March 9, 2015

Netanyahu Doubles Down on Bush’s Big Lie
By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon, III

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - “So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs.” Benjamin Netanyahu March 3, 2015

Republican Congressional leaders invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress. Netanyahu proclaimed that his visit was not intended to be political, stating “I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.”  Netanyahu lied.  His visit was entirely political.

Often times during an election or in anticipation of an election, sitting politicians will attempt to create “boogie men”.  They will exaggerate external threats in a desperate attempt to stir nationalist sentiments. This “rally ‘round the flag syndrome” is a tool often used by politicians to create fear in the electorate in the hopes they will turn to them for protection.  Better the devil you know than the one you don’t.  A recent example of this in American politics (even though it was not tied to an election) was the 2001 approval rating of former President G.W. Bush. On September 10, Bush had a Gallup Poll rating of 51 percent. By September 15, after the 9-11 attacks his approval rating had increased by 34 percent to 85 percent.

According to a Times of Israel poll published in February, only 41% of likely Israeli voters said they viewed Netanyahu favorably as his re-election effort enters its final weeks.  According to Mondoweiss.net, “Netanyahu’s address was widely thought to have doubled as a late campaign pitch.”  Also, post speech analysis indicates that of those that did listen to the speech, 43% said Netanyahu was unable to change their vote. This was according to polls released Wednesday evening by Israel’s Channel 2.

In terms of US politics, it was House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) who took it upon himself to invite Netanyahu to address the joint session of Congress, thus ignoring how powers are clearly delineated in the Constitution. In inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress, Boehner had three objectives: first, continue to humiliate the first African American President of the United States, second, impact the ongoing negotiations between the Obama administration and Iran in the favor of Israel,  third, throw Netanyahu a lifeline two weeks before the Israeli elections as his political position in Israel flounders.

Were Boehner’s efforts successful?  It depends upon whom you ask.  Many conservatives such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) compared President Obama to Neville Chamberlain while praising Netanyahu's speech. Rush Limbaugh said that "Benjamin Netanyahu today was everything Barack Obama is not."

Democratic leader Nancy stated, “I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech – saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.”  Christiane Amanpour called the speech “dark, Strangelovian” in its hysteria about Iran as Nazi Germany.

Whether you are conservative or liberal facts still matter. It is the responsibility of the American mainstream media to accurately and consistently report the facts.  One cannot debate that Netanyahu’s claim that Iran could “…soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs” has been debunked by his own intelligence service, the Mossad.  As reported by The Guardian, “Israel’s intelligence agency concluded that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons”. Yet, American mainstream media seems to be conveniently ignoring The Guardian’s revelation. We have heard Netanyahu’s “Chicken Little” lie that the nuclear sky is falling before.  Netanyahu doubled-down on the Bush administration’s lies that convinced Americans of the need to illegally invade Iraq.  The Bush administration’s deceptions and lies have been painstakingly documented by former Congressman Henry Waxman’s report, Iraq on the Record.

On March 1, 2015 Secretary of State John Kerry went on the record and reiterated the Obama administration’s position that Iran has lived up to an interim agreement reached in late 2013, known as the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA). Kerry stated that as a result of that agreement, “Israel is safer today.”  What part of progress does Netanyahu have a problem with?

In his speech, Netanyahu omitted some very inconvenient truths.  He stated, “The people of Iran are very talented people… But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots… who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.” He conveniently omitted the fact that the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was in response to the 1953 US backed overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and the installation and support by the US of the dictator Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi aka the “Shah of Iran”.  This was all done at the behest of Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum (BP) and led by US operatives Kermit Roosevelt and H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr. It can be argued that had the US not intervened in the politics of Iran in 1953 the world would not be dealing with “radical Islam” to the degree to which it is in 2015.  As they say on the corner, “don’t start nothin’, won’t be nothin’”.

Netanyahu said, “Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.”

How about this, first, Israel should stop the occupation in Occupied Territories and stop attacking Syria and Lebanon.  The US should be a true unbiased arbiter and force Israel to abide by the more than 140 UN Resolutions supporting the Palestinians. Second, Israel should stop selling weapons to conflicted regions such as in Africa and Sri Lanka.  Israel was a big supporter of the South African apartheid regime. Third, Israel should allow for the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people, a free Palestinian state and the right of return for Palestinian exiles and refugees.

Israel has to give security to get security.  In algebra what you do on one side of the equation you must do on the other side in order for the equation to remain balanced.  Up to this point, the Israeli equation has been unbalanced.

I realize that many people who read this Op Ed may interpret my analysis and its presentation as undiplomatic.  Since diplomacy has failed, let’s try honesty.  In his March 3, 2015 before the joint session of Congress, Netanyahu doubled-down on Bush’s Big Lie.  We have seen this movie before; it was called Iraq.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the Sirius/XM Satellite radio channel 126 call-in talk radio program “Inside the Issues with Wilmer Leon” Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. www.twitter.com/drwleon and Dr. Leon’s Prescription at Facebook.com  © 2015 InfoWave Communications, LLC

Reality Check

Those Despicable, Loathsome, Hypocritical, Bloviating, Cowardly Chicken Hawks
By A. Peter Bailey

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - There is constant news in the American press these days about ISIS’s ability to recruit young Muslims from all over the world to come and help them combat what they consider a dire threat to their version of Islam.

At the same time, and with the same consistency, arm chair warriors such as Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Sen. Lindsey Graham denounce President Obama for refusing to put “boots on the ground” to combat the “Islamic savages” whom they insist are a dire threat to the national security of the United States.

These two news items came to mind while watching thousands of young, overwhelmingly White Christians cheer, wave flags and talk trash at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C.

I found myself wondering aloud why super chicken hawks, O’Reilly, Hannity and Graham don’t launch a campaign urging, no, insisting that those passionate young White Christians (and their very few persons of color colleagues) become the boots on the ground to deal with ISIS. There were enough of them at the CPAC to be a formidable weapon for defending the national security of the United States. After all, they are members of the “superior race” and should be able to take care of those “thugs” who, they declare with fervor, threaten everything they consider holy and sacred.

What they are doing now is enjoying themselves in college, in good paying jobs, in country clubs, in church, in their spacious homes in suburban neighborhoods while the children of low income and working class Black, Latino and White families are sent to be killed or maimed in wars in the Middle East. Just like their cohorts and heroes, O’Reilly, Hannity and Graham, they have absolutely no intention of being in combat anywhere to protect the national security that they insist is in danger.

That makes them despicable, loathsome, hypocritical, bloviating, cowardly chicken hawks.

A. Peter Bailey, whose latest book is, Witnessing Brother Malcolm X, the Master Teacher, can be reached This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

March 9, 2015

In the Interest of Black Women
By Dr. E. Faye Williams

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – March is designated annually as Women's History Month.  I always enjoy this and other cultural observances by allowing myself to deeply reflect on the progress by the designated group as well as any new or existing obstacles placed or remaining in their path to full enfranchisement.  While women have unique and specific goals in their struggle for social justice, I'm particularly concerned about the impact of cultural and political imperatives on women, especially African American women.

Many who observe Women's History Month mistakenly become solely absorbed with the achievements of women from some artificial starting point.  Whether that point is the date of the ratification of the 19th Amendment or the more recent era of "Women's Lib," too many, even women, have come to accept the achievements from those points as "sufficient."  Many declare that to strive for additional, unrealized goals for social justice to be "overreach."  More tragically, those achievements deemed as sufficient leave African American women farther behind the power curve than their white counterparts.

It's an understatement to say that issues related to gender discrimination are too wide-ranging to be discussed in an article of this length.   However, the two most pervasive issues affecting Black women that are deserving of discussion are those related to economics and health, and as with any discussion promoting a benefit to women our interest is in the empowerment of women -- increasing our personal effectiveness in all facets of life.

Unlike unsympathetic critics, it's not enough to count the number of jobs held by women.  A fair analysis of the circumstance of women does not just include the number of women promoted or the performance awards they received.  The most significant underlying issue in the arena of women's employment is that of pay disparity commonly called "the gender wage gap."

We have the Equal Pay Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, but there is no legislation that protects women workers from pay discrimination.  An analysis of 2013 wages by the The American Association of University Women indicates that white women receive 78 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts.  This gap widens as we analyze the impact on Black women who receive 64 cents for every dollar earned by white males for substantially performing the same work.

With an increasing number of dual-income households and single-parent households, this pay disparity has a significant impact.  This impact is seen in everything from family nutrition to healthcare, housing, effective parenting, educational opportunities for family members, and exposure to environmental factors impacting on physical well-being (crime, disease, etc.).  More and more women serve as the primary bread-winners in family units and/or their income plays a more important role in the financial stability of the family.

The significance of these bread-and-butter issues has a carry-over impact on the women's physical health and the health of the family.  If any reader is unwilling to accept my experienced-based analysis on this issue then I refer you to the theory of  Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.  Simply stated, the human condition is to satisfy the physical needs of food, shelter and safety before any other 'Higher' need.  Accepting this reality, I have seen women do without food in order to feed their children.  I've seen them forego medical treatment because they could not afford to take off from work, much less afford a doctor bill.

Yes, March is Women's History Month, but it must be viewed and treated as more than a commemorative event.  As our social order continually redefines itself, we must be mindful of the impact of our changing structures especially as they affect those of us who have a history and tradition of second-class citizenship -- first as enslaved people and then as women.

(Dr. E. Faye Williams is President of the National Congress of Black Women.  202/678-6788.  www.nationalcongressbw.org.)

Report: Despite Increase in Black Voting, Black Elected Officials Still Woefully Underrepresented

With Selma March This Weekend, Public Policies that Support Blacks are also Still Low

By Hazel Trice Edney

Spencer Overton, president, Joint Center

Khalila Brown-Dean, political scientist

Christina Rivers, political scientist

Zoltan Hajnal, political scientist

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - A new report on race and voting in America 50 years after the Voting Rights Act says despite massive increases in voting by African-Americans since 1965 and despite the growth in Black elected representatives, the number of Blacks and people of color in elected offices remains woefully underrepresented.

“Since 1965, the number of elected officials of color has grown enormously.  Over this period, African Americans went from holding fewer than 1,000 elected offices nationwide [to] over 10,000,” says the report released this week by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

But, then the report drops the other foot: “Based on the most recent data, African Americans are 12.5% of the citizen voting age population, but they make up a smaller share of the U.S. House (10%), state legislatures (8.5%), city councils (5.7%), and the U.S. Senate (2%).”

The report, titled “50 Years of the Voting Rights Act, the State of Race in Politics”, was released March 3, four days before the commemoration of the 50^th Anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery, Ala.

Thousands are expected to march in unity and President Obama is scheduled to speak in commemoration of that day of violence on the Edmund Pettus Bridge when members of the Student Non-Violence Coordinating Committee were viciously attacked and beaten by Alabama State Troopers. This was the turning point in the fight for voting rights. Largely because of that nationally televised violence and the violent deaths of activists Jimmy Lee Jackson, Viola Liuzzo, and James Reeb in by racists in Selma, President Lyndon B. Johnson implored Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act, which he signed into law on Aug. 6, 1965.

Still, nearly 50 years later, the Joint Center’s report also states that African-Americans remain at the rock bottom among racial minorities who have received fair and applicable public policies in America, including economic policies.

“Based on available data from 1972 to 2010, blacks were the least advantaged group in America in terms of policy outcomes.  Blacks were policy winners only 31.9% of the time, compared with 37.6% for whites.  This difference seems small, but it is ten times larger than the 0.5 point difference between high- and low-income earners,” the report states.

The low number of Black elected officials is not for the lack of trying. “Race is the most significant factor in urban local elections,” the report states.

“In urban local elections, race is a more decisive factor than income, education, political ideology, religion, sexuality, age, gender, and political ideology. The 38 point racial gap exceeds even the 33 point gap between Democratic and Republican voters,” the report states.

The research for the study and report was conducted by prominent political scientists Khalilah Brown-Dean of Quinnipiac University; Zoltan Hajnal of the University of California at San Diego; Christina Rivers of DePaul University, and Ismail White of George Washington University.

“We have elected an African American president, but studies have shown that some government officials are less likely to respond to inquiries from citizens with seemingly black or Latino names,” writes Joint Center President Spencer Overton in an introduction to the report. “How much progress have we made since 1965?  How much more work is there to do? These are contested questions, subject to ideology and opinion,” Overton writes.

Other revelations in the report:

• The black/white racial gap in voter turnout has decreased dramatically since 1965 in presidential elections.  Turnout among black Southerners exceeded that of their white counterparts in four of the twelve presidential elections since 1965, and nationwide black turnout clearly exceeded white turnout in presidential elections in 2012 and perhaps in 2008.

• Local election turnout is lower and possibly less diverse.  Presidential general election turnout is generally 60% of the voting-age population, but local election turnout averages 27% and in some cases is less than 10%.  As overall turnout declines in local elections, the electorate may become less representative of the racial diversity of the community as a whole.

• Latino and Asian American turnout increased but remains low. Turnout rates among both Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans in presidential elections remain 10 to 15 percentage points below black Americans and 15 to 20 points below white Americans.

• Party politics is increasingly polarized by race.  Since 1960, the party identification and partisan voting patterns of blacks and whites have become sharply divided

• Latinos make up 11% of the citizen voting age population, but they are a smaller share of the U.S. House (7%), state legislatures (5%), the U.S. Senate (4%), and city councils (3.3%).  Asian Americans are 3.8% of the citizen voting age population but a smaller share of the U.S. House (2%), state legislatures (2%), the U.S. Senate (1%), and city councils (0.4%).

• Elected Latinos have grown from a small number of offices to over 6,000, and Asian Americans from under a hundred documented cases to almost 1,000.

Concluding his introductory letter, Overton said the questions dealt with in the report are also important because they are “at the core of many ongoing debates about voting rights in the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress, as well as in many states, counties, and municipalities.”