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.

… ultimately produced a very good security deal for all three primary parties (Greenland, the U.S., Denmark). NATO and — for that matter — every nation on Earth which relies on American military and economic strength for strategic stability will benefit as well.

That phrase in the previous sentence beginning with “every nation” covers a lot of planetary surface. From Japan and South Korea through Southeast Asia to Australia. The Pacific archipelagos. North America and South America. The Middle East. Let’s include the subcontinent. U.S. diplomatic efforts halted the last Indo-Pakistani war. Free Europe — from Iceland to Poland. North Africa. Yes, Africa’s fragments are in misery. But all nations benefit from safe international maritime trade, and since 1945 the U.S. Navy has been the primary global champion promoting free and safe navigation.

I’ve said the following many times since the end of the Cold War: No matter the regional, bilateral or internal instability, the main aim of American diplomatic, economic and military power is to promote stability in 70% of the world’s inhabited landmass. (Exempt Russia and China.)

On Sept. 22 at the U.N. in New York City, senior U.S., Denmark and Greenland representatives signed a defense and cooperation deal that essentially makes the 1951 U.S.-Denmark Greenland defense agreement permanent. What worked during World War II and the Cold War will guide Greenland’s defense in perpetuity. The deal does add one additional 21st-century feature: the U.S. can deny countries the ability to make “sensitive investments” in Greenland. Translation: Washington is going to make sure 21st-century adversaries can’t buy or steal Greenland’s rare earths and valuable minerals.

1951 wasn’t World War II. It was the Korean War and the Cold War. The U.S. was defending the island against Soviet subs and saboteurs, not Nazi subs and saboteurs.

The U.S. has been Greenland’s defender since April 1940, when Nazi Germany invaded and occupied Denmark. In 1941, Danish diplomats and Greenland authorities essentially made Greenland an American protectorate. When the U.S. entered World War II, America established air and sea bases on the island. During the conflict, there were often more American military personnel on the island than there were native Greenlanders.

In January 2025, after President-elect Trump argued (Jan. 7) that the U.S. should buy Greenland and perhaps reacquire the Panama Canal, I wrote a column making that specific historical point. Uncle Sam had been defending Greenland for over eight decades.

In 2026, Denmark still can’t defend the island. Copenhagen knows Danes and Greenlanders cannot defend the huge Arctic island against two adversaries that desire it: Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Communist China.

China is an aspiring Arctic power. Beijing, being cannier than Moscow, wouldn’t take Greenland with commandos. Chinese intel operatives disguised as investors would do it with cash — buying politicians and political support in order to acquire mineral leases, fishing rights and even basing rights.

Beijing uses those techniques throughout the world, but cash, luxuries and beautiful women have been particularly effective in gaining access to minerals and ports in the small islands of the South and Western Pacific.

Look at the map. Greenland is a huge island. Its exclusive economic zone extends into the Arctic Ocean (think fish, minerals, perhaps oil). It is also one of three land areas that serve as primary positions for defending the North American continent from strategic attacks launched in the Northern Hemisphere.

The other two: Alaska and Hawaii. Think of Alaska as Greenland’s polar bookend — though its Aleutian Islands run all the way to Asia. Hawaii is small but in a perfect position for controlling and defending the central and South Pacific.

Ensuring the U.S. can use Greenland for surveillance, for anti-submarine operations and anti-air and anti-space weapons defense makes it much harder for an adversary to threaten the U.S. and Canada with nuclear attack.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said as much after the deal was announced. Rubio wrote via his X account, “Greenland will forever be part of the strategic defense area of North America and exclude any adversary from it and the surrounding area.”

Bottom line: Another major success for Trump administration Transactional Diplomacy Operations.

Written by Austin Bay

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

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.

Key Takeaways

• Finance employers need people who can combine financial knowledge with data, technology, communication, and judgment.
• AI can accelerate routine work, but people remain responsible for verifying outputs and making recommendations.
• Career options include financial analysis, corporate finance, risk, investments, fintech, wealth management, and analytics.
• A well-explained project can demonstrate skills more clearly than a long list of software tools.
• Career planning works best when it starts with a specific role and a realistic skills-gap review.

Miami’s position as a global gateway, its active real estate and hospitality sectors, and its connections to banking, investing, wealth management, and technology make it a useful setting for understanding how finance is changing. For students and early-career professionals, the goal is not to master every new platform. It is to develop the financial judgment and practical skills that help turn information into sound decisions.

For professionals considering structured advanced study, the MS in Finance program at Miami Business School offers a graduate finance pathway centered on quantitative, analytical, and career-focused finance learning. As the University of Miami’s business school in Coral Gables, Miami Business School serves the Greater Miami area. It provides a relevant example for people exploring preparation for finance roles in investment, corporate finance, wealth management, and financial services.

Why Finance Careers Look Different

Finance teams still rely on core activities such as budgeting, valuation, forecasting, reporting, and risk assessment. The difference is that many professionals now receive data faster and in greater volume. Routine collection, formatting, and document review can be automated, leaving analysts with more responsibility for checking assumptions, identifying risks, and explaining what the numbers mean.

In Miami, that may mean evaluating a hospitality company’s seasonal cash flow, comparing real estate investment scenarios, reviewing a cross-border client portfolio, or helping a growing business plan capital needs. The work is less about producing a spreadsheet alone and more about building a defensible conclusion from it.

Core Skills Employers Still Expect

Technology does not replace the fundamentals. A capable finance professional should be able to read income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements, then connect those records to operating performance and future decisions. Financial accounting, corporate finance, valuation, financial modeling, statistics, probability, and risk analysis remain foundational.

Employers also value business writing, presentations, attention to detail, and professional ethics. Financial analysis often influences investments, budgets, customer relationships, and long-term strategy. That makes accuracy and accountability as important as technical speed.

Technical Skills That Add Career Value

Technical skills can make finance work more efficiently without requiring every professional to become a software engineer. Advanced spreadsheet modeling remains highly useful for forecasting, scenario analysis, and presenting results. SQL can help users work with structured data, while Python can support repeatable analysis and simple automation. Data visualization tools can make trends and exceptions easier for decision-makers to see.

AI tools can also assist with document summaries, first-draft reporting, and pattern identification. Their outputs require human review, especially when data may be incomplete, confidential, outdated, or misunderstood. Cybersecurity and data privacy awareness matter because finance professionals often handle sensitive business and client information. Start with one tool that fits a target role, then use it in a real project.

Finance Career Paths to Watch

• Financial analysis: Evaluates performance, builds forecasts, and prepares recommendations for business leaders or investors.
• Corporate finance: Supports planning, budgeting, capital allocation, acquisitions, and growth decisions within an organization.
• Risk management: Assesses credit, market, operational, and regulatory exposures, then helps reduce potential losses.
• Investment management: Researches securities, markets, portfolios, and investor objectives.
• Financial technology: Connects finance knowledge with digital payments, software products, automation, and data systems.
• Wealth management: Helps clients consider investments, retirement, tax coordination, and long-term financial goals.
• Financial data and analytics: Converts large data sets into forecasts, dashboards, and decision-ready insights.

These paths overlap, but each has a different emphasis. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects financial analyst employment to grow 7 percent from 2025 to 2035 and describes the role as evaluating financial data, forecasting trends, and preparing recommendations. That combination of analysis and communication appears across many finance specialties.

What AI Can and Cannot Do

AI can sort information, identify patterns, draft summaries, and support repetitive reporting. It cannot independently establish whether the underlying data is reliable, whether a forecast rests on sensible assumptions, or whether a recommendation is appropriate for a client or organization. People provide context, challenge weak logic, manage ethical concerns, and remain accountable for final decisions.

An analyst might use AI to summarize an earnings release, then compare the output with the original filing, validate key figures, test the implications for a forecast, and explain the business impact to a manager. Fast output is useful only when it is carefully reviewed.

Why Communication Is a Finance Skill

Senior leaders rarely need every line of a model. They need a concise answer to questions such as what changed, why it changed, what could happen next, and which action is recommended. Strong finance professionals can translate technical findings into an executive summary, a focused presentation, or a clear conversation with a non-finance colleague. Communication often distinguishes candidates with otherwise similar analytical skills.

How to Build Evidence of Finance Skills

1. Choose a target role. Review job descriptions and identify recurring skills.
2. Assess your starting point. Separate skills you can prove from those you have only encountered.
3. Create one applied project. Build a company valuation, portfolio review, cash-flow forecast, or risk dashboard using public information.
4. Explain the work. State the question, method, findings, assumptions, limitations, and recommendation in plain language.
5. Request feedback. A professor, manager, mentor, or experienced professional can identify gaps before an interview does.
6. Update your résumé. Describe the decision supported, the analysis completed, and the tools used.

Where Graduate Finance Education Fits

A master’s degree is not required for every finance role. Many entry-level opportunities begin with a bachelor’s degree, internships, and demonstrated technical ability. Graduate study may be useful for career changers, professionals seeking deeper quantitative preparation, or candidates aiming to specialize in areas such as investments, analytics, corporate finance, or risk.

How to Compare Finance Programs

• Does the curriculum match the role you want to pursue?
• Are modeling, analytics, cash flow, communication, and applied decision-making publicly available, making part of the learning experience?
• Can students complete projects, internships, capstones, or recommendations?
• Does the format fit your work schedule, location, and learning preferences?
• What career coaching, employer access, and alumni connections are available?

Common Questions About Finance Careers

Is finance still a good career choice?

Finance remains broad, with opportunities in companies, banks, investment firms, technology businesses, and advisory settings. The strongest candidates pair finance fundamentals with data literacy, communication, and ethical judgment.

Will AI replace financial analysts?

AI is more likely to change tasks than eliminate the need for analysis. Professionals who validate information, interpret uncertainty, and communicate recommendations remain valuable.

Do finance professionals need to learn coding?

Not every role requires advanced coding. Spreadsheet expertise, data literacy, and financial modeling are strong starting points. Basic SQL or Python can be especially useful in data-heavy roles.

How can a beginner stand out?

Build one credible project, seek internship or student-organization experience, practice explaining financial conclusions, and develop relationships with people working in the field.

Conclusion

Finance careers in Miami and beyond increasingly reward professionals who can connect financial reasoning with data, technology, communication, and responsible judgment. Choose a target role, identify one skill that role requires, and complete a project that proves progress. That focused approach is more useful than trying to chase every trend at once.

Staff Writer; Steve Washington

Former San Francisco Giants outfielder Barry Bonds is a polarizing figure. He is a man who seemed to attract attention no matter what he was doing. Many people marveled at his physical gifts: his eye for identifying pitches, his prior prowess for stealing bases and stealing home runs from opposing players while on defense, his ability to hit home runs and line drives due to incredible bat speed on his swing, and other physical abilities. Other baseball fans looked at Bonds completely differently and wonder if he is cheating.

They observed that his body has gotten more muscular and larger during his late 30s and early 40s, noticed that his head had gotten noticeably bigger, and saw that he was setting all types of home run, hitting, and slugging records at an advanced age when most professional athletes are losing skills and diminishing in physical ability. For these reasons, numerous baseball fans wonder concluded that Bonds was on performance-enhancing drugs of different types.

Barry Bonds was also able to shatter numerous Major League Baseball records and gained more fame and notoriety for do so. He is not only the single season home run record holder; he is the single season and career leader in walks and intentional walks. But the breaking the legendary Hank Aaron’s career home run record of 755, is Barry Bonds’ biggest career accomplishment. As Bonds approached the epic record career home run record, people were puzzled about how to celebrate or treat his accomplishment. Should baseball fans boo Bonds or cheer him after every home run he hit? Should sports journalists write positively or negatively of Bonds? Even Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig was indecisive early in the season about whether he would be present when Bonds broke the record. (He would be present when Bonds passed Aaron for the record). It seems if a person is a baseball fan or sports fan then they have a strong opinion of Bonds, one way or the other.

Because of the controversy and the amount of publicity Bonds produced, it made an analysis on the perception of him a fascinating concept. With the analysis, one can gather how differently two groups (Black people and White people) perceive a controversial Black athlete. Peyton Bonds has the advantage of having the all-time home run leader to get advice from but one wonders if that advice should be searched for given the well-chronicled controversies around Barry Bonds.

Staff Writer; Mark Hines

To be clear, Jesus did not campaign for political office, propose an economic system, or write a government budget. Modern political ideologies such as capitalism and socialism did not exist in first-century Palestine. But if Christians, particularly Christian politicians, insist on measuring public policy by the teachings of Christ, they must wrestle honestly with a simple truth: Jesus spoke far more about caring for the poor than protecting wealth.  Nowhere is that more evident than in Matthew 25.

In describing the final judgment, Jesus does not ask about political affiliation, economic theory, or national identity. Instead, He asks how we treated society’s most vulnerable. He says in Matthew 25:35–36 (KJV): “For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”

Then Jesus delivers one of the most profound statements in all of Scripture. In Matthew 25:40, He declares: “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

Notice what Jesus does NOT ask:

1. He does not ask whether the hungry earned their meal.
2. He does not ask whether the sick purchased health insurance.
3. He does not ask whether the stranger crossed a border legally.
4. He does not ask whether the prisoner deserved compassion.

He asks only one question: Did you care for them?

That standard should unsettle anyone whose politics prioritize economic ideology over human suffering.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly acted to meet people’s basic needs before discussing theology. When thousands gathered to hear him teach and grew hungry, the disciples suggested sending them away. Jesus rejected the idea. Instead, he said in Matthew 14:16: “They need not depart; give ye them to eat.” He did not organize a committee to determine who deserved assistance. He did not require applications or proof of need. He simply fed people.

His ministry was marked by healing those whom society had forgotten. Matthew 4:23 summarizes his work: “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.”

The poor, the blind, the lame, the lepers, widows, children, and social outcasts were never a photo op or a publicity stunt to Jesus’ mission. They were the very center and essence of it.

His teachings about wealth are equally striking. In Matthew 19:21, Jesus tells a wealthy young ruler: “Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” Moments later, He warns in Matthew 19:24: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” These are hardly the words of someone preoccupied with protecting wealth or celebrating economic accumulation. Rather, they reveal a teacher deeply concerned that riches often blind people to the needs of others.

Earliest Christians and the Teaching of Jesus

The earliest Christians took these teachings of Jesus seriously. The Book of Acts describes a community that voluntarily pooled resources so that no one lacked life’s necessities. Acts 2:44–45 records: “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” Later, Acts 4:34–35 adds: “Neither was there any among them that lacked… distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.”

Some readers will argue that this was voluntary charity, not government policy. Fair enough. Scripture does not prescribe a modern welfare state, nor does it endorse any particular economic system. But that observation misses the larger point.

The defining moral principle of Jesus’ ministry was not the protection of private wealth. It was the relentless obligation to meet human need. Whether assistance comes through churches, charities, families, civic organizations, or government is a legitimate subject for democratic debate. Christians can reasonably disagree about the most effective means.

What they cannot honestly do is pretend that concern for the hungry, the sick, the homeless, the stranger, and the imprisoned occupies only a minor place in the teachings of Christ. It occupies the very center. That reality creates an uncomfortable tension within much of modern American Christianity.

Some politicians enthusiastically quote the Ten Commandments while voting to reduce food assistance. Others praise the sanctity of life while opposing efforts to expand access to health care for struggling families. Still others proclaim America a “Christian nation” while treating immigrants, prisoners, and the poor primarily as political problems rather than neighbors worthy of compassion. Whatever one’s political views, Matthew 25 stands as a sobering corrective.

To Care for Other Is to Care for Jesus

Jesus identifies Himself with those in need. To feed the hungry is to feed Jesus. To care for the sick is to care for Jesus. To welcome the stranger is to welcome Jesus. To visit the prisoner is to visit Jesus. This is not a metaphor. It is Jesus’ own standard of judgment as he stated in Matthew 25:35–40. Does this make Jesus a socialist?

Modern political labels cannot be neatly imposed on a first-century Jewish rabbi. Jesus transcends every contemporary ideology. Yet if socialism is broadly understood as the conviction that a society has a moral obligation to ensure that people’s basic needs are met, then Christians should at least acknowledge that Jesus consistently taught principles many today would recognize as moving in that direction.

What is undeniable is this: Jesus never condemned people for being too generous for feeding  poor people, healing sick people, or sharing with those in need. His strongest condemnations were reserved for religious leaders who displayed public piety while neglecting justice, mercy, and compassion. Perhaps that is the lesson today’s Christians need most.

Before condemning socialism as incompatible with Christianity, we should first ask whether our own politics reflect the values Jesus declared essential to the Kingdom of God. Because according to Matthew 25, history’s final judgment will not be based on how loudly we defended capitalism or denounced socialism. It will be based on whether we loved “the least of these.”

Staff Writer; Dr. Robert J. Walker

Because my focus is on economic opportunities, most of the political meetings for my clients will be with Republicans; not because I am proselytizing, but because Democrats are anathema to entrepreneurship.

I cut my political teeth working for President George Herbert Walker Bush in my twenties and was particularly close to his Secretary of Commerce, Robert Mosbacher.

For someone who grew up in the hood of St. Louis, I have had a good life and have become friends with some very influential people.

There is no way anyone could have predicted that I would have a sitting Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, as a personal friend who will do anything to help small businesses grow.

Secretary Bessent asked me to join his family during his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate last year.

Upon confirmation, one of his first meetings as newly minted Treasury Secretary was to meet with twenty of my entrepreneurs to let them know that they have a friend in him.

I have known Acting Secretary of Labor, Keith Sonderling for many years and similarly to Secretary Bessent, he is a friend of small business.

A few weeks ago I was sharing with Sonderling the frustration many of my entrepreneurs were expressing to me about their voices not being heard on policy issues within the Trump administration.

His immediate response was, “how can I help.”

He then asked if I would be willing to organize a group of small businesses to meet with him to discuss their concerns with an eye towards connecting them to the appropriate people so that their voices are heard when it comes to policy discussions.

Last week I organized a roundtable with the acting secretary and fifteen small business owners from manufacturing, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, educators, labor lawyers, etc.

Acting secretary Sonderling made it perfectly clear to me and his senior staff that he was not interested in having a “courtesy” meeting or a photo-op.  He wanted to hear our concerns and address each concern with a specific solution.

That was music to my ears!

Not only did the acting secretary meet with us, but he had the head of every agency within Labor participate in the roundtable.

One of the highlights of the meeting was to see the interaction between Sonderling and the president of Hampton University, Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Darrell K. Williams.

Hampton University is one of the preeminent Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in the country.

Even though they are a university, they also have a vocational education component within the university that peaked the acting secretary’s interest.

Gen. Williams invited Sonderling to visit the campus and without missing a beat, the acting secretary accepted.

The date is being worked out.

There is no record of a sitting Labor Secretary ever visiting the campus of a HBCU.  When I texted the acting secretary this message, his response was, “I’ll be the first!”

The historic nature of the planned visit is nice, but the most important thing is it is the right thing to do!!!

Would it not be the irony of all ironies that the first sitting Labor Secretary to visit an HBCU will be part of the Trump administration?

This is why when extreme radical Black liberal Democrats call President Trump a racist it does not stick.

How am I able to navigate MAGA at the highest levels and produce results for my entrepreneurs if the administration is racist?

The bigger problem I am discovering is how many of the media appointed leaders or “he-ders” of the Black community do not know how to properly navigate within the world of power.

I have always had access, but did not always understand how to use my access.

If a Black person is in a position of power and authority and does not understand how to use that power and authority, how can that be racist or white supremacy?

There are currently sixty-two members of the Congressional Black Caucus between the House and the Senate.  There is only one person who definitely has made a lasting legislative mark during their term in Congress.

That would be former Congressman from Baltimore, Parren Mitchell.  He is considered the Godfather of Black business.  He was and is legendary as chairman of the Committee on Small Business in the eighties.  His impact is still being felt today.

You have more Black elected officials today than at any time in our nation’s history, but all the economic indices are negative for the Black community.

As of 2025, there are 66 Black voting members in the U.S. Congress, including four Black senators, one Black governor, and about 10% of state legislators are Black.

Sixty-two are Democrats and five are Republicans.

At the state level, about 10% of state legislators are Black as of 2021.

There are over six hundred and forty-one Black mayors across the U.S.

During the 117^th 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.

During the 117^th 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.

I do not want to hear about people of color!  I asked specifically about Blacks!

Along with having all these Blacks occupying positions of power comes control of budgets.  Can someone show me a straight line from these members chairmanship and an infusion of funds into the Black community?

You had a Black, Rep. Scott, in control of the House Agriculture Committee, but the Black farmers fared no better with him than they did when a white person was chairman.

You had a Black, Rep. Waters, in control of the House Financial Services Committee, but Black entrepreneurs  fared no better with her than they did when a white person was chairman when it came to access to capital.

Make it make sense.

It is undeniable that Blacks seem to make more progress when Republicans are in control than when Democrats are in power.

That is why it is so ironic that we are about to make history with the Acting Secretary of Labor by having him visit Hampton University.

Trump and his administration continue to make history with the Black community and my job is to continue to make sure it is publicly known!

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.