Watching the inquiries, or rather disconcerting assertions from the Democrat members, should cause us all a great deal of concern. For me, this is very personal, considering that I came on active duty at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, as a new Field Artillery Second Lieutenant on October 30, 1983. It was just a week prior that 241 Marines, Sailors, and a Soldier lost their lives in the Beirut barracks bombing due to a truck bomb delivered by Hezbollah Islamic terrorists. Then, and now, Hezbollah has been a proxy army of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism in the world. As well, I recall the taking of the American embassy in Tehran and the hostage crisis that ensued, lasting for over 400 days. I was a student at the University of Tennessee, going through Army ROTC at the time.

Later, as a commander in Iraq, I had to contend with Iranian agents seeking to undermine our operations in our zone north of Baghdad near the town of Taji. And after my retirement, I served as an advisor to the Afghanistan Army, based in Kandahar, where Iranian weaponry and deadly explosive force penetrator (EFP) improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were being employed, as they were in Iraq. Those EFPs were responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands of American troops.

So, when I hear these delusional leftists of the Democrat party ranting about a “war of choice,” it is highly disturbing. If these so-called elected representatives of the Democrat party who sit on the House and Senate Armed Services committees would rather play politics than confront the declared enemies of our Republic, they should be ashamed. But of course they are not. I find it quite comical that a man who once lied about serving in Vietnam, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn), would be sitting on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Then again, there is no shame with these leftists. What we all must come to understand is that when it comes to the Democrat party, they may talk about a maniacal dictator being removed, Nicolas Maduro, or may talk about Iran not having a nuclear weapon, but in truth, they will do absolutely nothing about it.

I am sure you remember the Iranian small attack boats capturing two U.S. Navy Riverine Assault boats during the Obama administration, 12 January 2016. I was appalled that our troops were not given the order to sink that dinghy. Instead, they were paraded as propaganda, and John Kerry actually thanked the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps for “taking care” of our captured Sailors. The Obama administration hailed their release as an “unintended benefit of a new diplomatic relationship.” I see it, as the Iranians did, as a sign of weakness.

See, the real enemy to the Marxist leftists, aka the Democrat party, is their political opposition. And they will even fund organizations such as the KKK in order to make their point. As we now know, the Southern Poverty Law Center designated Moms for Liberty as a hate group while funneling funds to the Ku Klux Klan. By the way, the KKK was founded by the Democrat party.

But there is an interesting trend with the Democrat party that we must expose. Why are Democrats aiding and abetting Iran, a country whose leadership routinely calls for “Death to America?” And I can assure you that the demonic Iranian regime was watching the House and Senate Armed Services Committee hearings and was cheering when U.S. Democrat Rep. John Garamendi (CA-8) referred to Operation Epic Fury as a “quagmire.” Yes, two months in, and it is a quagmire? Rep. Garamendi should look at his own state of California before referring to anything as a “quagmire.”I, for one, am certainly glad that Garamendi was not around during the Anzio amphibious operation in Italy during World War II. And no, U.S. Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN-5), that is not World War 11.

Where was Garamendi’s absurd declaration when Joe Biden executed the greatest strategic military debacle in our history, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, where 13 American Marines, Sailors, and a Soldier unnecessarily lost their lives? That was a withdrawal of choice, and a horrific one. The Democrats were ranting about the $25B cost of the operation to this point. But where were their voices when we deserted over $80B of military equipment to be taken by the Taliban, who paraded it through the streets of Kabul, including flying Black Hawk helicopters?

Why did Democrats not speak out against the nearly $18B of funds that were released by the Obama and Biden administrations, well, Obama’s third term, to Iran? Did I mention the number one sponsor of Islamic terrorism? I am quite sure that Iran used those funds to improve the quality of life for the Iranian people, right? And that thing called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aka the Iranian nuclear agreement, did not end Iran’s pursuit; it only pushed out the breakout time. And, just for your information, the JCPOA was unconstitutional because it was a treaty done unilaterally by Barry Soetoro and did not garner Senate approval. The Senate was bypassed.

This aiding and abetting of Iran is just another chapter in the treasonous nature of the Democrat party. They were the ones who stood in support of the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War, ya know, the one where Sen. Blumenthal (D-CT) mistakenly said he served. It is the same Democrat party that embraces those who protest in support of an Islamic terrorist organization, also supported by Iran and Hamas. It is the Democrat party that has become so vile and vitriolic in its anti-Semitism that even lifelong leftist legal scholar Alan Dershowitz has said goodbye. It is the same Democrat party that gives a platform to deranged “influencers” like Hasan Piker and promotes a Marxist/Islamist such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani as its new face. Not to mention is home to an Islamist terrorist supporter like U.S. Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI-12).

Funny, where are the leftist female voices speaking out against the Iranian regime’s treatment of women? Nah, they would rather assail American women who disagree with dismembering babies in the womb, keeping biological males out of women’s private spaces and sports, and who support parental choice in education.

The Democrat party is aiding and abetting Iran because they chose to, and because they wish they had a country where they could impose their will as well. The freedom-loving citizens in Iran are subjected to the brutality of the theocratic Iranian clerics and their Praetorian guard because they cannot fight back. One need only look to the Democrat-controlled Virginia to see how they want to disarm their people, making such an achievable goal.

Let this be a warning: this is not about Donald Trump. It is about the Democrat party wanting totalitarian control and the imposition of tyranny just as they have in Iran.

Thomas Paine wrote: “The duty of a true Patriot is to protect his (her) Country from its government.”

Written by Allen West

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, What Just Happened?

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

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

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

What Does This Mean for Your Household?

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

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

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

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

But I Thought My Vote Still Counts?

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

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

What Can Actually Be Done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Associate Editor; Stanley G. Buford

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

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

Before I go on, let me mention the Queen and the First Lady. They deserve a line in my assessment of this visit to America during these turbulent times. My observance may be nothing more than trivia, but the two are prominent in this royal visit. Queen Camilla, as British women often do, wore a beautiful hat, that turned upward on one side just in case King Charles wanted to throw a little kiss her way. Now our First Lady, Melania, on the other hand, took another approach. She stood as tall and frozen as military personnel do, with her hands firmly holding her sides so that the person beside her could not grab them and pretend they just can’t keep their hands off each other! She wore that hat, as usual, that basically said, “Don’t touch me. Keep your distance or my hat will hit you in your mouth!” I love the way she protects herself from having to endure a kiss in public.

Now, back to those over whom he rules, Trump must be wondering why he gets no applause for this war against Iran. It hasn’t gotten him the positive attention he had hoped he would get. It hasn’t made high gasoline prices any cheaper, nor lowered food costs, nor won any friends from other nations, nor helped Ukraine in any way, nor gained support from the citizens over which he rules, no compliments for his position on downgrading funds in the budget for childcare, housing, food, education, his argument with the Pope, his ballroom, attempts to place his picture on the money, on our passports or trying to build statues of himself. He has begun firing his staff that he selected because they aren’t getting positive results for him and his unconstitutional actions to succeed.

Of course, that didn’t stop his pal, Senator Lindsey Graham, from cheerleading for him by supporting a $400 million dollar contribution of our tax dollars to his White House Ballroom. He said it even while the Would Be King was telling us it wouldn’t cost taxpayers anything! I guess they forgot to share their notes on that matter!

It must have been a little stinger from a U.K. Ambassador about what he said a few years ago. As King Charles spoke and received a lot of applause from both sides of the aisle with no compliments to Trump, some will say, they didn’t clearly hear what he said, and they were just trying to be polite!

The real King granted the Would Be King no slack. He was gracious, but told no lies about what a “great job” the Would Be King is doing when he tries to put NATO down for not helping Trump with his unapproved, unprovoked war against Iran. His War Secretary admits to spending over $25 billion dollars and growing when President Barack Obama’s Administration already had a working deal with Iran about nuclear weapons! Sorry Would Be King, but maybe you should take a lesson from a real King, Charles, and a real President, Barack Obama!

Written By Dr. E. Faye Williams

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

The Main Street Depositor Protection Act is the latest example. The name sounds noble. The math is not.
Here is what the bill would change. The FDIC is the federal agency that pays you back if your bank closes its doors. Today, it covers up to $250,000 in each account. Most people never come close to that limit. Most small businesses do not either.

The bill would let the FDIC raise that limit as high as $5 million for business checking accounts that pay no interest. That is not a small bump. That is twenty times bigger.

Supporters say the change will help small community banks and the small businesses they serve. I wish that were true. It is not.

The current $250,000 limit already covers 99 out of every 100 bank accounts in this country. A study by JPMorgan Chase found that the typical small business keeps about $12,100 in its account on a normal day. The new limit would be more than 400 times higher than that.

So who really gains from a $5 million guarantee? Not the corner bakery. Not the family barbershop. Not the small farm down the road. The gain goes to the biggest depositors at the biggest banks. The bill even covers banks with more than $100 billion to their name. Fewer than one in 100 banks in America are that big. No honest person would call them “small.”

In other words, the bill takes the name of Main Street and hands the prize to Wall Street.

Here is the part that should worry every American. Insurance is not free. When the FDIC raises its guarantee, banks must pay more to fund it. When banks pay more, they lend less. When they lend less, the door closes hardest on the people who are already locked out.

Black-owned businesses are already turned down for loans 39 percent of the time. That is more than double the 18 percent rate for white-owned businesses.

Hispanic-owned businesses face a 29 percent denial rate. These are the dreamers most likely to hear “no” when they walk into a bank. A new cost on lending will make that “no” come faster and louder.

The economy runs on loans. When loans dry up, the trouble spreads. The Great Recession of 2008 began exactly that way. The people who pay the highest price are never the wealthiest. They are the families with the least cushion to fall back on.

The bill does offer a small shield to community banks under $10 billion. They would not pay the higher costs for ten years. That is a kind gesture. But the wider damage to the loan market will not wait ten years to arrive.

There is one more problem. Deposit insurance works in part because it has limits. Limits force big depositors to pay attention to where they put their money. That attention keeps banks honest. Take the limit away, and you take the watchdog away too. The taxpayer is left to clean up the mess.

The goal of helping Main Street is a good one. This bill is not the way to reach it.

If Congress wants to help small business, it should make loans easier and fairer to get. It should invest in the neighborhoods that banks have ignored for too long. It should knock down the doors that have stayed shut for Black and Hispanic business owners for generations.

And if big corporations want extra protection for their millions, they can pay for it themselves. The taxpayer should not be asked to insure the comfort of the rich while the dreams of working families go unfunded.

Read the name of a bill. Then read the math. The two should match. On the Main Street Depositor Protection Act, they do not.

Written by Ben Jealous

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

Some of that weight you putting on ain’t just from food.

It’s coming from everything you holding in.

I’ve been around this fitness game long enough to see the same story play out over and over. A brother comes in, looks me dead in the face, and says, “Man, I don’t even eat like that. I don’t get it.” And I believe him. Half the time he really isn’t overeating like people assume.

But then we start talking for real.

Not just reps, not just meals… life.

Work stressing him out. Bills stacking up. Family depending on him. No real break. No real peace. Just go, go, go. Day after day.

And somewhere in all that… his body starts changing.

Not loud. Not all at once. Quiet.

That stomach starts pushing out a little more. Energy ain’t the same. Clothes fit different. He brushes it off at first. Says he’ll tighten up later.

Later keeps getting pushed back.

Here’s the part nobody really explains to us growing up. When your mind stays under pressure, your body reacts like you in danger all the time. It don’t know the difference between a real threat and everyday stress. It just knows something ain’t right.

So it holds on.

Holds on to fat. Holds on to energy. Slows things down.

That’s why you can be eating decent and still gaining. Your body ain’t in a state to let go of anything. It’s in protect mode.

And for Black men… let’s be honest… we carry a lot.

We taught early to deal with it. Don’t complain. Don’t show too much. Handle your business. Be strong. That sounds good, but what happens when you never let anything out?

It builds.

Not just in your head… in your body.

I’ve seen brothers who barely eat breakfast, grab something quick during the day, maybe a regular dinner… and still can’t lose that gut. They think they doing something wrong with food. Nah. It’s deeper than that.

You walking around tense all day.

Shoulders tight. Jaw tight. Mind racing.

That does something to you over time.

And then sleep gets messed up. That’s another big one. A lot of us ain’t really resting, we just laying down. You ever wake up still tired like you ain’t sleep at all? That’s your mind still working all night.

Thinking about money. Thinking about problems. Thinking about what tomorrow might bring.

That ain’t rest.

When your sleep off, everything else falls behind it. You start craving quick food. Sugary stuff. Anything that gives you a little boost. You don’t feel like moving as much. You more irritated. More drained.

Now combine that with stress already sitting in your system… weight starts creeping on.

Quiet.

No big moment. No warning.

Just little by little.

I remember one dude I worked with, mid 40s, solid brother. Took care of everybody but himself. That’s how it usually go. He came in frustrated. Said he tried different diets, even tried working out harder.

Nothing stuck.

Once we really talked, I found out he hadn’t had a real moment to himself in years. Everything was about providing. Everything was about making sure everybody else straight.

That pressure sat on him every day.

We didn’t just change his food. We changed how he moved through his day. Small things. Taking time to breathe. Actually sitting still for a minute. Getting some real rest when he could.

Over time… his body started responding.

Not because of some magic workout. Because his system finally got a break.

That’s the part people miss.

You can’t beat your body into shape if your life is out of balance.

And look, I ain’t saying food don’t matter. It does. But if you ignore what’s going on mentally, you only solving half the problem.

Another thing I see a lot is what I call low key eating. Not full meals, just grabbing stuff here and there. You stressed, you reach for something. You bored, you reach for something. You don’t even realize how often you doing it.

It adds up.

And when your body already holding on to everything, that extra intake sticks quicker.

Then you got the energy side of it. Not lazy… just worn down. Big difference. When your mind tired, your body follows. You skip workouts. Or you go, but you ain’t really there.

You going through the motions.

I’ve been there myself. Times where I was training, but my mind was somewhere else. Felt heavy. Felt off. Took me a minute to realize I needed to check what was going on internally, not just physically.

Once I did that, everything started lining back up.

So what can you do about it?

First thing… pay attention to how you actually feel. Not what you tell people. What’s really going on. Are you always on edge? Always thinking? Always carrying something?

Be honest with yourself.

Second… find moments to slow down. I ain’t talking about hours. Even a few minutes matters. Sit in your car before you go inside. Turn everything off. Just breathe.

Sounds simple, but most of us don’t do it.

Breathing right can calm your system more than you think. Deep breaths, slow, steady. It tells your body you good. You safe.

Movement helps too, but don’t always make it about going hard. Sometimes a walk does more for you than a heavy session. Clears your head. Loosens your body up.

Drink more water. I know that sound basic, but a lot of brothers ain’t drinking enough. That alone can mess with your hunger and your energy.

And sleep… do what you can to improve it. Cut the noise down before bed. Give your mind a chance to slow down.

Last thing… talk to somebody.

Not everything got to stay inside you. Find somebody you trust. Let some of that weight go. You don’t lose strength by speaking up. You gain control.

At the end of the day, this ain’t just about looking better.

It’s about feeling right.

Because when your mind is right, your body follows.

But if you ignore what’s going on inside, that weight gonna keep showing up on the outside… no matter how hard you train.

And that’s the truth a lot of people won’t tell you.

Staff Writer; Lee Walker

This brother is a fitness trainer with 12 years of experience, focused on building strength, clarity, and real health in the Black community.

Have questions? Reach me at LeeW@ThyBlackMan.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Columnist; Larry Elder

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

The term itself dates back to 1812, when then-Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed legislation redrawing legislative districts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. A newspaper, the Boston Gazette, famously mocked one contorted district as resembling a salamander, giving rise to the term “gerrymander.” While the name may sound quaint, the strategy it describes is anything but. The objective remains clear: Concentrate opposition voters into a small number of districts while distributing one’s own supporters efficiently across many, thereby maximizing political advantage and securing representation far beyond what statewide voter preferences might justify.

Recent developments underscore how entrenched and aggressive this practice has become. In Texas, congressional districts were redrawn in a way that favors Republicans in 30 of 38 seats, a notable gain. In response, Virginia has pursued a redistricting approach that could give Democrats an advantage in 10 of its 11 districts, significantly shifting the balance in their favor. This tit-for-tat dynamic is no longer confined to a handful of states. Mid-decade redistricting, once an anomaly, has spread across North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri and California, with Florida still weighing its options. Yet despite these aggressive maneuvers, the overall partisan balance in the House of Representatives remains largely unchanged, revealing the limits of strategic mapmaking when both sides are equally determined to game the system.

Traditionally, redistricting occurred once every 10 years following the census, reflecting population shifts and preserving a sense of procedural fairness. The Supreme Court reinforced this principle in Wesberry v. Sanders, requiring districts of roughly equal population under the “one person, one vote” standard. But that norm is steadily eroding. Facing the prospect of losing congressional control and escalating political pressures, President Donald Trump encouraged Texas to redraw its districts mid-cycle. That decision triggered parallel responses in Democratic-leaning states, accelerating a dangerous cycle of retaliation.

The consequences extend far beyond partisan advantage. The erosion of redistricting norms contributes to a Congress that is increasingly polarized and structurally resistant to compromise. When electoral outcomes are largely predetermined by district design, the incentive to appeal to a broad cross-section of voters diminishes. Instead, candidates are driven to satisfy the most ideologically committed voters within their party’s primaries. The result is a legislature populated by extremes, less willing to negotiate and more inclined toward gridlock. In such an environment, legislative paralysis becomes the norm, and power gradually shifts toward the executive branch, which faces fewer institutional constraints in acting unilaterally.

This trajectory should concern anyone invested in the health of our democracy. Politics, at its best, is not a zero-sum contest where one side’s gain must come at the other’s expense. It is, or should be, a process of negotiation, compromise and shared progress. Yet today, only about 40 of the 435 House seats are considered genuinely competitive. In nearly 90 percent of districts, the decisive contest occurs not in the general election but in the party primary, an arena that often attracts the most ideologically driven voters. As a result, elected officials increasingly reflect the edges of the political spectrum rather than its center, making consensus both politically risky and practically rare.

Is there a path out of this vicious cycle? The Supreme Court addressed the issue in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), ruling that partisan gerrymandering presents a political question beyond the reach of federal courts. In doing so, the court effectively removed itself as a referee in disputes over district fairness. Congress retains the authority, under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, to regulate congressional elections and could, in theory, prohibit partisan gerrymandering. But given the deep divisions within Congress, such legislation remains unlikely.

That leaves reform largely in the hands of the states and their citizens. As of April 2026, nine states — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, New York and Washington — have adopted independent redistricting commissions, often composed of citizens rather than politicians, to draw district lines. In addition, courts in several states, including Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, have interpreted their constitutions to limit partisan gerrymandering. Some states, such as Oregon and Michigan, have gone further by embedding explicit prohibitions against partisan advantage into their governing documents. These efforts represent meaningful attempts to restore fairness and public confidence, though they remain uneven and, in some cases, politically contested.

Still, it is important not to overstate the role of gerrymandering in driving polarization. Members of the United States Senate are elected statewide, without the influence of district boundaries. There are no Senate gerrymanders. Yet the Senate exhibits many of the same characteristics as the House: ideological rigidity, partisan division and legislative stalemate. The deeper problem, therefore, is not merely structural. It is cultural.

Former Sen. Lamar Alexander once reflected on the wisdom of his mentor, former Sen. Howard Baker, who often said, “The other fellow might be right.” That simple acknowledgment rooted in humility and openness has become increasingly rare in modern political discourse. Today’s environment rewards certainty and confrontation, not reflection and collaboration.

If we are to bridge the widening political divide, reform must extend beyond redistricting maps and legal frameworks. It must begin with a change in mindset. Public servants should approach their responsibilities with a measure of humility, recognizing that no party holds a monopoly on truth or wisdom.

Perhaps the most meaningful step forward is also the simplest: that those entrusted with governing begin each day with a quiet, honest reflection: I could be wrong.

Written by Armstrong Williams

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

This leaves the Republicans with 9% of the state’s congressional representation, despite Republicans and Republican-leaning voters comprising nearly half of the state’s electorate. The gerrymandering war demonstrates the latest action-reaction dynamic in electoral politics while becoming another example of Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion. Newton’s third law states that for every action (force) in nature, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

This means if object A exerts a force on object B, object B will exert an equal and opposite force on object A. President Donald Trump started this current redistricting madness by pressuring Texas legislators to adopt a map that favored Republicans in five seats currently held by Democrats. When Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the Republican-led legislature complied, the Democrats didn’t accept it without a national fight. Voters in California and now Virginia have aggressively pushed back, “Donald Trump and Republicans launched this gerrymandering war,” House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters. “And we’ve made clear as Democrats that we’re going to finish it.” The political version of Newton’s third law is definitely in play with the president pushing Republicans to gerrymander their states on one side and the House minority leader doing the same with the Democrats on the other.

As I lead a social justice ministry at a local church in Maryland, we are challenged with the reality that many people are not paying attention to and understanding the political climate we face. Particularly, those with long-lasting consequences for the Black community. During a recent SJM meeting, I asked the members to tell me why they felt so many Black people do not consistently vote. The purpose of the question was to identify the reasons and then discuss ways to address them.

The variety of answers included: people don’t understand the voting process and its impact, people are in “survival mode” and focused more on the personal issues of their lives, people see politics as a game and are turned off by it, people don’t vote because there is too much division and voting adds to the division, people lost hope and believe their vote doesn’t count. Each response is understandable. The gerrymandering war can easily turn off voters because it is a game. It is a political game that reflects the constant power grabs for control in our social and political systems, and it feeds into the wide range of reasons people don’t vote.

If I were a voter in Virginia, I too would have voted for the referendum’s passage. In the past, I disagreed with any methods of mapmaking that disproportionally and unfairly flip congressional seats. Generally, gerrymandering is wrong when both parties act to predetermine election results. Before this latest war, Democratic states such as Maryland, New York, and Illinois were already heavily gerrymandered. But these are not normal times, and Newton’s law is needed to keep the aggressive Republican tactics in check.

People must always have the assurance that their one vote does matter, even in this toxic political climate. The results of gerrymandered districts remain in the hands of the voters. The positive signs from Texas show that Hispanic support is not guaranteed to meet 2024 levels. As a result, the president’s plan to create five GOP-friendly districts may actually backfire. While people are correct in their assessment about the divisiveness of politics, it should never mean that political power and control are automatically turned over to elected officials by not casting their vote. Applying Newton’s law to aggressive Republican tactics doesn’t have to be left solely to Democratic-controlled state legislatures. It still comes down to voters in the general elections, especially in gerrymandered districts that remain competitive. It is an encouraging sign to see the opposition party step up. Just as the Democratic leadership pushed back on the issue of gerrymandering by way of a national strategy, can they do the same with the anti-DEI attacks?

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.

You look down one day and it’s not just a little softness. It’s pressure. It’s your shirts fitting different. It’s bending down and feeling it. That’s when it hits you.

Now here’s the part people don’t break down properly. Belly fat is tied to how we live, not just what we eat. You can’t outwork a lifestyle that’s out of balance. I’ve seen brothers train hard and still carry that gut because everything outside the gym is working against them.

Stress is one of the biggest pieces nobody wants to deal with. Not talk about, deal with. A lot of us stay in go mode. Work, bills, family, expectations, all of that sitting on your shoulders. You might not feel it mentally all the time, but your body does. That pressure turns into hormones that tell your body to hold onto fat. Especially around your stomach.

So you got a man working all day, maybe even hitting the gym, but he’s constantly tense. Sleeping light. Mind racing. That belly is not just food. That’s life weight.

And speaking of sleep, a lot of brothers cheat themselves there. Staying up late, waking up early, running on fumes. You might feel like you’re handling business, but your body is struggling to recover. When you don’t rest, your system gets thrown off. Hunger goes up, discipline drops, fat loss slows down. It all connects whether we want to admit it or not.

Now let’s talk about food without acting like we don’t know what we like. We grew up on flavor. Food that actually means something. Nobody is trying to live on dry salads and pretend that’s satisfying. But at the same time, everything can’t be heavy, fried, or loaded every single day.

It’s not even about cutting everything out. It’s about how often you’re going there. If every meal is rich, if every drink got sugar in it, if late night eating is a habit, that belly is going to stay right where it is.

And portion size, that’s a quiet problem. We eat until we feel full full. Not satisfied, full. That extra little bit every meal turns into something over time. You don’t notice it day to day, but months later it shows up in your midsection.

Let me clear something up too. You can do all the sit ups in the world and still have a stomach. That’s one of the biggest myths out here. Working your abs is good, but it’s not going to melt the fat off your belly by itself. Your body drops fat based on overall habits, not just one area you focus on.

So what actually works then.

You build muscle and you move consistently. That’s the foundation. Lifting weights changes your body over time. It makes you stronger, but it also helps your body burn more even when you’re not working out. Cardio keeps things moving. It doesn’t have to be extreme. Walking counts. Being active counts. Sitting all day and expecting results is where people get stuck.

And consistency matters more than anything. Not motivation. Not hype. Just showing up. Even on days you don’t feel like it.

Another thing we don’t like to admit is how alcohol plays into this. A couple drinks here and there turns into a regular thing. Then it starts slowing everything down. Fat loss, recovery, decision making. It’s not just the drink itself, it’s what comes with it. Late food, missed workouts, low energy the next day.

Water sounds basic, but a lot of us are not drinking enough of it. Everything is soda, juice, something flavored. Your body needs water to function right. Even fat loss depends on that more than people think.

Now I want to get into mindset because that’s where most people fall off. A lot of men don’t really believe they can change once that belly gets to a certain point. They try for a little while, don’t see quick results, then go back to old habits.

This is not fast. That’s the truth. If it took time to build, it’s going to take time to come off. But if you stay steady, it will move. I’ve seen it too many times not to believe it.

You also have to stop comparing yourself to other people. Some men lose weight faster. Some don’t carry it in the stomach the same way. That has nothing to do with your journey. You focus on your own body and what it responds to.

Age is real too. What you got away with in your twenties might not work now. You might have to eat a little cleaner, move a little more, rest a little better. That’s not punishment. That’s just adjustment.

And genetics, yeah that plays a role. Some of us are built to hold weight in the midsection. But that doesn’t mean you’re stuck with it. It just means you have to stay on point longer. That’s it.

Let me keep it simple in a way you can actually use.

Wake up and drink some water before anything else. Get your body going.

Try to move every day. Even if it’s just a walk. Don’t let a whole day go by with no movement.

Lift weights a few times a week. Focus on getting stronger, not just sweating.

Watch how often you’re eating heavy meals. You don’t have to cut them out, just don’t make it every meal.

Pay attention to how much you’re eating. You don’t need to be stuffed to be satisfied.

Get some real sleep. Not passing out, actual rest.

Be honest about your stress. Find something that helps you slow down mentally.

Cut back on drinking if it’s regular.

That’s it. Nothing fancy. Just real habits done over time.

Showing up for working-class people requires President Trump to first, recognize and acknowledge the plight of American workers;

1) The most accurate and comprehensive March unemployment rate, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) economists is, actually 8.0%, and not his official or political rate of 4.3%

and

2) Working class Americans shifting their vote helped Mr. Trump immensely. They did this because they were disgusted with Democrats underreporting unemployment numbers, and at the same time allowing millions of economic immigrants into the country, who competed for available Jobs.

Now, unemployment, affordability (inflated prices) and Jobs, are issues, being weaponized by Democrats, and being used to defeat Republicans in the coming midterm elections. But American voters are not spoiling for a bitter fight, they just want effective, and doable solutions to the issues of Jobs and affordability. Mr. Trump, constant promotion of his notion, he is overseeing a great economy, is in no way a solution. Polls reflecting voters’ disenchantment with his handling of the economy will not and cannot be easily dismissed. A notion is an opinion, not an answer to the problems of high unemployment, and economic prosperity.

We know for sure, it is time for American voters to speak with one voice, when it comes to the real unemployment rate, if voters are going to get positive action, when it comes to the creation of millions of good paying Jobs. Competing and confusing views, as to what the real unemployment rate is, only serves the best interest of – and let us face facts – politicians, like President Trump, Senator Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority leader, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, social media influencer, as it leads to ineptness, and slow or no action, when it comes to solutions, to the #1 issues of Jobs and the economy. As stated above, American voters want to see doable and effective solutions, which these politicians have yet to produce.

The Trump administration promotes the U-3 category rate from the Table of Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization, as the most comprehensive and accurate rate of the nation’s monthly unemployment situation, which for March, our latest report month is 4.3%. The U-3 rate measures persons, who actively looked for a Job in the last four weeks. So, if you are unemployed, and have not actively looked for a Job in the past 4 weeks, “you are not considered by Trump to be unemployed.”

Additionally, the 4.3% is representative of another very important benchmark. Investopedia, a highly regarded financial educational web site, which states their experts offer more than 250 years plus of combined experience to ensure they are giving readers the most accurate information, states, “Unemployment of 5% or lower is often considered full employment in a real-world context.”

Essentially, President Donald J. Trump is telling Americans and its labor force of 170 million workers, that there is no compelling reason to be concerned about Joblessness. The U-3 category rate, 4.3%, implies, if these fully employed Americans, in his fully employed economy, wanted to switch Jobs in pursuit of a better Job; per President Donald Trump they could do this with relative ease, as there are enough Jobs being produced monthly in his economy, to allow them to do so.

Working-class people know for sure that is not true or accurate, because they are living and working in Trump’s Top 10%-20% $3.4 Trillion Tax Cut driven economy, to billionaires, millionaires and corporations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics showed 178,000 Jobs were created in March, however when you average Job creation out over the last 3 months in Trump’s erratic economy, we get a different story. January saw 160,000 Jobs created: February saw no Jobs created, as a matter of fact, there was 133,000 Jobs lost. Thus, the average number of Jobs created over the last 3 months is 68,000; woefully inadequate, when it comes to switching Jobs, when you consider the nation has a 170-million-person labor force.

Furthermore, we know for sure, President Trump’s action, in promoting the U-3 category rate as the most accurate and comprehensive rate does not line up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics economists conclusion, who declared in 1994, when the unemployment rates were adjusted, under the Clinton administration, the U-6 category rate of unemployment is the most accurate and comprehensive rate. That rate for March is 8.0%, almost two times the rate of Trump’s political rate of 4.3%. The 8.0% rate means, 8 out of every 100 workers cannot find a full time Job that pays a living wage, as these workers understand what a living wage is, in Trump’s poor economy. The African American rate is 2.7% higher at 10.7%.

We know for sure, the Trump administration, when they promote the U-3 category rate as being accurate and comprehensive, also does not line up with the international definition of unemployment, as established by the International Labor Organization (ILO). The ILO, the only tripartite United Nations Agency, since 1919, brings together international governments, employers and workers of 187 member states, to set labor standards, develop policies and devise programs promoting decent work for all women and men. Their definition of unemployment, not only measures those actively looking for work as stated in Trump’s measurement but workers who are underemployed. Trump does not count underemployed workers as part of his unemployment definition.

Underemployed workers are individuals who are working part-time but desire full-time employment. They may also include those whose skills and education exceed the requirements of their current jobs. For example, a college degreed person working as a door keeper. This group often faces financial instability due to insufficient hours and low wages. Trump’s U-3 category rate doesn’t count this group.

However, BLS economists in declaring the U-6 category rate in 1994, as being the most comprehensive and accurate unemployment rate does include underemployed workers and persons actively looking for work, just as the international definition does. Additionally, the U-6 rate goes beyond the ILO definition of unemployment and counts discouraged workers, who may not be actively seeking work. Common reasons for discouragement could include a lack of skills, age and prolonged unemployment, and the lack of available Jobs, as illustrated above in Trump’s economy. Click on https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf.

The U-6 category unemployment rate, which is the most accurate and comprehensive unemployment rate, better reflects the realities of and gives a fuller picture of the Job market, such as low Job creation numbers, that politicians may not want to discuss or deal with. So, they hide behind the lower U-3 rate category, while neglecting to tell voters the U-3 category rate is not comprehensive or is not the most accurate state of the United States monthly Job situation, which is unfair, and unjust to voters. Voters have a right to know the full story when it comes to our economy.

So, what is the long-term solution? End the Clinton era policy of underreporting/undercounting our unemployment rates. The solution to the nation’s Job, and growth problem, which by the way solves the affordability issue, is to move immediately away from the current 10-year, Top 10%-20% Tax Cut driven economy, which cost the nation $3.4 trillion, to a 10% 10-year $25,000 Bottom 70%-80% Tax Cut driven economy, which will only cost $1.7 trillion, which is half the cost of the One Big Beautiful Bill. It is an opportunity for the Trump’s Treasury Secretary to directly control $1 trillion, when it comes to spending on spurring the economy and economic growth. Click on TheFixThisTime.com for details.

We know for sure, you are going to get 4 times the spending on products, and services through a larger group of some 62 million consumers. The bottom 70%-80% spending will also be different, as they will spend the tax cut money on a wider array of products and services, whereas the top 10%-20% usually spend tax cut money on real estate and in the investment markets, which result in low Job creation numbers. We are observing these low Job numbers in real time based on the latest numbers of Jobs created in Trump’s Top 10%-20% Tax Cut driven economy.

A 10% Tax Cut to the Bottom 70%-80% of Americans, will produce surplus revenues. It is mathematically and empirically sound economics. Finally, we know for sure, if the Truth is told “good neighbors,” 5 major tax cuts, since 1986 to the Top 10%-20%, have not proven to be effective, when it comes to Job creation and long-term economic growth!

Staff Writer; James Davis

Mr. Davis is a Financial Analyst. His articles are about relating facts in a usable, truthful, and understandable way. That way, WE ALL WIN. James is, the author of three books, among them, “The Fix This Time,” Boost Your Retirement Income! Simultaneously Create Jobs and Spur Economic Growth (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MI3PD2M). Reach out to James @ his blog https://thefixthistime.com.

Question? Comment? One may use this email address; MrDavis@ThyBlackMan.com.