Trump Chooses Running Mate Who Once Called Him 'America's Hitler' By Hamil R. Harris

July 16, 2024 TrumpandVance

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Former President Trump and his vice presidential running mate Sen. JD Vance are all smiles sitting together at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee this week.

But some may call them the odd couple as Vance has not been his friend in his short political career. In a 2016 interview with Charlie Rose Vance identified himself as a ”Never Trump Guy,” while promoting his book "Hillbilly Elegy." He also said of the then future President, "I never liked him."

Vance, is former Marine who speaks his mind. He not only once said "I can't stomach Trump;" but he wrote an op-ed column in the New York Times titled: "Mr. Trump Is Unfit For Our Nation's Highest Office."

Vance not only said he didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but his former roommate shared images of a text message in which Vance called Trump "cynical" who could be "America's Hitler."

Yet, in Trump's selection of the 39-year-old former Marine, the mood among Republicans and Trump supporters quickly shifted from concern about the assassination attempt to a spirit of joyful defiance.

Vance has said after getting to know Trump and observing his presidency, he simply changed his mind about him. He now praises the former President although he is more conservative on some issues than Trump himself.

“After lengthy deliberation and thought, and considering the tremendous talents of many others, I have decided that the person best suited to assume the position of Vice President of the United States is Senator J.D. Vance of the Great State of Ohio,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform.

Trump met with Vance at his Florida home before he flew to Butler, Pa. for a campaign rally Saturday where he was shot by a 20-year-old man who was killed by law enforcement but not before the bullet that pierced Trump killed another man in the audience and injured a third person.

The FBI is investigating how Thomas Matthew Crooks, a dietary aide, known as a loner, could lie on a roof and graze Trump’s ear with a bullet that killed the firefighter, husband and father of two.

“There is no place in America for this type of violence in America, it's sick, it's sick,” said President Biden during a Sunday afternoon address from the White House. “This is one of the reasons why we have to unite this country. We cannot be like this.”

Biden called and spoke to Trump after the incident. Trump said he has changed his convention speech, apparently based on their agreement to lower the vitriol and promote unity and more civil political discussion.

Before Trump traveled to Milwaukee on Sunday, he posted a message on social media where he said, “Thank you to everyone for your thoughts and prayers yesterday, as it was God alone who prevented the unthinkable from happening.”

Trump said that he wanted to be in Milwaukee on the first day of the Republican National Convention because, “We will FEAR NOT, but instead remain resilient in our Faith and Defiant in the face of Wickedness.”

The FBI and members of Congress are investigating circumstances around the assassination attempt while President Biden has kept in touch with Trump less than two weeks after their debate.

According to a statement released on Sunday, “The FBI has identified Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, as the subject involved in the assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump on July 13, in Butler, Pennsylvania.”

As Trump spoke at the Pennsylvania rally he had no idea that Crooks had climbed to the roof of a nearby building and waited to take a shot. After he fired Crooks was taken down by a sniper team.

“This remains an active and ongoing investigation, and anyone with information that may assist with the investigation is encouraged to submit photos or videos online atfbi.gov/butler or call 1-800-CALL-FBI.”

While both campaigns were relatively quiet on Sunday, Trump arrived in Wisconsin with delegations from across the country for a four-day convention that is turning into a festive occasion.

According to a Brittanica.com citation, James Donald Bowman Vance was born in Middleton, Ohio. After his parents divorced he took his mother's middle name, Vance. He wrote a best-selling memoir called “Hillbilly Elegy” where he wrote about growing up poor as the son of a drug addicted mother who was partially raised by his gun toting grandmother.

The citation continues, “After graduating from Middletown High School in 2003, Vance enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. During his service in the Marines, he was deployed to Iraq serve in the Iraq War. He later attended the Ohio State University, where he received a bachelor’s degree in political science and philosophy in 2009. He then studied at Yale Law School, earning a law degree in 2013. He worked for the multinational law firm Sidley Austin LLP and forinvestment firms in California and elsewhere.”

In an initial reaction to his contender's choice as vice president, President Biden posted on X Monday, "Here’s the deal about J.D. Vance...He talks a big game about working people. But now, he and Trump want to raise taxes on middle-class families while pushing more tax cuts for the rich."

"I’m a Never Trump guy,” Vance said in an interview with Charlie Rose in 2016, a clip used in both the new ads. “I never liked him.”

Both ads also feature a screenshot of a Vance tweet from October 2016. “My god what an idiot,” he wrote, referring to Trump.

Despite Criticism of His Debate Performance, Support for Biden Remains Strong Among Black Leaders By Hamil R. Harris

July 1, 2024

BidenandTrump

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - President Joe Biden and the First Lady spent Sunday at Camp David with their grandchildren after his debate performance. At the same time, the media and a growing chorus of Democrats speculate on the 81-year-old leaders' future.

But Sen. Rafael Warnock (D-Ga.) sounded more like a preacher than a politician Sunday on Meet the Press as he defended Biden on a Sunday when the Atlanta Constitution joined several major news outlets to call for Biden not to run for re-election after his June 27 CNN debate performance was admittedly poor.

“As a pastor, there have been more than a few Sundays that I wished I had preached a better sermon,” Warnock said. “After the sermon, it was my job to embody the message.”

Warnock continued, “To show up for the people that I serve, and that is what Joe Biden has done his entire life,” Warnock said in an interview with NBC’s Laura Jarrett. “Over the last four years, he has been showing up for the American People…Joe Biden has demonstrated over the last four years the character and metal of the man that he is. He is a life of public service baptized in sorrow. As for Trump How do you stand and lie every 90 seconds?”

The most vital voices calling for Biden not to run for re-election come from media outlets and lawmakers on Capitol Hill. At the same time, progressives and African-American leaders remain committed to the President.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said Sunday on Face the Nation that he didn't see President Biden getting out of the race despite his poor performance.

“I got a chance to see the President challenged; I have seen in him in times of trial,” said Moore, referring to the crisis when a ship collided into a Baltimore bridge, and he called Biden at 3:30 am. “But when we get knocked down, we get back up.”

Political operative Rev. Jamal Bryant, pastor of the New Birth Baptist Church, said, ‘I'd rather have Joe Biden in a wheelchair than Donald Trump on both of his feet. There is too much focus on personality when it should be on policy.”

Bryant said he and Rev. Freddi Haynes held a conference call with 100 black preachers last weekend to sure up support for Biden. “As quiet as it is kept, Joe Biden did more to advance the Black community than Barack Obama.”

Melanie Campbell, President of the National Coalition of Black Voter Participation, a non-partisan organization, said talk of Biden leaving the race is premature. “The people voted for these two nominees. There is too much cynicism in this country. More seats are on the ballot than just who will be in the White House.”

President Obama tweeted after the debate, “Bad debate nights happen. Trust me, I know. But this election is still a choice between someone who has fought for ordinary folks his entire life and someone who only cares about himself.”

Obama tweeted, “Between someone who tells the truth; who knows right from wrong and will give it to the American people straight - and someone who lies through his teeth for his benefit. Last night didn’t change that, and it’s why so much is at stake in November.”

A more forceful Biden spoke in North Carolina the day after the debate, where he acknowledged that his debate performance didn't go well. But he also said to wild applause, “I know when you get knocked down, you get back up!”

Trump’s Quest for Support from Black Rappers by David W. Marshall

June 29, 2024

david w. marshall

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - In American politics, alliances and endorsements from cultural icons are not uncommon. They have the potential to play a pivotal role in determining public opinion as well as the electoral outcome in this year’s presidential election. During his stint as a reality TV personality and later as President of the United States, Donald Trump sought support from Black rappers, a demographic with significant influence in pop culture. According to CBS exit polls, Trump won 8% of Black voters in the 2016 presidential election and 12% in 2020. While Trump’s past support from rap artists did not necessarily translate into decisive gains among Black voters, his support among rappers in 2024 appears to be growing, and polling data suggests young Black voters are showing much more openness to Trump, thanks in part to COVID-19 stimulus checks, criminal pardons, and attention.

To achieve an effective election strategy, Trump will never need a substantial number of Black votes to go his way. If he can continue peeling away a small percentage of Black votes from his Democratic opponent, it can make a significant difference in who wins in November. By capitalizing on his celebrity status, the former president has an uncanny means of generating media attention in shaping his populist political persona, which can prove to be effective when targeted toward people who are tired of the political establishment and status quo, who are unhappy with the current political system, people who feel that promises have not been kept, and who are just simply ready to shake things up while unsure of the outcome. From the beginning, white evangelicals were the pollical target. Now, it has expanded to include young Black voters through Black rappers.

On his final full day in office in 2021, Trump granted pardons to rappers Lil Wayne and Kodak Black. During this year’s election campaign, Black is now among those in the “Black Americans for Trump” coalition. Earlier this month, rapper Sada Baby attended an outreach event for voters at a Detroit church where he encouraged people to vote for Trump. Rappers Sheff G and Sleepy Hallow, well-known in New York City’s drill music scene, spoke on behalf of Trump during a May rally in the Bronx. One of the most notable cases of Trump’s engagement with Black rappers was Kanye West during the 2018 presidential campaign. West would later praise then-President Trump, referring to him as a “brother” before posting images of himself wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat. After taping a Saturday Night Live episode, West told the audience, “If someone inspires me and I connect with them, I don’t have to believe in all [their] policies.” Detroit-based rapper Icewear Vezzo told Fox News, “A lot of Democrats assume that [we’re} just supposed to vote blindly. I feel like our votes should be worked for, I feel like our parents blindly voted for generations, but I think this generation is now understanding that we have to ask questions.” Vezzo, who said he would encourage his followers to vote for Trump, makes a valid point about asking questions.

As a social justice advocate, I have no choice but to assess candidates and elections from the viewpoint of fairness. Therefore, I agree with Kayne West’s statement that we don’t have to agree with everything a particular candidate or elected official stands for. But as people of color, if we are sincere about maintaining “justice for all,” then there are certain boundaries we should never go beyond when voting in the best interest of the Black community at large. Personally, I supported the efforts of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger as GOP lawmakers on the House Jan.6 committee.

They displayed tremendous political courage and patriotism when investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. In some ways, it was inspirational, but I still disagree with their partisan voting records. Most likely, I would not vote for them in a general election. While Black rappers are capable of influencing younger voters, the critical issues surrounding police brutality and accountability cannot be forgotten. Black children were six times more likely to be shot to death by police than their white counterparts, according to a study in the journal Pediatrics. While Blacks suffer an unfair burden of aggressive policing, MAGA candidates have shown an unwillingness to address the issue through legislation. On March 1, 2024, President Biden called for Congress to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. As of today, there’s been nothing from the Republican-controlled Congress.

Again, as a social justice advocate, I must also agree with Vezzo. Younger voters should ask pertinent questions. They need to ask the right questions because there are reasons why their parents and grandparents were consistent in voting for Democrats. Conservatives switched political allegiance and left the Democratic Party in the 1960s after Democrats became the defender of the 14^th Amendment (full citizenship for people of color), as well as becoming a party of racial inclusion. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney recently exposed the truth. He told writer McKay Coppins as part of his forthcoming biography, “A very large portion of my party really doesn’t believe in the Constitution.”

Romney justifies why progressives have earned the Black vote. They fought the battle to achieve and maintain full citizenship rights dating back to the Reconstruction era. With these modern-day conservatives, there will be no end to this fight.

David W. Marshall founded the faith-based organization TRB: The Reconciled Body and is the author of the book God Bless Our Divided America.

Congress ‘Has a Role to Play’ in Setting National Voting Rights Standards By Mark Hedin

June 25, 2024

Justice Gavel

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from Ethnic Media Services

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - A series of contradictory rulings by the Supreme Court in cases involving redistricting highlight the need for Congress to set national voting rights standards.

The first shots in America’s Civil War were fired in the city of Charleston, South Carolina. Four years later, former slaves in the city honored Union soldiers who had died in captivity there, initiating the annual Memorial Day holiday.

Today, Charleston is again at the crossroads of the struggle for civil rights with a recent Supreme Court decision that effectively dilutes Black voting power.

The May 23 ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito allows South Carolina’s Republican-dominated state legislature to “crack and pack” Charleston’s Black voters.

The ruling allows 62% of Charleston’s Black voting population, about 30,000 voters, to be shifted – or “cracked” – out of the state’s tightly contested 1^st Congressional district and packed into the neighboring 6^th district, represented for 31 years now by Black Democrat James Clyburn.

At the same time, the 1^st district will become 86% white as it is expanded into rural regions where white, Republican-leaning voters have been more dominant.

The South Carolina ruling concludes a dizzying array of gerrymandering cases nationwide that will help shape this year’s elections.

Two weeks prior, the Court took a different tack on another gerrymandering case, Landry v. Callais, where it handed what appeared to be a win for Louisiana’s Black voters, representing almost a third of the state’s population, greenlighting the creation of a second majority-Black district.

Partisan divides

Why the discrepancy in the two rulings?

Both the South Carolina and Louisiana rulings involved 6-3 majorities in which the Justices appointed by Republican presidents voted in the majority, and the three Democrat appointees opposed.

In South Carolina, Alito reasoned that the Court had to take the word of the state legislators that the change was made not over racial considerations, but to gain partisan advantage, something the Court has allowed states to do since its Rucho decision in 2019.

In Louisiana, the Court relied on the “Purcell principle,” established in a 2006 case, that encourages courts to not intervene when there’s an election on the horizon, although the specific time frame has never been established.

Kathay Feng is vice president of programs with the advocacy organization Common Cause. She says the seesawing of gerrymandering rulings reflects the country’s growing partisan divide over protecting voter rights.

“Democrats and Republicans used to agree that it was important for us to have laws that protected minorities against discrimination,” Feng told Ethnic Media Services. “There has been a change.”

She described how the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA), perhaps the signature achievement of that era’s civil rights movement, used to enjoy bipartisan support. “In 2006, the last time the VRA was reaffirmed (by the U.S. Senate), it was bipartisan, near unanimous,” she said. “Twenty years later, there’s a deep divide that falls along partisan lines.”

A series of decisions in the past decade or so by the John Roberts-led Supreme Court has eroded protections under the VRA that sought to end “Jim Crow” era rules denying Black and brown citizens the right to vote as guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment.

The dam broke in 2013, when the Supreme Court ruled in Shelby County (AL) v. Holder that racial discrimination had subsided to the point that it was no longer necessary for jurisdictions with a history of racist voting rules to obtain “preclearance” from the federal Justice Department before making any changes to how their elections were run.

That “preclearance” had been stipulated by Section 5 of the VRA.

Modernizing voting rights legislation

The decision set off a nationwide torrent of new rules in one state after another, some within hours of the decision being announced, and lawsuits challenging them. In the ensuing tumult SCOTUS issued seemingly contradictory rulings, for instance allowing the use of maps in Louisiana’s 2022 midterm elections that a lower court had found to be discriminatory against Black voters, while it considered a similar case out of Alabama. In 2023, it ruled that both states had tried to restrict Black voting power, which in Louisiana’s case set more cases in motion, finally ending with the May 14 ruling.

More than anybody, Congress has the power to bring some order to the court’s actions, and nearly did so just a few years ago with two pieces of legislation, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. Both faced universal opposition from Republican legislators and almost complete support from Democrats.

Still, insists Feng, Congress has a role to play in setting national voting rights standards. “We can still rely on the VRA as good law,” she said, “but we need to modernize, strengthen and restore it.”

Michael Li of the Brennan Center for Justice agrees. “There’s still a lot of momentum behind the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act,” he said just before the South Carolina decision was announced.

Both measures have been reintroduced in the current Congress. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named in honor of the late civil rights leader and Congressman, would restore the “preclearance” requirement of the 1965 VRA.

Its current iteration in the House is H.R. 14, sponsored by Rep. Terri Sewell, of Alabama. Dick Durbin of Illinois has introduced it as S. 4 in the Senate.

The Freedom to Vote Act, among other things, would make Election Day a holiday, ban partisan gerrymandering by requiring independent redistricting commissions, and mandate at least 15 days of early voting for federal elections.

Implications for the South

Those two measures came close to being enacted in 2021 but were sunk by Republican filibustering and by the refusal of Democrat Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona to exempt the proposals from filibuster rules that require at least 60 votes to pass the chamber, as had been allowed in 2017 for Supreme Court nominees, paving the way for Justice Neil Gorsuch’s ascension.

The Freedom to Vote Act has been reintroduced in the House as H.R. 11, sponsored by Maryland Rep John Sarbanes, and in the Senate by Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, as S.1.

Neither measure is likely to pass the current Republican-controlled House, which raises some tricky questions for the South, now the fastest-growing region in the country where partisan loyalties often run parallel with racial identities.

“If you’re talking about doing fair representation for people of color in the South,” said Li, “you’re going to have to do something federally. The South has never changed without some federal assist.”

Supreme Court Says ‘No’ to Payday Lenders; ‘Yes” to Consumer Protection By Charlene Crowell

June 06, 2024

U. S. Supreme Court Justices (Back Row L-R) Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson;

(Front Row L-R) Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts (Chief Justice), Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - A recent 7-2 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court gave consumers a long-sought victory that ended more than a decade of challenges over the constitutionality of the agency created to be the nation’s financial cop on the beat.

The May 16 decision in the case formally known as Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America LTD, ET AL refuted arguments by the billion-dollar payday lending industry that CFPB was unconstitutional because its funding is derived directly from the Federal Reserve instead of Congress’ annual appropriations.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, concluded, “The statute that authorizes the Bureau to draw money from the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System to carry out its duties satisfies the Appropriations Clause.”

Two additional concurring opinions underscored this conclusion. Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court and its newest member, addressed why legislators created the CFPB.

“As the Court explains, in response to the devastation wrought by the 2008 financial crisis, Congress passed and the President signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act… Drawing on its extensive experience in financial regulation, Congress designed the funding scheme to protect the Bureau from the risk that powerful regulated entities might capture the annual appropriations process,” wrote Justice Jackson.

During the Financial Crisis, millions of Black and Latino borrowers suffered home foreclosures because they were targeted with high-cost, unsustainable mortgage loans, even though many were eligible for other lower-cost loans. But those were not the only predatory financial product foisted upon people of color.

Payday loans that lure financially-strapped consumers with promises of easy cash can still be found in profusion in most urban areas across the country. The payday industry’s billion-dollar profits typically are generated on loans of $350 or less. With high fees that create deepening cycles of re-borrowing, these loans disproportionately affect Black and Latino borrowers who earn $40,000 or less per year, and do not have a college degree. Research by the CFPB found that payday lenders collect 75 percent of their fees from borrowers who take out more than 10 loans per year.

In the absence of federal regulation, 20 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws to cap payday lending interest rates at around 36 percent annual percentage rate (APR), or required other measures to eliminate long-term debt traps for consumers. Further, since 2005, no state has authorized the expansion of traditional storefront payday lending.

But for the remaining states without reasonable rate caps, triple-digit interest on payday loans continues. Many of these states also have large numbers of minority residents. For example, Texas allows payday APRs as high as 662 percent, similar to Missouri (652 percent), Mississippi (572 percent), Wisconsin (537 percent), and Nevada (548 percent).

Against this backdrop, it remains important for CFPB’s work in support of financial fairness to continue. Consumer advocates’ reactions to this key decision were understandably jubilant.

Massachusetts U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, broadly considered the chief strategist for CFPB’s creation during the Obama Administration, said the court decision is a noteworthy development:

“For the last decade, the consumer agency has fought the big banks and predatory lenders that try to cheat hardworking people. As of this week, the CFPB has returned more than $20 billion in ill-gotten funds to American families,” said Warren. “This isn’t the last attack on the CFPB we’ll see from Wall Street, the banks, and their Republican allies.…The CFPB will keep on doing its work to slash junk fees, fight giant banks when they cheat people, and level the playing field for everyone in this country.”

Rev. Dr. Cassandra Gould, Senior Strategist at Faith in Action and Founding member of Faith for Just Lending, said the ruling was as much a moral victory as it was a victory for public policy.

“This Supreme Court decision, which aligns with the moral compass of Proverbs 22:22, has sided with the least of these by protecting the CFPB. This decision is a testament to our shared commitment to not rob the poor because they are poor and to not crush those in need in court,” said the Rev. Dr. Gould.

And for the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), Nadine Chabrier, Senior Policy and Litigation Counsel at CRL, said this consumer victory should be used as a springboard for even more consumer protection efforts.

“Even with this decision, we must keep fighting to defend our consumer watchdog agency in the courts and in Congress as some industry actors sue and lobby to preserve illegal financial discrimination, billions in unlawful junk fees, and other exploitative behavior,” said Chabrier. “The nonstop crusade to undermine the CFPB goes against the wishes of the American people, who overwhelmingly support the CFPB’s work. The anti-CFPB campaign is an attempt to throw sand in the gears of financial justice and it must be rejected.”

###

Charlene Crowell is a senior fellow with the Center for Responsible Lending. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..