Filibusters: #SCOTUS Obstructionists of Justice

Filibusters
#SCOTUS Obstructionists of Justice

Filibuster: an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically violating the required procedures. To act in an obstructive manner in a legislature, especially by speaking at inordinate length.

On Wednesday a couple colleagues {Akeem Rashad Allah/DJ Wise and Salim Adofo} and I had the privilege to be on a conference call directly from the White House with other key African American and Civil Rights Leaders around the country about the Supreme Court nomination process that was moderated by Stephanie Young and Valerie Jarrett. Stephanie Young is the Director of African American Outreach for The White House and Valerie Jarrett is the Senior Adviser to President Barack Obama and Assistant for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs in his Administration. If you're unfamiliar with these women I encourage you to Google them.

Read President Obama's "A Responsibility I Take Seriously"

Following the death of Supreme Court Justice and ultra-conservative Antonin Scalia, this left a vacancy in the highest court of our country. According to our Constitution, in order to fill that vacancy the current President, in our case President Barack Obama, chooses a nominee who is then confirmed by the Senate and then appointed to that position. This is a process that requires several steps, which on average has taken 67 days since 1975, roughly two months, and every U.S. Supreme Court nominee in history has received a vote within four months. President Obama has over 300 days left to serve his second term as our commander and chief so there shouldn't be a problem nominating another Supreme Court Justice, unless of course the Senate doesn't cooperate. After our President makes his nomination it's then sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee who conducts hearings to question his nomination to determine if they'll make a suitable Supreme Court Justice. When these hearings conclude, the Judiciary Committee votes on whether the President's nomination should go to the full Senate with a good, bad or neutral report. Republicans in the Judiciary Committee, led by their chairman Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, have already made it publicly known that they are not going to vote for whoever our President nominates. The last time a Supreme Court nominee was denied a hearing was in 1875. To give you some context, this was 141 years ago during the Reconstruction Era when the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was passed to guarantee African Americans access to equal housing, transportation and jury duty inclusion. By delaying this nomination process and dragging their feet, these Republicans and their special-interest group supporters, could very well get their way and there are no formal repercussions by doing this. The only repercussions they face are from their constituents. So instead of upholding the Constitution and doing the job they were elected to do, they have chosen to be filibusters. The bottom line is "they" want "their people" in that position and will do whatever they can to block, obstruct and go against the Constitution and what President Obama was elected to do in serving his final term as our commander and chief. These tactics aren't new and reflect the continuous uphill battle our President and First Lady have dealt with the entire two terms they've been in office. A battle with elected officials being uncooperative, unhelpful, unsupportive and outright disrespectful. 

Members of the Republican controlled Senate and Judiciary Committee have tried to argue that the 2016 President-Elect, not our current President, should nominate a Supreme Court Justice because it's an election year. Mind you, the Senate has confirmed 6 Justices in presidential election years since 1900 including the Republican President Ronald Reagan who appointed Justice Kennedy. If the Senate fails to act, the Supreme Court could have a vacancy for the better part of two Terms. This means that without a 9th Justice, the Supreme Court's 4-4 decisions can't legally establish uniform, nationwide rules. Many have been outraged at the sense of defiance, recklessness and disrespect on the part of the Senate Judiciary Committee and according to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights & The Leadership Conference Education Fund, "a broad coalition of 82 civil rights, voting rights, public interest, environmental, labor, religious, and education groups sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and the 10 other Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, condemning their recent announcement that they will refuse to hold a hearing on—or even meet with—any potential Supreme Court nominee." You can read and share this letter here. 

Because there are no formal repercussions the Senate Judiciary Committee will face, except from their constituents, what can we do? First I would encourage you to share this article via your social networks including the hash tags #SCOTUS and #DoYourJob.

1. Post/Share media interviews, memes, articles and statements via your social networks that talk about the importance of the President’s constitutional duty to ensure we have a full supreme court. 
2. Post/Share media interviews, memes, articles and statements via your social networks that talk about the role of the court, the role of the President and/or the role of Congress when a seat on the Court needs filling.  
3. Share media interviews, memes, articles and statements in the comment section of media interviews, memes, articles and statements via your social networks.
4. Here are a series of graphics you can Post/Share via your social networks. 
5. Be sure to include the hash tags #SCOTUS and #DoYourJob in all of your postings and commentary. 
6. Find out the position of your regional and local public officials on this Supreme Court nomination where you live. Require them to state this position publicly and hold them to it as a matter of their policy record -regardless if they're running for reelection this year or in the future. 

Keep in mind that this filibuster scenario that's playing out on the national stage is also happening on a regional and local level throughout America. The reason you may not see certain things getting done in your municipality, your neighborhood or in your workplace is because of the same kind of people striving to block, obstruct and go against progress. Letting our voice be heard about the Supreme Court nomination informs the Senate Judiciary Committee that we will individually/collectively use our position, finances and vote to ensure that people like them, who are not doing their job, will not be in these positions to obstruct justice. We are also informing their constituents that we will not support them, especially in business. How can you trust a business person to do the right thing for their patrons [citizens] when they're deliberately supporting public servants who are not willing to do the right thing for their tax paying citizenry? All of us as citizens are expected to do our job and the citizens we've elected as public servants need to do their jobs too. It's just that simple. 

Peace,

Saladin

Five Percent Nation Talking Points

Within The Five Percent

One of the common phrases you may hear within the media are "Talking Points." A talking point is a statement designed to support one side taken on an issue during a debate or discourse. It's also a position someone takes or a series of points/remarks used to guide their conversation and support their argument or discussion. Take for example Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo on Fox News. He starts off his memo with a question and then goes into some commentary highlighting different talking points to support his argument. Here's a good example of one of his memos about The Dramatic Muslim Invasion.


What some of us overlook about shows like Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo is that the network itself defines and supports his points/remarks. As a television host on this network, O'Reilly and his points/remarks are used to advocate the network's perspective and vision of the world, the people in it and their relationship to the planet. And when I say "the network's perspective", I'm referring to FNC [Fox News Channel] founders Rupert Murdoch, Republican Party media consultant and NBC executive Roger Ailes and others who own a piece of the company and its sister channels. When we're watching Fox News or any other channel for that matter, their points/remarks are designed to guide their audiences arguments or discussions on that subject matter. Even if we're watching the National Geographic channel; if it's a show about endangered baleen whales, the points/remarks made in that show are designed to guide our arguments or discussions on that subject matter or to possibly solicit financial support from us. When we don't own or control our own media outlets, we don't control our narrative or talking points. And when we don't control our talking points we're subject to others talking about and for us.


When we're having a discussion, engaged in a debate or even an argument, we're exchanging talking points. We're making a series of points/remarks to guide that conversation and support our argument. All of us do it; some do it better than others. However, the goal is not to simply make points/remarks. The goal is to do something with the points/remarks we've exchanged. Generally speaking, Christian talking points are derived from the bible. Muslims get their talking points from the Koran while others include talking points from Muhammad. I know some teenagers who get their talking points from trap music and elementary school youth who get their talking points from the Disney channel, internet and their peers. One time I was asked about the Five Percenter perspective of God by a Christian brother and I simply said, "WWGD: What Would God Do?" I went on to explain that as the biblical scriptures say we are fashioned in the image and likeness of God, our perspective is to strive to do things in a Godly way. He didn't argue with that and I successfully used a talking point not to argue or debate but to guide that discussion in a positive direction, even if that person's intention was to argue or debate.

Within the culture of the Five Percent, 6/8th's or 75% of our talking points are derived from 120 lessons. Our lessons not only define our position on the map of human geography, they contain information that enables us to make a series of points/remarks on an issue, or an aspect of an issue, related to us, our chronology, our relationship to others, the planet and the universe. These points/remarks define our perspective and vision of the world, our discourse at home, in public [abroad] and within the media. If I'm having a discussion with someone about diet, because of my cultural orientation as a Five Percenter, I may make points/remarks during that conversation that supports a position that they don't embrace, or never heard of before. Whatever those points/remarks are, it's up to me to provide the actual facts and concrete evidence to help them draw their own conclusion. This is the reason I stated 120 lessons is where we get the majority of our talking points from, not Supreme Mathematics. Supreme Mathematics, which is only 12.5% of our cultural curriculum, are principles that correspond to 0-9 within our numerical system; 1 = Knowledge, 2 = Wisdom, 3 = Understanding and etc. Numerals are symbols that represent numbers, they are not numbers themselves. Numerals and Numbers, like the principles of Supreme Mathematics, are abstract concepts/ideas until applied to concrete things. Meaning, Numerals and Numbers, like the principles of Supreme Mathematics, are an idea prior to having a physical or concrete existence. For example, the numeral "3" says nothing concrete in and of itself; it's just a symbol. As the number three, it still says nothing concrete until used to represent "three" apples, for example. In Supreme Mathematics the numeral "3", and number three, corresponds to the principle of "Understanding"; which also says nothing concrete until understanding is explained within the context of every day life. Even if I were to use the common phrase, "The Understanding is the best part; our children," I still have to explain WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHY because that phrase is an abstract concept. Without our explanation, many people don't understand that, will remain confused and oftentimes won't tell you how confused they are; they'll just nod their heads in agreement and won't ask questions for clarity. Mathematics is a mental system that uses numerals as numbers to teach us how to think; how to calculate, quantify and compute reality. Supreme Mathematics is also a mental system that identifies principles that correspond to numerals and numbers that teach us how to calculate, quantify and compute reality. 120 lessons lay out the terrestrial/celestial landscape of the reality we're calculating, quantifying and computing with the principles of Supreme Mathematics and qualities of our Supreme Alphabet.


Consider this: If a person only has the principles of Supreme Mathematics, which are abstract concepts, what is the concrete basis of their talking points? Since their points/remarks are not derived from 120 lessons, where did they get their actual facts from to define their position, support their argument and guide their discussion? Take for example a discussion about the devil, civilization or righteousness which are not any of the principles of Supreme Mathematics. Without 120 lessons, which deal extensively with these subject matters, what is the basis of their talking points about the devil, civilization or righteousness? By simply considering these questions, you can see what's behind some of the contradictory behavior/positions, weak arguments and inability to guide a discussion about our culture by people who claim to be Five Percenters who are not striving to learn 120 lessons and/or who only claim Supreme Mathematics as their entire culture. The same scenario applies to Christians who claim Christianity without knowing the bible, a Tour Guide who doesn't know the area or a Game Stop customer service specialist who is not a gamer. In all of these instances it's only a matter of time before these people sound like they're talking out of their arse, or they look like one, in a discussion.


As Five Percenters, it's impossible to make a consistent series of solid points/remarks to guide our conversation and support our position/argument about this culture if we don't know 120 lessons. We're missing too many points to talk about. Our lessons provide many actual facts about our identity, chronology, the physical dimensions of our planet, our relationships with our human family and the perimeters of our solar system. Again, it's 6/8th's or 75% of our talking points.


Peace,
Saladin

Trumpla: Political Reality TV

Trumpla: Political Reality TV

While out in DC recently I had the pleasure of running into White House Commentator/Georgetown Adjunct Professor Jon-Christopher Bua. JC covers international politics and writes for a few publications including the UK Huffington Post. We had an excellent discussion on foreign political processes, the 2016 Presidential Election, some of his work media training campaign spokespeople and his course at Georgetown 'Politics and The Media: an American-European Perspective'. One of his latest pieces you should check out is called Donald Trump vs Everyone: Do TV Debates Really Matter and to stay in tune you can follow him on twitter: @JCBua

Morton Downey Jr. Show 

In a reality tv society where the best press is bad press, all of this 'Trumpla' and his stagecraft antics have forged him into a one man Morton Downey Jr. show; a true pioneer of political trash tv. Like him or not, the guy is entertaining and represents the voice of millions of Americans who think and feel the exact same way. 

Like the 1980's era that catapulted Morton Downey Jr. into a pop culture celebrity, the same trend is happening with Donald Trump. To give you a sense of his popular culture impact consider the fact that his name has been dropped in rap lyrics at least 67 times by popular artists over the last 25 years. In terms of popularity, Trump is almost peerless in comparison to other presidential candidates except for Deez Nuts -no pun intended. Unlike Canada or other places where citizens vote for political parties represented by candidates, American citizens vote for the popular guy, not political platforms. Couple that kind of political process with an uneducated apathetic electorate and what we see is exactly what we get.

Know Nothing Party political rhetoric  

Two things I wanted to point out about Donald Trump is his 'whig' and no nothing political platform. When I say whig I am not talking about the spider monkey hairpiece on his head. I'm talking about his Whig Party perspectives. In the mid 1800s, the Whig Party was known as American Patriots, anti-Democratic and took many conservative stances that would be considered 'far right' today such as occupational prestige and upper class opportunism. Eventually succeeded by the Republican Party, Whigs were also said to be many things to many people, willing to abandon core convictions for the purpose of gaining political clout. Ironically the word whig is derived from the Scottish word 'whiggamore' and Donald Trump shares Scottish ancestry; his mother Mary Anne MacLeod was from the island of Lewis on the west coast of Scotland. In the mid 1900's the Anti-Masonic Party, the third major party in the United States, merged with Whig Party, and was considered the first right-wing reactionary movement in American politics at that time. In regards to Trump's no nothing political platform, his views are reflective of The Know Nothing Party’s xenophobic (fear or dislike of foreigners/outsiders), anti-immigration/naturalization sentiments. Also active in the mid 1800s, The Know Nothing's were a party who viewed themselves as the true Native Americans and only accepted membership of Protestant males born of British ancestry. They were also considered semi-secret because its members were instructed to reply, “I know nothing” if asked about the Party’s activities. Unlike today, xenophobic, anti-immigration/naturalization and anchor baby sentiments are not a secret; every time Trump opens up his mouth it is clear that he 'know's nothing' about addressing certain national and foreign policies. 

In the final analysis I think it's important that we understand that things happen in cycles, including political philosophies. Technology wise, we just have easier access to some of the same ideologies that built or destroyed this country in the past. In order to be an educated electorate we must be aware of this. I don't have a prediction on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election because it's still too early to tell who corporate America will choose to represent their interests. What I will say is that we cannot underestimate the power of popularity vs political platforms. A little over a decade ago the Morton Downey Jr. Show set a rachet television precedence and helped pave the way for reality television. Today we have a new kid on the block leading the same flock and it is going to be hard to trump that.

Peace,

Saladin