Let's "Bern" down the DNC!

ALL HANDS ON DECK!!! 

While reading through my news feed on Facebook, I ran across the following message: 

"Yesterday I tabled for Bernie at the LA [Los Angeles] county fair. There was a booth for the LA county democratic party. They had NO information on Bernie and no merchandise for him either. We offered them some of our Bernie stuff and they declined saying that they and the state party would be endorsing Hillary and sending delegates for her to the national convention. I asked how they could know that 10 months before our primary and they said they choose delegates 4 months before the primary. When I said that was undemocratic and corrupt, they shrugged."

After reading the post, my mind quickly shifted to lines from one of my favorite movies: "How High," starring Red Man and Method Man.

Bart: “That's against the rules!”

Coach: “What rules? Who cares? Do you guys care about the rules?”

[All] “No.”

Coach: “There you go.” 

This strong-arm behavior from the DNC and Hillary Rodham Clinton's camp is the very reason Sen. Sanders' supporters have to dig in our heals and fight fire with fire. Clinton knows the importance of Delegates because they thwarted her 2008 bid for the Presidency. This time, it appears that the Clinton camp is perched to play hardball in the delegate race. 

2,250 DELEGATES NEEDED

To become the Democratic Nominee, a candidate needs roughly 2,250 candidates. As previously reported, the Clinton camp brags of having secured 440+ Super-Delegates, but Clinton also knows that Super-Delegates are not "pledged" delegates, and "pledged" delegates are needed most. Since some states have yet to roll out their delegate selection plans, it's baffling how the state of California has already decided to send delegates to the Convention in support of Clinton? For sure, if such is the case, there is something awry within the Democratic Party, and of this, we are well aware. The fact that there are only six (6) debates serves as proof that the Democratic Party is trying every trick in the book to win the nomination for Clinton, but we can stop the coronation of Hillary that the DNC is so hell bent on shoving down the throats of Americans. 

"Bern" this mutha out!

There is time to prepare for the full frontal attack that the Clinton camp is determined to wage. Here's the plan:

1. Visit MyTimeToVote to learn everything there is to know about the political machine in your state. 
2. Join Delegates for Bernie Sanders to learn the machinations of the delegate selection process and either apply and run as a delegate or find someone in your neck of the woods to run as a delegate for Sen. Sanders.
3. Take the "Bernie or Bust" pledge to show the DNC that we mean business. 
4. Sign up at Rock the Vote for your online voting took kit and get people registered to vote.
5. Sign the petition and...DO NOT DONATE TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
6. Share Sen. Sanders' Agenda for America: 12-Steps Forward to make people aware of where Sen. Sanders stand on the issues.

If "We Stand Together," we can pull off the biggest coup in democratic history, so let's unite and "Bern" down the DNC. 

It's time for Bernie!

It’s Time

“It’s time for a female president in America,” a friend adamantly stated. I agree, and I would love to see Sen. Elizabeth Warren win the White House. Unfortunately, Sen. Warren will not run in the 2016 campaign, so one who wishes to see a female president in 2016 have but two options: Carly Fiorina and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Fiorina’s disastrous tenure at Hewlett-Packard as their first female C.E.O. makes her an unlikely choice; thus, Clinton becomes the flavor of the month, but is Clinton a viable choice? It depends on whom you ask. However, as a Black, female, Navy veteran I cannot in clear conscience vote for Clinton. Her position on various issues tend to change directions like leaves on a tree moved by hurricane winds. For instance, in 1994, Clinton was a staunch supporter of her husband’s “tough on crime” policies; today, she speaks out against such policies. Consequently, the damage has been done, so to speak out against her husband’s policies now is the equivalent of locking the barn door after the horses have escaped. In addition, according to Jesse Ferguson’s—Deputy National Press Sec and Sr. Spokesperson for Hillary Clinton—Tweet: @HillaryClinton

Therefore, Clinton’s shift in position is the result of changing times, not because such policies were wrong, so it’s apparent that she still believes that such policies are needed. In conjunction, Clinton’s position on military spending is much cause for concern, for we can pretend that she’s seen the light in regards crime reform, but we cannot pretend that Clinton is against sending our children to war.

Follow the money

On May 26, 2015, journalists David Sirota and Andrew Perez, in their article Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department wrote, “Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.” This comes as no surprise since Kelly Vlahos, columnist for The American Conservative had warned us in her November 2014 article that The military-industrial candidate: Hillary Clinton prepares to launch the most formidable hawkish presidential campaign in a generation. Nothing confirms this more than the actions of Clinton while serving as Sec. of State and contributions made to the Clinton Foundation by the military-industrial complex during her tenure. It’s these deals that have the Clinton’s facing racketeering charges under RICO: “Judge Donald Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida scheduled a January 20th, 2016 trial date for the RICO lawsuit against Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation (RICO stands for racketeering, influenced and corrupt organizations and was originally created to enable the Justice Department to convict organized crime figures).” Clinton’s association with the prison and military-industrial complexes should leave a bad taste in the mouths of Americans; it seems that her plan is to use Americans as cannon fodder for either the private prison or military complexes. Who profits?

A President for humanity 

Marianne Schnall, columnist for TIME, asks, What will it take to make a woman president? One suggestion, “Don’t present it as a ‘women’s issue’ — it’s a human issue.” There is nothing human or humane about the prison or military-industrial complexes. There is nothing to suggest that members of these institutions support candidates who do not share their “vision.” That would not make sense under any business paradigm. The options offered by Clinton makes one feel trapped between two walls that close in to squash Americans: “Between a rock and a hard place.” Let’s face it, Clinton has already said we would attack Iran if she is elected. This is not the future I envision for myself, my children, my grandchildren…America. Therefore, although it may be time for a female president, it’s never time for one willing to send our country into war, especially since tax payers are still paying for wars fought during George W. Bush’s tenure. 

Fortunately, there is one candidate in the 2016 Presidential race who has been against war since the Vietnam Conflict. That candidate is Sen. Bernie Sanders. As veterans, we can rest assure that no other lives will be lost fighting in the interests of Corporate America; maybe then, we can begin putting monies toward repairing the lives of our existing veterans and the Veteran’s Administration, for it is sad that 307,000 veterans lost their lives awaiting eligibility for medical treatment. 

As a mother and grandmother, I cannot envision sending my children, grandchildren, or yours to fight in a war that only serves to line the pockets of those tied to the military-industrial complex, especially given the treatment current veterans receive when returning home from war. 

Sen. Sanders voted against the war in Iraq, which Clinton voted for as Senator of New York. She has since said that her vote was a mistake, but make no mistake, she is for attacking Iraq's neighbor: Iran. Sen. Sanders is against attacking Iran. Sanders recently slammed his "Republican friends" who "seem to be itching for that war." The same is true of Clinton; the deals made while serving as Sec. of State bear witness to her intentions. The question is are "We the People" itching for war with Iran? If not, join the revolution that is taking the nation by storm. #FeeltheBern! 

12 Steps Forward

Sanders has an Agenda for America that builds a better America for all Americans. It's going to take 12 steps forward to return us to the America we all know and love. Best of all, Sanders wants to put an end to war. Don't you? It's time for Bernie. 

Let's Make a Deal.."The Basic Bargain of America."

“For more than three decades, she’s been fighting for you and for the basic bargain of America…if you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead and to stay ahead,” said Baltimore's Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake in reference to two-time, presidential hopeful, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Baltimore's mayor was "honored" to introduce Clinton at this year’s Democratic Nation Committee Summer Meeting. It's not clear how many more decades before 1985 Clinton has been fighting for "the basic bargain of America" for Americans, but given the current condition of life among American workers, the “basic bargain of America” is no bargain at all, especially where Black lives are concerned.

“This election is about who best understands the pressures facing the families of America...and who has the skills and tenacity to tackle them,” Clinton said. Unfortunately, much of what followed the first two minutes of her speech was reminiscent of an ex promising to change, to do better, and to fight for "you," "with you" while never addressing how you got there in the first place.

Clinton gives a “shout out”

Clinton chuckled and gave a "shout out" to the "grassroots movements" working to help build her campaign. I chuckled, as I envisioned the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement whom Clinton dissed in New Hampshire and had recently dismissed in Cleveland. For sure, she did not include this grassroots movement in her shout out, for when Clinton began to speak about race while in Cleveland, representatives of the BLM movement started chanting and were escorted from the event. Clinton continued with her speech on race; "We've got to come to terms with some hard truths about race in America. We do have to stand up and loudly and clearly say black lives matter." This is true, but we cannot merely "say black lives matter." For no matter how loudly or clearly it was shouted at the event mere moments earlier, Clinton’s minions silenced those voices that, in their way, demanded Clinton  "…come to terms with some hard truths about" legislation enacted during Bill's tenure as president—legislation that has destroyed families and lives of many Americans, especially Black Americans. 

It is no secret that mass incarceration is more so the result of the privatization of prisons—a direct result of former Pres. Clinton's Violent Crime Control Act—than an increase in crime. Coincidentally, Clinton was quick to point the finger at the GOP, but she has yet to acknowledge her husband's contributions. Ohio State University’s, Michelle Alexander has already exposed the devastating numbers surrounding Black incarceration in her book, "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness," but this time, the net has widened to include the selling of children to private prisons for profit.

Selling Children for Profit

According to The Drug Policy Alliance, “Two-thirds of women doing time in federal prison are behind bars for nonviolent drug offenses, and the vast majority of them have children they can’t even see…Harsh mandatory minimum sentencing may keep them behind bars for 20 years, 30 years, or even life.” Although this is a devastating fact, nothing trumps the sale of countless children by Pennsylvania Judges Mark Ciavarella Jr. and Michael Conahan who pocketed more than $2 million selling children to private juvenile prisons?  Are Americans to forget and/or ignore the acts of those willing to sell our children into slavery to line their pockets? Can Americans honestly say that these are the only two judges in all of America who have profited from the sale of bodies to the private prison industry complex? Thus, when BLM questions Clinton about her role in the private prison industry complex, everyone should be concerned about her answer and/or unwillingness to answer because not just Black families and lives are affected.

Work harder…longer hours

Clinton continued, like any bad ex would, to do just what BLM had accused her of in New Hampshire: “victim blaming.” “If [we] work hard and do [our] part, [we] should be able to get ahead and to stay ahead.” Maybe Clinton’s campaign would do well to purchase a copy of David K. Shipler’s, The Working Poor: Invisible in America, a collection of narratives of hardworking Americans who can’t seem to get ahead, no matter how hard they try or work, which brings us to Bill’s “Minimum wage” legislation that did more to keep working Americans in poverty than lift them out. Ironically, Americans were outraged when, presidential hopeful, Jeb Bush suggested working longer hours. Where is the outrage at the subliminal suggestion that Americans are not working hard enough? Where does Clinton stand on minimum wage? She says she’s for equal pay, but minimum wage hasn’t been addressed.

Affordable tuition and Student loans

Making sure she hit every topic covered by her political rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton also mentioned affordable college tuition and student loan debt. Like a scorned lover, I scoffed, and thought, “Now, there’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one: affordable and student loan in the same context. Consequently, Bill Clinton’s legislation denies working Americans the opportunity to discharge student loans in bankruptcy while offering methods of repayment that many cannot meet. That’s why students are strapped with insurmountable debt after college. Imagine, Donald Trump can fold on a multi-million dollar real estate deal by filing bankruptcy, but the average working class, college student with student loan debt has to struggle to repay loans with, often times, two or more low wage paying jobs. In addition, the affordable college plan Clinton hints at is a slap in the face compared to the plan proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

In fact, much of what Clinton mentions in her speech echoes the issues addressed by Sen. Sanders in his 12 Step Agenda. Moreover, Clinton is merely willing to mention these issues “loudly” and “clearly,” thinking it will relieve her of addressing the issues or providing a clear plan for helping Americans who work hard, thus, expecting to get ahead and stay ahead. Unfortunately, Clinton can only hide for so long, but why wait for her to change her position on the issues, yet again? She began her speech by telling us that we need someone “who best understands the pressures facing the families of America...and who has the skills and tenacity to tackle them”; she’s right. Let's be done with basic, bargain basement, politics by supporting the one person in this race who is not bargaining with special interest groups: Sen. Bernie Sanders, the real deal.

The "Illusion of Inclusion"

(Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for The New York Women's Foundation)

The Black Lives Matter movement is making quite a ruckus in today’s “post-racial” America—and rightfully so—causing some to retort, “All Lives Matter,” which is true, but like the meme says, “We’re focused on the Black ones right now…because it is apparent that our judicial system doesn’t know that.” Ironically, however, the US government has been very concerned with Black lives, most specifically when drafting the US Constitution and its subsequent amendments. For example, Black lives mattered when deciding how to count slaves for the purposes of taxation and representation. Thus, the “Three-fifths-(3/5^ths) Compromise was born, reducing Blacks to 3/5^ths of a person. Black lives mattered when fighting the Civil War and when penning the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments: commonly referred to as either the Civil War or Reconstruction Amendments. Despite legislation, Blacks still live like second class citizens across the U.S.A. Therefore, it is time to look at the legislation specifically written to address the Black condition in America and ask ourselves, “If the 14^th Amendment guarantees EVERY citizen due process and equal protection under the law, why are Blacks still begging for and being denied due process and equal protection “under the law” in the 21^st Century?

We’re all aware that the 13^th Amendment freed the slaves: nothing more, nothing less; however, no provisions were made to protect the newly freed individuals. The questions one must ask, then, are, “Once freed, weren’t Blacks guaranteed the same rights as all other American citizens?” "Were not Blacks included in the words of the Preamble of the Constitution, 'We the People'"? Obviously not because after enacting the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments, further amendments, acts, and laws were enacted that specifically address Blacks: affecting and effecting Black lives in America. 

Noted comedian Paul Mooney once commented that, Blacks suffer from being "...under the  illusion of inclusion." Once freed, was it a stretch for Blacks to expect the same rights as any other citizen? The 14^th Amendment; the Amendment is said to be inclusive, meaning it was crafted to include all U.S. citizens--Section 1 says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person ...equal protection of the laws.” Consequently, a cursory view of the lynching of Blacks in America quickly reveals that many Blacks were denied “life, liberty, and property,” and, unfortunately, the list of unarmed Blacks “deprived of life…without due process of law…” continues to grow today, despite the 14^th Amendment:

• Trayvon Martin-17yr. old: fatally shot and killed by Geo. Zimmerman while walking home, armed with skittles and iced-tea.
• Jordan Davis-17yr. old: fatally shot and killed by Michael Dunn for playing his music too loud.  
• Tony Robinson Jr.-19 yr. old: fatally shot and killed by Officer Matt Kenny during an altercation. 
• Tanisha Anderson-37 yr. old: died while in police custody in Cleveland, OH. "’Sudden death associated with physical restraint’ in a lying face-down position.” 
• Dontre Hamilton-31 yr. old: Mentally ill man shot 14 times and killed by Office Christopher Manney of Milwaukee, WI.  
• Eric Garner-43 yrs. old: Death due to chokehold applied by NYPD for selling loose cigarettes. 
• Mike Brown-18 yr. old: Shot and killed in Ferguson, MO by Officer Darren Wilson for walking in the street.
•  Jermaine McBean-33 yr. old: Shot and killed by Broward County Deputy Peter Peraza as McBean was returning home with a BB gun purchased from a Florida store. 
• Sam DuBose-43 yr. old: Fatally shot by Officer Ray Tensing of the University of Cincinnati on a routine traffic stop for failure to display front tags.  
• Kindra Chapman-18 yr. old: Found hung dead in her cell while in custody in Alabama after being arrested for allegedly stealing a cell phone.  
• Rekia Boyd-22 yr. old: Shot and killed on Chicago’s Westside by detective Dante Servin, costing city tax payers $4.5 million in a settlement with the family. 
• Rumain Brisbon-34 yr. old: Shot and killed by an unidentified officer in Phoenix, AZ who thought Brisbon had a gun.   
• John Crawford III-22 yr. old: Shot and killed by Officer Sean Williams at a Wal-Mart in Ohio while holding a BB gun, which was for sale at the store.  
• Akai Gurley-28 yr. old: Shot and killed by NYPD-Officer Peter Liang when his gun “accidentally” went off while on patrol in Brooklyn, NY. 
• Walter Scott-50 yr. old: Fatally shot by Officer Michael Slager in North Charleston, S.C. during a traffic stop for a faulty brake light.   
• Ezell Ford-25 yr. old: Mentally ill man, fatally wounded in South L.A. by  Sharlton Wampler and Antonio Villegas
•  Ralkina Jones-37 yr. old: Found dead in a Cleveland Heights jail cell. Cause of death, undetermined.  
• Dante Parker-36 yr. old: Died while in police custody on an alleged burglary charge.  
• Jerame Reid-36 yr. old: Fatally wounded by Bridgeton officers Braheme Days and Roger Worley for allegedly running a stop sign. 
• Freddie Gray-25 yr. old: Died due to injuries sustained while in police custody after a foot chase ensued. Gray sustained his fatal injuries while being transported.    
• Kenneth Chamberlain Sr.-68 yr. old: 20 year Marine veteran fatally wounded after refusing to open his door to the police responding to an alert received from Chamberlain’s medical alert bracelet.  
• Tamir Rice-12 yr. old: Fatally wounded by Officer Timothy Loehmann while playing with a toy gun in a park near his home. 
• Sandra Bland-28 yr. old: Found hung in her TX jail cell when detained for allegedly failing to signal when changing lanes. 
• Pearlie Golden-93 yr. old: Fatally wounded by Officer Stephen Stem.  
• Sean Bell-23 yr. old: Fatally wounded by NYPD while sitting in his car in front of a strip club.  
• Ramarley Graham-18 yr. old: Fatally wounded by NYPD in the bathroom of his apartment when police entered without a warrant. Graham had a bag of marijuana when searched.

All died at the hands of law enforcement or under questionable circumstances while in police custody. Neither, however, received the due process guaranteed under the 14^th Amendment. Moreover, it doesn’t appear that these victims will receive the “equal protection” also guaranteed them, which is apparent as the Department of Justice (DOJ) remains relatively silent as civil rights violations go virtually unmentioned, unnoticed, and the perpetrators go unpunished.

             Ironically, Black lives matter when voting is the issue. Since the election of President Obama in 2008 and re-election in 2012, legislators from various states have attempted to enact laws designed to disenfranchise Blacks— and other minorities. Unquestionably, the right to vote was granted the Black man in the enactment of the 15^th Amendment; the language is very clear—Section 1 says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." — According to the DOJ’s website...

In 1870, the 15^th Amendment was ratified, which provided specifically that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude. This superseded state laws that had directly prohibited black voting. Congress then enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870, which contained criminal penalties for interference with the right to vote, and the Force Act of 1871, which provided for federal election oversight.

The names of the Acts, alone, speaks volumes. In these Acts can be heard, “Due to the suppression of the Black vote, the Federal government will FORCE the ENFORCEMENT of the 15^th Amendment—which by the way was granted the Black man by virtue of the freedom given him in the 13^th Amendment and the equal protection provided him by the 14^th Amendment—in those states that refuse Blacks their right to vote.” There were even penalties provided for suppression, and although suppression occurred, no penalties were meted out. Some may say, “That was then,” but recent history proves that voter suppression continues now with discussion focused on the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
           Since its inception, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been revisited and revised: from 1970 until 2013 when the SCOTUS assisted in suppressing the Black vote by gutting the  Act, deeming Section 4 unconstitutional. To mark the 50 anniversary of the Act, on August 6^th, Democrats are begging Congress to restore those provisions lost as a result of gutting. To show how interested Congress is in restoring the Act, on July 22, 2015, Rep. Marcia L. Fudge of Ohio was given a mere minute to speak on the House floor about restoring the Voting Rights Act. Looks like Congress has grown tired of living up to the words written in Sections of the U.S. Constitution that follow the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments: The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation, or Congress has grown tired of wielding the power granted under the Constitution. Either way, the rights of voters: poor, Black, and minority voters are being threatened by the very Congress granted the power and sworn to enforce the law... 

Moreover, throughout the history of Blacks in America, some Act or another has been crafted and drafted to control Black lives or the dominant culture's reaction to Black lives. For example, let's take the Civil Rights Act of 1964...Congress asserted its duty and power to guarantee equal protection: 14^th Amendment and to protect voting rights granted under the 15^th Amendment by enacting legislation prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The "landmark" legislation was signed into law by Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson in July of 1964--Confused? Don't be-(...but I digress.) Coincidentally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not the first of its kind. The first Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1866. 
          Though vetoed by former Pres. Andrew Johnson, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, was enacted when Congress overturned the President's veto, offering males, most specifically Black males, citizenship, enjoying the same rights enjoyed by their white male counter-parts. But weren't these rights extended to Blacks in 1865 by virtue of being freed by the 13^th Amendment? Doesn't the 14^th Amendment (1868) guarantee due process and equal protection under the law to all U.S. citizens? Doesn't the 15^th Amendment (1870) guarantee all U.S. males the right to vote? Then, why is there so much legislation targeted toward ensuring that the citizenry of the U.S.A. understand that Blacks are inclusive of and entitled to full protections offered and provided under the U.S. Constitution: The Law of the Land?  
          Therein lies the battle of Blacks in America and the #BlackLivesMatter movement: dealing with a judicial system that does not view Blacks as inclusive: evidenced by its interpretation and application of the “Law of the Land”--most specifically in regards to the 14th Amendment, especially where Black lives are concerned. 

Officer Timothy Loehmann                                                              Tamir Rice

At the end of the day, Blacks continue to be denied 14^th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law. If Blacks were viewed as inclusive, there would have been no need for other legislation directed toward Blacks as a group. What’s most interesting is none of the legislation appeared until Blacks were freed by the 13^th Amendment. Before then, Black lives amounted to that of chattel property, and although Officer Timothy Loehmann will enjoy the “due process” and “equal protection” denied 12 yr. old Tamir Rice--when Loehmann, in a split second, decided to expand his duties as officer to include judge, jury, and executioner: fatally wounding Rice as he played with a toy gun, in a park near his home--Rice and countless others will not enjoy the same privileges as their white male counter-part, and as states enact laws in efforts to deny Blacks voting rights guaranteed under the 15^th Amendment, it’s important to remind the country, again, that #BlackLivesMatter—150 years of reminders are not enough—for if Black lives do not matter, why all the legislation at tax-payers’ expense?  

It’s time to recognize the Constitution for what it is purported to be: “The Law of the Land.” All US citizens are guaranteed due process and equal protection. When will Blacks receive equal consideration, equal rights, equal protection? Until such questions are answered, the country will be reminded that #BlackLivesMatter?