By Dr. Barbara Reynolds

Mary J. Blige and Angela Bassett as Dr. Betty Shabazz and Coretta Scott King in the Lifetime TV film, Betty and Corretta, airing this month.

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - For those who have longed for Hollywood to bring out of the shadows more African-American heroines and their stories as well as showcase the talents of more black film artists, Lifetime TV’s film Betty and Coretta, airing in celebration of Black History Month, has achieved an historic double-header.

Iconic actress griot Ruby Dee is the narrator,  Hip-Hop artist Mary J. Blige crosses over to play Dr. Betty Shabazz and makes her debut as executive producer and Angela Bassett, one of Hollywood’s most acclaimed stars who has played history makers Rosa Parks,  Tina Turner and Dr. Shabazz, in the Spike Lee movie, Malcolm X is Coretta.

For most, the film will be well-received. It is provocative dramatic entertainment. For others, however, who believe portraits of famous people should adhere to a truthful story line, there are problems and even pain; especially for relatives closest to the two widowed legends. For me, someone who has talked to Mrs. King over a 30-year period, words are put in her character’s mouth that I know Coretta King never said and scenes that never happened.

The film tells the story of the strong evolving friendship between Dr. Shabazz and Coretta King, as they forged ahead to raise the 10 children(Shabazz had six and Coretta had four) left fatherless after the tragic assassinations of their husbands Malcolm X Shabazz  and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It shows their courage as they braved the danger from Black anger and White hate and how their commitment to the human rights movement propelled them to leadership in their own right. For the first time in one place their surrogates give voice to whom or what killed their husbands.

During their lives the talents and strengths of both women were obscured by the limelight of their powerful husbands.  After the deaths of their husbands, the media often referred to them as “the widows,” as if their individual accomplishments had no merit.   Lifetime brought them out of the shadows for a renewed examination, appreciation and recognition of their leadership.

While applauding Lifetime’s efforts for recognizing an important era Ilyasah Shabazz, 50, one of the six daughters of the Shabazzes strongly, emphasizes the film is “fiction.”   She says, “My mother was not a weak timid, insecure woman as portrayed.  She was regal, compassionate, strong, loving, beautiful, resilient and highly educated.  That is why the Delta Sigma Theta sororities named academies all across this country after her so others could be inspired how to turn tragedy into triumph.”

Even what might appear small details to others bothered Shabazz because they obscured deeper meaning.  In one scene even the manner of how her mother’s head was covered did not set well.   In her book, “Growing Up X,” she detailed why her mother’s refusing to cover her head as expected for a Muslim woman, was a statement stressing her independence, which I believe was as significant as Coretta refusing to pledge to “obey” her husband in her wedding vows in 1953.

“If only Lifetime had consulted us, the sisters, maybe this would be more than fiction,” Shabazz said. “I am not pointing my finger solely at them, but it must be our responsibility to ensure history is properly documented.”

Truth also matters to the King Family, who I know are deeply pained by the inaccuracies. One of the basic objections was how the film suggested that Coretta Scott King accepted the accusations that Dr. Martin L. King was unfaithful to her based on what was supposedly heard on a tape sent by the FBI to the King home and tried to suppress them.  This was not the case as Mrs. King and the King Family has said for years.

It has been commonly reported that a tape and letter was sent by the FBI to the Kings’ home shortly before Dr. King was to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in December, 1964.  In taped interviews with me for an upcoming book, Coretta King relived the matter: “I opened the package. There was a letter that suggested since my husband was going to be exposed of some wrong doing he should commit suicide.  When I listened to the tape something was taking place at a social function with people telling dirty jokes. It has nothing to do with my husband having sex which was reported in the press. I was not bothered by the tape at all.”

In other interviews, she strongly defended her husband’s fidelity, saying, “If there were anything like that I would know. A wife always knows.” Coretta Scott King always felt like, “there will be attempts to assassinate (Dr. King) over and over again….”  Why does this movie follow the same story line the FBI constructed in the 1960s although their allegations were never substantiated?

The movie has several other inaccuracies, fabrications or stretches of the truth, such as visits the King children took to the Shabazz house that did not happen.   Another Hollywood stretch is a scene showing the tragic death of Dr. Shabazz, resulting from a fire set by young Malcolm Jr. that showed little resemblance to the actual truth.  The film showed Dr. Shabazz in the hospital covered in gauze but able to speak to Mrs. Coretta Scott-King at her bedside.   According to family members, Dr. Betty Shabazz, suffering from severe third degree burns, did not speak at all.

Mrs. King’s daughter, the Rev. Bernice A. King, declined to comment publicly for this article; however, both Ilyasah and Rev. King said their attempts to be involved in the film were rebuffed and they did not see it until it was finished.

Why didn’t Lifetime executives consult with the children of Mrs. King and Dr. Shabazz to ensure the film would be historically accurate especially since the siblings were part of the drama?  If drama is also history how much truth do we surrender for entertainment, especially since millions of viewers who have not followed the civil rights movement, will no doubt take this movie as factual.

Michael Feeny, senior vice president, corporate communication for A and E network, verified that the Shabazz and King families were not included in the project until “in post production.”  Other A and E officials who did not want to be named said they felt involvement with the families before production would have been too difficult because of the natural inclination for families to protect their legacies. I wonder are the Kennedys similarly disregarded in movies made about their lives.

I was at Jacobi Hospital in New York when Mrs. King visited Dr. Shabazz.  I know her death was heartbreaking because she loved her.  One a Muslim, the other a Christian; nevertheless they were truly spiritual sisters.  That is one truth of which I am certain.

By Julianne Malveaux

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - There is a Whole Foods store about three blocks from my home, and around the corner from my gym.  I am enamored by the displays of produce, the red peppers contrasting the yellow ones, the kale, chard, and collard glistening from their morning sprinkle. I love the way the fish gleams back at you, char and salmon, swordfish and tilapia. 

When I walk over to the prepared food, I grin at the ways the veggies are layered with cheese, crumbs, and so much more. They have sandwiches that I identify with, ingredients that I salivate about.  And now I must declare that I would rather drink muddy water or sleep in a hollow log than to indulge in whole foods.

I am utterly appalled that Whole Foods CEO John Mackey described Obamacare as “fascism”. Fascism is an incendiary word that speaks totalitarianism, or dictatorship, and it descries it in a pejorative way.  Whatever dissent there may be about Obamacare, the fact is, enough members of Congress voted for it to make it a law.  Mr. Mackey what are you thinking when you call Obamacare (a term I proudly embrace) totalitarian and fascist?  Is President Obama so mesmerizing that he forced opposing members of Congress to vote for his plan?

I had mixed feelings when Whole Paycheck swooped into my neighborhood.  People earned less hourly than the price of a pound of cheese.  Most folks, though, were happy to have jobs.  Happy, that is, until they complained about the terms and conditions of their work. I really didn’t pay much attention, but there was a niggling sense that something was wrong.

Some of the workers grumbled outside the store.  If you asked if you could help, they were emphatically negative.  I can understand folks preferring to keep their jobs than to put it out there for justice.  But from the swing of the head, the cut of the eye, it was clear that all has not been good at Whole Paycheck.

Unease translated into disease for me.  How dare John Mackey decide to flip his lip without a script to describe national health care as “fascism”?  He seems to be trying to start a fight, to diminish a president, to ignore that vote of Congress, to put President Obama in a context that he does not deserve to be in. Fascism?  One dictionary describes fascism as “a right wing nationalist ideology or movement with an hierarchical structure that is opposed to democracy and liberalism.”

How did President Obama get in this mix?  CEO John Mackey, unsupportive of Obamacare (as many business leaders are), chose to take opposition to another level, and decided that “fascism” was a great way to frame his ire. Then he said it didn’t matter, that his word choice was careless, that his ignorance would not affect his corporate profit, that he simply misspoke. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said to support evil is to embrace evil, is to be evil.  This is an evil I can gleefully walk away from. 

Mr. Mackey says that it doesn’t matter that conscious people won’t support his store. He may have a point. But I’m gong to take my little $200 a week elsewhere and I know others who will do the same thing. Mr. Mackey, your words have been duly noted.

Julianne Malveaux is a DC  based economist and author.

By Dr. E. Faye William, Esq.

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – If asked to justify violence of any kind directed against their mothers, wives or daughters, I’m pretty certain most men of good character who’re psychologically well-adjusted would reject that possibility in its entirety. While I make this assumption freely and in complete belief of its accuracy, U.S. statistics challenge my belief or suggest that the number of men of good character is an ever-shrinking commodity.

The November 2000 National Violence Against Women Survey indicates that in the U.S.:

· 17.6 percent of women have survived a completed or attempted rape. 21.6 percent were younger than 12 when they were first raped, and 32.4 percent were between the ages of 12 and 17.

· 64 percent of women reporting being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or date.

· About 25 percent of women and 8 percent of men said they were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date in their lifetimes. The survey estimates more than 300,000 intimate partner rapes occur each year against women 18 and older.

The following statistics are presented by the referenced sources:

· The FBI estimates only 37 percent of rapes are reported to the police. U.S. DOJ statistics are even lower, with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials.

· Factoring in unreported rapes, about 5 percent - one out of 20 - of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. Nineteen out of 20 will walk free. (Probability statistics based on US DOJ statistics).

· About 81 percent of rape victims are White; 18 percent Black; 1 percent other races. About 1/2 of all rape victims are in the lowest 3^rd of income distribution; 1/2 are in the upper 2/3. (Violence Against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. DOJ, 1994.)

· Almost 2/3 of all rapes are committed by someone known to the victim. 73 percent were by a non-stranger (38 percent were a friend or acquaintance of the victim, 28 percent were an intimate partner and 7 percent were a relative.) (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005)

· The costs of intimate partner violence against women exceed an estimated $5.8 billion. These costs include nearly $4.1 billion in direct costs of medical and mental health care and nearly $1.8 billion in indirect costs of lost productivity and present value of lifetime earnings. (DHHS, CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA, March 2003).

· Domestic violence occurs in approximately 25-33 percent of same-sex relationships. (NYC Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, October 1996.)

· Boys who witness their fathers' violence are 10 times more likely to engage in spouse abuse in later adulthood than boys from non-violent homes. (Family Violence Interventions for the Justice System, 1993).

· About 50,000 women and children are trafficked into the U.S. annually for sexual exploitation or forced labor. (U.S. CIA, 2000)

· A woman is battered, usually by her intimate partner, every 15 seconds. (UN Study On The Status of Women, Year 2000)

Despite these statistics, the Republican led House is refusing to reauthorize VAWA. Opposition seems to be motivated by extremely short-sighted and unrealistic reasons, such as

objection to provisions to include same-sex couples and undocumented immigrants.

When unfettered violence is in the forefront of the national dialogue, I cannot reconcile refusal to support this law to any reasonable thought-process.

For 18 years, VAWA has not been a partisan issue. Now, a law that has clearly been effective in saving lives, preventing violence, holding offenders accountable, and redefining the moral fabric of our society, is in question!

Don’t allow VAWA to lay dormant providing service to none of the victims it’s designed to protect. Contact your House Member at 202/225-3121 and express your support for reauthorization of VAWA.

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

By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - In an interview in 2007 Senator Obama (D-IL) said, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation… I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.” In 2013 Americans are facing a president with a different mindset.

A recently leaked White Paper is providing insight into the legal justifications for the Obama administration’s “targeted killing” program.  The paper asserts that “high-level” government officials can “…use lethal force in a foreign country…against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force…actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.”  This legal framework also explains how lethal force can be used even if the “high-level” government officials do not have “…clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

In September 2011 the administration used drone strikes to kill alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan.  Al-Awlaki’s 16-year old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was also killed by a drone strike. All three were U.S. citizens and none of them had been indicted by the U.S. government for any crimes. According to The Guardian, “…the drone program now is run out of the White House, where (John) Brennan, the president's most trusted counter-terror adviser, helps Obama pick the targets.”

The rationale behind the administration’s “assassination by drone” program sounds eerily reminiscent to former V.P. Dick Cheney’s “one-percent doctrine”.  Cheney believed the so-called “war on terror” empowered the Bush administration to invade sovereign countries and violate American’s civil liberties without the need for evidence or extensive analysis.  The facts did not matter.  According to Cheney, “If there's a 1 percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response.”

The Obama administrations rationale for targeted killings of American citizens contradict some of the basic framework of American democracy. Due process, habeas corpus, checks and balances, and bills of attainder are civil liberty protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

Due process is such an important protection that it is referenced in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government.  For the President or other “high-level” government officials to act as judge, jury, and executioner irrespective of “…clear evidence...” of any immediate wrongdoing is the clearest example of arbitrarily denying life and liberty that one can imagine.

Habeas corpus requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge in order to dermine if an individual’s detention is warranted.  Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Understanding the issues is assassinations not arrest but theoretically, by summarily executing American citizens before they can even be detained is a contradiction of the highest order.

The concept of checks and balances is an important part of the Constitution. Each of the three branches of government can limit the powers of the others preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful. Under no circumstance should members of the executive branch be allowed to condemn American citizens to death, even in times of “war” without the review of an impartial judge.  This also violates Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, “No Bill of Attainder … shall be passed.” A Bill of Attainder is an act of a legislature or executive declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial.

The paper also concludes that the use of drone strikes for targeted killings would not be justified if it violated the fundamental law-of-war principles “…if anticipated civilian causalities (collateral damage) would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.” 

The administration has presented and defended drone strikes as an “antiseptic” use of technology. CIA nominee, John Brennan defended drone strikes as a more humane form of warfare. He said that "extraordinary care" is taken to ensure they conform to the "law of war principles" but stopped short of saying they are in compliance.

According to the Center for Research on Globalization, “At the end of January 2013, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism was able to identify by name 213 people killed by drones in Pakistan who were reported to be middle-or senior-ranking militants. An additional 331 civilians have also now been named, 87 of them children. But this is a small proportion of the minimum 2,629 people who appear to have so far died in CIA drone strikes in Pakistan. The Bureau’s work suggests 475 of them were likely to have been civilians.”  The administration has championed the use of drones as making Americans safer by killing terrorists.  Killing innocent people in foreign countries creates more terrorists.

President Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) containing sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provisions and signed into law a four-year extension of post-Sept. 11 powers (PATRIOT ACT) to search records and conduct roving wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists. The rationale behind the Obama administrations approach to civil liberties and warfare sounds eerily like a Dick Cheney moment.

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