A devastating report on tax dollars being spent to re-segregate schools by setting up discriminatory “Charter Schools” in California opens with:
From less than 200 schools in 1998, the California charter school industry has grown by more than 600%, to over 1,200 schools serving nearly 600,000 children, or nearly 10% of the state’s students. One of the sources fueling this growth is an extensive network of government programs that provide public funding or tax subsidies for charter school buildings. Over the past 15 years, California charter schools have received over $2.5 billion in tax dollars or taxpayer subsidized funds to lease, build, or buy school buildings. This report finds that this funding is almost completely disconnected from educational policy objectives, and the results are, in turn, scattershot and haphazard. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent each year without any meaningful strategy. Far too much of this public funding is spent on schools built in neighborhoods that have no need for additional classroom space, and which offer no improvement over the quality of education already available in nearby public schools. In the worst cases, public facilities funding has gone to schools that were found to have discriminatory enrollment policies and others that have engaged in unethical or corrupt practices.
A copy of the report is here.
The Charter Schools of today are noting more than reinvention of tha anti-Civil Rights Academies.
Over the past 15 years, California charter schools have received over $2.5 billion in tax dollars or taxpayer subsidized funds to lease, build, or buy school buildings.
• Nearly 450 charter schools have opened in places that already had enough classroom space for all students—and this overproduction of schools was made possible by generous public support, including $111 million in rent, lease, or mortgage payments picked up by taxpayers, $135 million in general obligation bonds, and $425 million in private investments subsidized with tax credits or tax exemptions.
• For three-quarters of California charter schools, the quality of education on offer is worse than that of a nearby traditional public school that serves a demographically similar population. Taxpayers have provided these schools with an estimated three-quarters of a billion dollars in direct funding and an additional $1.1 billion in taxpayer-subsidized financing.
• Even the worst charter schools receive generous facility funding. The California Charter Schools Association identified 161 charter schools that ranked in the bottom 10% of schools serving comparable populations last year, but even these schools received over $200 million in tax dollars and tax-subsidized funding.
• At least 30% of charter schools were both opened in places that had no need for additional seats and also failed to provide an education superior to that available in nearby public schools. This number is almost certainly underestimated, but even at this rate, Californians provided these schools combined facilities funding of over $750 million, at a net cost to taxpayers of nearly $400 million.
• Public facilities funding has been disproportionately concentrated among the less than one-third of schools that are owned by Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) that operate chains of between three and 30 schools. An even more disproportionate share of funding has been taken by just four large CMO chains— Aspire, KIPP, Alliance, and Animo/Green Dot.
• Since 2009, the 253 schools found by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California to maintain discriminatory enrollment policies have been awarded a collective $75 million under the SB740 program, $120 million in general obligation bonds, and $150 million in conduit bond financing.
• CMOs have used public tax dollars to buy private property. The Alliance CollegeReady Public Schools network of charter schools, for instance, has benefited from over $110 million in federal and state taxpayer support for its facilities, which are not owned by the public, but are part of a growing empire of privately owned Los Angeles-area real estate now worth in excess of $200 million.
What is the connection between the Chump’s Reichminister of Education and racism?
While the report deals with California – the same thing is happening across the country. And with the racist Betsy DeVos in charge…Segregation is assured.
The MSM got punked…Again.
The Putin-Chumph fake missile attack in Syria which succeeded in blowing up a couple of goats and a couple of antique junkyard Mig 15s, and left the target airport in such bad shape they were launching planes a few hours later to bomb the hell out of hospitals – was a publicity stunt to try and bail out a rapidly failing presidency…The Chumph’s.
Yet no one seemed to attack the absurdity of the attack, and things only became unglued when ABC News reported two hours after the attack that the Russians and Syrians had, under Putin’s orchestration – moved their aircraft, personnel, chemical weapons, and critical equipment to another airport long before the Chumph ordered the launch of the missiles.
Sexual Molestation and Racial Discrimination Central, Fox News was overjoyed to have something else to talk about except serial rape by their leading talking head and others on their staff. Literally gushing about Putin’s Bitch bombing the hell out of some “A-rabs” they lead their easily dupeable slack jawed, ignorant followers in the usual orgasmic outpouring of plastic patriotism, that their “Trump had bombed some brown people. Faux News even trotted out a couple of pics of some destroyed antique Mig 15, last used in the Korean War, an which hadn’t been flown above sea level in 30 years as evidence of the “destruction”.
Took three days for much of the MSM to get their collective dicks off the table and realize they had been royally hoodwinked again.
One pointless display of military machismo, and the TV talking heads Trump loves to mock are swept off their feet
For nearly two years now, we’ve followed the incomprehensibly remedial political life of Donald Trump. For nearly two years, we’ve observed in shocked horror at episode after episode in which Trump is engulfed in controversy of his own making, only to be given chance after chance after chance to redeem himself, unlike nearly every other worldwide public figure, political or otherwise.
No matter how often President Trump whines and hurls tantrums on Twitter about the “dishonest media” and all the “fake news” it publishes, the television press has gifted him with unprecedented latitude — his very own set of political rules, devised by Trump and implemented by the cable news media. Actually, I hesitate to call them “rules” because the word suggests there are limits to and punishments for Trump’s behavior. Anyone following his greatest hits knows there aren’t any, at least in compared with the rules applied to previous presidents, not to mention the Democratic nominee whom Trump barely defeated last year.
This partially illiterate New York socialite turned reality-show punchline continues to be given opportunity after opportunity to behave in a reasonable, rational way by kneejerk pundits who appear desperate to artificially endow Trump with presidential qualities. His version of “presidential” lasts around 12 seconds and is barely more presidential than the behavior of a tween bully running for class president. Whether in describing his banal, off-the-rack address to Congress last month or his transparently political missile strike against a Syrian airbase, there are more than a few actors in the cable news sphere who can’t wait to normalize and legitimize Trump, only to be castrated by the president hours or days later.
In the aftermath of Trump’s ineffectual cruise missile strike against the Al Shayrat airfield in which 59 missiles constructed by Raytheon — a military contractor in which Trump owns undivested stock — caused marginal damage, allowing Bashar al-Assad to launch new airstrikes from the base the very next day, cable news was buzzing with declarations of Trump’s freshly acquired savoir-faire as a sober and decisive leader. This was Trump they were talking about — the TV huckster who once looked into a video camera and declared that “Trump Steaks,” inexplicably sold at Sharper Image stores back in the day, “are the world’s greatest steaks, and I mean that in every sense of the word.”
It’s also worth noting that President Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs in 2016, his final year in office.
NBC News reporter Kristen Welker said she thought Trump had “turned a page” in his presidency: “This is a president who is coming off of a rocky couple of weeks. Arguably, he’s turned the page on that to some extent with these foreign leader meetings that he’s had this week and now with the focus on Syria.”
Elliott Abrams wrote in the Weekly Standard that “the Trump administration can truly be said to have started only now. The president has been chief executive since January 20, but this week he acted also as Commander in Chief. And more: He finally accepted the role of Leader of the Free World.”
Fox News Channel’s Carl Higbie: “Huge victory. All the people I have spoken to recently, active and former, have all said this was Donald Trump’s first test and he absolutely nailed it. This is right on par. This is a show of force that the world needs to see and the world now knows that we will do. And everybody in the military that I have spoken to is extremely proud to call him our president this morning.”
On Friday night’s “Real Time With Bill Maher,” CNN’s Ana Navarro qualified her praise for Trump, but endowed him with a role neither he nor any president actually possesses. Navarro said, “I still think he is a racist, misogynist, lying pig, but he’s also my commander in chief.” Apologies for nitpicking, but the president isn’t Navarro’s commander in chief, nor is he the commander of any American civilian. He’s strictly the commander in chief of the military. Nothing more. Please stop giving him ideas like this. Thank you.
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria has been widely and justifiably mocked as the worst of the batch, declaring: “I think Donald Trump became President of the United States” with this ineffectual strike.
The only excuse I can think of for this brand of unearned fluffing, other than submissiveness and/or masochism, is that certain members of the press continue to genuflect before the “both sides” attitude. These are transparently weak attempts to generate some sense of cosmetic balance around the coverage of a president who, no matter what he says or does now, is still under numerous federal investigations for colluding with Russia to hijack the 2016 election cycle. It was a trespass against American sovereignty and the integrity of our electoral process, and if the current president was involved in any way, it was an unprecedented and massively treasonous act. And the Russia headlines make up only part of the roster of manifest reasons why Trump shouldn’t have been allowed to tour the White House, much less run the nation from the Oval Office.
A monkey can order a missile strike, and Trump kind of screwed this one up. He hit a few inconsequential items on the checklist — managing to avoid upwards of 100 Russian personnel who were on hand at the base for some still-unexplained reason — but he failed to take out any chemical weapons, which I thought was the point of sticking our noses into a civil war that hasn’t involved any attacks against the United States. And let’s say this again: Syrian fighter jets were taking off from Al Shayrat the next day. Oh, and Trump’s attack reportedly managed to kill seven civilians, including four children.
You had one job, Mr. President.
All in all, my biggest objection to Trump’s intervention in Syria — he’s also secretly put boots on the ground there, by the way — is the fact that it’s being carried out by this tabloid weirdo with cartoon hair named Donald Trump. It’s like finding out your bypass surgery is being performed by Gary Busey and the pilot for your cross-country flight will be Meat Loaf. Trump is in no way equipped with any of the qualities of a strong leader. He’s a petulant, obnoxious, intellectually incurious doofus who needed four tries to correctly spell the word “hereby.” He and his worthless, somnambulant secretary of state don’t have a Syria policy, beyond lamenting Assad’s murdering of babies on one hand while blocking other Syrian babies from seeking refuge from Assad inside the United States on the other.
Everything Donald Trump touches turns to crap sooner or later. As American warships steam toward the Korean peninsula, we, and especially the cable news media, must not forget who this president really is. We must not forget the myriad disasters and irreparable destabilization for which he’s responsible. And the worst is yet to come.
This is the first of a three part series of editorials by the LA Times. It eviscerates the man, his inability to lead, and lack of intelligence and ethics.
Republicans are equally at fault for not getting rid of this POS by impeachment, and defending him against evidence of treason.
It was no secret during the campaign that Donald Trump was a narcissist and a demagogue who used fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters. The Times called him unprepared and unsuited for the job he was seeking, and said his election would be a “catastrophe.”
Still, nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck. Like millions of other Americans, we clung to a slim hope that the new president would turn out to be all noise and bluster, or that the people around him in the White House would act as a check on his worst instincts, or that he would be sobered and transformed by the awesome responsibilities of office.
Instead, seventy-some days in — and with about 1,400 to go before his term is completed — it is increasingly clear that those hopes were misplaced.
In a matter of weeks, President Trump has taken dozens of real-life steps that, if they are not reversed, will rip families apart, foul rivers and pollute the air, intensify the calamitous effects of climate change and profoundly weaken the system of American public education for all.
His attempt to de-insure millions of people who had finally received healthcare coverage and, along the way, enact a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich has been put on hold for the moment. But he is proceeding with his efforts to defang the government’s regulatory agencies and bloat the Pentagon’s budget even as he supposedly retreats from the global stage.
It is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation.
These are immensely dangerous developments which threaten to weaken this country’s moral standing in the world, imperil the planet and reverse years of slow but steady gains by marginalized or impoverished Americans. But, chilling as they are, these radically wrongheaded policy choices are not, in fact, the most frightening aspect of the Trump presidency.
What is most worrisome about Trump is Trump himself. He is a man so unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard, so untethered to reality that it is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation. His obsession with his own fame, wealth and success, his determination to vanquish enemies real and imagined, his craving for adulation — these traits were, of course, at the very heart of his scorched-earth outsider campaign; indeed, some of them helped get him elected. But in a real presidency in which he wields unimaginable power, they are nothing short of disastrous.
Although his policies are, for the most part, variations on classic Republican positions (many of which would have been undertaken by a President Ted Cruz or a President Marco Rubio), they become far more dangerous in the hands of this imprudent and erratic man. Many Republicans, for instance, support tighter border security and a tougher response to illegal immigration, but Trump’s cockamamie border wall, his impracticable campaign promise to deport all 11 million people living in the country illegally and his blithe disregard for the effect of such proposals on the U.S. relationship with Mexico turn a very bad policy into an appalling one.
In the days ahead, The Times editorial board will look more closely at the new president, with a special attention to three troubling traits:
- Trump’s shocking lack of respect for those fundamental rules and institutions on which our government is based. Since Jan. 20, he has repeatedly disparaged and challenged those entities that have threatened his agenda, stoking public distrust of essential institutions in a way that undermines faith in American democracy. He has questioned the qualifications of judges and the integrity of their decisions, rather than acknowledging that even the president must submit to the rule of law. He has clashed with his own intelligence agencies, demeaned government workers and questioned the credibility of the electoral system and the Federal Reserve. He has lashed out at journalists, declaring them “enemies of the people,” rather than defending the importance of a critical, independent free press. His contempt for the rule of law and the norms of government are palpable.
- His utter lack of regard for truth. Whether it is the easily disprovable boasts about the size of his inauguration crowd or his unsubstantiated assertion that Barack Obama bugged Trump Tower, the new president regularly muddies the waters of fact and fiction. It’s difficult to know whether he actually can’t distinguish the real from the unreal — or whether he intentionally conflates the two to befuddle voters, deflect criticism and undermine the very idea of objective truth. Whatever the explanation, he is encouraging Americans to reject facts, to disrespect science, documents, nonpartisanship and the mainstream media — and instead to simply take positions on the basis of ideology and preconceived notions. This is a recipe for a divided country in which differences grow deeper and rational compromise becomes impossible.
- His scary willingness to repeat alt-right conspiracy theories, racist memes and crackpot, out-of-the-mainstream ideas. Again, it is not clear whether he believes them or merely uses them. But to cling to disproven “alternative” facts; to retweet racists; to make unverifiable or false statements about rigged elections and fraudulent voters; to buy into discredited conspiracy theories first floated on fringe websites and in supermarket tabloids — these are all of a piece with the Barack Obama birther claptrap that Trump was peddling years ago and which brought him to political prominence. It is deeply alarming that a president would lend the credibility of his office to ideas that have been rightly rejected by politicians from both major political parties.
Where will this end? Will Trump moderate his crazier campaign positions as time passes? Or will he provoke confrontation with Iran, North Korea or China, or disobey a judge’s order or order a soldier to violate the Constitution? Or, alternately, will the system itself — the Constitution, the courts, the permanent bureaucracy, the Congress, the Democrats, the marchers in the streets — protect us from him as he alienates more and more allies at home and abroad, steps on his own message and creates chaos at the expense of his ability to accomplish his goals? Already, Trump’s job approval rating has been hovering in the mid-30s, according to Gallup, a shockingly low level of support for a new president. And that was before his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, offered to cooperate last week with congressional investigators looking into the connection between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.
Those who oppose the new president’s reckless and heartless agenda must make their voices heard.
On Inauguration Day, we wrote on this page that it was not yet time to declare a state of “wholesale panic” or to call for blanket “non-cooperation” with the Trump administration. Despite plenty of dispiriting signals, that is still our view. The role of the rational opposition is to stand up for the rule of law, the electoral process, the peaceful transfer of power and the role of institutions; we should not underestimate the resiliency of a system in which laws are greater than individuals and voters are as powerful as presidents. This nation survived Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon. It survived slavery. It survived devastating wars. Most likely, it will survive again.
But if it is to do so, those who oppose the new president’s reckless and heartless agenda must make their voices heard. Protesters must raise their banners. Voters must turn out for elections. Members of Congress — including and especially Republicans — must find the political courage to stand up to Trump. Courts must safeguard the Constitution. State legislators must pass laws to protect their citizens and their policies from federal meddling. All of us who are in the business of holding leaders accountable must redouble our efforts to defend the truth from his cynical assaults.
The United States is not a perfect country, and it has a great distance to go before it fully achieves its goals of liberty and equality. But preserving what works and defending the rules and values on which democracy depends are a shared responsibility. Everybody has a role to play in this drama.
This is the first in a series.
The existence of the “Deep State” is a white-wing fantasy formulated by folks advancing absurd, typically fascist ideas in need of an enemy. It typically is advanced by folks who never worked in any intelligence agency, either Civilian or Military – basically because they didn’t have the mental stability to pass the background checks. Ergo, while the NRA and Reprobates are stupid enough to give crazy people guns…At least so far, our government isn’t turning over the keys to the nuclear arsenal to the whack-jobs – even if the Useful Fools voted in one.
What we have in this country is a group of intelligence services each assigned their area of responsibility who often are fractious and refuse to turn over intelligence to each other. George W. Bush found that out the hard way on 911 and strove mightily to fix a broken system where the FBI didn’t talk to the CIA, and the CIA didn’t talk to the NSA. While it is better than it used to be, there is still some healthy inter-agency rivalry, The fact that all 17 Intelligence agencies (about a third of those are private, not government) came up with the same conclusion on Putin’s Bitch being a traitor is stunning to anyone who understands how these organizations actually work. Basically it means that 17 different organizations, with entirely different methods, and scopes of operation limited to inside, or outside the US – independently came to the same conclusion.
Despite the pablum Americans are fed each night on the Boob-Tube, the people who work for these agencies are neither endowed with superhuman abilities, aren’t arch-villains, and don’t go around breaking the law. Two of those agencies do have technology which would boggle your mind, DARPA also develops bleeding edge technology typically used by the Military, However much of the stuff you see on TV doesn’t exist other than in some technologist’s wet dream, of just doesn’t work that way.And while there are certainly some really bad guys out there. Bad guy access to bleeding edge technology is pretty limited.
So…There is no “Deep State”.
Here’s the real truth about America’s national security bureaucrats.
Here’s a handy rule for assessing the credibility of what you’re reading about national security in the Trump era: If somebody uses the term “Deep State,” you can be pretty sure they have no idea what they’re talking about.
The phrase’s appeal is undeniable. The notion of a shadowy network pulling the strings in Washington is an attractive one to an embattled White House and its political opponents, shorthand-employing commentators and conspiracy theorists alike. But uncritical use of this canard is lazy at best and counterproductive at worst. The term, which political scientists invented to refer to the networks of generals and spymasters that rule many authoritarian states around the world, has migrated from leftist critics of U.S. foreign policy to the alt-right advisers running the White House. As a card-carrying former member of America’s vast national security bureaucracy, I find it offensive. But I also find it offensive as an analyst, because it’s a deeply misleading way to understand how the U.S. government really works.
So what is—or isn’t—the Deep State?
Let’s start with standard insinuations of the phrase. There are more than 2 million civilian executive branch employees (not counting the U.S. military or portions of the intelligence community, which does not fully report employment numbers). At least half of that number work in an agency related to national security, broadly defined. When combined with the million-plus uniformed military and support system of contractors, this is an unwieldy group. A mix of hard-working patriots, clock-punchers, technocrats, veterans and scammers, these folks swear the same oath to defend the Constitution.
Hollywood bears much of the blame in portraying this group as some combination of Rambo, the All-Seeing Eye of Mordor and the cast of Homeland—an omniscient guerilla force unaccountable to any authority. Reality is less made for the big screen; if, say, “Zero Dark Thirty” had been true to life, it likely would have been a single shot of 100 hours of lawyers’ meetings. The national security bureaucracy does wield awe-inspiring capabilities that could be disastrous if abused; months sitting through the Obama administration’s surveillance policy review made that clear. But while civil servants and military personnel do pledge to defend the Constitution, it is not only the goodness of their hearts but a complex web of legal, congressional, bureaucratic and political oversight that guards against such risks. These checks are met with both grumbles and keen awareness of how they set the U.S. rule of law apart from, say, Russia. These systems are not foolproof, and could undoubtedly be improved. The flaws of the administrative state—ranging from redundancy and waste to self-interested bloat to inability to innovate to scandalous incidents of corruption—have been well documented, its day-to-day successes far less so. But find me an alternative to the national security bureaucracy, or find me a functioning state without one.
To Steve Bannon and his colleagues in the White House, the Deep State is an adversary to be destroyed. In recent remarks, the president’s chief strategist called for the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” According to the Washington Post, he’s been whispering in President Trump’s ear about the Deep State’s alleged campaign to ruin him. And, truth be told, charged with leaking for its own purposes, thwarting President Trump’s policy priorities and ousting his appointees, this “Deep State” sure looks quite guilty in the context of a chaotic first six weeks in office.
But it’s far easier to blame shadowy bureaucrats than to take responsibility for your own failures. The president’s executive order on terrorism didn’t fail because the “Deep State” sabotaged it; it failed because an insular White House did not seek or heed its advice. Leaks did not bring down former national security adviser Mike Flynn; his deception of Vice President Mike Pence did. Though it is impossible to know, much of the exposure of White House infighting that so angers Trump seems far more likely to be coming from his senior aides than from low-level bureaucrats.
None of which is to say that Bannon’s view of the world is completely baseless. Bureaucracies have institutional interests they are loath to let go of, and are plagued by an inertia resistant to disruption. This is common to all large organizations, not a flaw unique to the U.S. system of government. But Trump has a tool to manage this dynamic that he has inexplicably chosen not to wield: placement of around 4,000 political appointees throughout the bureaucracy. Inserting his personal emissaries throughout the “Deep State” would give him far more political control over the civil servants he perceives to be rebelling, and at the same time give his team better access to their expertise. But not a single one has been confirmed below Cabinet level.
And here’s where Bannon’s blame game breaks down: Past presidents have learned there are limits to what a pen and a phone (or a tweet) can implement without calling on the resources of the administrative state. This is not a threat but a fact. Their oath is to the Constitution, not the president, but they are effectively there to make him look good. And he has no alternative: There is no substitute state to defeat ISIS, renegotiate trade deals, build walls, round up illegal immigrants or catch terrorists if Trump works to dismantle the national security bureaucracy. Making the “Deep State” an enemy will cripple his administration.
To many in the media, the “Deep State” has become a convenient label for any quasi-official entity or view that is not enabling the Trump agenda. The former president, Congress, the judiciary, the grass roots community, unions, the Blob, Black Lives Matter and the “mainstream media” have all been lumped with the national security bureaucracy to help explain the unexplainable first weeks of this administration. “Evidence” of such is usually offered in the form of political alignment of the bureaucracy with these groups, leaks of policy deliberations at inconvenient moments, or the lack of success of the president’s desired policy outcomes.
Many assume that civil servants are liberal on various domestic political issues. The reality is more complex, particularly in the national security field, and as veterans make up an increasing proportion of the federal workforce. Various polls proclaimed federal workers would resign if Trump won the election in numbers ranging from 14 percent to nearly 30 percent. Despite some very public anecdotes, the anticipated wave of federal departures has not yet occurred.
Those employees who remain are frequently accused of “thwarting” President Trump’s agenda. This is a serious accusation, but one that hasn’t manifested evidence or shown any distinction from bureaucratic shirking problems that have plagued every prior administration (Obama’s travails with the Pentagon come to mind). Government sausage-making is no silent coup. Presidents do not rule by a Picard-like “make it so,” and agencies have an obligation to present policy advice based on the best facts available. When the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence unit failed to find that the countries implicated in the president’s refugee executive order present a terror threat, the analysts were just doing their jobs—not defying the president. When government lawyers shared legal concerns about the so-called travel ban, they were just offering their best advice. To Trump, perhaps the end result feels the same: He is not getting all he wants and the bureaucracy is telling him no. But this happens to all presidents. The difference with Trump is that he can’t handle the truth.
But those leaks! Here’s the thing about leaks: They are anonymous, and no one issues a friendly survey after a leak querying why the leaker did it. So maybe there is a weekly bowling party where the Deep State gathers to plan its agenda-thwarting leaks. Or maybe the Trump White House is doing what the Trump campaign did with regularity: leaking. Or maybe the leaks would dry up if any sort of formal policy process were launched at the National Security Council and there were other means to air policy concerns. Or maybe leaks are nothing new, having been rounding condemned and unprecedentedly prosecuted in the prior administration, and we just got around to calling it the Deep State. You and I have no idea, and that is the point.
For some, discussions about the Deep State can be a form of wish-casting. Would the military disobey unwise orders from President Trump? Will Defense Secretary James Mattis “save” us from extreme actions in foreign policy? More likely, each will stay in their lane and there will be no scenario in which the system of checks and balances has broken down so badly that they are compelled to initiate a major crisis with the president. For there are checks and balances we should want to be empowered, rather than turn to conspiracy: the judiciary, the media, a healthy political advocacy culture, Congress, the policy and legal advice of institutions, the statutory roles the military and intelligence communities, voters and more. These roles, bound up in our Constitution, do not an activist Deep State make, nor should anyone want them to…
So the next time you hear someone using the term “Deep State,” send them a copy of this article. Ask them to stop using it. Tell them the term betrays their ignorance, and obscures and misleads far more than it illuminates. And if that doesn’t work, well, we Deep Staters will take matters into our own hands.
Here is an ad, by a Veteran who lost a leg in Afghanistan…Which should have been shown on the Super Bowl last night…
Three minutes after the ad aired this morning, Putin’s itch tweeted…
Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election. Sorry, people want border security and extreme vetting.
Those familiar with my blog have heard me say it a number of times. A lot of black legislators out there aren’t doing much but showing up at picture events and going o Cabarets. Roland Martin takes these folks to task. Why is it there is no serious opposition to the Chumph and Republicans. Why is it, any Democrat can vote for a massively unqualified Uncle Ben Carson’s confirmation to provide some racial cover for the most racist administration since Wilson, and not have all 43 Members of the Congressional Black Caucus standing on their desk the next morning?
As black voters, we are going to have to take the position that “either you are going to fight for us, or get the fuck out!” It is way past time to cull the useless, accomodationalist – garbage.
The New Jim Crow is allowed, an enabled by the failure of black legislators to stand up.
TV One commentator and host Roland Martin challenged African American legislators and other officials to aspire to the goals, dreams, and ideals of civil rights icon Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during a speech last week in Sacramento.
Martin, a journalist, and the host of TV One’s NewsOne Now, asked attendees at the California Legislative Black Caucus’ (CLBC)’ annual breakfast “ Are We Satisfied? He said he was not satisfied where we are but encouraged attendees to reflect and recognize King’s birthday as a way to renew their commitment to what King fought for during his lifetime.
“When it comes to equality. When it comes to freedom. What are you satisfied with?” Martin asked. “Are you advocating for the very policies he stood for? Are you advocating for the very people he stood for?”
King, a champion for racial, social and economic equality organized boycotts, protests and marches, won a Nobel Peace Prize, spoke out against racism in the United States and delivered some of the most influential speeches in American history.
King’s 88th birthday was Jan. 15, a day before the national holiday named after him and held each year in remembrance of his legacy. The Atlanta-based Baptist minister, was gunned down by an assassin on April 4, 1968 in Memphis, Tenn.
The Golden State’s eleven-member CLBC’s breakfast took place on Jan. 12 at the Sacramento Convention Center. At the event, over 250 people honored King and celebrated individuals that have a commitment to work for the betterment of California’s African Americans and more.
Martin expounded with a self-proclaimed “spirit of discomfort” said he was not satisfied with the standing of African-Americans in America today.
“I’m not satisfied if you come asking for Black votes, but can’t hire Black companies,” said Martin alluding to the relationship between elected officials and African American businesses vying for state contracts. “I’m not satisfied when you come asking for Black votes, but can’t fund Black media.”
“I’m not satisfied when you say, ‘We’ll offer internships, but won’t hire full-time for critical positions,” the television personality continued. “In this particular state, where are your dollars being spent? Who are you actually supporting? I’m not interested in internships.”
Martin said King spoke about education, police brutality, voting rights, and economics; all issues that concern the African-American community today.
Martin said when it comes to educating Black youth he stands for success in the classroom.
“If it’s working for a child I’m with it 100 percent,” he said. “I would expect the Black Caucus in California – when you have constituents and children in some of the worst schools – to say, ‘I will provide an opportunity for you whatever it looks like.’ For some reason we are having a 1950s’ dialogue about education, but we are in 2017.”
Martin said African-Americans should not be satisfied with the progress in the U.S. as of now. He said King focused on what racial and social and economic challenges lay on the horizon. The renowned media figure challenged Black caucus members to do the same.