March 1, 2015

The Democratic Challenge from the Left
By Julianne Malveaux

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel just got himself spanked.  Despite a $16 million campaign war chest and the support of President Barack Obama, the former Congressman and White House Chief of Staff could not avoid a run-off in the general election.  Garnering 45 percent of the vote to Jesus “Chuy” Garcia’s 34 percent, he almost, but not quite, cleared the 50 percent bar for victory.  Emanuel, the darling of the mainstream Democratic Party, has earned the dubious distinction of being in the first mayoral runoff in nearly 20 years.  He also runs the risk of being the first incumbent mayor ousted since Harold Washington beat Jane Byrne in 1987.

The man who delivered the Emanuel whipping, Chuy Garcia is a county commissioner and former alderman.  His base is the poorer neighborhoods of Chicago, the Latino community, and the teacher’s union.  He pounded on the theme of income inequality and exploited the fact that Emanuel is perceived as arrogant and removed from poor people.  Indeed most of Rahm Emanuel’s support came from wealthy white voters who helped raise his large campaign fund.  Garcia didn’t have a fraction of Emanuel’s money, but he had a large cadre of volunteers to help deliver his votes.

There were three other candidates in the race, and their combined 20 percent of the vote will likely determine the outcome of the April 7 election.  Just a day after the election, both Emanuel and Garcia were courting their competitors, seeking their endorsements.  So far, those opponents have been noncommittal, and the outcome of the race will depend on whether Emanuel is most persuasive.

In any case, Emanuel’s loss can be seen as a major setback to the Democratic establishment.  Voters are tired of income inequality being acknowledged, with nothing being done about it.  Their only recourse is the vote, and on February 24 in Chicago, they used it.

Another Democratic setback is looming as the inevitability of Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton’s Democratic nomination may be challenged by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma).  Warren has been portrayed as a champion of the people, especially where consumer protection and financial matters are concerned.  She has raised her voice against financial skullduggery by banking institutions, been a critic of attempts to weaken the Dodd Frank bill, and a defender of consumer rights.  The architect of the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) agency, Warren has been the darling of the left, and she has enhanced that status with her travel to many progressive gatherings.  While she has demurred when asked if she will run for President, her replies, if somewhat definite, also seem coy.  Additionally there have been efforts to draft her into running, with online petitions and other efforts directed her way.

While Warren seems to have little baggage, Hilary Rodham Clinton seems less than invincible.  Questions have been raised about the Clinton Foundation and the sources of its money, especially when this money has come from foreign governments that have mixed relationships with the United States.  Other questions have been raised about the high six figure speeches Clinton gives and the audiences she gives them to.  Certainly she is entitled to earn what the market will bear with her speeches, but some say those who foot the bill are the very Wall Street scions that Elizabeth Warren rails against.

Could Elizabeth Warren seriously challenge Clinton?  Is there a change that she could win the Democratic nomination?  If she chooses to enter the Presidential race in the next several months, she will be entering the race at about the time Barack Obama did eight years ago.  Like Obama, she has penned an autographical book that explains the origins of her populist views.  And like Obama, she has the chance of “catching on” with voters.

After Clinton, the only competition Warren is likely to have for the Democratic nomination is Vice President Joe Biden.  But Biden, at 73, may be considered to old to be considered a viable choice for President.  Additionally Biden has a history of both verbal and behavioral gaffes (most recently offering a rather intimate whisper into the ear of Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s wife Stephanie, at Carter’s swearing in).

Whether she enters the race or not, Warren’s very presence pushes Clinton to the left on populist economic issues.  And if Warren enters the race and pulls three or four states, and about 20 percent of the popular vote, she offers Clinton a challenge.  If these “draft Warren” petitions catch o n and hundreds of thousands of signatures are gathered, that too, is a challenge to Hilary Clinton.

Voters are looking for alternatives and Democrats aren’t providing them.  Instead they are offering a party line that inhibits discussion of issues and hews to the inevitability of party favorites.  Rahm Emanuel’s defeat and the Warren challenge to Hilary Clinton suggest that the party line is unsatisfactory.

Feb. 24, 2015

Rudy Giuliani and the Race to the Bottom
By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon, III

NEWS ANALYSIS

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - “I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America…He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.” - Rudy Giuliani, February 18, 2015

During a private fundraiser for Republican presidential hopeful Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani openly challenged President Barack Obama’s patriotism by questioning whether or not he  “loves America.”  Later, on Fox Giuliani said that he was “not questioning [Obama’s] patriotism”.  That sounds like a distinction without a difference, or as others might say, “some real BS”.

Mainstream American media created this myth of Giuliani being “America’s Mayor” after the 9-11 attacks. He has  subsequently pimped (others might say parlayed) that into a lucrative security and anti-terrorism persona. Now he’s engaged in a race to the bottom with a number of other Republican crackpots.  Louisiana Governor and Republican presidential hopeful “Bobby” Jindal said about Giuliani’s comments, “If you are looking for someone to condemn the Mayor, look elsewhere.”

Some are saying that these comments really don’t matter, it’s just Giuliani being Giuliani.  Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) tried to defend the indefensible by stating, "The reality is that Rudy has taken our debate — and I think we should thank him for this part of it — back to national security, to the key element that the president should be focusing on…” Let’s be clear, Giuliani was not focused on policy. He was focused on pigment and personality.  He used code language and veiled bigotry to speak to a narrative that resonates quite well within a particular segment of the Republican Party.

Giuliani is engaged in a race to the bottom of political hatred with the likes of Joe Wilson (R-SC) with his now infamous “you lie” comment. Mike Huckabee, the former Republican governor of Arkansas is one of many who incorrectly questioned President Obama’s nationality, “If you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father…” Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, “What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

Even though the “birther” movement is all but dead in Republican circles, some Republican members of Congress continue to play the “birth card” as a means of asserting that the President is something other than Christian and American. Recently, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) was asked why President Obama prefers not to use the term “radical Islam.”  He replied, “It’s probably an unfortunate byproduct of the days when he was in a Muslim school being taught that Islam is a religion of peace…” Former President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney must have attended the same Muslim school as President Obama since they also refused to use the term “radical Islam”.

As Robert Draper reports in his book "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives", the obstructionist agenda that was developed by Newt Gingrich, Frank Luntz, former Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and others is a clear indication that these individuals would much rather vote their hatred than consider what is in America’s long-term best interest. Some Democrats also participated in this obstructionist behavior.

Traditionally, the respect for the office of the president has outweighed other US government officials’ dislike for the man holding the office.  The president is America’s chief diplomat and the nation’s preeminent spokesman of American foreign policy. To undermine the man holding the office of the president is to undermine America on the world stage.

All of these efforts to portray President Obama as “other” and outside the American norm are a part of the traditional narrative of associating America and The American Dream with whiteness and virtue.  In the minds of too many Americans, whiteness has been used as the line of demarcation between “us” and “them”.   That’s why Giuliani felt comfortable saying, “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country” during a private fundraiser for conservative candidates.  That’s also how Gingrich’s reference to President Obama as being “so outside our comprehension” can go unchallenged.

According to Time.com, DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz called on Republican presidential candidates to repudiate Giuliani’s remarks on Thursday, challenging “Jeb Bush. Scott Walker. Marco Rubio. Now it’s your turn… In fact, I would challenge my Republican colleagues and anyone in the Republican Party to say enough. They need to start leading.” Wasserman-Schultz is correct and the same members of  (the) mainstream media who dubbed Giuliani “America’s mayor” need to stand up as well and hold him and his defenders accountable.

What does it do to the morale of the American troops when “America’s Mayor” says that their Commander-In-Chief does not love his country?  Will Giuliani’s ridiculous statement become another part of the terrorist recruiting narrative?

To listen to Giuliani, Gingrich, Jindal and others and to see how far they have gone to undermine the president through the politics of racism and obstructionism, one has to question where their loyalties lie. As they drag the country down in a race to the bottom…do they really love America?

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

March 1, 1015

And the First Shall Be Last
By Dr. E. Faye Williams

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. (Matthew 20:16 - KJV)

As a student of The Bible, I’ve engaged in and observed numerous discussions related to the meaning of this biblical passage.  As with most things biblical, the debate continues beyond human understanding.  Notwithstanding, like most things biblical and spiritual, these homilies find application in "the natural."  A simple review of recent political activities in Washington lends themselves to a non-spiritual relevance of Matthew 20:16.  Cases in point are the 2014 nominations of US Attorney Loretta Lynch for the Office of Attorney General and Ashton Carter for the Office of Secretary of Defense.

I, as I believe true for most Americans, consider chronological progression to be in line with the natural order of things.  That is, 1 precedes 2; first come, first served. When Loretta Lynch was nominated on November 8, 2014, I thought that she would complete the confirmation process far ahead of Ash Carter, who was nominated on December 5, 2014-- almost one month after Lynch.  How mistaken I was!

Only those most infected with political animus could deny the qualifications of either of these nominees.  Both have had distinguished careers in their respective fields.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter is a summa cum laude graduate of Yale with a double-major in Physics and Medieval History, a Rhodes Scholar, a former Harvard University professor of Science and International Affairs, and holds his doctorate in Theoretical Physics.  During the Clinton Administration he served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy and, since 2009, has served the Obama Administration in executive Defense Department positions, most recently as Deputy Secretary of Defense.  His was considered, and proved to be, a slam-dunk nomination.

Likewise, Loretta Lynch has had a distinguished academic career and sterling career in law and law enforcement.  She received her BA in English and American Literature from Harvard in 1981 and a Juris Doctor from Harvard Law
School in 1984.  In 1990, she joined the the Eastern District (NY) US Attorney's Office as a drug and violent-crime prosecutor.  From 1994 to 1998, she served as Chief of the Long Island Office, and from 1998 to 1999 was the chief assistant US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY.  In 1999, she was nominated by President Clinton to serve as US Attorney for the district.  In 2010, President Obama nominated her to again serve as the US Attorney for the Eastern District of NY.  During her latest tenure, she has been noted for prosecuting the securities violations of several major banks and for her aggressive prosecution of political corruption.

The fact that escapes most is that President Obama can and should select cabinet officers who can assist him in the most efficient and effective execution of his responsibilities. These selections must be accomplished with the advice and consent of the Senate, but Senate tradition suggests that unless a nominee is unfit, the President gets his choice. Instead of advice and consent, this Senate seems determined to frustrate the choice of the President.

Until the afternoon of February 26, 2015, there was a question as to whether Ms. Lynch would be allowed to receive the full vote of the Senate.  All committee Democrats and three Republican Senators of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Lynch's nomination to the full Senate.  Importantly, eight Republican Senators, with nothing more than partisan interests, voted against her.

Two things are clear from the committee's vote.  First, it’s time to contact your two senators to demand confirmation of Loretta Lynch ASAP!  Second, several Republican Senators who voted against her serve as a result of small margins of victory in the last election, proving the importance of every vote.

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

Feb. 23, 2015

Holder Attacking Racial Disparities in 'War on Drugs'
By Joyce Jones

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - It is widely believed that African-Americans have been the dominant casualties of the nation's so-called War on Drugs. Even though White and Black people use drugs at the same rate and Whites are more likely to sell drugs, Blacks are far more likely to be arrested for selling or possession and to receive harsher sentences.

In remarks delivered at the National Press Club Feb. 17, Attorney General Eric Holder hailed efforts by the Obama administration and his Justice Department that aim to make arrests and sentencing on drug charges more equitable. He pointed to new data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which promotes reducing federal sentences for nonviolent drug crimes, to show that his Smart on Crime initiative is working.

The bottom line: Federal prosecutors are bringing fewer illegal drug cases to court and seeking mandatory minimum sentences less often for nonviolent crimes.

"For years prior to this administration, federal prosecutors were not only encouraged - but required - to always seek the most severe prison sentence possible for all drug cases, no matter the relative risk they posed to public safety. I have made a break from that philosophy," Holder said. "While old habits are hard to break, these numbers show that a dramatic shift is underway in the mindset of prosecutors handling nonviolent drug offenses. I believe we have taken steps to institutionalize this fairer, more practical approach such that it will endure for years to come."

A review of the period between 2013 and 2014, he added, shows that 1,400 fewer individuals were charged with drug trafficking offenses, a reduction of more than six percent. In addition, while the average minimum sentence has risen from 96 months to 98 months, Holder says that means "the most serious drug crimes are now attracting the highest scrutiny."

The attorney general called on states and Congress to enact laws that are consistent with the Smart on Crime initiative. Indeed, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators, including New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, has introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act of 2015, which would give judges more discretion in sentencing nonviolent drug offenders. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) opposes the bill, however.

The attorney general also expressed hope that he will be able to announce a decision regarding investigations into the conduct of former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown and practices and patterns within the Ferguson Police Department.

"My hope is that we will do this before I leave office, and I'm confident that we will do that – though I guess it's ultimately up to Congress as to when I actually leave office," Holder said. "You would think, in some ways, that [Loretta Lynch's confirmation] would be sped up, given their desire to see me out of office. But be that as it may, logic has never been necessarily a guide up there."

The attorney general also defended his recent call for better tracking of incidents of police use of force. Tragedies like the deaths of Brown and Eric Garner in Staten Island "stir the nation" and give people a "sense that things are amiss," but they are not a true sense of the overall problem, including any violence directed at the police.

"So I think that gathering that information in both ways – how are police using force, what kind of force are police having to deal with, what is being directed against them – that kind of data should be gathered," Holder said. "We can have a much better sense of what the problem looks like in our country and then [create] policy based on the empirical evidence that we're able to gather."