennett’s campus was to witness the power of educational persistence — generations of women who insisted on learning, leadership, and achievement even when the nation offered them unequal schools, unequal resources, and unequal expectations.

That history matters because we are once again debating the meaning and purpose of education in America.

We hear constant alarm about declining test scores, learning loss, teacher shortages, and struggling schools. But too often these conversations avoid the deeper question: who actually receives a quality education in America, and who does not?

Brown rested on a radical premise for its time — that Black children deserved the same educational investment as white children. Not leftover resources. Not overcrowded classrooms. Not crumbling facilities. Not diminished expectations. Equal opportunity.

Yet decades later, educational inequality remains deeply embedded in American life. School districts are still shaped by segregated housing patterns and unequal tax bases. Schools serving Black students are more likely to experience staffing shortages, aging facilities, fewer advanced courses, and harsher disciplinary systems.

And here lies the contradiction. Many of the same political voices lamenting declining educational outcomes are simultaneously attacking the institutions that help students learn. They denounce falling test scores while censoring history, restricting honest conversations about race, undermining teachers, weakening diversity initiatives, and reducing educational resources for students who need them most. The ongoing weakening of the Department of Education sends a chilling message about national priorities.

We cannot claim to value excellence while starving the conditions that make excellence possible.

Declining scores do not emerge in isolation. Hunger affects learning. Housing instability affects learning. Underfunded schools affect learning. Poverty and inequality affect learning. Educational outcomes reflect the conditions under which children live.

This is why HBCUs remain so important. Institutions like Bennett continue to nurture Black intellect, cultivate leadership, and affirm Black humanity, often while operating with fewer resources than predominantly white institutions. They remain places where students are encouraged not simply to survive, but to excel.

Many HBCU graduations also occur near Mother’s Day, and that connection should not be overlooked. Behind countless graduates stands a mother or grandmother who stretched limited resources, worked exhausting hours, deferred her own dreams, and insisted that education mattered. Black educational achievement has always been sustained not only by institutions, but also by sacrifice.

Brown opened doors. America has yet to decide whether it is truly committed to what lies beyond them: equal opportunity, equal investment, and equal possibility.

Written by Julianne Malveaux

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

The “We the People” reference did not apply to certain groups, such as Native Americans, Blacks, women, and poor whites. These marginalized groups were consistently denied inclusion as equal citizens deserving of rights. As decades and centuries passed, incremental steps toward inclusion were taken to make the nation a more “perfect union.” Those incremental steps, which were met with aggressive and cruel resistance, included the abolishment of slavery (13^th amendment), defined citizenship (14^th amendment), prohibiting race as a qualification for voting (15^th amendment), prohibiting citizens the right to vote due their sex (19^th amendment), ending school segregation (Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling), forbidding discrimination in public facilities (Civil Rights Acts of 1964), abolishing literacy tests and other forms of voter suppression tactics (Voting Rights Act of 1965), and prohibiting discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing (Fair Housing Act of 1968).

“We the People” eventually evolved into becoming more inclusive in practice, thanks to individuals like Charles Hamilton Houston, who is known as “the man who killed Jim Crow.” Houston was an attorney who trained a generation of lawyers, including Thurgood Marshall, to systematically dismantle segregation laws in court. Despite the string of legislative victories that ended the legal application of the Jim Crow system, the legacies of cruelty, injustice, and inequality have never ended. There will always be a gap in society between the goal we are striving to achieve (an all-inclusive society) and our current position (a society that continues to embrace the exclusion of others). As we saw the gap start to effectively close with each incremental step taken, it gave us evidence and even hope that America has the willingness (under duress) to follow its moral compass. A society without a moral compass eventually evolves into a nation where wrong becomes right and what was once considered right becomes ignored.

You can change government laws, but new laws do not change a person’s hard heart and narrow mind. In its recent ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court seriously wounded the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Callais v. Louisiana. The 6-3 conservative majority’s decision ruled to eliminate one of Louisiana’s two majority-Black districts, limiting the scope of the VRA provision that creates majority-minority districts. The decision opens the door to redistricting across the South that will likely decimate Black and Latino representation in Congress, as well as state legislatures and municipal governments.

Two nonpartisan election handicappers identified seven districts that could be at risk of being redrawn to favor Republicans following the Callais v. Louisiana decision. Both Cook Political Report and Sabato’s Crystal Ball, which is published by the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, said the court’s ruling – which deemed Louisiana’s current map an illegal racial gerrymander and ordered it to be redrawn—could ultimately jeopardize all of the Democratic seats in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Carolina. In Alabama, where Democrats hold two of the seven congressional districts, both Reps. Shomari Figures and Terri Sewell could be at risk if the state were to redraw its map. The only Democrats representing Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Carolina –Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn.), and Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.) –could be in jeopardy. Thompson, who represents Mississippi’s 2^nd Congressional District and is the only Black member of the state’s congressional delegation, said Black residents make up 38% of Mississippi’s population and should retain at least one House seat. He said the ruling “has moved us back over 60 years.”

For decades, a dedicated movement of conservative activists, legal scholars, and politicians campaigned to overturn Roe v. Wade. This effort involved building a conservative judicial majority, passing state-level restrictions, and securing federal judicial appointments. Ultimately, the goal was achieved with the Dobbs v. Jackson decision in 2022. Overturning Roe v. Wade was a 40 to 50-year concerted campaign focused on appointing “pro-life” judges.

Anti-abortion groups became a powerful base for the Republican Party, with abortion becoming an effective rallying cry for political mobilization. Conservative networks like the Federalist Society worked behind the scenes in prioritizing judicial nominations and targeting candidates who supported federal abortion rights. While all the public attention and debate centered on overturning abortion rights, many people didn’t realize that dismantling the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were next in the conservative pipeline. The long-term judicial strategy of conservatives was a counterpunch to Charles Hamilton Houston’s work in dismantling Jim Crow through the courts.

From his first job as a young aide in the Reagan Justice Department, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was intensely determined to dismantle the VRA. The culmination of John Roberts’s 50-year crusade to destroy the VRA also dealt a severe blow to the true spirit behind the words “We the People.” America, where is your moral compass?

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.

Soap operas began as radio programs that morphed into TV series with the advent of television in the 1940s. They were mostly watched by women because men were away at work in the factory or on the family farm plowing the fields.

Major soap manufacturers were the primary sponsors since women did all the household chores during this time.  The sponsors were companies like Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, and Lever Brothers.

Soap operas explored themes like love, betrayal, sex, social issues, corruption among the elite and political class.

Modern day soaps have an intense focus on dysfunction, tearing down of traditional social norms (the concept of man and woman) with an obsessive focus on how “racist” America is.  In many ways today’s soaps are anti-America.

Listening to the hysterical freaking out by radical liberals over last week’s U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Voting Rights Act, you would think America is on “The Edge of Night.”

As I have written in previous columns, the international intelligence consensus, led by our CIA, about the Black community is that “they are very emotional…if you get them emotional, they will lose sight of their objectives.”

So, like clockwork, it was no surprise that after the U.S. Supreme Court released it’s 6-3 ruling in the Louisiana v. Callais case that radical Black liberal media appointed leaders and organizations lost their collective minds.

Democrat shills like Roland Martin, Joy Reid, Don Lemon, Laura Coasts, Whoopie Goldberg, Sunny Hostin, Jemele Hill, Barak Obama; and radical liberal organizations like the NAACP, The National Urban League, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Black Economic Alliance, the United Negro College Fund, the Thurgood Marshall Fund, the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Bar Association all claimed that white racist Republicans like Donald Trump were trying to put Blacks back in slavery.

The court did not, let me repeat, DID NOT overturn the 1965 Voting Rights Act!  They simply said that you cannot base the drawing of a congressional district with the sole intent of packing enough Black voters in a district so that it guarantees a Black will be elected.

Implicit in what these radical Black liberals are saying is that the only way for Blacks to win an election is for them to receive only Black votes.

In other words, whites will not vote for a Black candidate.  Nothing could be more anti-American.

There are currently four Black Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives:  Byron Donalds (FL), Wesley Hunt (TX), John James (MI), Burgess Owens (UT).  They each represent a majority white district.

And what radical liberals always seem to forget is that America voted twice for Barak Obama, each time with a majority of the white vote.

So where is the political racism?  I will wait for your answer…

The Supreme Court basically said that it is perfectly fine to gerrymander based on party affiliation (Democrat, Republican); but you cannot do it to guarantee an outcome based on race (majority-minority districts).

Can someone please tell me how this is devastating to the Black community?

Another question for my radical liberal sycophants, I have seen you all over the media ranting about how Republicans and conservatives have been chipping away at voting rights, affirmative action, and other liberal programs for decades; so why did you not do anything legislatively to protect these programs or update these programs for the 21^st century?

In Bill Clinton’s and Barak Obama’s first terms in office, Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the White House and you did nothing.  Were they also racists?

To the NAACP, The National Urban League, the Congressional Black Caucus, Black Economic Alliance, the National Association of Black Journalists, the Thurgood Marshall Fund, the United Negro College Fund, the National Bar Association, why were you not forward thinking enough to be proactive versus reactive?  Since radical liberal Black leadership “knew” Republicans were attempting to eradicate these programs why did they do nothing?

Herein lies the problems with the media appointed radical Black leaders in the Black community, they are worthless.  They are supposed to be the “talented tenth,”  “the boule,” “the bourgeoisie.”

How much of the blame for the Black community’s plight fall at the feet of these weak, radical, liberal organizations and their bought and paid for leadership?

The Supreme Court’s decision is going to force both Black and white, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican to work together in coalitions based on a shared agenda.

This is what these crazy radical Black liberals refuse talk about.  By getting rid of the minority districts, whites will pick up a considerable amount of Black voters that will necessitate dialogue and interaction.

Who would argue that this is a bad thing?

These white and Black elected officials will now have to build relationships with people under the new maps they would normally never have to engage with.

In majority white districts, elected officials could ignore their Black constituents; in majority Black districts elected officials could ignore their white constituents.

Under the new maps Black and white elected officials will be forced to interact with the new voters of their districts.

These once useful laws and programs from the 1960s began with the intent of creating equality and justice specifically for Blacks; but they have morphed into guaranteed outcomes (majority-minority districts, all but guaranteeing that a Black would win the election).

That is the singular issue the Supreme Court was addressing in its ruling last week.  Nothing more, nothing less.

The right to vote, still there.  The right to pick your representative based on your political values, still there. The right to guarantee that you have a Black representative, gone!

If you want a Black representative, build coalitions and meet at the ballot box.

According to Pew Research, “the number of Black eligible voters in the United States is projected to reach 34.4 million in November 2024 (the latest year data is available) after several years of modest growth. And Black eligible voters stand out for turnout rates that are higher than among Latino and Asian eligible voters.”

According to this same research, Blacks comprise 14% of all voters.  Half of Black eligible voters live in one of eight states. Texas has the largest number, with 2.9 million, followed by Georgia and Florida (2.6 million each). Rounding out the top eight are New York (2.4 million), California (2.0 million), North Carolina (1.8 million), and Maryland and Illinois (1.4 million each). Together, these states account for 52% of Black eligible voters in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Regionally, more than half of Black eligible voters (57%) live in Southern states. The Midwest (17%) and Northeast (16%) have the next-highest shares of the nation’s Black eligible voters, while relatively few live in the West (10%).

Black eligible voters are more likely than eligible voters to be women (53% vs. 51%). They also tend to be younger than eligible voters overall: 60% of Black eligible voters are under the age of 50, compared with 52% of all U.S. eligible voters.

Only 64% of eligible Black voters actually voted in 2024.  This is the problem, not racism.

So as opposed to giving Blacks a reason to vote,  radical Black liberals keep trying to force Black voters to accept amnesty for illegals, boys in girl sports, homosexuality, no punishment for crimes, higher taxes and radical feminism.  Black voters continue to show they are not in agreement with these media appointed leaders, so an increasing number are now voting Republican.

As the soulful singer, Michael McDonald told me, “what a fool believes he sees; no wiseman has the power to reason away; ‘cause what seems to be is always better than nothing at all.”

Staff Writer; Raynard Jackson

This talented brother is a Pulitzer Award nominated columnist and founder and chairman of Black Americans for a Better Future (BAFBF), a federally registered 527 Super PAC established to get more Blacks involved in the Republican Party. BAFBF focuses on the Black entrepreneur. For more information about BAFBF, visit www.bafbf.org. You can follow Raynard on Twitter; RealRaynardJ; on Gettr: RaynardJackson.

Can also drop him an email at; RaynardJ@ThyBlackMan.com.

]]> https://thyblackman.com/2026/05/05/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-ruling-black-voters-analysis/feed/ 2 https://thyblackman.com/2026/05/01/ideological-echo-chambers-education-political-violence-analysis/ https://thyblackman.com/2026/05/01/ideological-echo-chambers-education-political-violence-analysis/#comments Fri, 01 May 2026 05:05:46 +0000 https://thyblackman.com/?p=139560 (ThyBlackMan.com) Much has been made of the advanced education of the latest would-be assassin of President Donald Trump, whom the suspect described in a manifesto as a “pedophile,” “rapist” and “traitor.” He graduated from the California Institute of Technology, one of the most selective schools in the country.

As to Caltech, Daniel McCarthy of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute writes: “In the most recent City Journal college rankings, Caltech took the top spot for ‘value added to career,’ but languished at a dismal 95th place for ‘student ideological diversity.’

“The rankings noted the school’s ‘disproportionately large Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion bureaucracy’ — with ‘roughly ten DEI staff members per 1,000 students’ — and its ‘overwhelmingly liberal’ student body, ’16 liberal students for every conservative.'”

Education, by itself, is not the problem. The problem is something else: ideological certainty reinforced in environments where dissenting views are scarce.

In 2024, The Duke Chronicle wrote: “In the Harvard Crimson’s spring 2023 faculty survey, 31.8% of respondents drawn from Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences identified as ‘very liberal,’ while 45.3% of respondents identified as ‘liberal.’ Fewer than 3% of respondents identified as ‘conservative’ (2.5%) or ‘very conservative’ (0.4%).”

What happens when smart people are surrounded mostly by others who think the same way? Often, it produces not wisdom, but moral certainty — an unshakable belief that one’s conclusions are not just correct, but righteous.

A survey from the Skeptic Research Center suggested those with graduate degrees are nearly twice as likely to believe “violence is often necessary to create social change.” The Skeptic Research Center wrote: “In the politically tumultuous Summer of 2020, PEW reported the results of a survey indicating that 80 percent of Americans have ‘none’ or ‘just a few’ friends with political views different from their own. A few years later, the American Psychiatric Association found that around 20 percent of Americans had become estranged from family due to political disagreements, with an additional 20 percent skipping family events because of political disagreements. Another recent study found that around 1 in 6 Americans have ended or considered ending a romantic relationship because of a political disagreement.”

My closest friend — someone I had known for more than 40 years — ended our friendship over Trump. A law professor, he received a perfect score on his SAT. He has a son with special needs. But he became convinced that Trump had mocked a disabled reporter out of cruelty.

I explained that Trump did mock the reporter, but not because of the reporter’s disability. Trump ridiculed the reporter because, in Trump’s opinion, the reporter distanced himself from his own article when Trump used it to corroborate an assertion Trump made that on 9/11, some Muslims in New Jersey were seen cheering the collapse of the Twin Towers. I referred my friend to a website called Catholics4Trump with a video from several other instances where Trump used his hand waving “mocking” gesture to make fun of himself, an able-bodied general and others.

“Why,” I asked my friend, “would I support someone who would do such a thing? Why would his supporters? And what politician would think it is a good idea to get votes by mocking a disabled person?”

But this narrative stuck. In 2016, before the election, NBC News wrote: “When asked in a recent Bloomberg poll what bothered them most about Donald Trump — of a slew of controversies — likely voters picked one action above all others: When the candidate mocked a reporter with a disability last November.”

Trump, of course, denied the accusation and insisted he was unaware of the reporter’s disability. The reporter, in fact, is a calm, articulate speaker who does not wave his hands in the comic fashion as Trump did.

None of this mattered to my friend. And it struck me. Once someone, no matter how intelligent or well-educated, is invested in hating Trump, no amount of information or alternative explanation would make him unhate Trump.

As to the would-be assassin, the question is not how much he learned, but whether he ever learned to question his beliefs — and whether in his environment this was encouraged, tolerated or punished.

Columnist; Larry Elder

Official website; http://www.larryelder.com

One would think that a college and university campus would be a place where diverse insights, perspectives, and debate would occur. Quite the contrary. Once again, I was informed by the conservative students at OSU that they had their event flyers torn down, hand cards tossed into the trash, and sidewalk chalking erased. As well, we heard the news about a DHS attorney who was scheduled to speak at the UCLA Law School, only to be met with disgusting rhetoric from those seeking to prevent him from speaking. There were accounts of death threats, all because he works for a federal government agency responsible for our homeland security.

Yet, with all this, we hear the incessant ranting from the Marxist leftists castigating others as fascists. Consider a domestic terrorist organization, Antifa, which says that they are anti-fascists, yet they assault those with whom they disagree. And we all recall Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk having a debate on a college campus on the issue of leftist gun violence, only to be shot while the leftist was trying to say leftist gun violence does not exist.

All this, and more, comes to represent a highly disturbing tactic by the Marxist Left of projecting their abhorrent behavior on their political opposition. The entire intent is to dehumanize and disparage their opposition to insanely justify their violent actions.

When you are constantly referring to someone as a threat to our democracy (message to leftists, America is a Constitutional Republic), you make them a target. Yet, when you consider the actions of leftists, it is clear that they are a threat to our representative democracy and Republic.

It is the Left that is threatening our representative democracy. Their open-borders policy that led to millions of illegal immigrants entering our country doesn’t just pose a threat to our safety and security; it undermines our electoral process. Leftists demanding that illegal immigrants be counted as part of our census, which will tip the scales for representation, is certainly a threat. Leftists being vehemently opposed to the SAVE America Act, preventing anyone not an American citizen from registering to vote and actually voting, damages our electoral process. Yet, they call others, 80-plus percent of Americans, white supremacists, racists, and other denigrating monikers in order to fearmonger opposition into silence.

Leftists always point to others as authoritarians, yet they were the ones who told healthy Americans that they could not leave their homes. They, as in Minnesota, set up call-in lines to enable neighbors to report fellow citizens. They forced people to take a certain shot, regardless of their health, and threatened them with the loss of their jobs. And we all know that many businesses were forced to shut down, and our children suffered due to schools being closed.

In Virginia, we witnessed a violation of the law to create an authoritarian redistricting system. In countless leftist states, there is zero or minimal congressional representation for the political opposition to the Left. It is rather disconcerting that some 48 percent in Virginia voted against the redistricting plan, and if it were to go forward, they would be told that they would only have 10 percent congressional representation. Leftists point to Texas, but in the Lone Star State, they did not seek to eradicate the congressional representation of the political opposition. It was legally aligned with the electoral patronage and voting in the state.

Whenever leftists are held accountable for their actions, the response is that the government is being weaponized. That is the rambling in response to the criminal indictments against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which does nothing to combat poverty in the South. It is nothing more than a nonprofit hitman for leftist ideological agendas.

Any conservative organization that is not in compliance with the Marxist plan is demonized as a hate group. There is no debate that SPLC has committed wire fraud, yet, Sen. Chuck Schumer has redefined the DOJ as the Department of Vengeance. The hypocrisy is laughable when you consider how the Biden administration targeted Catholic Churches, labeled and targeted parents as domestic terrorists, and sought to shut down conservative election integrity organizations. It was not too long ago that Susan Rice spoke of retribution against those who have supported the Trump administration if the leftists win majorities in the midterm elections.

For some odd reason, Marxists believe that they should be free to do anything and everything that they want to do. It comes back to their mantra of “by any means necessary.”

I find it quite rich that Marxists always fall back on the tired reasoning that not supporting Barack Obama is racist. Or not supporting Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris as president was sexist. Yet, it was Joe Biden who told Blacks who did not vote for him that they were not Black. Conservative women were told by Madeleine Albright that there was a special place in hell for them not voting for Hillary Clinton.

It is time we realize that the Marxist leftists seek to project their behavior, their actions, on their political opposition in order to shift the narrative. They do so to create an atmosphere of censorship and also to demean their opposition to a point that they are seen as inhuman. When Marxists continually refer to their opposition as Nazis, racists, extremists, fascists, authoritarians, and other characterizations that align with their ideology, it has a purpose. SPLC placed the Family Research Council (FRC) on its hate-group list. The result? An armed man entered the lobby with Chick-fil-A sandwiches with the intent to kill. He did shoot the security guard.

This is not a game; it is actually a long-standing tactic of leftists, and history evidences such. We cannot allow a repeat of this tactic in our America. Marxism foments hatred, and it is happening here, being socioeconomic angst against those designated as “rich,” truly meaning those who are wealthy but not leftist. Against those who do not agree with gender dysphoria and the mutilation of our children. Against those who would preserve life, born and unborn. Against those who embrace the rule of law and support our border security.

Basically, against anyone who is not a Marxist leftist. That is not America. We have freedom of religion, speech, expression, conscience, to peaceably assemble, to petition our government for redress of grievances, and political association. If doing so results in denigration and disparagement, then, as history has shown, the Marxist leftist ideology is not compatible with our Constitutional principles, values, and liberties.

Written by Allen West

Official website; https://x.com/AllenWest

Later in his remarks, Trump said, “It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.”

What Trump Calls “Day Care”

The “day care” that Trump was complaining about is Project Head Start—the early childhood federal program in the U.S. that promotes school readiness for children from low-income families from birth to age 5. Project Head Start was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” to break the cycle of poverty by providing comprehensive education, health, nutrition, and social services to low-income preschool children, while engaging parents as partners. It aimed to prepare disadvantaged children for school and support families. The program serves over a million children annually across the nation. For fiscal year 2026, Head Start and Early Head Start are funded at $12.36 billion.

Trump calls it “day care.”   Reducing Head Start to “day care” is not just inaccurate—it diminishes its purpose.  Dr. Mary Palmer, retired director of the child care centers at Southwest Community College in Memphis, with 40 years of experience in childcare, states that programs caring for children, “it is not ‘day care’ but ‘child care’. We don’t take care of the ‘day’, we take care of the ‘child’.

The Cost of War vs. The Cost of Children

Based on estimates from early March 2026, the United States is spending approximately $1 billion a day on military operations against Iran. And the first six days of the war (beginning around Feb 28, 2026) were estimated to have cost over $11.3 billion in munitions and direct costs. In other words, one week of the war with Iran can pay for an entire year of Head Start. This contrast raises a stark question: what does the federal government consider essential?

Project 2025 and the Push to Eliminate Head Start

Perhaps Trump’s got the idea to eliminate “day care” from Project 2025.  Project 2025 has emerged as the guidebook, or the bible of Trump’s second term. The recommendation to eliminate the Head Start program is found in Chapter 14 of the Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership document, specifically on page 482. The text explicitly calls to “Eliminate the Head Start program” along with the entire Office of Head Start (OHS). The rationale given in Project 2025 for the elimination of Head Start is that it has “little or no long-term academic value for children.”  This statement is false.

According to research done by Economists Dr. Martha J Bailey of the University of California-Los Angeles, and Dr. Brenden Timpe of the University of Nebraska, “Project Head Start provides significant long-term academic and life benefits, particularly for disadvantaged children, by increasing high school graduation rates, boosting college enrollment and completion (up to 39% more likely), and increasing the likelihood of earning post-secondary degrees or certifications. It reduces grade retention and improves adult economic self-sufficiency, including higher employment rates and lower poverty.”

Bombs or Babies?

During the first day of the war, the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, Iran, was bombed by the United States Armed Forces using a Tomahawk missile.  Over 150 people were killed, including at least 120 schoolgirls aged between 7 and 12, along with teachers and parents.

On Tuesday, April 7, 2026, Trump said in a post on his Truth Social that he will destroy the entire Iranian civilization. “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to ?happen, but it probably will.”  There are approximately 6 million children aged birth to 5 in Iran who are the age of children served by Head Start in the U.S. Trump threaten to kill all 6 million of them.

The Trump administration is now seeking a record-breaking $1.5 trillion in defense spending for the 2027 fiscal year to fund military operations, including the conflict with Iran, representing a massive 40% increase in military spending. Reports indicate an additional $200 billion in supplemental funding was initially requested for the Iran war. $200 billion could fund the Head Start program for more than 15 years.

A Question of National Priorities

It seems that we have an administration that appears to be more concerned about bombs than it is about babies. The contrast is difficult to ignore. On one hand, a domestic program that nurtures the development, health, and future opportunity of vulnerable children faces elimination. On the other hand, military expenditures continue to expand at historic levels. The issue is not simply about budgets—it is about values. What does it mean for a nation to claim it “can’t afford” early childhood investment while committing vast resources to war? At what point does prioritizing military strength come at the expense of human development? In the end, the debate comes down to a fundamental choice: Should national power be measured primarily by the strength of its weapons—or by the well-being of its children?

Staff Writer; Dr. Robert J. Walker