banner2e top

Malcolm X to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz – The Metamorphosis of a Militant in Mecca by Marc H. Morial

Feb. 15, 2015

To Be Equal 
Malcolm X to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz – The Metamorphosis of a Militant in Mecca

By Marc H. Morial
marcmorial

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - “You may be shocked by these words coming from me.  But on this pilgrimage, what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to rearrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions.  This was not too difficult for me.  Despite my firm convictions, I have always been a man who tries to face facts, and to accept the reality of life as new experience and new knowledge unfolds it.” – Malcolm X, Letter from Mecca, April 1964

There is perhaps no American civil rights leader who generated as many divergent opinions as Malcolm X.  As we near the 50th anniversary of his assassination on February 21, 1965, our nation will inevitably scrutinize his life, his work and his lasting impact on our country and our continuous struggle to address racial inequality and its heinous consequences.

Depending on one’s perspective or politics, Malcolm X was a hatemonger filled with a blind, race-based rage.  Another view paints him as an inspiring figure, pulling himself up from a life of crime to become a leading human rights figure.  I would put forth the view that Malcolm X was much more than any one-dimensional interpretation of his life or its seminal moments and that he was a man who literally and figuratively journeyed far in his short 39 years – reinventing himself countless times along the way.

Born Malcolm Little on May 19, 1925 to a Grenadian mother and African American father – also a well-known activist – Malcolm became accustomed to the cruelties of racism at an early age, losing his father in a suspected attack by white supremacists.  His early life was a blur of broken homes, petty crime and incarceration.  Introduced to the teachings of the Nation of Islam during his time in jail, Malcolm X traded prison for a pursuit of racial justice and equality for Blacks in America.

While his initial approach may not have always been championed by or aligned with other civil rights leaders of the time, Malcolm X’s later life transition and his embrace of multiculturalism is an important story to be acknowledged and retold.  But often, supporters and critics alike attempt to isolate the “by any means necessary” civil rights leader to one part of his journey.  For example, and ironically, many gun advocates invoke Malcolm X’s own words as they seek to reinforce their arguments and support for their professed right to almost unfettered access to firearms.

In his famous “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech, Malcolm X said, “I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns.  The only thing that I’ve ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it’s time for Negroes to defend themselves.  Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun.”

However, Malcolm X’s call to bear arms was no call to forego background checks.  It was no call to sell guns anonymously on the Internet.  It was no call to supply ordinary citizens with military-style weaponry.  It was, and remains, a clear-cut indictment of race-based, systemic inequality and violence.  He added, “If the white man doesn’t want the black man buying rifles and shotguns, then let the government do its job.”  The ballot was always the immediate option.

Ten days after that speech, Malcolm X left the United States on April 13, 1964 for a life-altering trip through the Middle East and Africa, including a pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, the holiest city in Islam.  It was during his experience of the pilgrimage that his next transformation would occur.  In letters from his trip, he described scenes of unimagined interracial harmony among “tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world.  They were of all colors, from blue-eyed blondes to black-skinned Africans.”  As he began to see that unity and brotherhood were not impossible realities between “the white and the non-white,” his fight for equality never changed.  It only became more inclusive.

In a letter to then Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) President James Farmer, Malcolm, now El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, wrote, “I am still traveling, trying to broaden my mind, for I've seen too much of the damage narrow-mindedness can make of things, and when I return home to America, I will devote what energies I have to repairing the damage."

Unfortunately, Malcolm X’s newfound approach to the pursuit of racial equality was cut short less than a year later under a fatal hail of bullets in Harlem’s Audubon Ballroom.  But rather than end his journey to mend our wounded nation, we can each walk a few steps in his remaining miles to ensure equality and justice for all.

Netanyahu's Address to Congress: Arrogance and the Violation of Separation of Powers by Dr. Wilmer J. Leon, III

Feb. 15, 2015

Netanyahu's Address to Congress: Arrogance and the Violation of Separation of Powers
By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon, III

NEWS ANALYSIS

netanyahu
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu

officialpresidentialphoto-2013

President Obama


“He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties…shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…” - Constitution of the United States, Section 2.

“…he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers…” - Constitution of the United States, Section 3.

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - There are two interesting and powerful concepts that make the Constitution of the United States unique.  One is “separation of powers” and the other is “checks and balances”.  The United States government has three co-equal branches with defined separate powers and authorities.  Each branch is provided with the ability and authority to check the powers of the other branches. 

It is clearly delineated in Article II of the Constitution that the Executive Branch (President) is America’s preeminent foreign policy maker as evidenced by his diplomatic, treaty powers and his role as commander-in-chief.  In 1936 the Supreme Court confirmed this role by stating in United v. Curtiss-Wright, “… the president is the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.”  It is also important to note that it is the Senate not the House of Representatives that is first in line to consult with the President on international affairs.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has taken it upon himself to ignore the clearly delineated powers in the Constitution and has extended an invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of congress on March 3.  Boehner has 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 Israeli elections as his political position in Israel flounders.  According to The Times of Israel, “…poll finds dramatic swerve to pessimism among young voters and the right, trends that should worry Israel’s second-longest serving prime minister.”

To their credit a growing number of Democrats are planning to skip Netanyahu’s address.  Most notable of those are President Obama, he will not meet with Netanyahu and VP Biden will be “on travel”.

To date the following members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are on record intending to boycott the address, G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), head of the CBC, John Lewis (D-Ga.), James Clyburn (S.C.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Gregory Meeks (N.Y.).  According to The Hill, Rep. Butterfield said the move marked an "unprecedented overreach of the Speaker’s authority" that "goes beyond the traditions of his office." Rep. Lewis stated, “I think it’s an affront to the president and the State Department what the speaker did…”

Kudos to those who are standing up and boycotting this insult to the office of the president and the overreach by Speaker Boehner but what about boycotting Netanyahu because he represents a government that is engaging in genocide and apartheid? According to Nobel Prize Laureate, The Most Reverend, Archbishop Desmond Tutu "I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces…Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government."

Boycott Netanyahu because Israel’s aggression towards Iran will become the sequel to the failed disaster film we’ve already seen, Iraq.

It’s great that members of the CBC are boycotting Netanyahu’s planned speech. But what about the CBC as an organization?  The CBC should stand together on the side of morality and speak with one voice in opposition to Boehner and his henchmen. According to The Hill Reps. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) say they're still on the fence while they push for a postponement.

Note to Reps. Johnson and Ellison; Tutu was correct when he said, “People who are denied their dignity and rights deserve the solidarity of their fellow human beings," Tutu said of the Palestinians. "Those who turn a blind eye to injustice perpetuate injustice. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."  Dr. King, said “the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” You are still on the fence between justice and injustice choosing political comfort and convenience?  Really?

I have issues with a lot of the policies that have been supported and implemented by the Obama administration but I have even bigger issues with hatred, bigotry, and oppression. I can’t sit by as an African American man and allow bigots like Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) to say “you lie” or former Speaker Gingrich and Dinesh D'Souza to say, "What if (Obama) is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan anticolonial behavior can you begin to piece together (his actions)? Just as an aside, why shouldn’t the Kenyan’s and all colonial subjects oppose colonization?

One must never underestimate the blindness that attends hubris and arrogance. Hence, those like Boehner and his ilk will blindly ignore established protocol and violate the Constitution that they have sworn to protect in order to insult the first African American President and support an apartheid regime like Israel. Failing to speak out with a unified voice and for the right reasons will only lead us further down the rabbit hole of hatred, bigotry, ignorance and eventual annihilation.

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

Civil Rights Leaders Accuse Republican of ‘Blatant Political Posturing” in Lynch Opposition by Hazel Trice Edney

Feb. 10, 2015

Civil Rights Leaders Accuse Republican of ‘Blatant Political Posturing” in Lynch Opposition
Late February Vote is Expected

By Hazel Trice Edney

loretta lynch
Loretta Lynch, candidate for U. S. Attorney General

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Dozens of civil rights leaders have signed a letter appealing to Republican Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) to end his opposition to the candidacy of Loretta Lynch, being vetted as America’s next attorney general. Nominated by President Obama to replace the resigning Attorney General Eric Holder, Lynch would be the first Black woman to serve in the office.

A group, led by Wade Henderson, president/CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and Marc Morial, President/CEO of the National Urban League, has sent a letter, pushing to influence Vitter, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to drop what the rights leaders describe as political opposition to Lynch.

“Your opposition appears to be based wholly on politics unrelated to the nomination and fails to consider the outstanding merits of this exceptional nominee for this historic nomination,” the letter states. “As Ms. Lynch clearly demonstrated at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 28, and as some of your Republican colleagues as well as those who testified or submitted letters on her behalf confirmed, she is extraordinarily qualified for the job.”

The letter continues, “This blatant political posturing is inappropriate in general but especially so in this case because it involves a presidential cabinet nominee. Your behavior raises questions about your ability to serve fairly on the Senate Judiciary Committee… Ms. Lynch is a strong, independent prosecutor, who has twice headed one of the most important U.S. Attorney offices in the country, and who has decades of experience as a lawyer and leader.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Lynch’s nomination is slated for the last week in February. Lynch will need all Democrats and at least three Republican votes to survive the committee hearings and be considered by the whole Senate, where another battle awaits. So far, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is the only Republican on the Committee who says he will vote for her. He says she is qualified and committed to working with Congress.

Vitter has declared his opposition to Lynch, claiming she "has established a clear anti-gun record".  Republicans are largely supported by the National Rifle Association; therefore gun ownership and usage are staple issues for right wingers. Recalling confirmation hearings, Vitter said he "didn't get any clear answers" on whether the Second Amendment and gun industries would be attacked under her leadership.

But, the letter, signed by dozens of leaders of non-partisan organizations from multiple racial backgrounds, is adamant about Lynch’s qualifications. Among other leading signers are Cornell William Brooks, NAACP; Lee A. Saunders, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees; Barbara Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Sherrilyn Ifill, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; Jo Ann Jenkins, AARP; Jacqueline Pata, National Congress of American Indians; Thomas A. Saenz, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Marcia D. Greenberger, National Women's Law Center; Michael B. Keegan, People for the American Way; Priscilla Ouchida, Japanese American Citizens League; Mark Perriello, American Association of People with Disabilities; and Michael Lieberman, Anti-Defamation League.

The adamant opposition to Lynch is somewhat unexpected. Lynch has received bi-partisan approval in her appointments as U. S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, where she has served since 2010. However, the current political climate is unique given rampant Republican opposition to President Obama’s policies, including immigration issues, where rancorous disagreements continue. However the organizational leaders, who represent thousands of voters, have vowed to continue fighting for a full Senate vote for Lynch.

The letter also accuses Vitter of political posturing for a campaign for Louisiana governor.

“Your use of this responsibility for political gain is shameless and leads us to question the integrity of your decisions. It appears that your overtly political action is connected to your effort to run for Governor of the State of Louisiana. In fact, the website set up for your gubernatorial run includes a page asking visitors to sign a petition to oppose the nomination of the Attorney General because of the President’s executive actions. We urge you to take down this and similar posts and to rethink your blanket opposition to this truly qualified nominee.”

Remembrances of the Assassination of Brother Malcolm X By A. Peter Bailey

Feb. 15, 2015

Remembrances of the Assassination of Brother Malcolm X
By A. Peter Bailey

SPECIAL COMMENTARY

apeterbaileywithbrothermalcolm
A. Peter Bailey, shown here in conversation with Malcolm X, was a charter member of his Organization of Afro-American Unity and editor of the organization's newsletter.

malcolmx
Malcolm X

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - I was in the Audubon Ballroom on February 21, 1965, the day Brother Malcolm X was assassinated, a murder that I believed then and still believe today resulted from a collaboration of elements in the leadership of the Nation of Islam, the New York City Police Department and the FBI. Below are excerpts exactly as written in a 1965 essay that I wrote during the three days following the assassination:

Brother Malcolm X has been assassinated. Once again, as has happened many times in U.S. history, a black man who was considered a threat to the white racist system has been murdered by other black men. Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, Marcus Garvey and countless other black leaders were all destroyed by blacks working in alliance with the white power structure. We have to assume that it was an alliance because the FBI and local police forces and the press have constantly bragged that they have infiltrated the Black Muslim movement, thus they know every move the Black Muslims make. If this be true, and they are the ones who made the claims, then they were either lying about the infiltration or they knew that Bro. Malcolm’s life was in danger and made no attempt to stop the plotters…

The FBI and the police force have almost completely immobilized the Communist Party with successful infiltration; only recently they and the NYC police force were able to infiltrate a small group of black men and accuse them of plotting the bombing of certain monuments. Yet now they and the press want us to believe that an organization, which both claimed had been infiltrated by agents, plotted a crime of gigantic magnitude without the infiltrator finding out about it? It is no doubt that if the Black Muslims had planned to bomb or assassinate Wagner or some other comparable figures, they would have been halted before any such plan could succeed.

There are many of us who believe that there are others who desired the death of Bro. Malcolm. For instance, those people who had him banned from France, those same people who worried about the effects of his trips abroad, those same people who dreaded the consequences of his trips south. He had spoken in Alabama and was due to speak in Mississippi. These people also would benefit from the removal of Malcolm X. He didn’t fit their pattern. He didn’t waste time criticizing Wallace, Barnett, Clark, Bull Conner and other individual villains speaking for white supremacy.

He recognized that these men were products of an evil system, a system which has, for over 350 years, treated non-white people as sub-humans. He recognized that the above individuals were able to operate so freely because the system allowed them to do so. …

Bro. Malcolm saw those things occurring and recognizing that the federal government was either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property of black people, he called for a new approach. Domestically, he told black people to unite and adopt a program of self-defense; internationally, he called for black people to look elsewhere for allies in the struggle for human rights. He said that our struggle is only a part of the worldwide struggle where formerly oppressed people are throwing off oppression and asserting themselves. He told us to make use of the U.N., especially the Commission on Human Rights, as other minority groups have done, most notably the Russian Jews.

He traveled throughout Africa, the Middle East and Europe telling any group who would listen that black people in the U.S. needed their help in their struggle for human rights. He felt that Afro-Americans have a psychological complex about being a minority and that if they tied their struggle to the struggles of oppressed people throughout the world, it would help them, psychologically, in their own struggle.

These two approaches by Bro. Malcolm, the call for self-defense and the internationalizing of the racial struggle, profoundly disturbed the power structure and their allies. …

The press gleefully took his words out of context and tried to paint him as a monster when reporting his death. They claimed credit for there even being a Malcolm X. They scoffed at him by saying that he had a handful of followers, and, as one said, he had built up a myth. They were practically dancing over his body. The New York Times and the New York Herald Tribune, those pious, hypocritical prostitutes of the daily press, gave Zeus-like editorial about what a terrible man he was, the Herald Tribune saying that he was no loss to the Civil Rights Movement.

It must be said that the press devoted a fantastic amount of space and time to the death of such an “insignificant” man. Their very press coverage of his death and the reaction of the people and other leaders showed that the Human Rights Movement suffered a considerable loss with the assassination of this articulate, forceful black man.

He presented an image that white America is not used to seeing in black men. They resented and feared not only what he was doing, but even more so the potential of what he could do in the future. Bro. Malcolm pointed this out very clearly when he told an antagonist on a radio program that if people like him would spend more time helping and protecting the Rev. Martin Luther King and his followers and less time searching for material with which to attack him and other nationalists, the U.S. would be a better place to live.

Fifty years later, I stand by those words written by a then angry, grief-stricken 26-year- old supporter of Brother Malcolm. Efforts have been made by various sources to ignore, demean or downgrade his brilliant and memorable legacy. They have been unsuccessful.

In fact, if we, as Black folks would follow the Master Teacher’s wise, thought-provoking, concrete guidelines on how to most effectively promote and protect our cultural, economic and political interests in what is basically still a White supremacist society, we would be much further along in the drive for equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity.

A. Peter Bailey, whose most recent book is Witnessing Brother Malcolm X, the Master Teacher, was a charter member of the Organization of Afro-American Unity founded by Malcolm X. He was the editor of its newsletter.

#####

Selma and Shelby: The Fight for the New South by Rev. Jesse Jackson

Feb. 9, 2015

Selma and Shelby: The Fight for the New South
By Rev. Jesse Jackson
Jesse3

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - What time is it?  It’s important to be clear.  Is it mid-day and our labors still have hours to go?  Or is it evening, our work done, and we can rest our weary heads?  What time is it for the New South?  Is it time to celebrate Selma, Alabama – and the triumph of the Voting Rights Act?  Or is it time to mourn Shelby, Alabama – and the radical backlash against voting rights?

Fifty years after Selma’s Bloody Sunday that led directly to the passage of the Voting Rights Act, many will gather to celebrate that victory.  But we should understand that our work is not done. With the Shelby decision of the Supreme Court, the struggle for equal rights must go on.

Too often, we remember the triumph and ignore the backlash.  In 1870, the 15th Amendment, codified in in the blood of the Civil War, was ratified to give African Americans the right to vote.  It declared that the right to vote shall not be denied “on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”

But the triumph was immediately challenged by the backlash.  Across the South, states controlled the structure and laws of voting.  They immediately set up seemingly neutral barriers to voting – poll taxes, literacy tests and more – that were used to disenfranchise black voters.  The reconstruction of the South was ended as the Supreme Court ratified legal apartheid, and segregation was brutally enforced.

It took nearly a century, a mighty civil rights movement, Bloody Sunday and other sacrifices, to pass the Voting Rights Act that gave the Justice Department the right to pre-screen any changes to voting laws in states with a history of discrimination, and ban those that would have a discriminatory effect, even if they looked neutral on their face.

Two years ago, however, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the five conservative judges on the Supreme Court effectively gutted preclearance laws, arguing in essence that there as a new South that had moved beyond racism.

The decision had barely been announced when a virtual blizzard of laws designed to suppress the vote were introduced in states across the country – gerrymandering, stacking and packing voting districts with black voters, voter ID laws, curtailing voting days, eliminating evening voting, ending same-day registration, making polling places remote or inadequate, forcing voters to wait hours to vote and more.  Across the nation, more African Americans are in jail today than were in slavery at any one time.  The second reconstruction of the South is being rolled back.

The Brennan Center at the New York University reported, that “of the 11 states with highest African American turnout in 2008, seven have new restrictions in place.  Of the 12 states with the largest Hispanic population growth…, nine passed laws making it harder to vote.  And nearly two-thirds of the districts previously covered by preclearance under the Voting Rights Act have enacted new restrictions since 2010."

The gang of five Justices got it wrong.  With Republicans the party of white sanctuary in the South, racial animus combines with partisan interest to drive a relentless backlash against the voting rights of people of color.

So the celebration of Selma and the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act should turn a harsh spotlight on the Shelby decision that struck down the heart of that law, and ushered in a new assault on voting rights.   Selma marks a great victory, but our work is not done.  Much more is needed for this nation to fulfill its promise of “liberty and justice for all.”

X