The FBI was only marginally less equivocal about whether the shooting was a hate crime. A top official promised to leave no stone unturned and said, “there was definitely hate rhetoric that was involved.” But he also gave with one hand and took back with the other. He quickly added that he did not see the murderous attack as “a specific threat to the mosque.”

The irony is that the alleged shooters, Clark Cain and Caleb Vazquez, left little doubt just why they shot up the mosque. In what’s usual in these kinds of mass killings, the shooters leave a disjointed journal filled with scribblings that spew hate against Blacks, Jews, and Muslims. The pair did the same. If ever there was a smoking gun on a hate motive for the killing, they provided it with their diatribes against Blacks, Jews, and Muslims.

But why should that surprise? Surveys have repeatedly shown that hate crimes, violence, and harassment, and threats against Muslims have been almost the norm in many circles. Dozens of neo-Nazis, anti-government, white supremacist groups, and tens of thousands of individuals spew hate with aplomb. The site’s writers lambaste blacks, Jews, gays, and are unabashed in praise of Hitler. They perennially exhort their readers and followers to arm themselves to the teeth against the imagined assault by the federal government on white people’s rights. It was virtually a given that the murders would fire the horde of racists up, and ignite a frenzy of debate, speculation, denial, and even veiled acquiescence to the murders.

Cain and Vazquez, the alleged mosque killers, are the sort of nut jobs who would be perfectly comfortable with the white nationalist crowd.

However, even when the Cains and Vazquez’s are known tracked, monitored, and surveilled and worse commit hate acts, they often evade full punishment. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, but rather muddled, confused, and outright lax enforcement and prosecution of hate acts. Even when the FBI and local law enforcement agencies ID them for their propensity for violence their hands are still tied.

Federal prosecutors are loath to step on the toes of police and prosecutors in criminal cases no matter how badly the crime is tainted by race, gender, or religious hatred. Federal prosecutors flatly say that hate perpetrators are more likely to be convicted and get stiff sentences in state court. That makes good legal and political sense.

Yet, that’s not the only reason for their hands off of the Cains and Vazquez’s. Except in the highest profile cases, they see these prosecutions as no-win cases with little political gain, and the risk of making enemies of local police, DAs, and state officials. Hate crimes may be horrific but they are largely seen as common crimes and are treated as such. Few state prosecutors will chance inflaming racial passions and hatred by slapping a hate crime tag on a case.

There’s also the belief that hate crimes are mostly a thing of the past. When they do occur, they are isolated acts committed by a handful of quacks, and unreconstructed bigots, and that state authorities vigorously report and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes.

When Congress passed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, it compelled the FBI to collect figures on hate violence. However, it did not compel police agencies to report them. Record keeping on hate crimes is still left up to the discretion of local police chiefs and city officials. Many police departments still refuse to report hate crimes, or to label crimes in which gays, Jews, and minorities are targeted because of race, religion, or sexual preference as hate crimes.

Still other police departments don’t bother compiling them because they regard hate crimes as a politically loaded minefield that can tarnish their image and create even more political friction. The official indifference by many police agencies to hate crimes prevents federal officials, even if they wanted to more aggressively enforce civil rights laws, from accurately gauging the magnitude of civil rights violence.

Clark and Vazquez’s hideous rampage almost certainly would have been treated as a murder, charges if they had lived. But in the hands of the Trump DOJ they may well not have been slapped with federal hate crime charges. This glaring laxity is just enough space for the Cains and Vazquez’s of America to run loose.

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).

I don’t know about you, but I can truly say I need a little break from all the winning. It has been overwhelming. It has been breathtaking.

I could use a break from the winning for a while. It has been lightning quick, non-stop winning on so many fronts. Out of fairness, perhaps we should allow the other guys to win some, just to make it competitive.

Let’s look at some of the many wins so far.

From day one before, he could warm up his desk seat, he single-handily brought the runaway inflation that he inherited from the previous administration completely under control. Like a masterful magician he waved his magic wand and the high price of eggs, bacon, bread, beer, coffee, gas and oil vanished into thin air.

Affordability was no longer some mysterious concept but a living reality for everyday American families.

Americans everywhere have seen unbelievable low prices on items never ever witnessed in years. Perhaps, ever. It has been nothing less than amazing and miraculous.

Prices continue to fall to the point it is just overwhelming. There is serious concern that with prices so low and continuing to fall Americans may become severely overweight.

Then there are the tariffs established by executive orders. Before the ink could dry, manufacturing plants relocated from other countries to the US. Thousands if not millions of jobs overnight flowed into the US. It has been nothing short of mind-blowing.

There would have been far more new plants and manufacturing jobs if the courts would not have interfered with the winning. But even with those courts interfering, manufacturing plants from Asian and other places began to relocate to the US. American workers, especially younger workers, are ecstatic and are rushing to fill the slots on assembly lines in those plants.

As one young man pointed out, “This is a dream come true. More than anything, being an influencer, rap artist or social media creator, I always wanted to work on an assembly line in a plant.”

The credit for this great win is due to the tariffs and the fantastic, unprecedented deals won by the current occupant of the Oval Office. Let no one be mistaken, only the current occupant of the Oval Office and no one else could have done it.

Countries for years probably going back to the early days of the nation’s founding have unfairly taken advantage of American presidents. Suckering them into terrible economic trade deals. But no longer.

New trade deals have been established within a wink of an eye. The current occupant of the Oval Office is a grand negotiator. A supreme deal maker.

The US is no longer a victim nation. The economic trade war has been won by America. It is just another in a barrelful of wins.

The US has gone from a place that foreign visitors were reluctant to travel to. Now it is the hottest place on the planet to visit. Everyone wants to visit the US.

There was a time foreigners questioned if it was safe to travel to the US. They were told it was too risky.

That ruthless, foreign street gangs and alternative, multi gender cabals had invaded the US spreading unbelievable terror across cities, towns and farm areas.

That is no longer the case. Bathrooms and bedrooms have been made safe again.

Federal troops and ICE are out there on the streets protecting lives and rights. Foreign visitors are flocking to the US in unprecedented numbers now.

Tourist centers, hotels and motels are now overbooked for the unforeseeable future. It has been incredible.

The US is so hot it is on fire. It has been a great win for everyone, not just the millionaires and the billionaires in the US. Everybody is winning.

People in other countries used to look at the US and Americans worryingly. Americans they felt were fat, ugly, uncouth and uncivilized. Not anymore.

The Canadians, Greenlanders, Mexicans, Nigerians, Cubans and people around the world have rediscovered America and Americans. They have nothing but love for the nation and its people. They now sing hosannas in praise of America and its people.

Until the current occupant of the Oval Office, American presidents were mocked and ridiculed by foreign leaders. They laugh behind their backs at them. No longer.

The current occupant is hailed and respected by foreign leaders everywhere. Jokes are no longer made. Foreign leaders are breaking down doors in an attempt to meet with the current occupant. Many have taken to dressing even speaking like him.

Then there was the war with Iran. It was a huge win for the US. Overnight the US was able to completely obliterate its nuclear weapons and its military capabilities.

Less than a year later the US returned just to ensure that Iran was not trying to piece together the destroyed pieces. Have to give them credit, the Iranians are an enterprising people.

Still, one would have thought Iran would have learned a lesson the first go around when they saw all their nuclear efforts setback to the stone age. But they didn’t.

The Iranians have since learned their lesson. It has been a painful lesson: Don’t mess with the US. It is not a paper tiger.

They were given 24 hours to surrender. It only took them a few minutes for them to bend their knees. Another great win for the US. World leaders including China, Russia and others were forced to conclude definitively the current leader of the US is not only not a buffoon but a military genius, perhaps one of the greatest in all history.

In recognition of how much we have been winning, the current occupant of the Oval Office is planning a new huge White House ballroom, an arch of success and a new garden project featuring all the founding fathers and others. During these great economic times this is exactly what the nation needs and wants.

We have been “winning bigly.” We have been winning so much it is tiring.

Staff Writer; Al Alatunji

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

They were about to be screwed with no Vaseline and did not know it.  They were warned but did not listen.

How do I know?  I was the one who warned them.  I was still in my twenties and as I look back at this situation, I cannot help but to think that all these “old-timers” did not take me seriously because I was so young.  After all, most of these guys were twenty, thirty, forty, years my senior!

Unfortunately, this would not be the last time I was disregarded because of my youth.

Atwater was a good friend of mine and a confidant of President George H.W. Bush.  Atwater was a political savant.  He was our James Carville without the histrionics.

Atwater and the rest of the Republican leadership negotiated a deal with Benjamin Hooks, head of the NAACP, John Jacobs, head of the National Urban Leage, and Kweisi Mfume, Maryland congressman and head of the Congressional Black Caucus.

All the other radical liberal old-time civil rights groups supported the deal.

I can now laugh at how ridiculous I must have sounded when I told these guys in no uncertain terms, “If you agree to this deal, you and Blacks folks are going to get screwed.  I do not know how, but you will get screwed.”

What deal did they agree to?

These radical Black liberals wanted to increase the number of Blacks elected to congress and wanted Republicans to work with them to establish more majority-minority districts.

The plan worked marvelously.  The CBC started with thirteen members in 1971.   Prior to the 1992 congressional elections, the first since the newly drawn maps after the 1990 census, they had twenty-seven members.  They added seventeen new members post 1992 elections for a new total of thirty-nine members. They were up to forty members by 1995.

Now it is time to eat our vegetables.

While these short term minded radical Democrats sold their souls in the 1980s and 1990s to pad the membership of the CBC, in exchange they unwittingly increased the number of elected white Republicans, especially in the South.

This led to a watershed moment that Democrats have yet to recover from, nor will they ever.

In January of 1995, the Republicans became a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years!!!  It was labeled the Gingrich Revolution.

Former congressman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich became the first Republican House Speaker in over 40 years.  This was a direct result of the majority-minority districts concession to Blacks.

By tightly packing Black Democrats into narrow districts, the remaining white voters would become reliable voters for Republicans for decades to come.

Republicans were more than happy to give these Black Democrats what they wanted.  Republicans were thinking long ball and the Democrats were thinking with emotion and symbolism.

These radical Black liberals concluded that it was better to have more Blacks in the CBC and be in the minority versus having fewer Blacks and be in the majority.

This sophomoric thinking is why the Black community is in such bad shape today.  These media appointed radical Black leaders continue to lead with their emotions and not with their intellect.

Despite liberal protestations to the contrary, the Court did not repeal or even dilute the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) in the Louisiana v. Callais case.

The Court simply stated that you can no longer use race as the primary rationale for congressional maps.  The decision is a net positive for the country and the Black community because politicians of all stripes will now be forced to build coalitions to win reelections; not just rely on all Black or all white voters.

After the 2020 census, Louisiana had one Black district; but radical Black liberal voters got greedy and claimed they should have two because a third of the state’s population was Black.  Obviously, this greed backfired big time.

I find it ironic that you never hear radical liberals quote Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. §10301):  “nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”  Game, set and match!!!

The Supreme Court concluded that race can be a factor in drawing congressional boundaries, but not the overriding factor.  States must view the lines in totality based on the circumstances present in that particular state.  A state cannot just draw lines to simply create a new Black district.

Blacks must come to terms with the fact that the VRA was always supposed to be temporary, not open-ended.  This applies to affirmative action and other preference programs.

Most people agree that these programs were appropriate in the 1960 as a means to rid the country of Jim Crown and its vestiges; but as with most government programs, liberals continued to expand, and expand these programs until they became unrecognizable and had drifted so far away from their original purpose.

They were meant only for Blacks because of our unique history in this country.  These programs were never meant to include Hispanics, Asians, homosexuals, or to address those who did not speak English.

In the military we call this mission creep.  You go to war with Iraq for the express purpose of removing them from Kuwait, but once there you decide to remove Sadam Hussain from office.  This is the definition of mission creep.

These media appointed radical Black leaders continue to make other group’s priorities our priorities when they have absolutely nothing in common with our unique history in America.

Sixty-four percent of Americans voted in the 2024 presidential election.  Blacks comprised fourteen percent of eligible voters in 2024 with seventy-three percent of all Blacks being eligible to vote; but Black turnout was only sixty percent.

Blacks have an enthusiasm issue, not a voter suppression issue.  Forty percent of Blacks see no value in casting a vote during elections; therein lies the problem, not racism or Donald Trump or Republicans!

Both parties have a great opportunity to more effectively engage with the Black voter, but they both must come with a different approach than they have used in the past.

The Democrat’s approach to the Black community has become as the sounding brass or the tingling cymbal, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

The Republican’s rhetoric is so insensitive and tone deaf that it is off-putting.  Their rhetoric is so loud that Blacks cannot hear a damn thing they are saying.

This could be a wakeup call to both parties, but are they listening?

Staff Writer; Raynard Jackson

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

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

What happens when the highest court in the land issues a decision based on faulty reasoning or inaccurate data?

The shameful Plessy v Ferguson in 1896 decision obliterated 30 years of hard-fought progress toward racial equality under the law and thrust the nation into the dark and violent era of Jim Crow.

Last month’s decision in Louisiana v Callais, like 2013’s Shelby v Holder, is destined to live in infamy alongside Plessy. We cannot and must not a single moment – let alone 70 years, as we did with Plessy – to rectify the Court’s mistake.

The Court and Congress must acknowledge the Callais decision was based on misleading data and restore the provisions of the Voting Rights Act that it overturned.

The deluge of racially-motivated voter suppression laws that Shelby unleashed made a mockery of Chief Justice John Roberts’ claim that “current conditions” did not justify federal protection against discriminatory state voting laws.  So, too, does the frenzy of states to enact racially gerrymanderied frenzy congressional maps disprove the majority’s assumption that states would not exploit Callais to disguise discrimination as partisanship.

Even more egregiously, Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion relied on a false claim –“copied almost verbatim” from a Trump administration filing – that Black voter turnout had exceeded white voter turnout in two of the five most recent presidential elections.

As The Guardian’s investigation revealed, the administration’s false claim rested on a misleading voter turnout calculation: The administration calculated turnout using the entire adult population – including non-citizens, disenfranchised individuals, and others ineligible to vote, which artificially inflates turnout figures—particularly for Black voters.  The generally accepted standard for calculating voter turnout is the Voting-Eligible Population (VEP).   By the common standard, Black voter turnout in Louisiana has consistently trailed white turnout in every election since at least 2012.

In fact, the racial turnout gap not only widened nationwide since Shelby, it grew twice as fast in counties previously covered by the preclearance requirement that Shelby overturned.

Instead of acknowledging the truth of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s observation that “throwing out preclearance when it has worked … is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” the majority blithely ignored the wreckage Shelby left in its wake and used its own willful delusion to justify even further destruction.

Constitutional law cannot rest on false facts.  Hard won civil rights protections cannot be snatched away on the basis of manipulative sleight-of-hand.

The Supreme Court itself has explicitly recognized that precedents resting on demonstrably false or fundamentally outdated factual assumptions warrant reconsideration or overruling.  In his concurrence in Ramos v Louisiana, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s wrote, “A precedent that is egregiously wrong…or based on a demonstrably false factual premise should not continue to bind the Court.”

The Supreme Court has the power to shape political power and voter representation for generations. Plessy, to the nation’s everlasting shame, grotesquely distorted that power. This generation has the opportunity—and the responsibility—to steer the nation back toward justice.

Written by Marc Morial

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

On the surface, it seems utterly ridiculous that Spencer Pratt could emerge from the pack as a serious mayoral contender. L.A. has not elected a GOP mayor in more than thirty years. The city is one of the bluest of American big cities. It is also one of the most minority-majority cities in the nation.

Yet, every time I drive through parts of West L.A. and Westchester, I see loads of Pratt for mayor lawn and street signs. And each time, I ask myself again not only how to explain Pratt. But more importantly why a Pratt?

The obvious starting point is the L.A. wildfires that tore through Pacific Palisades in January 2025. Pratt was one of thousands who either lost homes, had them damaged, or suffered some property and personal goods loss. They blamed Los Angeles Mayor Bass for the loss by charging her with everything from lax or inadequate fire protection to being thousands of miles away on an official trip.

It’s absurd, ridiculous, and downright cockamamie. However, thousands bought into the lies, distortions, and blatant mis and disinformation about Bass and the fire department. They even penned their signatures on a petition demanding her immediate resignation. Mind you, the petition was not the usual pro forma recall of a public official launched when citizens are furious with an elected official about one or another alleged political sins. The petition leaped over that and simply demands she stand down with no opportunity to defend, explain, or provide context for the budget issue with the fire department.

Bass’s alleged big fumble on the wildfire gave many the made in heaven excuse they needed to hammer her as an alleged, incompetent, self-serving public official.

But there’s more. The 2024 presidential election uncovered an ugly, almost unknown fact about the vote demographics in Los Angeles. There are many parts of Los Angeles city and the county that have more than a little red state tinge to it. Trump did surprisingly well in parts of the San Fernando Valley, West L.A., Westchester, and the Fairfax area. All supposedly rock-solid Democratic vote strong holds. Democrats continue to be the majority in those areas. However, Trump’s showing proved that there are a lot of Republicans, young and old, in these areas. A lot of them like Trump, and though they are cautious about saying that, it’s still a reality.

One political commentator astutely noted about California’s vote demographic that once you get past the coastal cities and areas, and move east in the state, California looks like Alabama. It is deep red. The strong showing of MAGA California gubernatorial candidates Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco are testament to that.

Then there is the perceived horrid state of L.A. In a word many residents continually call it variously “chaotic,” “a wreck,” or a “failed” city.” They say the city is listing badly. City Hall is dysfunctional. Homelessness, public safety, fiscal waste and mismanagement, and a bloated, ultimately non-sustainable budget are chronic problems that seemingly continue to pile up.

There are a lot more residents who though Democrats and have no open or hidden ideological agenda, are angered and frustrated too. They are fed up with the malaise, the fog of government and the self-serving that has often enveloped the mayor’s office. The taint of corruption, cronyism, manipulation, scheming, and secrecy has been an ugly trademark of the City Council. They have no hope that the City Council will reform itself.

Now along comes Pratt. To more than a few voters he seems like the perennial breath of fresh air. A candidate cut from the same mold as an Arnold Schwarzenegger and yes, Trump. One who has never held office. A guy who is not a career politician but a concerned citizen who is disgusted with traditional politics and politicians. In other words, the perennial man on the white horse who charges in to shake up the establishment and bring real change.

     This is pure delusion. He has been cheered by two ultra conservative GOP heavy hitters Florida senator Rick Scott and House Speaker Ron Johnson. In addition, Trump officials have publicly announced that they are eager to raise lots of cash to aid Pratt’s election bid. He wasted no time in showing that he’s learned much from the Trump attack playbook with his viral ads that are chock full of bomb throwing, personal innuendos and attacks against his opponents, primarily, of course, Bass.

Pratt has cagily dodged all questions and probes about his MAGA ties. He banks that enough voters will buy into his alleged anti-politician, non—partisan, no political labels candidacy to propel him into a run-off with Bass.

He just might be right. And that in itself says much about the level of discontent of many L.A. voters. A Pratt will do absolutely nothing to lessen that.

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).

That promise remains unfinished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Julianne Malveaux

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

The president intends to maintain political power and control by circumventing the will of voters by eliminating fair congressional districting through partisan and racial gerrymandering. To have this type of president make this type of order and then have a state governor carry it out is disturbing. As a result, we have a “redistricting arms race.” This is what happens when America elects a robber baron as president. A robber baron is a term used to describe powerful 19th-century American industrialists and financiers who amassed enormous wealth through unethical and controlling practices. Their key tactics included (exploiting workers), maintaining wealth by paying extremely low wages and providing poor working conditions, (monopolies) formed “trusts” to control entire industries, allowing illegal or aggressive means to dictate prices and eliminate competitors, (political corruption) influencing government officials through lobbying or outright bribery to secure favorable land grants and subsidies. Critics often focused on their greed and the unethical methods by which they created human suffering and extreme economic disparity between the very wealthy and the poor. In the late 19th century, the top 1% owned roughly 51% of property while the bottom 44% owned only 1.1%.

These robber barons included John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil), Andrew Carnegie (Carnegie Steel), Cornelius Vanderbilt (Railroads and shipping), and J.P. Morgan (finance & banking). Oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, when asked by a reporter how much money he needed to finally have enough, said, “Just a bit more.” Rockefeller was America’s first billionaire and was forced by the government to dissolve his monopoly. Cornelius Vanderbilt was known for ruthlessly eliminating competition in transportation. Jay Gould was one of the worst robber barons. He was an American railroad magnate who founded the Gould business dynasty. Historians single out Jay Gould not because of his wealth, but because he repeatedly used deception, manipulation, and political corruption to extract wealth from others rather than create it through integrity.

Gould’s pattern was to rig markets, water stock, bribe officials, and crush labor, leaving investors and workers ruined while he walked away richer. Many Gilded Age tycoons were ruthless, but also associated themselves with major productive achievements or philanthropy. Gould, on the other hand, was notorious for enriching himself through schemes that even contemporaries called socially destructive. He was infamous for how he treated workers, reinforcing his image as morally callous. During labor conflicts in the 1880s, Gould was quoted as saying he could “hire one half of the working class to kill the other half,” a line that captured how many Americans saw his willingness to set groups of workers against each other. In the Gilded Age, many industrialists were harsh employers, but Gould’s open contempt for labor and use of violence and division made him stand out. Even during his life, Gould “considered himself to be the most hated man in late-19th-century America,” and contemporary press, clergy, and politicians depicted him as the very embodiment of greed. In short, Gould is cited as one of the most unscrupulous and worst robber barons because of his large-scale and corrupt political influence, his willingness to destabilize the national economy for profit, and his aggressive, often brutal opposition to labor.

What we have today in the White House is a modern-day Jay Gould in President Donald Trump, who entered his second term in office using robber baron tactics to govern. The way observers saw Jay Gould deliberately run companies into the ground and then rebuild them in ways that benefited him is the same tactic Trump is doing with the federal government. The unfair advantage of congressional representation gained through unethical racial and political gerrymandering parallels the monopoly tactics of the 19th-century robber barons.

Robber barons never totally went away. We have them in modern tech moguls such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg. We simply never had one as president. Even King Charles III has noticed a different and alarming America under the current administration. Speaking before a rare joint meeting of Congress, he gave a subtle warning regarding the need to uphold democratic traditions, specifically highlighting the importance of checks and balances on executive power. It has been a while since Black America has experienced a Jay Gould-type robber baron as president, particularly one whose goal is to ruthlessly destroy Black political power and prosperity.

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.

But beneath the gleaming architecture and diplomatic theater lies a far darker reality that the world continues to confront only selectively and often cowardly.

This is not merely a strategic rivalry between two superpowers over tariffs, trade imbalances, semiconductors, artificial intelligence or rare earth minerals. It is also a deeper conflict over the meaning of freedom, human dignity, sovereignty and truth itself.

The CCP wants the world to see China as modern, disciplined and indispensable to the global economy. Yet behind that carefully managed image exists one of the most sophisticated authoritarian systems on earth. Political dissidents vanish. Religious believers are monitored. Journalists are silenced. Lawyers disappear. Uyghur Muslims have faced mass detention and surveillance campaigns. Christians worship under constant scrutiny. Falun Gong practitioners have long alleged torture, imprisonment and persecution. Even ordinary citizens who criticize local officials online can suddenly find themselves erased from public life.

China represents what communism can become when fused with advanced technology, centralized state power, economic leverage and absolute intolerance for dissent.

The regime does not merely punish opposition; it seeks to eliminate independent thought itself.

Former prisoners and human rights investigators have described detention systems marked by psychological abuse, coerced confessions, forced indoctrination, isolation, relentless monitoring, beatings and, in some cases, death. Families are separated. Faith is criminalized when it competes with loyalty to the party. Surveillance is not a tool of security alone; it is a mechanism of obedience.

Yet despite these realities, much of the Western world continues to treat the CCP as simply another difficult trading partner rather than an authoritarian power with expanding global ambitions.

Why?

Because money clouds moral clarity.

Corporate America depends heavily on Chinese manufacturing and markets. Universities accept Chinese funding while often remaining silent about repression. Tech companies seek access to Chinese consumers while overlooking censorship demands. Media institutions frequently soften criticism to preserve business relationships or market access. Politicians in both parties speak aggressively about China during campaigns, yet many remain economically intertwined with the very system they condemn.

The result is a dangerous form of selective outrage: loud rhetoric paired with strategic dependency.

That contradiction becomes even more alarming when viewed through the lens of the Middle East and the growing military relationships reshaping the region.

As Trump prepares for high-level meetings in Beijing, reports and intelligence assessments continue to raise concerns about China’s indirect support for Iran’s military infrastructure through its deepening relationship with Pakistan. Trucks, components, dual-use technologies, drone systems, missile enhancement capabilities and logistical cooperation flowing across the region are no longer viewed as isolated developments. They are part of a larger strategic alignment among powers seeking to weaken American influence in critical global corridors.

Iran’s expanding drone and missile capabilities did not emerge in a vacuum.

The Gulf region remains one of the most strategically sensitive areas in the world. American military personnel, naval assets, energy infrastructure, shipping lanes and allied nations remain vulnerable to asymmetric warfare. Drones, missile technology, cyber capabilities and proxy militias now define modern conflict as much as conventional armies do.

If Chinese-backed systems or technologies ultimately strengthen Iranian military capabilities that threaten or kill Americans in the Gulf region, then the stakes of this week’s diplomatic engagement become infinitely more complex than trade negotiations or photo-ops.

This is the uncomfortable reality confronting Washington: America is economically intertwined with a nation that increasingly supports or enables forces working against American strategic interests abroad.

That does not mean diplomacy should end. Serious nations engage adversaries and competitors alike. Dialogue between nuclear powers remains essential. Economic decoupling at the scale some advocate could destabilize the global economy overnight. Trump’s visit may very well reduce tensions in certain areas while opening channels for negotiation that prevent larger conflicts later.

But the anxiety many are carrying is not simply economic. It is emotional, psychological, and profoundly political. Conversations with activists, clergy, teachers, nonprofit workers, caregivers, journalists, and parents often arrive at the same conclusion. People are tired — not merely physically tired, but weary in a deeper sense, exhausted by years of instability, outrage, uncertainty, and struggle without resolution. Americans have lived through a pandemic, political upheaval, racial backlash, economic volatility, social isolation, and a digital culture that demands constant vigilance and immediate reaction. Before one crisis is fully processed, another arrives demanding attention.

The human spirit was never designed for perpetual emergency.

At the same time, exhaustion is not the only emotional current shaping American life. Many people are energized, alarmed, and newly engaged precisely because they believe democratic norms themselves are under threat. Across the country, people are organizing, protesting, voting, fundraising, and showing up at demonstrations proclaiming “No Kings.” Millions are turning out in protest. Yet even this activism often carries an undertone of strain, because much of today’s civic engagement is fueled less by optimism than by fear of what may happen if people disengage entirely.

Polls showing widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of the country reflect more than partisan division. Many Americans feel they are working harder, worrying more, and falling further behind, even as they are repeatedly told the economy is fundamentally sound, even as rising prices continue to outpace wages for many workers.

Reading The Fire Next Time today, one is struck not only by James Baldwin’s prophetic brilliance, but also by the exhaustion beneath his prose. Baldwin wrote as a man who deeply loved his country while watching it revisit the same moral failures over and over again. More than sixty years later, many Americans are asking some version of the same question: how many times must we fight the same battles?

That exhaustion is especially familiar within Black political life. More than 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress between the late nineteenth century and the early twenty-first century. Again and again, activists marched, testified, fundraised, wrote editorials, gathered petitions, and demanded federal protection, only to watch legislation delayed or blocked. Federal anti-lynching legislation did not finally become law until 2022.

The NAACP once hung a banner outside its headquarters reading, “A MAN WAS LYNCHED YESTERDAY.” The repetition itself became part of the tragedy, as generation after generation was forced to sound the same alarm while institutions moved slowly, if at all, to respond.

It took more than a century for anti-lynching legislation to become federal law. How long will Americans wait for meaningful affordability relief? The struggles are obviously not the same, but they are connected by a familiar frustration: ordinary people sound the alarm while institutions remain paralyzed, indifferent, or consumed by political calculation.

Exhaustion is not new in American life, but today it threatens to erode civic participation itself. People are withdrawing from public engagement not necessarily because they do not care, but because they are depleted. Democracy requires participation, but participation requires emotional, physical, and economic reserves that many Americans no longer possess.

An exhausted public becomes vulnerable to cynicism, resentment, manipulation, and authoritarian appeals that promise easy answers to complex problems. Exhausted people stop imagining alternatives and retreat into survival mode.

America is running on empty. The danger is not simply economic instability, but civic depletion — a public so exhausted that it loses the capacity to imagine, organize, or resist. Exhaustion may explain the national mood, but it cannot be allowed to become the nation’s destiny.

Written by Julianne Malveaux

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

unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.”

— Voltaire (1694-1778)

Last week, when the Pentagon resumed its attacks on small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, the media barely noticed. The U.S. military has now destroyed 56 vessels and killed 190 persons. The killings began in September 2025 and have continued to this month.

The attacks caused a stir a few months ago when one of the strikes disabled the boat at which the attack was aimed but failed to kill all the passengers. When a follow-up strike was ordered, it succeeded where the initial strike had failed. The admiral who ordered the murder of the survivors told members of Congress in secret that he believed he was following orders. The secretary of defense denied that he ordered the survivors to be killed.

Killing survivors is expressly prohibited by federal law as well as by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And, of course, ordering the killing of innocents is always unlawful.

So, the Pentagon made two changes. It produced more lethal strikes so as not to be burdened with the problem of survivors, and it either stopped killing survivors or stopped revealing that it killed them.

Everyone who professionally monitors the government expects that it will not be truthful when the truth is unpleasant or reveals criminal behavior. This expectation is realistic, considering history and Supreme Court rulings that permit the government to lie.

The Navy rescued two survivors whom it failed to kill. Under the law, rescuing is to be done by the Coast Guard. But that law was written when the Coast Guard was in the Department of Defense. Today, it is in the Department of Homeland Security, which is largely mistrusted by the DoD.

So, rather than share information about its attempted murders with a department of the government over which it has no control, rather than having a team ready and nearby to rescue survivors, the Pentagon assigned the Navy to arrive long afterward and rescue two fishermen.

But the Navy didn’t know what to do with them, so its legal team asked Department of Justice lawyers for guidance. They asked the DoD what evidence of crimes it had on these fishermen, whereupon the DoD was unable to provide an answer that would rise to the level of probable cause — the legal standard for charging and detaining anyone.

Probable cause is a level of evidence such that a neutral person would conclude that it is more likely than not that the detained persons committed a stated crime. At that point, the DoJ told the DoD to return these would-be victims to their home countries.

In 56 attacks, and one follow-up attack, only three persons survived. Two of them have hired American lawyers and have served notice of their intention to sue the federal government for its attempted murder of them.

The government initially claimed that these killings were of known drug dealers and this was part of a law enforcement operation. Yet, under federal law, the military is prohibited from engaging in law enforcement.

When confronted with that, the White House claimed that the folks in the boats were enemy combatants, and thus susceptible to targeting by the military. But that would require some empirical evidence of their use of force or violence against U.S. personnel, of which the government revealed none.

Then, the White House likened the effect of the sale of drugs as a war on the American people and offered that the job of the military is to defend the country in wartime from what it called narco-terrorists. Yet, controlled dangerous substances are initially ingested voluntarily either by those looking to become addicted and separated from reality, or by those who believe that they — not the government — own their own bodies.

It is clear that none of the government’s changing justifications for these killings amounts to a legally cogent argument. The Constitution requires due process — notice, fair trial, right to appeal — and it permits only judges to impose sentences; and it requires judges to impose only sentences that have been prescribed by law.

Stated differently, the president cannot order the killing of a person because he thinks or fears — or even knows — of their criminal behavior. It is apparently of no moment to him that drug dealing is not a capital offence.

The Voltaire quotation at the top of this piece about murders and trumpets has haunted me since I first read it as a college student. The reference to the trumpets was Voltaire’s way of calling attention to government wars and executions, many of which in his day were often accompanied by trumpets.

But trumpets or not, all this raises the question: How can an act that is intrinsically evil — the intentional killing of the legally innocent — become moral or lawful just because it is committed by government officials? The short answer is: IT CANNOT. Moreover, intrinsically evil acts can never produce moral outcomes, because the toleration of pure evil will propagate it.

In America, all persons are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. This principle has been a bedrock of Anglo-American jurisprudence for 600-plus years. The president and all in government take an oath of fidelity to the Constitution, whose values embody this principle.

A government is illicit when it violates the very laws it enforces. When the government breaks its own laws, it invites others to do so. When it kills innocents, it invites others to do so. It is always immoral and criminal for anyone intentionally to extinguish innocent human life.

And now, Trump’s ordered killings are so commonplace, there is little coverage and less outrage. But we will see both when the killings come home.

Written by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

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