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.

Before Spike really shook Hollywood up, Black movies often felt filtered down too much. Studios wanted stories safe enough not to scare mainstream audiences. Spike never seemed interested in playing that game. His characters talked like people we actually knew. The neighborhoods looked lived in. Cats sweating on hot Brooklyn blocks. Old heads sitting outside watching everything happening around them. Young brothers trying to survive while carrying pressure they barely understood themselves. Nothing felt overly cleaned up for approval. That honesty hit different.

A lot of that perspective probably comes from the fact Spike is a proud graduate of Morehouse College. Brothers who understand HBCU culture know those spaces shape you mentally. There is pride there. Debate. Black history. Confidence. Style. Community. You can feel that influence running through Spike’s work because his movies carry the energy of somebody deeply connected to Black people instead of somebody studying us from afar trying to imitate what he sees.

When School Daze came out, many Black students immediately recognized what Spike was talking about. Colorism. Greek life. Hair politics. Identity struggles. Class differences. He brought all those conversations right onto the screen while other filmmakers probably would have avoided them completely. Some folks got uncomfortable because certain scenes felt too real. But that was Spike’s gift. The brother never ran from uncomfortable truth.

Then Do the Right Thing landed and changed Black cinema forever. Even today that movie still feels alive because America still wrestles with many of the same tensions. Anybody raised around urban neighborhoods recognized the emotional temperature immediately. Hot summer days. Police tension. Frustration sitting underneath conversations. People trying to survive financially while pride and anger keep bumping into each other constantly. Spike captured all of that naturally. The characters did not feel fake. They felt familiar.

One thing I always respected about Do the Right Thing was how Spike trusted audiences enough not to hand them easy answers. Everybody watches that movie differently depending on life experience. Some people defend Sal. Others connect more with Radio Raheem or Mookie. Brothers still debate that ending decades later because real life rarely wraps itself up neatly. Spike understood that complexity.

Then came Malcolm X, and honestly, that picture felt bigger than Hollywood. Spike knew exactly how important Malcolm X remained to Black America, so he treated the story carefully instead of turning it into some watered down history lesson. Under Spike’s direction, Denzel Washington gave one of the greatest performances ever seen on screen. Young Black men walked out theaters wanting to learn more about themselves afterward. That kind of impact matters.

What made Malcolm X connect deeply was the humanity inside the storytelling. Malcolm was not shown like some untouchable figure floating above ordinary people. Audiences watched him struggle, evolve, sharpen mentally, and stand stronger in his beliefs over time. A lot of brothers saw pieces of themselves inside that journey because many were trying to rebuild their own lives while fighting through difficult environments.

Another Spike Lee film that really connected inside Black households was He Got Game. That movie understood basketball culture better than most sports films ever made. Spike knew talented young athletes often carry entire neighborhoods on their backs before adulthood even arrives. Family expectations. Coaches chasing money. Friends wanting help. Fathers trying to reconnect. Everybody pulling at one young brother from different directions. That pressure felt real because Spike understood the culture surrounding Black athletes beyond just highlight reels.

Family tension always felt authentic in Spike’s movies too. Fathers and sons arguing awkwardly. Pride getting in the way of communication. Love existing underneath frustration nobody knows how to express properly. A lot of Black men recognized those dynamics immediately because many of us grew up around similar situations. Spike never tried making everybody perfect. His characters felt flawed, emotional, stubborn, funny, intelligent, angry, and human all at once.

Years before social media turned outrage into entertainment, Spike also warned people about exploitation through Bamboozled. Looking back now, that movie almost feels prophetic. Spike questioned how entertainment industries profit from stereotypes and humiliation while audiences casually consume the content without thinking deeply about consequences. At the time, some folks probably missed what he was saying. Today the message feels impossible to ignore.

You can also see Spike Lee’s influence all over today’s Black filmmakers. Directors like Ryan Coogler, Jordan Peele, Ava DuVernay, and Barry Jenkins all create stories centered around Black identity confidently. They bring politics, emotion, culture, trauma, fear, and beauty into their work without apologizing constantly for it. That freedom did not magically appear overnight. Spike spent decades helping kick those doors open creatively.

Of course, not everybody always agrees with Spike Lee. Some people feel he pushes racial conversations too directly. Others think certain films intentionally create discomfort. Truthfully, that may be exactly why his work continues lasting. Art that changes culture usually irritates somebody eventually. Spike never moved like a man interested in blending quietly into Hollywood just to keep everybody smiling around him.

Now before somebody starts naming Crooklyn, Mo’ Better Blues, Inside Man, or BlacKkKlansman, understand these are simply a few personal favorites and examples. Spike Lee’s catalog runs deep enough that every brother probably has a different answer depending on what stage of life he was in while watching his movies.

For me, Malcolm X still stands above everything because it felt spiritual, emotional, political, and personal all at once. Another brother may choose Do the Right Thing because of how relevant it still feels right now. Somebody else may connect more with He Got Game because of the father and son relationship running through the story. That is what makes Spike Lee different. His films hit people personally.

One thing remains undeniable though. Black cinema changed once Spike Lee stepped into Hollywood. The brother brought authenticity, cultural pride, neighborhood energy, political conversation, and Black identity onto the screen in ways the industry could no longer ignore.

I would honestly like to know which Spike Lee movie stays with you the most personally and why. Not necessarily the biggest hit financially, but the one that still sits in your spirit years later.

Staff Writer; Jamar Jackson

This brother writes with a love for poetry, music, and real conversations that reflect everyday life in the Black community… Much of his inspiration comes from old records, spoken word, and the kind of stories people carry with them for years… One may contact him at; JJackson@ThyBlackMan.com.

I watched that happen again recently with a homeless man sprawled on the concrete at a bus stop in the Crenshaw district of Los Angeles. As is often the case, he was clad in tattered clothes, and all his earthly possessions, a blanket, and some cans and other food items were stacked up nearby. I called the L.A. mayors emergency crisis team and implored them to send aid to the man.

For years, the common and quasi accepted locale for sidewalk living without tents or shelter for men and women encamped on sidewalks was Skid Row and other parts of Downtown L.A.. That’s changed. Men and women encamped on sidewalks are now seemingly everywhere in the city. The result- cities are now in a frantic rush to remove sidewalk tents, shelters, and entire encampment from public space.

Los Angeles is among those cities. It and other cities have the law and public pressure to act on their side. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court virtually gave cities and counties the license to sweep the streets of homeless men and women without providing places for them to live or services to keep them off the streets. The court ruled that cities could fine sidewalk sleepers and at the same time were under no obligation to find housing for them.

That also gave city officials the license to ban clusters of street encampments without providing any housing placement substitute.

The Supreme Court went even further and rejected the notion that it was “cruel and unusual punishment” to punish people for sleeping on the sidewalks. The reaction from homeless support advocates was swift and angry.

Many business owners, residents, and commuters have stepped up demands that Los Angeles officials act. They repeatedly cite tents and other makeshift shelters as health and safety menaces. The Los Angeles sanitation department said it gets thousands of requests monthly to get rid of the tents and encampments.

Homeless rights advocate groups have pushed back. “We are seeing an increase in these laws at the state and local level that criminalize homelessness, and it’s really a misguided reaction to this homelessness crisis,” said Scout Katovich, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. It has filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of sweeps and property seizures in a dozen cities including Los Angeles.

“These laws and these practices of enforcement do nothing to actually alleviate the crisis and instead they keep people in this vicious cycle of poverty,” she further noted.

The problem with the enforced removal of encampments and sidewalk tents is what to do with the occupants? In fact, the “where do they go “question has been the perennial question asked every time cities make periodic sweeps of homeless encampments. The sweeps amount to little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is simply shifting them from one part of the city to another, maybe placing a few in temporary shelters, while leaving the rest right back where they started, plopped down on yet another sidewalk.

Though residents have mostly reacted with glances and shrugs, the growing number of those sidewalk dwellers present a clear and present safety, health and welfare hazard to nearby residents and business owners. They are more than an eyesore. They evoke fear and anxiety of the potential hazard their presence brings to residential neighborhoods.

That fear is heightened by the fact that the overwhelming majority of these men are African American. And they are for the most part young.

Many admittedly do have chronic mental and physical challenges, which are a major reason why they landed on the streets. That presents an even greater challenge for city and county officials trying to come up with a workable plan to remove them from the sidewalks but do so in a safe and humane way.

Los Angeles city officials have spent tens of millions of dollars on the removal of encampments. They have spent tens of millions more on building, renting, leasing temporary and transitional housing for the homeless. They have spent tens of millions more in ramping up drug, alcohol, and mental health treatment and counseling for homeless individuals. These are crucial and much needed ongoing measures to combat the homeless crisis in the city.

However, these measures fall flat in addressing the new norm of the men and women who make their homes on the bare sidewalk concrete.

L.A. city officials have not totally rushed head long to toss unhoused men and women back on the sidewalks—tentless. They have chosen not to criminalize those on the sidewalks. These individuals need help and support, not a jail cell. The goal must be to do everything possible to see that they get that help.

Written By Earl Ofari Hutchinson

One can find more info about Mr. Hutchinson over at the following site; TheHutchinson Report.

Also feel free to connect with him through twitter; http://twitter.com/earlhutchins

He is also an associate editor of New America Media. His forthcoming book is From King to Obama: Witness to a Turbulent History (Middle Passage Press).

What separates him from many stars is the feeling he brings onto the screen. Some actors entertain people. Denzel reaches something deeper. Young brothers watch him closely because he carries intelligence without sounding preachy. Older men respect the discipline in the way he speaks and moves. Mothers trust the characters he portrays because there is usually some sense of responsibility tied to them even when flaws exist. A lot of young Black males have searched for examples during these years. Some had fathers guiding them daily while others learned from music, streets, church elders, or athletes. Denzel quietly became part of that learning process for countless homes across America.

When Malcolm X reached theaters, the impact inside Black communities felt immediate. Brothers who normally skipped historical discussions suddenly wanted to know more about Malcolm X. That alone says everything. Denzel gave the role spirit and fire. You could feel the transformation taking place through every stage of Malcolm’s journey. The early hustle. The prison years. The sharpening of the mind. The discipline. The growth into leadership. Young Black men connected with that because many understood what it means to struggle with identity while trying to become something stronger.

The performance never felt stiff or overly polished. That was the beauty of it. Malcolm came across like a living, breathing man dealing with pain, mistakes, purpose, and change. Plenty of brothers walked out theaters feeling inspired afterward. Some started reading more seriously. Others became more conscious about how they carried themselves in public. Certain men even changed the way they spoke to family members after watching the film. That role planted seeds. A lot of people may never admit it openly, but Denzel helped push many Black men toward self reflection during that era.

Years later, The Hurricane brought another unforgettable performance. The story of Rubin Carter struck nerves because Black men already understood what it feels like to be viewed unfairly. Denzel captured exhaustion in a way that felt painfully real. There are scenes where he barely raises his voice, yet audiences can still feel the anger sitting inside the character. That quiet frustration connects deeply with many viewers because countless Black men spend years swallowing emotions just to survive daily life.

What makes that role stand out is the dignity Denzel gives the character. Even while trapped inside terrible circumstances, Rubin Carter still carries pride and mental toughness. Black men recognize that spirit immediately. Some brothers have experienced unfair treatment from schools, jobs, police, or society in general. Watching somebody refuse to mentally collapse despite enormous pressure feels powerful. Denzel does not overplay the role with dramatic tricks. He trusts the emotion to speak naturally through his face and body language. That honesty makes the performance hit harder.

Then came Training Day, which shocked many people because audiences had never really seen Denzel step into darkness like that before. Alonzo Harris feels dangerous from the moment he appears on screen. Every city has men carrying that same energy. Charismatic individuals who know how to control rooms through fear, manipulation, and confidence. Denzel plays the role so naturally that viewers almost forget they are watching an actor. Black men especially understand the deeper message hiding underneath the character.

Alonzo represents what happens when power consumes somebody completely. Beneath the swagger sits insecurity, paranoia, and spiritual emptiness. Older brothers watching the film see warnings inside the performance. A man can have money, influence, respect on the streets, and still lose himself entirely. Denzel gives the character layers instead of turning him into some simple villain. That complexity makes the movie unforgettable. Young men learn that leadership without integrity eventually collapses under its own weight.

Not long afterward, John Q touched Black fathers in a completely different way. That film reflects everyday pressure many working men know all too well. Bills stacking up. Jobs wearing you down. Feeling helpless while trying to protect your family. Denzel brings raw emotion into the role because the desperation feels believable. There is nothing glamorous about John Q. He looks like countless fathers waking up before sunrise every day trying to hold everything together with limited resources.

A lot of Black men connect with the frustration in that movie because they understand sacrifice. Hollywood has spent years pushing ugly ideas about Black fatherhood, yet John Q shows a man willing to risk everything for his child. That hits home. Brothers sitting in theaters see reflections of themselves, uncles, cousins, and friends inside that story. Some viewers walk out emotional because they rarely see working class Black fathers shown with that level of humanity and love.

When Fences arrived years later, Denzel gave audiences another role that felt painfully familiar inside many Black households. Troy Maxson reminds people of older fathers and grandfathers shaped by hard living and disappointment. Men from certain generations were taught survival before softness. They carried pain quietly because life demanded toughness from them constantly. Denzel understands that world deeply, and it shows throughout the performance.

Troy frustrates many viewers, but that is the point. He loves his family while still hurting them emotionally. Black men recognize that contradiction because some grew up around older relatives who struggled expressing affection properly. The role sparked conversations between generations because younger brothers finally started seeing how unresolved pain can travel through families for years. Denzel never tries making Troy overly likable. He allows him to feel human with all the rough edges still attached.

What truly makes Denzel important to Black men is not simply talent. It is the depth he brings into the lives of the people he portrays. Whether playing Malcolm, Rubin Carter, Alonzo, John Q, or Troy Maxson, he treats each role with seriousness and respect. Young brothers watching those films absorb lessons about pride, accountability, discipline, temptation, sacrifice, and emotional struggle without realizing it at the time.

Even away from movies, many Black men admire how Denzel carries himself publicly. No constant attention seeking. No embarrassing behavior for headlines. Just consistency, faith, professionalism, and wisdom. Older brothers respect that because dignity matters in our communities. Younger men need to witness somebody successful who does not move like a clown for validation.

As Black audiences continue searching for substance, leadership, and authenticity on screen, it raises another question worth asking. Will there ever be another actor capable of carrying Black male cinema the way Denzel Washington continues to do across multiple generations? Hollywood changes constantly, but very few men command the same respect across age groups, communities, and decades the way Denzel has managed to do.

Now before somebody mentions Glory, Remember the Titans, Philadelphia, Man on Fire, American Gangster, The Equalizer, or another classic, understand these are simply a few personal favorites that stand out to me over the years. Truthfully, Denzel’s catalog runs so deep that every brother probably has a different movie sitting close to his heart depending on what stage of life he watched it in.

What we know is true is Donald Trump,  US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, US Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth with a retinue of tech, finance and business people such as  Elon Mush (Tesla, SpaceX) Tim Cook CEO of Apple, Jensen Huang CEO of Nvidia, Larry Fink CEO Blackrock, Kelly Orterg CEO of Boeing, David Solomon CEO of Goldman Sachs, Sanja Mehrotra CEO of Micron, Jane Fraser CEO of CITI, Ryan McInerney CEO of VISA, Michael Micbach CEO of Mastercard, Dina Powell McCormick President of META his son Eric Trump and several others accompanied Trump anticipating making progress in accomplishing several key goals and objectives.

Their aims were to:

1) resolve the issue of rare earth minerals. China maintains a virtual global monopoly on these minerals which are crucial to modern life providing the main components for smart devices, military and high-tech items. Unless there were some super-secret meetings and negotiations of the Deep State kind going on behind the scenes, there was no mention of rare earth agreements or MOUs following the two-day meetings. It was almost as if they went to China and came away empty handed, unless of course there were secret meetings going on behind the scenes, (wink wink).

2) Open China to additional foreign investment, gain access to China for US banking, finance and tech markets and partnerships.  Open dialogue about Chinses electric vehicles, come to an agreement on fentanyl and its components,

3)Secure help from Xi Jinping to resolve the Strait of Hormuz impasse and assistance for some type of settlement of the Iran War.

But there were no announcements about China opening up its internal markets to US banking, financial or tech companies nor was anything mentioned about Chinese companies partnering with any of these CEOs on joint ventures, collaborations or strategic partnerships! Nothing whatsoever. Trump did say China promised to invest several billions of dollars into US projects and ventures but the Chinese were strangely silent on this matter. Trump said the Chinese promised to purchase more US soybeans and agricultural products as well as two hundred US Boeing commercial aircraft. Yet no formal agreements or contracts were signed!

I hate to be a Debbie Downer but, the US is no longer China’s main supplier of soybeans. China went elsewhere after Trump imposed outrageous tariffs on China during his first administration. China refusing to be intimidated or browbeat went to Brazil and Argentina instead, for their soybeans. This forced Trump to regroup, rethink his trade and currency policies and beg the Chinese to start buying US soybeans again!

None of this is new news. All of this information is on the public record in the public domain. Nothing was announced about President Xi Jinping agreeing to help Trump settle the Strait of Hormuz deadlock nor resolving the fallout from the US/Israel aggression against Iran. So, what if anything came out of this trip? It appears Xi Jinping is not about to interrupt Trump or bail him out while he is shooting himself in the foot.

What Xi Jinping did do was remind Trump about the Thucydides Trap which was a not-so-subtle rebuke. In effect Xi Jinping was telling Trump China is a rising power on par with the US which is a declining power; as the world clearly sees following Trump’s disastrous war of choice against Iran. Jinping also warned Trump not to interfere or publicly reference China’s internal politics and Xi was adamant about China’s red line against US interference with Taiwan reunification.  Trump got spanked in front of the whole world! But both men did agree to meet later in the year in the US.

In a face-saving spin, Trump claimed China agreed to purchase more US crude oil but again, no formal agreements were signed! But even if this was true, what most Westerners don’t know is, China has diversified its energy sources, China uses more coal, it has a massive oil reserve and it is building numerous nuclear-powered plants.

China is never going to allow itself to be dependent upon any other nation especially not a Western one! As far as trade goes, China wants to trade with the whole world not just the West. Here’s the kicker, the US only accounts for about 8.8% of China’s total global trade, that’s less than 10% and Trump’s foolish tariffs and trade wars have jeopardized that! The Southeast Asian Nations block accounts for 16.5% and the EU totals 13.1% both are larger portions of China’s trading partnerships although not in total dollars compared to the US.

Trump’s trip unless there were substantive secret meetings on the side was a nothing burger. In the final analysis it was more spin (BS) than substance.

Written by Junious Ricardo Stanton

In truth, the report finds plenty of blame. That’s the problem with losing a close election — and 2024, no matter how many times President Donald Trump describes it as a landslide, it wasn’t — is that almost everything you did “wrong” could have made the difference. Which doesn’t necessarily tell you what to do right, the next time around, or address the very real divides inside the Democratic Party.

The report faults almost everyone. The Biden White House is faulted for not doing enough during the first term and the 2022 midterms to prepare Kamala Harris to lead the ticket, which, of course, would not have mattered so much had former President Joe Biden not waited so long to decide not to run, but that’s another story.

The Harris campaign is faulted for writing off rural voters, relying too much on identity politics and not being tough enough on Trump. When the other side runs a negative campaign and wins, as Trump did here, the response is always that you should have hit back harder. With what, is the question.

One of the most striking conclusions and the most troubling is about the efficacy of the ad Trump ran attacking Harris on transgender issues — in this case, on her previous statement of support for taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgeries for prison inmates.

The report cites the ad as “very effective,” and says that internal pollsters believed that “if the Vice President would not change her position — and she did not — then there was nothing which would have worked as a response.”

Are Democrats in fact too far out front of voters on transgender issues?

Do Democrats rely too much on identity politics, an argument that works better with the base of the Democratic party than it does with more moderate, independent voters, whom they need to attract?

According to the report, “Harris wrote off rural America, assuming urban/suburban margins would compensate. The math doesn’t work … You can’t lose rural areas by overwhelming margins and make it up elsewhere when rural voters are a significant share of the electorate. If Democrats are to reclaim leadership in the Heartland or the South, candidates must perform well in rural turf. Show up, listen and then do it again.”

As for male voters, the report argues that “Male voters require direct engagement. The gender gap can be narrowed. Deploy male messengers, address economic concerns and don’t assume identity politics will hold male voters of color.”

The release of the autopsy and all the discussion about why it took so long to release it coincides with a new New York Times/Siena College poll showing Democrats with a strong advantage going into the midterms, but also with deep divides and disillusionment within the party. While the left is the loudest force on the Democratic side, it may not be the most popular: a majority of Democratic supporters said that they were generally happy with the party’s ideological positioning, but 52% said the next Democratic presidential candidate should move the party to the center in order to win. Only a quarter said the next candidate should move the party to the left.

The Times found that more than half of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents expressed frustration with the party: “unhappiness spanned almost every part of the party’s coalition — including young, white, Black and college-educated voters — and was especially strong among Democrats least attached to the party, who are the most likely to swing elections.”

The real issue for Democrats is not why they lost the last election, but how they are going to avoid losing the next one.

Written by Susan Estrich

When I was being considered for a job in the Reagan White House, I had to reveal every cent I had ever earned from any job or investment (which was simple since I had no money), and everyone else who worked for the administration had to do the same. It was a pain, but I was happy to do it, knowing that I would be serving in an honest government. High-ranking officials like cabinet secretaries with substantial portfolios put their assets in blind trusts during their public service. Blind, meaning the principal had no control. And though the ethics rules do not apply to the president, past presidents put their funds (with the exception of U.S. treasuries and mutual funds) into blind trusts anyway for appearances’ sake. The reason is obvious, but since this is a time of foggy ethics, let’s spell it out: Government officials are in a position to steer policy and award government contracts in ways that benefit or harm private interests. By requiring blind trusts, we minimize the chance that a decision-maker is swayed by the opportunity for private gain. (Though opportunities to affect outcomes by individual members of Congress are more limited, Congress needs to reform its own practices on this score.)

Trump, naturally, defied this ethical norm outright. This week, we learned from NOTUS that he went on a share-buying spree in the first months of this year, purchasing stock in companies that were about to get lucrative contracts. On Jan. 6, Trump purchased between $500,000 and $1,000,000 (financial disclosure forms require a range, not exact figures) in Nvidia stock. A week later, the Commerce Department announced permission for Nvidia to sell chips to China. He also purchased stock in AMD, another AI chip maker, right before they too were granted the right to sell in China. Also in January, Trump purchased between $65,000 and $150,000 in shares of Palantir, days before that company secured a billion-dollar contract to provide services to the Department of Homeland Security. Trump bought shares in Axon, a taser manufacturing firm. Coincidentally, Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced a plan to spend $200 million over five years on new tasers.

A White House spokesman helpfully explained that “President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public … President Trump’s assets are in a trust managed by his children. There are no conflicts of interest.” That is the definition of a conflict of interest. What do they take us for?

Remember the special forces guy who was caught betting on Polymarket before Nicolas Maduro’s capture? This dishonest master sergeant participated in the operation and apparently used his inside knowledge to bet $30,000 on the timing of Maduro’s fall, netting more than $400,000 because, lucky guess, he was right.

There were other suspicious bets placed on Polymarket just before major developments in the Iran war. Almost inexplicably well-timed bets were placed just before Israel’s attack on Iran, before the United States started bombing, before a ceasefire was announced and at other key moments. Many accounts, some opened only hours before, made tidy sums. Who else in the Trump government may have made these bets? Did the president, ever grasping for lucre, take advantage of this ultimate form of insider trading?

It’s worth noting that there was no “swamp,” at least not in the way Trump claimed. There are huge inefficiencies in the federal government, along with redundancies, waste and overspending. But the main issue was never that the “swamp” denizens were siphoning off government funds for their private yachts. The chief corruption in Washington before Trump came along consisted of elected representatives unwilling to make tradeoffs between tax cuts and spending, thus creating ballooning deficits.

Old-school corruption was comparatively small-scale. In 2015, the United States scored 76 (where 100 is clean and zero is totally corrupt) on Transparency International’s ratings, the 16th-least-corrupt nation in the world. Today, we are ranked 64th and dropping. There was corruption — no nation is without it — but Trump’s constant howls about America being a “third world nation” were not remotely true before he came to dominate our politics. Yet under his maladministration, we are making rapid progress in that direction. He crows that the United States is “respected” in the world now. Does he really believe that people respect kleptocracies? We are becoming more loathed than respected.

The American Bar Association offered a partial list of the pay-to-play transactions in the first few months of Trump’s second term. Coinbase contributed $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund, while its major investors, Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, together contributed another $6 million to the MAGA Inc. super PAC. In the early days of Trump’s second term, the SEC dropped an enforcement action against Coinbase. Other crypto players — Ripple, Robinhood and Gemini — apparently seeing how the game is played, also made large contributions to Trump’s super PAC and were also rewarded by the SEC dropping charges. Ditto for Justin Sun, who purchased $75 million worth of World Liberty Financial tokens (putting money directly in the Trump family’s pockets). Not only were criminal charges against Sun dropped, but he was invited to a private White House dinner for top purchasers of WLF tokens.

When it’s too late to drop charges, pardons are for sale. A woman who donated $3.5 million to the MAGA super PAC was able to get a pardon for her father, who faced charges of bribing Puerto Rico’s governor. A healthcare executive who attended a $1 million-a-plate fundraising dinner with Trump secured a pardon for her son, Paul Walczak, a nursing home owner who pleaded guilty to tax crimes. The pardon freed him from prison and also from the obligation to pay $4.4 million in restitution to his victims. There are many others: Changpeng Zhao, Trevor Milton, Joseph Schwartz, Lawrence Duran and David Gentile — thieves, fraudsters and swindlers all. A whole cottage industry has sprung up consisting of grifters taking fees for getting pardon petitions to Trump’s desk. You may not have thought of Rod Blagojevich lately, but having received a pardon from Trump himself, he’s now in the business of lobbying Trump on others’ behalf. So are Keith Schiller, George Sorial, Jack Burkman, Jacob Wohl and Ches McDowell.

Which brings us to the putrid “deal” that is apparently in the works to “settle” Trump’s lawsuits against the U.S. government. Recall that Trump brought a suit against the Department of Justice for the Mar-a-Lago search and the Russia investigation, and against the IRS for the unauthorized release of his tax returns (which wasn’t the IRS’s doing). His original ludicrous ask in the IRS suit was $10 billion (two-thirds of the IRS’s annual budget) along with $230 million for the other inconveniences. As the judge in the IRS case observed, Trump was sitting on both sides of the table, and thus there is no actual case, just an undisguised attempt to loot taxpayers. She asked for briefs on this question due by May 20. Rushing to beat the deadline in which sanity might prevail, the administration announced that a deal is in the works to avoid the court altogether and hand Trump $1.7 billion in taxpayer dollars for a gargantuan slush fund. Under the terms of this deal with himself, Trump would agree to drop the $10 billion and $230 million suits in exchange for $1.7 billion to compensate anyone who claims to have been injured by what Trump considers the Biden administration’s weaponization of the Justice Department.

It’s just as grotesque as you imagine. Trump is reaching his grubby hands into the largest till in the world, the U.S. Treasury. Along with an apology from the IRS, the arrangement would also guarantee that the IRS would never audit any member of the Trump family ever again. As The Bulwark’s Andrew Egger described it:

“The members of the commission overseeing disbursements (of the $1.7 billion) would serve at Trump’s pleasure, and he’d be able to remove them without cause at any time. The commission would have no obligation to disclose its decision-making process for how to disburse the money.

“And then, of course, there’s the unbearable rottenness of the purported settlement fund itself: the shamelessness of Trump keeping a backdoor way to profit from it personally, the utter absence of any oversight controls that would even allow him to plausibly argue that the money will be spent justly, and the completely topsy-turvy travesty of creating a slush fund for January 6ers and other MAGA villains in the first place.”

The Trump administration already gifted $5 million to the family of Ashli Babbit. Michael Flynn and Carter Page received $1.25 million each. We can see where this is headed. The Jan. 6 rioters, all pardoned, will now cash in, among others. Will it include those who’ve subsequently been convicted of other offenses including possession of child porn? That will probably depend upon whether they can make large purchases of Trump cryptocurrency.

The damage to our civic culture is incalculable. Nations with high levels of corruption suffer from a suite of pathologies from crime to inequality to low growth to unhappiness. And what can’t be measured but is no less real is the deep sense of shame that living in a corrupt country engenders. The achievement of a well-run, honest government is something to be cherished. As we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we are witnessing the trashing of a carefully constructed, hard-won system. The United Arab Emirates is no less corrupt than the United States. So is Uruguay. And that was before the latest orgy of plunder.

Each and every act of theft and corruption is bad in itself and damaging to our national project. It’s something else, too — an offense against those who desperately need government help.

If Trump succeeds in looting $1.7 billion from the Treasury, consider what that money could have been spent on. In round numbers, that cash could:

— Fund vaccines for children in developing countries for 33 years.

— Fund PEPFAR for two and a half years.

— Restore funding cut by DOGE for medical research on deadly pathogens like hantavirus and Ebola.

— Restore Medicaid funds that were cut in the Big Beautiful Bill.

— Pay the salaries of 7,000 immigration judges for a year.

— Employ 40,000 home health care aids for one year.

— Buy replacements for some of the munitions Trump burned through in the feckless Iran war.

— Purchase 2,600 Stinger missiles or about 6,000 Javelin anti-tank missiles.

— Fund research to expand the use of mRNA vaccines (cut by RFK Jr.) which have shown promise against RSV, HIV and flu (in addition to the aforementioned Ebola).

— Fund studies or demonstration projects on mitigating the effects of climate change.

— Invest in biotechnology and defenses against future pandemics.

The list of worthy projects that would benefit the public, not just the kleptocrat in the White House, is nearly endless.

Trump’s claim that he would “drain the swamp” is a cosmic joke. His administration is an ongoing shakedown of the American people.

Written by Mona Charen

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

All the while, a large sign that read “Jesus Saves” hung on the wall above the choir section. I told my mentor, who is a retired white pastor, my thoughts about the disturbing picture. I told him it was impossible for them to be Christians despite being in church. I asked my mentor for his thoughts because he has always helped me understand controversial issues from a white pastor’s perspective. He said they were Christians, but they were not Christ-like Christians. He went on to explain that the Black church not only sees Jesus as a savior but also as a liberator. I told him that while this photo was taken in the 1920s, the same spirit is present in many white congregations today.

The picture presents two contrasting messages within a building considered a place of service and worship to God. On the one hand, the symbolic meaning of the “Jesus Saves” sign is that it promotes the message of Christ as savior. On the other hand, the presence of the Ku Klux Klan in a house of worship exposes the unwillingness to accept the teachings of Jesus, which contradict their own culture of racial and religious intolerance. The Lord’s Prayer is a foundational Christian prayer taught by Jesus to his disciples as a model for how to pray.

The first two words of this powerful prayer are: “Our Father.” “Our Father” is an inclusive term that not only denotes the idea of family sharing a common spiritual father but also unifies all Christians, regardless of race, under one God, thereby making inclusion a biblically grounded doctrine. I agree with my mentor, they are not Christ-like disciples, but rather Judas-type disciples. Like Judas, they were, in some ways, close to Jesus but ultimately chose to betray him. In their case, betrayal came by rejecting Christ’s core message of love and compassion. By welcoming the presence of the Ku Klux Klan in a worship service, it confirms they are not Christ-like, but Christians in name only. Klansmen were established as defenders of white and Protestant superiority. The core belief behind white supremacy is that white Anglo-Saxon Protestants are a superior race, and Protestants are a superior religion, making the ideal American citizen both white and Protestant. Even though Klansmen considered themselves followers of Jesus Christ, they were violent enforcers of racial and religious intolerance against Catholics, Jews, immigrants, and Black people.

When President Trump is joined by top administration officials and conservative Christian clergy in coming together on the National Mall in Washington for a prayer gathering, I have no problem with prayer. As a Christian, I have no problem calling on God to heal our land. I have a problem with Christian nationalism, whose supporters believe that the United States was founded as and should be a Christian nation. This belief is another example of how history has been reframed in ways to support conservative agendas and political ideology, which are actually exclusive of “others” and un-American. To say America should be a Christian nation eliminates the constitutional protection against government-established religion.

While a Christian may not agree with those of the Muslim or Jewish faiths, we have a Constitutional First Amendment to abide by. The First Amendment addresses the rights associated with freedom of religion by prohibiting the Congressional establishment of one religion over another and protecting the right to the free exercise of their chosen religion. Christian nationalism attempts to redefine the definition of what makes a “true American.” It is simply denying individuals their rights to be seen and accepted as equal Americans if they choose to practice any faith other than Christianity. It becomes an example of how Christian rhetoric does not automatically translate into sincere Christ-like actions.

“What should be a broadly unifying celebration has been politically hijacked and wrapped up in this MAGA narrative that tries to rewrite our history and promote the president’s agenda,” said U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman, referring to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement. This divisive MAGA narrative erases the religious diversity of America and threatens the constitutional separation of church and state, framing what could be a unifying national celebration with a divisive MAGA political agenda. The daylong Rededicate 250 program is Christian nationalism, and Christian nationalism is white supremacy. When I see the Rededicate 250 event, I am reminded of the photo with a church displaying a “Jesus Saves” sign, and filled with people who embrace hatred and division. When I see the Rededicate 250 event, I don’t see true Americans, nor do I see true Christ-like Christians.

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.