WilmerLeon.com

May 12, 2010

Wilmer Leon Gives His Take on Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan

Filed under: african american scholars, black men, black politics, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — @ 10:06 pm

by Dr. Wilmer Leon

On Monday May 10th President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to replace retiring Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. Many see this selection as a prudent political move; as the sitting solicitor general, Ms. Kagan has already been vetted and confirmed by the current Senate. This means that President Obama will not have to expend much political capital in order to get his nominee approved.

There are those who are questioning if not opposing the selection of Ms. Kagan for a number of different reasons. President Obama called her a "trailblazing leader… " and stated "Elena is widely regarded as one of the nation’s foremost legal minds … " Some believe that while former President George W. Bush was eroding constitutional protections, Ms. Kagen, this “trailblazing leader” was conspicuously silent.

Others question Ms. Kagan’s record of minority hiring while dean of Harvard University’s Law School. During her tenure Dean Kagan hired 32 tenured and tenure-track academic faculty members. Of these, 25 were white men, 6 white women, and one Asian American woman. During her six years in the position there were no African American or Latinos hired. Just 3% of her hires were non-white. It is important to note that according to Harvard’s 2009 Annual Report the entire Harvard faculty consists of 26% female, 3% African American, and 3% Latino.

Others cite the fact that Ms. Kagen has no prior judicial experience. This is an important point until you consider that the last two persons with no judicial experience to serve on the Supreme Court were the former Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, and Associate Justice Lewis Powell. More importantly, 40 of the 111 men and women Justices to serve on the court since 1789 or 36% have served without prior judicial experience, including Earl Warren, Byron White, William O. Douglas, Harlan Fiske Stone, Robert Jackson, Joseph Story, Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis, and the Justice synonymous with establishing judicial review, John Marshall.

I make these points not to contradict or invalidate the concerns of those who are raising them. They are valid concerns and issues that need to be addressed. But, it is important to engage in this discussion and analysis with a clearer understanding of history.

A seat on the Supreme Court has evolved into one of the most important positions in our nation’s government. The framers of the Constitution expected the judiciary to be the weakest of the three “co-equal” branches of government. Alexander Hamilton wrote that in deciding cases the courts would have “merely judgment” and would exercise “neither force nor will”. Through the foresight of Justice John Marshall and the concept of judicial review it has become “…emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Therein, coupled with a life time appointment lays their power and independence.

Over the years, presidents have nominated and the Senate confirmed individuals with an expectation of ideological allegiance or judicial temperament that would serve or advance particular interests. History has shown that once an individual swears the oath, dons the robe, and takes their seat a different perspective can emerge.

Justice John Paul Stevens was nominated by President Gerald Ford, a conservative Republican. Justice Stevens is considered to be on the liberal side of Court. Justice Hugo Black was a Southern Democrat from Alabama and former member of the Klu Klux Klan who was nominated by President Roosevelt. His literal reading of the Bill of Rights and theory of incorporation often translated into support for strengthening civil rights and civil liberties. Justice David Souter was nominated by President George H. W. Bush, another conservative Republican. Justice Souter was considered by conservatives to be too liberal. Finally, Chief Justice Earl Warren, former conservative Republican Governor of California was nominated by conservative Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. The Warren Court overhauled doctrines involving racial segregation and the rights of criminal defendants. It gave us the Brown decision, our Miranda rights, and the right to privacy upon which the conservative Burger court based the Roe v. Wade decision.

As Ms. Kagan goes through the Senate Judiciary proceedings and her qualifications and suitability to serve are discussed, it is important that this debate not take place in a patrician vacuum or echo chamber. To discuss her suitability to serve outside of the broader historical context of the court is short-sighted, intellectually dishonest, and wrong.

Will Ms. Kagan become the next Stevens, Black, Souter, or Warren? I do not know the answer to that question. At the time that those individuals were nominated and appointed, history had not made that determination. The jury was still out.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.

© 2010 InfoWave Communications, LLC.


January 27, 2010

Massachusetts Senate Election – A Beacon for the Democratic Party

Filed under: african american scholars, black politics, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: , — @ 2:14 am

 

By

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

A great deal of Massachusetts’ history is tied to the sea. Because of this, Massachusetts is also known for its lighthouses. Lighthouses were once the trusted tool that guided navigators through treacherous waters enabling them to avoid coastal rocks and running aground. Like the lighthouse, the election to fill the U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts should serve as a beacon to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Obama administration.

As the Democrats navigate through these treacherous and rocky political waters, the election of Scott Brown as the Senator to replace Ted Kennedy should serve as a warning to the DNC of the dangers of arrogance, complacency, and disorganization. It should also serve notice to the Obama administration of the dangers of failing to articulate a consistent message and failing to deliver what was promised to your supporters.

First, the DNC should recognize that Scott Brown did not run a great campaign insomuch as Martha Coakley, like Cree Deeds in Virginia, ran a terrible one. Coakley ran an elitist campaign, failing to reach out to the communities that helped to elect Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and President Obama. According to the Boston Globe, “The lapses were particularly noticeable in minority communities, traditionally bastions of Democratic votes, which did not turn out in high numbers…” As a demonstration of her arrogance, Coakley took a week off and vacationed during the campaign. According to The Hill, “Martha Coakley’s New Year’s vacation may reign as one of the costliest political blunders of all time.” Even if you’ve “got it in the bag” you never leave the bag unattended!

Second, President Obama’s failure to rally the troops for Coakley in Massachusetts, Cree Deeds in Virginia and Jon Corzine in New Jersey is not as much of a repudiation of President Obama and his agenda as Senator Mitch McConnell and other Republicans would have us believe. It’s more of a statement about Obama’s base refusing to respond to his clarion call due to his failure to deliver on his campaign promises.

Republicans, political pundits and even some democrats are misinterpreting and misrepresenting Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts as a rejection of President Obama’s agenda and expecting this to reverberate throughout the country. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell has mistakenly said, "This was in many ways a national referendum principally on the major issue we’re wrestling with here in the Congress, which is whether or not the government should take over one-sixth of our economy, slash Medicare by a half-trillion dollars, raise taxes by a half-trillion dollars and drive insurance rates up for most of the rest of our country…"

Actually, according to a Research 2000 poll commissioned by Democracy for America, MoveOn, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, respondents said if Democrats enact tougher policies on Wall Street, they’ll be more likely to come back to the party in the next election. The poll also provides some clarity on the role that health care played in the election.

· The poll reveals people who switched from Obama to Brown – 48% — or didn’t vote – 43% — said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But when asked why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters that switched, only 23 percent thought it went "too far" — but 36 percent thought it didn’t go far enough and 41 percent said they weren’t sure why they opposed it.

· Obama supporters who decided to stay home were asked a three part question:

- "do you think Democrats in Washington, DC are fighting hard enough to challenge the Republican policies of the Bush years,

- aren’t fighting hard enough to change those policies,

- or are fighting about right?

The poll showed, 39 percent, said "not enough," 25 percent said "about right, while only 12 percent believe Democrats have been too ambitious.

The President said publicly on July 7, 2009 “I am pleased by the progress we’re making on health-care reform …, as I’ve said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices and ensure quality is a public option …” Then in October, according to the Huffington Post, “Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.” The perception is he rolled over on the public option before the fight even started.

In terms of unemployment the administration has made tremendous progress on slowing the rate of job loss but has yet to turn the corner on job creation. The simple equation is; job’s created equals votes cast.

The President supported and implemented a bail out for the banks but has failed to bail out the American homeowner. At the same time that banks are recording record profits and paying out record bonuses, they have failed to increase lending to small businesses (the real engine of this economy), raised interest rates for consumer credit, and continue to foreclose on peoples homes. That is not the “change” Americans voted for.

The DNC should see the beacon of light from Massachusetts and head the warning. Quality candidates running quality campaigns are what win elections.

The recent election in Massachusetts is not a national referendum or repudiation on the Obama agenda. It’s a repudiation of President Obama’s failure to stand by the “change” he promised the American people; his failure to fight for “change”, and his seemingly inability to deliver.

During the election candidate Obama borrowed from Dr. King when he reminded us of “the fierce urgency of now!” Now is the time for President Obama to once again look to Dr. King and heed his warning that, “This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.” Now is the time to deliver what you promised.

The Obama administration needs to follow the beacon and heed its warnings. The majority of Americans do not want the country to go backwards as Senators McConnell, Graham, and Liberman want to take it. Americans want to move forward and are looking for the President to fulfill his campaign promises by navigating these rocky political waters and safely delivering the country ashore.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the Sirius/XM call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.

© 2010 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

January 12, 2010

“The Dream” Is Still a Dream

Filed under: african american scholars, black men, black politics, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: — @ 4:27 pm

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

On January 18, 2010, America will celebrate the birth, death, and legacy of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We will hear those powerful words "I Have A Dream.” What has troubled me over the years is how Dr. King, the visionary, prophet, and revolutionary’s vision, action, and ultimate sacrifice have been hijacked, compromised, and relegated to being those of just a dreamer.

Dreamers are safe, docile, and non-threatening. People are comfortable with dreamers. Why? To be a dreamer you must be in a restful state, usually asleep. To cast Dr. King in the light of a dreamer allows people to be convinced that action resulting from clear vision is not necessary. It allows the oppressed to be fooled into being patient and non-revolutionary; yours will come by-and by. It allows Dr. King’s “Dream” his vision to remain a dream.

What many fail to realize is that Dr. King was no dreamer. He was a visionary, not some abstract thinker or philosopher. He was a prophet and a true revolutionary.

As I understand it, the original title of the “I Have A Dream” speech was “Normalcy—Never Again.” That title was a real indication of what was to come. It was a clear statement that what had been accepted-what had been normal, i.e. oppression in America would no longer be tolerated.

Dr. King the realist states, "…we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land…” That was no dream; that was the Negro’s reality in 1963 and a clear indictment of the social conditions in America at that time. It continues to be an unfortunate reality for too many children languishing in inner-city schools, parents loosing jobs and homes, and those unjustly incarcerated in American jails and prisons.

Dr. King the strict constructionist referred to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. He stated, "It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned…America has given the Negro people a bad check – a check which has come back marked insufficient funds." Again, no dream in that statement; that’s a clear indictment of the African American human condition!

Dr. King the prophet offered hope by saying, “But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.” He said this because he clearly understood the power of hope. As a minister he clearly understood the power of faith.

Before Dr. King talks about the dream, he says that we must march ahead. “We cannot turn back. … We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.” In light of the January 1, 2009 murder of Oscar Grant in Oakland, CA, the November 25, 2006 murder of Sean Bell, the March 16, 2000 murder of Patrick Dorismond, the February 4, 1999 murder of Amadou Diallo, and many others, African American’s still find themselves victims of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality, racial profiling, and Driving While, and some times Walking While Black.

The "dream" reference actually comes towards the end of the speech. As Dr. King was close to ending his nine-minute delivery the great gospel singer, Mahalia Jackson, who was seated behind him said, “Tell them about your dream, Martin! Tell them about the dream!" At that point, Dr. King went away from his prepared text and said, “…so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream.” It’s important to understand that he spoke of the dream in the context of the horrific reality for the Negro and the poor that he had just articulated. What makes the “dream” significant is its juxtaposition against America’s reality, failures, and oppression of its own citizens; their nightmare!

Today, many see President Obama’s historic accomplishment as evidence of the fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream, a “post-racial” America. Standing as proof that America has made progress on the long and difficult road towards racial tolerance and acceptance. Progress yes, however, there are still many miles left to travel.

As long as African American men are incarcerated at a rate of more than six times the rate of White men and the incarceration of Black women continues to grow at record numbers, the “Dream” will remain a dream. As long as unemployment among African American’s is more than twice the rate of White Americans and as long as studies show that a Black family’s income is a little more than half that of a similar White family’s income, the “Dream” will remain a dream. As long as African Americans continue to deal with Driving While Black, excessive high school dropout rates, and imbalances in health care, the “Dream” will remain a dream.

Until every American’s reality reflects the founding principals of this great nation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The “Dream” for too many in America will remain a dream.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.

© 2010 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

January 11, 2010

Dr. Leon Speaks on Afghanistan

Filed under: african american scholars, black politics, dr wilmer leon — Tags: , — @ 7:13 pm

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

As Americans usher in a new year and new decade they find themselves confronted with old problems, war and terror. The epicenter of these problems has shifted from Iraq to Central Asia – Afghanistan/Pakistan.

According to the web site iCasualties.org 953 American troops have died in Afghanistan since the U.S. invasion began in 2001; more than one-third of those killed (319) died in 2009. The NY Times reports that on December 30, a suicide bomber killed at least 8 C.I.A. officers in the Khost Province in Afghanistan. On January 2, four American troops were killed when an improvised explosive device (IED) detonated while they were on foot patrol in Southern Afghanistan. With the President’s escalation of troops, these numbers should dramatically increase before they decline.

Political uncertainty continues to control the Afghan parliament and President Hamid Karzai’s ability to form a new and stable government. The Afghan parliament rejected 17 of the 24 new cabinet recommendations of President Karzai on the grounds that the nominations were not based upon the qualifications of the individuals, but founded on either bribery or ethnicity. In this New Year, it looks like more of the same.

While in Phoenix speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, President Obama said, “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.” In his Nobel acceptance speech, President Obama characterized the US efforts in Afghanistan as just by saying, “There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

President Obama is having difficulty convincing the American people that America’s continued involvement in Afghanistan is “morally justified”. In a recent CNN poll, 43% favor the war, and 55% oppose it. In a recent Associated Press Poll, 42 % favor sending more troops into Afghanistan while 56 % oppose it. Essentially, the American people’s opinion regarding Afghanistan is unchanged from November.

Part of the President’s problem as he attempts to build his case for sending troops to Afghanistan is that the American people aren’t buying into his rationale that, “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity… There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

First, this was a war of choice. President Bush opted for a full scale invasion as opposed to other less invasive options that he was presented. Second, the necessity of America’s involvement in Afghanistan was not born out of 9/11, it was created much earlier.

President Obama ran on a platform that promised transparency and openness in American government. He understands better than most that the roots of America’s problems in Central Asia were planted long before 9/11. He needs to clearly articulate to the American people the circumstances that lead this country into the situation it currently find itself in. This could be better explained by understanding the “Reagan Doctrine” and what has now become know as “the Pottery Barn” rule. In 2003, then Secretary of State Colin Powell warned, “once you break it, you are going to own it…And it’s going to take all the oxygen out of the political environment…”

America’s problems in Central Asia and other parts of the world as well as the rise of the Taliban and al-Qaeda are a direct result of the “Reagan Doctrine”. During the1980’s, the Reagan Administration provided overt and covert training, supplies, and aid to right-wing anti-Soviet militias in Asia and other countries. Using the very short sighted logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” the Reagan Administration, supported by conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation supported the Mujahideen in their overthrow of the Soviet backed Najibullah regime resulting in the creation of a terrible power vacuum. The Mujahideen proved to be a capable resistance force but not capable of establishing a cohesive government.

Afghanistan is a tribally based, ethnically diverse, nationalistic, religiously fundamental and largely illiterate country with a weak if not non-existent central government that has been embroiled in a civil war since 1978. Within this civil war a powerful, anti-American, religiously fundamentalist, narco-funded, resistance force has emerged. This force has changed the traditional state-based war paradigm that America is used to and has exported it to other regions around the globe. It is from the Reagan Doctrine that the necessity of America’s involvement is born, not a response to 9/11.

This necessity does not mean that the war is just and that additional American troops will solve Afghanistan’s problems. More American troops will not end the corruption in the Karsai government. Additional troops will not teach the illiterate Afghan to read and write. Thirty thousand additional troops will not stem the flow of Afghan heroin into America (the DEA’s No. 1 priority). A larger fighting force will not solve the religious conflict between the Taliban and more moderate individuals.

It is within this context that the President should redefine America’s need to be engaged in Afghanistan. If the problem is redefined, morally justifiable solutions can be implemented.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the Sirius/XM call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.

© 2010 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

November 27, 2009

The Power of Privilege

Filed under: african american scholars, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: , — @ 6:19 pm

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

On the evening of Tuesday, November 24 a young couple from Virginia made their way into one of the most secure events in the country, President Obama’s state dinner for Indian Prime Minister Monmohan Singh and his wife at the White House. Like the other 300 plus invited guests, Tareq and Michaele Salahi went through multiple layers of Secret Service security, took photos with Chief of Staff Rom Emanuel and mingled with Vice President Biden and other invited guests. The problem is that the Salahi’s were not invited to the dinner. Their names were not listed on the official guest list or any other list that would have allowed them entrance into the White House. They crashed the party!

All that this couple needed to gain entrance into a state dinner at the White House was a tuxedo, traditional Indian evening wear, attitude, and white skin. When they arrived at the Secret Service check point without a printed invitation and without their names on the official guest list, they were not detained or questioned. No telephone calls were made; no further inquiries were needed; just white skin, blond hair, the expectation of admittance, and a pretty smile. Had this occurred at an airport the Salahi’s would have never made it past airport security.

This is the latest example of the privilege and expectations of privilege that comes with white skin. Had the Salahi’s been African American, or any other ethnicity with a darker skin tone, the Secret Service agent or Marine on duty would have never allowed this couple on the White House grounds simply based upon a “…what do you mean our names are not on the guest list…this is a travesty…obviously your list is not up to date…blah, blah, blah…” or some other self-righteous retort.

In most instances these senses of expectation and privilege are not planned, they just are. They have developed over time and have become the norms of American culture. They are so deeply ingrained in the American psyche that they are now patterns of action, perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, and emotional response.

Racial profiling can work a number of ways. For people of color, profiling works against them as they are targeted by those in positions of power and authority based upon a mistaken belief that they (particularly African Americans) are more inclined to be involved in criminal behavior in non-suspect specific situations. For people of European decent or with white skin, profiling can work to their benefit as they are given favorable consideration and deference based upon the assumption that they pose no threat in a particular circumstance. White people get access; Black people get arrested.

This favorable consideration or deference has developed into a sense of entitlement as evidenced by the Salahi’s expectation that they would be admitted into the seemingly most secure event in America just by showing up. Even with an African American President in this supposed “post racial” America, no African American would ever expect such unfettered access to the White House.

According to Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan, President Obama was never in any danger. "It’s important to note that they went through all the security screenings — the magnetometer screening — just like all the other guests did…" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34157390/ns/politics-washington_post Donovan’s confidence in the systems that have been designed to ensure the Presidents safety are a bit misplaced. The Salahi’s did not go through all the security screenings. Obviously the Secret Service failed to send them through the “match a persons name and identification to those on the guest list” part of the process. In spite of the fact that their names were not on the official guest list, they were admitted into the White House and into the same room as the President and Vice President. The first level of security failed. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Yes, in this instance the security measures that have been put in place to protect the President and those who visit the White House failed. They failed for a number of reasons. The written processes and procedures will be evaluated and tightened but it’s the human aspect of this event that should cause the most concern. Simply because a couple “looked the part” they were given deference and allowed within striking distance and within the personal space of the most threatened man in America.

White privilege is a dangerous thing on a number of levels.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

November 24, 2009

Go Home Sarah Palin

Filed under: african american scholars, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: , — @ 12:22 am

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon, Howard University 

With the release of her new book Going Rogue: An American Life, former Alaskan Governor and Republican party VP nominee Sarah Palin is once again being given a spotlight she does not deserve. Under normal circumstances Palin would have drifted into obscurity by now; a political has-been who never was. Instead, a sub-par politician with no substantial constituency; no command of relevant issues, and no solutions to substantive problems, is being given air and face time as though she really matters. The simple reality that few are willing to articulate is, if she were not relatively attractive, of European ancestry and a woman, Sarah Palin would be day old bread.

Former Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain (R-AZ) did not select Palin as his running mate because she was a “rogue”, innovator, or had demonstrated intellectual heft. McCain simply pandered to the Conservative Right, tried to siphon off some of the disgruntled Senator Clinton supporters, and gave America more of the same ole’ politics. From that point until now, Sarah Palin has continually tried to reinvent herself, but continues to give Americans more of the same; “all sizzle and no steak”.

After almost eighteen months on the national stage Americans have yet to hear anything substantive from Palin on foreign policy. During the campaign she stated that the war in Iraq was a part of God’s plan. According to the Associated Press (AP) Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God… there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan." Her religious justifications for the invasion in Iraq sound very similar to the Muslim fundamentalists that attacked America; according to them, they were carrying out the will of Allah. This is why religious fundamentalism, no matter what the belief system, has no place in foreign or domestic policy.

In August 2009 she weighed in on the health insurance reform debate by posting a baseless diatribe on her Facebook page stating, “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.” By using scare tactics and inflammatory rhetoric such as the “death panel” and “evil” references, Palin did nothing to further the debate while doing the American people a great disservice.

During an interview with Sean Hannity on November 18th, Sarah Palin said alleged Ft. Hood shooter, Army Major Hasan should have been profiled, "…I think that it was quite unfortunate that, to me, it was a fear of being politically incorrect to not — I am going to use the word — profile this guy — profile in the sense of finding out what his radical beliefs were. … Now, because I used the word ‘profile’ I am going to get clobbered tomorrow morning. The liberals, their heads are just going to be spinning. They’re going to say ’she is radical, she is extreme.’ Actually, that’s not radical or extreme; it’s just wrong.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates responded to her comments by saying “[I]n a nation as diverse as the United States the last thing we need to do is start pointing fingers at each other, particularly when there’s no basis in fact for it…” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen stated, “My message to all those in uniform, including Muslims in uniform, is how much we appreciate their service, the difference that they make; that the… the diversity of our force is one of its greatest strengths…that no one should draw any rapid conclusions. And we need to ensure that we treat everybody fairly…” I have never known Secretary Gates or Admiral Mullen to be liberal but they clearly take issue with Ms. Palin’s less than thoughtful, baseless, and reactionary observations.

I don’t know how evangelical Christians like Sarah Palin would feel about being profiled based upon the acts of other evangelicals who use terror to promote their anti-abortion agenda by bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors who perform them. She does not see those who engage in such acts as domestic terrorists. During an Oct. 23, 2008 interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, when asked “Are the people that set fire to American cities during the 60s terrorists? … Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist? She replied, “There’s no question that Bill Ayers, via his own admittance … is a domestic terrorist. … Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that, uh, it would be unacceptable, I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there but it’s unacceptable . . .”

At what point will main stream American media start to hold Sarah Palin accountable for her statements and her record? Holding someone accountable for their statements is not “gotcha journalism”, sexist treatment, or unfair scrutiny. Any person running for national public office who can not provide a list of the newspapers that they read should be aggressively challenged. In her attempt to connect with the “average American”, go “unplugged”, and turn her lack of intellectual horsepower into an asset; Sara Palin has failed miserably. Her anti-intellectualism clearly demonstrates that she possesses very little if any insight into or understanding of the salient issues that are impacting America today. However, Palin’s lack of insight and understanding of key issues have not precluded her from attempting to appeal to the worst in us, such as her assertion on the campaign trail that then candidate Obama associated with terrorists.

During the 2008 Presidential election Palin’s poor performances on the national stage did not provide the lasting support that the floundering McCain campaign needed. As the governor of Alaska she abandoned her constituents; she quit. In the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, Bill Owens became the first Democrat in more than 100 years to hold the seat, in spite of Sarah Palin’s support for Owens ultra-conservative opponent Doug Hoffman. Even Republicans have lost interest as her veneer has worn thin.

The record and the facts just don’t support her version of reality. According to the Associated Press (AP), in her book, Palin ignores “…substantial parts of her record if not the facts, she depicts herself as a frugal traveler on the taxpayer’s dime, a reformer without ties to powerful interests and a politician roguishly indifferent to high ambition.” For example, according to the AP, she “rails against taxpayer-financed bailouts, which she attributes to Obama… Palin is blurring the lines between Obama’s stimulus plan – a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts – and the federal bailout that Republican presidential candidate John McCain voted for and President George W. Bush signed.” Palin apologists will try to dismiss this as small detail or minor fact. Small details and facts are what matter when you want to be the leader of the free world.

Palin draws crowds, sells books, and raises money but she has yet to transfer her personal popularity to other candidates and deliver the vote. A lot can be sold with a big…smile and a pretty face but what Sara’s selling, most Americans don’t want to buy. In a recent interview, Christian Coalition founder Ralph Reed said Palin, “…came out of no where and burst on the American scene…” Well, she should return from whence she’s come. Sarah, don’t go “rogue”; go home!

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

November 23, 2009

A Social Agenda for All Americans

Filed under: african american scholars, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: — @ 5:20 pm
Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

Early on the campaign trail, presidential candidate Barack Obama said, "This country is ready for a transformative politics of the sort that John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt represented." Socially, President Obama is beginning to move in such a positive transformative direction.

After 12 years of languishing in Congress, on Wednesday, October 28, President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard / James Byrd Hate Crimes Bill. By signing this bill, the president expands the federal definition of hate crimes to include those motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. It also allows federal authorities to pursue hate-crimes cases when local authorities are either unable or unwilling to do so. This law was named after Matthew Shepard, a gay man murdered in Wyoming in 1998, and James Byrd, the African-American man dragged to his death behind a pickup truck in Texas that same year.

In spite of challenges by some conservative Christian groups, this law will not define sermons that speak out against homosexuality as "hate speech" and criminalize preaching the Gospel. The First Amendment is alive and well. America becomes a better country when, as President Obama stated, "we’ve passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are ."

According to the Department of Justice, more than 77,000 hate-crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 and 2007, or "nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade," Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June of 2009. Crimes against African-Americans remain the prototypical hate crime. In 2007 alone, of the 7,624 hate-crime incidents reported in 2007, 34 percent (2,659) were perpetrated against African-Americans. African-Americans still find themselves victims of lynchings, cross burnings, church vandalism, and chaining James Byrd to a truck and dragging him down a road for three miles to his death.

While on the campaign trail, presidential candidate Obama said the "war on drugs is an utter failure" and called for "shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we focus more on a public health approach." President Obama is living up to his pledge. He has asked Congress to address the issue of the 100:1 disparity in penalties for the use of powder/crack cocaine in federal cases and has pledged his commitment to signing legislation that accomplishes that end. As a result of his support, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) has introduced the Fair Sentencing Act of 2009. Under current law, it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to earn a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence, but only five grams of crack to earn the same sentence.

This sentencing disparity has a disproportionate impact on the rate of incarceration of African-Americans and the duration of their sentences. It has nothing to do with an individual’s actual culpability and more to do with skin color. Studies have shown that crack cocaine is more prevalent in urban settings than powder cocaine. According to Senator Durbin, "The sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine has contributed to the imprisonment of African-Americans at six times the rate of whites and to the United States’ position as the world’s leader in incarcerations. Congress has talked about addressing this injustice for long enough; it’s time for us to act."

President Obama has expressed his full support for the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered (GLT) agenda. He has promised to end "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," promised to pass hate-crimes legislation (and has done so) and to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act. As far back as 1996, then-Illinois State Senate candidate Obama went so far as to express his full support for gay marriage by saying, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." These are not easy positions for a politician to support, let alone a politician who aspires to and eventually becomes POTUS.

There are those in the GLT community who feel President Obama is taking too long to address their issues. Some blame Obama for the failure of Maine voters to support a law that would have allowed gay couples to wed. Despite the fact that American citizens have never passed legislation to support same-sex marriage, somehow this is President Obama’s fault? Maybe it is as simple as the majority of Americans are not ready to support legalizing same-sex marriage and there’s nothing President Obama can do to change that reality.

There are those in the African-American community who express similar sentiments. It’s is important to remember the Matthew Shepard / James Byrd Hate Crimes Bill languished in Congress for 12 years. The disparities in crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentencing have been law since 1988. President Obama was able to bring about "a transformative politics" on these issues within the first 100 days of his administration.

These are just a few clear examples of the progress that is being made by the Obama administration on a social agenda that is being overlooked as the public’s focus is on the war in Afghanistan, health care insurance reform and the economy. This is not "lip service" being paid to liberal constituencies. This is tangible and effective legislation that is being supported and implemented as part of a social policy agenda that helps to ensure that all Americans receive equal treatment under the law. Perfect, no; positive, yes. It’s up to all Americans to make sure the Obama administration continues to move in a positive direction. That’s how democracy works.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the producer/host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program "On With Leon," and a lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, DC. Go towww.wilmerleon.com . 

November 2, 2009

The Heather Ellis Case: Persecution or Prosecution?

Filed under: african american scholars, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: , — @ 6:19 am

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

One of the things that make America unique is its Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. In its original form, the Constitution did not include a list of basic civil liberties or guarantees to the individual. Many prominent Americans, including Thomas Jefferson insisted that a list of fundamental protections be included to restrain the national government from tampering with the fundamental rights and civil liberties of its citizens. The intent of the framers of the Constitution was to level the playing field. They felt it necessary to restrain the very powerful government, prosecutors, and police from arbitrary and capricious action against the less powerful individual. Over time these protections have been passed down to the state level.

The case of Heather Ellis is a perfect present day example of why individual American citizens need to be protected from over zealous capricious prosecutors and police. For a young woman to be facing up to fifteen years in prison for trespassing, disturbing the peace, and two felony counts of assaulting a police officer, all for allegedly cutting a check-out line at a Wal-Mart is unconscionable.

What is at play here is not a prosecutor’s pursuit of justice. At the end of the day, Ms. Heather Ellis and her family find themselves engaged in a battle with a prosecutor who is more concerned with maintaining his hegemonic control over the lives and minds of the African American community in Kennett, MO than the pursuit of justice. Ms. Ellis is being persecuted not prosecuted.

If Ms. Ellis had gone along with the plea bargain (a small misdemeanor count) offered by Kennett, MO Prosecutor Stephen Sokoloff, all would have been forgiven. Unfortunately, many times in life the easy route is not the best route. The problem with accepting Sokoloff’s “bargain” is that Ms. Ellis believes that she is innocent. Also, by pleading guilty to a lesser charge, Ms. Ellis reduces her due process rights. She waives her rights to a jury trial, her right to appeal, and her right to sue Wal-Mart and the Kennett, MO police for unlawful arrest and police brutality.

The family has received threats from the Ku Klux Klan, some of which were reportedly delivered by the police themselves. It has been reported that Ms. Ellis’ family was told by Prosecutor Sokoloff, that they should have taken the plea offer because they "can never win in this town." His town? I thought prosecutors worked for and in the best interest of all of the citizens within their particular jurisdiction.

As a community, we need to be certain we restrain the very powerful government, prosecutors, and police from arbitrary and capricious action against the less powerful individual. This is clearly a case of persecution and not prosecution.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com for more information.  For media requests or speaking engagements, please visit www.GreatBlackSpeakers.com.   You can also call (901) 413-0203.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

October 9, 2009

What the Neo-Cons Can Learn from the Norwegian Nobel Committee

Filed under: african american scholars, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: , , — @ 8:14 pm

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

With a decision that has shocked many around the world, on Friday October 9, 2009 the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that President Barak Hussein Obama is the 2009 winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace. This announcement not only recognizes extraordinary accomplishments but also brings with it extraordinary expectations.

In 1895 Alfred Nobel bequeathed the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes, the Nobel Prizes. His intent was to award a prize to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." This year the Nobel Committee determined that President Obama, “…for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples… Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.”

What President Obama has demonstrated on the world stage is that by themselves ideologies are not rational. They tend to focus on and confuse the imagery of the “should be” and “ought to be” with the practical “is.” Without people who are able to inject pragmatism and tie logic and reason to an ideology, it can take an institution, group or country down some very perilous roads. This is why ideologues (people who profess ideologies) make terrible politicians and ideology can make for very bad public and foreign policy. Ideologues are so focused on the “should be” that they fail to take into account the practical applications of the “how.”

This award is as much an affirmation of President Obama’s multilateral foreign policy agenda as it is a condemnation of his predecessors, President Bush 43’s unilateral agenda. In this developing global economy, it is the multilateral vision and approach to conflict resolution that will carry the day.

In a domestic context, what the neo-conservatives can learn from this award is that constructive dialogue and negotiations based on honesty are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult conflicts. As it is with nuclear proliferation, a global financial crisis, and global warming; so it is with health care insurance reform and the restructuring of the domestic economy.

Through out the entire health care insurance reform debate, most of the Republican (neo-conservative) response has been negative and obstructionist. They have preferred to deal in the myopic imagery of the “should be” and “ought to be” and failed to offer any constructive alternatives plans that would take the debate into the practical “can be” and “is.”

Individuals such as Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has vowed to make health care Obama’s "Waterloo" and urged conservative activists to help "break him…" DeMint has compared the United States under Obama to the 1930’s Nazi Germany under Hitler; and cast the heated health care fight as "a real showdown between socialism and freedom…This is a battle I’ve been waiting for and hoping for, for years…We’ve got to stop the socialization of medicine . . . . We’ve stirred up a fight." Senator DeMint along with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and others have been more concerned with political gain than the public health and welfare. This has not served positive interests and has no place in intelligent and informed public discourse.

As the data comes in on the Baucus bill the neo-conservative argument is beginning to loose steam. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Baucus bill will insure 94 percent of Americans and cost $829 billion over 10 years while actually reducing the federal budget deficit by $81 billion over a decade. The bill could also, according to the CBO, lead to “continued reductions in federal budget deficits” in the years that follow.

On the economic front, the pace of job loss in the U.S. is slowing and the labor market is showing signs of stabilizing, according to a new report. A recent report published by payroll services provider ADP and consultancy Macroeconomic Advisers reveals that companies in the private sector cut 371,000 jobs in July. This is the lowest amount seen in nine months, the report indicated, suggesting that the job market could be steadying after several months of decline.

The health care insurance reform bill and economic stabilization are just two examples of progress that has been made by the Obama administration in spite of the challenges that it has faced at the hands of neo-conservative’s. Fighting the President every step of the way for the appearance of political gain at the expense of economic and physical health of the people they have been elected to represent.

The neo-con’s can learn an invaluable lesson from the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Ideologues (people who profess ideologies) make terrible politicians and ideology can make for very bad public and foreign policy. Work to create a new climate in American politics. Allow diplomacy and civil dialog to regain a central position in American politics. Like President Obama with the Nobel Prize for Peace; with this tactic, we all win.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or call (901) 413-0203 for media queries and speaking requests.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

October 8, 2009

Move the Health Care Reform Debate from the ICU into the Recovery Room

Filed under: african american scholars, black scholars, dr wilmer leon, health care crisis — Tags: , — @ 4:27 pm

By

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

According to 2008 US Census Bureau data, approximately 47 million, or 15.8 percent of the US population, were without health insurance during 2006 – a 4.9 percent increase. In 2005, census figures showed that 44.8 million people, or about 15.3 percent of the population, lacked health insurance coverage. According to a report released by the Institute on Medicine, the average cost of family health care coverage more than doubled from 1999 to 2008, from $1,543 to $3,354.

    Based upon these realities, presidential candidate Obama made health care reform a central theme of his campaign. He promised to achieve universal health care in his first term and to cut the average family’s health care health care costs by $2,500. In the on-going health care reform debate, it is very important to remember that as a result of this and other campaign promises, President Obama won the 2008 presidential election with 53 percent of the popular vote to Senator McCain’s 46 percent and 68 percent of the Electoral College vote to McCain’s 36 percent.

    According to a New York Times/CBS News poll taken in June, 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt. According to a June poll conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 83 percent of respondents favored and only 14 percent opposed "creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase." These numbers indicate that health care reform is very important to the American people.

    In spite of these numbers indicating overwhelming support for reform, recent Rasmussen polls indicate that only 42 percent of Americans support the health care reform plan spearheaded by President Obama and the Democratic Party. A record 53 percent of Americans are opposed to the plan.

    What is at the heart of this disconnect? How is the Obama administration’s message and health care reform plan seemingly so out of sync with the public’s perception of reality? Is health care reform on life support?

    The opponents to health care reform, particularly those opposed to the Obama administrations plan, have taken control of the public debate by force, distortions and partisan politics. They are changing the debate on health care into a debate on health care for illegal immigrants, abortion, and other wedge issues.

    According to McClatchy newspapers, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) has vowed to make health care Obama’s "Waterloo," and urged conservative activists to help "break him." DeMint has compared the United States under Obama to the 1930’s Nazi Germany under Hitler; and cast the heated health care fight as "a real showdown between socialism and freedom … This is a battle I’ve been waiting for and hoping for, for years … We’ve got to stop the socialization of medicine…. We’ve stirred up a fight."

Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) has released his version of the health care reform initiative. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Baucus bill will insure 94 percent of Americans and cost $829 billion over 10 years. This is the lowest cost plan of any put forth to date. Even though the Baucus bill lacks the public option it does put the debate on the right track.

Now that a formal plan has been put on the table, it is time for both sides to work in the best interest of the American people and not their partisan interests.    To continue the dialogue that is full of distortions, rhetoric and diatribes is counterproductive to bringing about real reform and does the American people and democracy a great disservice. Democracy works best when individuals with opposing views engage in open and honest debate in the public square, not contrived debate based on lies and distortions.

    Is health care reform on life support? Right now, yes. The Democrats are losing the patient because they have allowed the opposition to control the debate and are more concerned about saving the insurance companies than saving Americans. To move health care reform from the ICU, Democrats will need more voices than that of the president – STAT!

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. For media or speaking requests email information@yourblackpublicity.com or call (901) 413-0203.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

October 5, 2009

Observations of an African American Father

Filed under: african american scholars, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: , , — @ 1:59 am

By

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

On this past Saturday, October 3, 2009 a 16 year old African American honor student, Derrion Albert was laid to rest in Chicago. This young man was beaten to death in the street while walking from school to the bus stop. Silvanus Shannon, 19, Eugene Riley, 18, Eric Carson, 16, and Eugene Bailey, 18, have all been charged with first-degree murder in Derrion’s death.

As I watched the video of this young man being beaten to death with a railroad tie I asked myself what could compel four young African American men to engage in such a wanton and willful murderous act? How could these young men have such disregard for another human being’s life that they would beat him to his death, in the street, in broad day light? What is the basis of their rage, their anger?

I then asked myself, where are their fathers? I made an assumption and came to the conclusion that their fathers must be absent, not active or engaged in their lives. This antisocial rage, this anger is probably in part a response to their being raised without the benefit of knowing the love of their fathers. If these young men were asked to explain what drove them to this act; they most likely would not be able to articulate a clear response. They probably do not know. If they do know, they would be too ashamed to say.

As a man who was blessed to be raised by two loving parents; I clearly understand the power of love. At the age of 50, I am still blessed to be able to talk with my almost 90 year old father every day (I lost my mother last March); hear his voice, seek his counsel; feel his love. As far as I have been able to come based upon knowing my father’s love, I can’t begin to imagine how dysfunctional I would be without it.

As a father of a seven year old, I see every day the impact that I have when I walk my son to school; show up in his class room unannounced; take him to the golf course; help him with his homework; carry him to bed, and kiss him good night. I see every day the impact that I have when I do for my son the same things that my parents did and continue to do for me. You see, this is learned, not innate behavior.

I literally feel the transfer of positive energy when Wilmer, IV hugs me and says, “Daddy, I love you!” to which I reply, “I love you too son.” He will then usually say, “No Daddy, I REALLY love you.” There is a real force there, a power in that love. I can only imagine the void that is created in its absence, the dysfunction. That void is soon filled with anger, resentment, and hatred when a child or young man fails to receive that love, guidance, and support from his father. The Pretenders had a song entitled; It’s a Thin Line Between Love and Hate.

Now, there are many single mothers out there doing the best they can to raise their sons. Many, if not most, of them are doing great work and producing wonderful children. But a woman cannot fill the void that is created by the absence of a father. If it takes a male and a female to create a child; it takes a mother and a father to complete the process of raising one.

My wife said to me recently, “We are on the same page about 75% of the time when it comes to raising Wilmer. It has taken me almost 6 years to understand that there’s another 15% of the time when I have to just defer to you as his father and your judgment because as a woman, I was never a 6, 7, or 8 year old boy. I don’t have the empathy for that circumstance; you do.” Fellas, this is why you have to be there for your sons. For as much as they try; and for as good of a job as they do; women can not fill the void created by the absence of a fathers love.

The statistics show that 40% of U.S. children today grow up without their father at home; almost 40 percent of American children living in single-parent families will experience poverty before they reach age 11; nearly two-thirds of the 10 million mothers in single-parent homes receive no child support; seventy percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from single-parent homes; and children in single-parent families are twice as likely to become involved in substance abuse or other health risk behaviors.

If the statistics showed that men who wear pink scarf’s when they gamble in Las Vegas increased their probability of winning by 40% or nearly two-thirds of the men who wear women’s shoes while playing the horses win 70% of the time, we would have a lot of pink scarf and women shoe wearing men gambling in Las Vegas and playing the ponies. Fathers, why not play these odds with your children, especially your sons?

Silvanus Shannon, Eugene Riley, Eric Carson, and Eugene Bailey, have all been charged with first-degree murder in the death of Derrion Albert. If they are convicted, they should receive the harshest penalties that our system of justice can impose. But, if we like Minister Louis Farrakhan can ask, “…why such a beautiful life,” fathers, the answer lies within. What is the basis of their rage, their anger? This antisocial rage, this anger is probably in part a response to their being raised with out the benefit of the love from their fathers and that’s a solution that is easy to provide.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com. To reach Dr. Leon for speaking engagements, please call (901) 413-0203.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

September 29, 2009

Michael is not “The Man of Steele”

Filed under: african american scholars, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: , — @ 3:57 pm

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

Not to be outdone, in response to America electing its first African-American President, on January 30, 2009, the Republican National Committee (RNC) elected Michael Steele, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, as its chairman. It was a long and painful process, but on the sixth and final ballot, for the first time in its history, the Republican Party elected an African-American to manage its affairs.

    During his acceptance speech, Chairman Steele said, "To Americans who believe in the future of this country. To those who stand in difference with us, it’s time for something completely different, and we’re gonna bring it to them. We’re gonna bring this party to every corner, every boardroom, every neighborhood, every community and we’re gonna say to friend and foe alike: We want you to be a part of this, we want you to work with us, and for those of you who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over."

    These were very powerful and encouraging words, especially coming from an intelligent African-American man who was speaking to a political party dominated by white men who are not used to African-Americans speaking to them so forcefully and directly. To bring forth "something completely different"; to take the party to "friend and foe alike," to "knock over" decades of neoconservative ideology and racism would take a Superman. Unfortunately, these encouraging and powerful words ring hollow when compared to the reality of Chairman Steele’s actions. Michael is no Superman. He’s not "The Man of Steele."

    Steele failed to "knock over" conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and get him out of the way. After saying that Limbaugh "is an entertainer … his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary – yes, it’s ugly"; Steele folded like cheap lawn furniture. Instead of standing by his statement, he apologized to Limbaugh, telling him he meant no offense. "My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh, … I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."

    This is not the first time Chairman Steele has backed down from his own statements. While running for the US Senate in 2006 as a Republican, Steele agreed to an interview, but only under condition that his statements be attributed generally as a GOP Senate candidate, not to him personally. In this interview, Steele criticized the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war and criticized Bush’s handling of Katrina, calling it a "monumental failure." When ABC news eventually attributed the comments to him, Steele tried to distance himself from his own remarks, claiming they were nothing more than a joke and insisting that Bush was his "homeboy."

    Steele says that he is going to "… build and grow the party in a way never seen before … and redefine the conservative movement." Chairman Steele and his Republican supporters feel they have an "image problem" and not a problem resulting from a failure to propose and promote substantive and inclusive policy content. Based upon Steele’s rhetoric and the fact that he has failed to offer any significant policy initiatives, one can only conclude that he views the politics of African-Americans and other ethnic groups as devoid of substance, myopic, shallow and emotional; when in fact, their politics is policy focused and born out of a people’s historical experience.

    Chairman Steele pledged to bring something completely different to the debate. In his August 24, 2009, op-ed in The Washington Post Steele wrote that the president "and Congressional Democrats are planning to raid, not aid, Medicare …" Cutting treatment options for seniors and the plan "will give seniors less power to control their own medical decisions and create government boards that would decide what treatments would or would not be funded." None of these statements made by Chairman Steele are correct. End of life care, which Steele and other Republicans refer to as "death panels," is designed to help the elderly and terminally ill maintain their quality of life by keeping them pain-free and comfortable while also providing spiritual, emotional social and physical support. For some reason, the Obama administration’s plan to pay for seniors who meet with a doctor to discuss end-of-life care is a problem. This is not honest dialogue and debate. It’s the obfuscation of facts and scare tactics.

    Michael Steele is quite familiar with obfuscation. During this same failed Senate bid, The Washington Post reported that the Steele campaign arranged for buses of homeless people from Philadelphia to distribute fliers at polls in majority African-American communities. The flyers contained statements that Steele was endorsed by prominent state Democrats and African-American leaders who had not, in fact, endorsed him. The homeless people were falsely identified as volunteers, although they had been paid, and the campaign funds used for this purpose of hiring the homeless were not timely or properly reported or attributed to the campaign. Lastly, in radio ads played on "urban" radio stations during the campaign, Steele never identified himself as the Republican candidate in what has to be described as an attempt to mask his party affiliation, thinking that African-Americans will vote for him simply because he’s "one of them." I think that’s fraud.

    When the House passed a "resolution of disapproval" by a 240-179 vote in response to Congressman Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) calling the president a liar on the floor of the House, Chairman Steele said the House Democrats are guilty of "stunning … hypocrisy." He intentionally ignored the fact that Wilson directly violated the rules of decorum in the House. According to section 370 of the House rules manual, members may not, call the president a "liar."

    In response to former President Jimmy Carter’s assessment that some of the most vehement opposition to President Obama is racially motivated, Steele issued the following statement: "Injecting race into the debate over critical issues facing American families doesn’t create jobs, reform our health care system or reduce the growing deficit. It only divides Americans rather than uniting us to find solutions to challenges facing our nation."

    When asked on "Face the Nation" for his comments regarding the report that President Obama asked New York Governor Patterson to withdraw from the race for re-election next year, Chairman Steele tried to subtly inject race into the discussion by saying, "I found that to be stunning, that the White House would send word to one of only two black governors in the country not to run for re-election … yet the president was with Governor Corzine. I don’t know if there’s been a request for Governor Corzine to step down in New Jersey. So I just find it to be stunning and also rather bold."

    When President Carter gave a direct, honest and accurate assessment of the impact of race on an issue, Steele opined that Carter was being divisive. When Chairman Steele subtly injects race into an issue, according to Steele "it’s a curiosity." Now, that is "stunning … hypocrisy!"

    Chairman Steele promised to bring us something different. He promised to "… be a part of building this party in a way we have never seen before." Steele committed to "… make sure that the values that have made our party the Party of Lincoln, are part of the issues, part of the policies that are reshaping this country."

    President Lincoln was a man of steely character who, in spite of his own prejudices, gave his life attempting to ensure that the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as promised by the Declaration of Independence applied to every one. To bring forth "something completely different"; to take the party to "friend and foe alike"; to "knock over" decades of neoconservative ideology and racism takes a Superman. Unfortunately, these encouraging and powerful words ring hollow when compared to the reality of Chairman Steele’s equivocation, pandering and actions. Michael is not "The Man of Steele."

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the producer/host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program "On With Leon" and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, DC. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email wjl3us@yahoo.com.

September 20, 2009

On with Leon: The Entire Archive

Filed under: Uncategorized — @ 3:25 am

"ON WITH LEON"

Download Past Programs Here

September 18, 2009

What a Congressman Can Learn from a Tennis Star

Filed under: african american scholars, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: , , — @ 3:49 am

image

 

By

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

On Saturday September 12th, at the U.S. Open semifinals, Serena Williams was caught in a “human moment” that she wishes she could change. After being called for a foot fault by a line judge Ms. Williams launched into an “f-bomb” laden tirade saying in part, “If I could, I would take this @#$#ing ball and shove it down your @#$#ing throat…" The resulting unsportsmanlike conduct penalty cost Ms. Williams the match.

On Monday September 14th Ms. Williams offered a written apology. In it she said, "I want to sincerely apologize first to the lineswoman, Kim Clijsters, the US Tennis Association and mostly tennis fans everywhere for my inappropriate outburst … I really wanted to apologize sincerely…I think the lady was doing the best she could. She was just trying to do her job.”

Some have questioned Serena’s sincerity and others have questioned the timing of her apology. These questions may be valid but at the end of the day Ms. Williams did the right thing. She took responsibility for her behavior and apologized directly to all of those whom she attacked and offended.

On Wednesday September 9th, Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) had his own “human moment.” During President Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress on health care, Wilson shouted at the President “you lie”. Shortly after his outburst Congressman Wilson called the White House to offer his apology to the President. President Obama did not take his call. It was accepted on his behalf by Chief of Staff Rhom Emanuel.

Congressman Wilson has been asked by members of his own party as well as Democrats to formally apologize on the House floor. He has refused to apologize on the floor of the House saying, "I’ve apologized one time. The apology was accepted by the president, the vice president. … I am not apologizing again … I believe that is sufficient."

As a result of Congressman Wilson’s failure to apologize on the floor, the House passed a “resolution of disapproval” by a 240-179 vote. Congressman Wilson has now been duly punished for his outrageous and childish behavior.

Even though polls show a strong majority of American’s oppose Congressman Wilson’s actions, Republican Party leadership stands behind him. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said the House Democrats are guilty of “stunning…. Hypocrisy.” GOP leader John Boehner (R-OH) said that the action initiated by Wilson’s fellow South Carolina colleague, Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) — is "patently partisan." Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) circulated a letter of support for Wilson.

Congressman Wilson, Chairman Steele, Congressman Boehner and others believe that since Congressman Wilson has apologized to the President and the President has accepted his apology, no further apologies are warranted. They could not be any further from correct. They are intentionally ignoring the fact that Wilson directly violated the rules of decorum in the House. According to section 370 of the House rules manual, members may not, call the President a "liar."

The House of Representatives belongs to We the people of the United States. Congressman Joe Wilson is an elected representative of We the people. Therefore, he not only attacked and offended the President; he offended all Americans who value and respect the institutions upon which this democracy is based. As such, he should, like Ms. Williams did, not only apologize to the person that was directly attacked; he should, like Ms. Williams did, apologize to all of those who were in attendance (personally and via television) for such a childish and immature outburst. Congressman Wilson’s failure to appreciate this very obvious point only diminishes the sincerity of his apology.

Why is Congressman Wilson unwilling to concede the obvious? Why is Congressman Wilson afraid to demonstrate real contrition and accept responsibility for his actions by apologizing to all of those whom he has offended?

Former President Jimmy Carter said Congressman Wilson’s outburst was rooted in fears of an African American president. According to Carter, “I think it’s based on racism…There’s an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.” I don’t know what’s in Congressman Wilson’s heart but on this point, as a White man from the South, former President Carter may have greater insight into the code language and this mindset than I do.

In terms of a broader constituency, there are a growing number of individuals on the right that are articulating the sentiments expressed by President Carter. Many of these anti-President Obama sentiments are racially motivated and being fueled by racial hatred from many conservatives. This is evidenced by the dramatic increase in death threats against the President, the “Birther’s Movement”, “The Tea Bag Party”, ministers such as the Rev.’s Wiley Drake and Steven Anderson who are praying for the President to die, and the diatribes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Wilson, Steele, Boehner and others can say that these groups and individuals don’t reflect their ideas but a failure by the Republican leadership to publicly admonish them and continue to call for them to stop their raciest rants is complicity by silence. They are trying to walk the fine line between keeping these fringe groups in the fold and some how maintaining public respectability.

It’s a fear of the backlash or blowback from these groups that is motivating Congressman Wilson. He should have taken a cue from a tennis star who in spite of her pride, saw the bigger picture and not clung to the fringe of his party. Like Ms. Williams, Congressman Wilson should have apologized sincerely.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

September 14, 2009

Serena Williams Must Play by the Rules like the Rest of Us

Filed under: african american scholars, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: , , — @ 10:11 pm

 

By

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

This past Saturday evening, on a second serve at 15-30, 5-6 in the second set at the U.S. Open semifinals, Serena Williams was called for a foot fault by the line judge. Based upon the judges call, Ms. Williams walked towards the judge, pointed her racquet at the judge and launched into an “f-bomb” laden tie raid saying in part, “If I could, I would take this @#$#ing ball and shove it down your @#$#ing throat…"

This exchange resulted in Ms. Williams being penalized a point for unsportsmanlike conduct. This penalty resulted in the match being awarded to her opponent, Kim Clijsters. Some are now questioning the chair umpire and tournament referee Brian Earley’s decision. With Ms. Williams being African American, many are crying foul based on race. Others are objecting to what some believe to be a ticky-tack call, especially at such a key point in a match.

First, the rule. According to The Rules of Tennis - Rule 8. b. “The Server shall throughout the delivery of the Service:…Not touch, with either foot, any area other than that behind the base-line within the imaginary extensions of the centre-mark and side-lines….If either foot touches the Court, including the baseline, or the imaginary extension of a line specified in Rule 8b. after his feet are at rest but before he strikes the ball, he has committed a foot fault.”

After her initial outburst Ms. Williams then said, “You better @#$#ing be right." Well, after viewing the video tape and reading Rule 8.b., the line judge was @#$#ing right. Ms. Williams was wrong for what she said, the manner in which it was said, and for trying to blame “the heat of the moment” for her reaction. Once Ms. Williams allowed her anger to go from questioning the call to making the verbal attack personal, the umpire did the right thing. Point awarded to Ms. Clijsters, match over.

There is not another major sport that would allow a player to verbally abuse an official to the degree to which Ms. Williams abused the line judge. In baseball, basketball, hockey, football, and soccer, there is a clear line of demarcation between player and official. In any other major sport, when the player crosses that line the officials throw the player out of the game and in some sports such as basketball award a free-throw attempt to the opposing team. Also, the sanctioning body would impose a fine if not suspend the player for a period of time.

Ms. Williams foot touched the baseline before she struck the ball; that by definition is a foot fault! Race has nothing to do with that fact. Now, should the line judge have called that fault at such a key point in the match? The answer to that question is subjective and obviously the line judge did not get the memo that she should not.

At the end of all of this what do we want our children to understand? We want them to understand that no matter how good they are or how successful they become; they must always play by the rules. We want them to understand that what you say and how you say things can have a great impact on your life. Tenor, tone, and delivery are very important. When trying to assess why a circumstance has not gone your way, look at your actions first to be sure that you are not at fault; then look at race. Also, when you allow your emotions to control your actions you will usually wind up wishing you had not.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

September 11, 2009

On with Wilmer Leon: A conversation about the Economy

Filed under: african american scholars, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: , — @ 1:58 am

 

image

Dr. Wilmer Leon Speaks to Dr Danny Boston, an Economist at Georgia Tech University about the state of the economy.  Click here to listen!

September 7, 2009

Afghanistan/Pakistan, a New Vietnam?

Filed under: Uncategorized — @ 12:38 am

Wilmer Leon

By

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

Under the pretext of responding to the September 11, 2001 attacks in America, the United and States and Great Britain invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 under the banner of Operation Enduring Freedom. President Bush 43’ told the American people that the US strikes were,

“…designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime… As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan… ”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq in order to bolster the forces in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. “It’s time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan.” This approach was taken in order to placate the anti-Iraq War contingent of the American electorate on the left while not leaving candidate Obama vulnerable to the “soft on defense” hawkish argument from the right. As a campaign tactic this proved to be successful. As American foreign policy this is proving to be one of the greatest miscalculations President Obama has made. Could Afghanistan become President Obama’s Vietnam?

President Obama has taken ownership of this war and now calls this a “war of necessity” that is fundamental to the “defense of our people”. In order to convince the American people that more troops are necessary to achieve the desired result, the President says as President Bush 43’ said, the mission is to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist allies”.

What may really be at play here is an attempt to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan, there by providing stability in the region that in the long run could provide stability for its nuclear-armed neighbor Pakistan. A destabilized Afghanistan that leads to an unstable nuclear Pakistan could have grave results in India and other countries as well. Attacking “al-Qaeda and its extremist allies” is an easier sell to the American people than nation building and the longer term geopolitical strategy of establishing stability in Central Asia.

The problem with this logic or plan is that it does not appear to be working. The increase of American and coalition forces seems to be inciting resistance in many areas of this region not quelling it. Many Afghan’s view the American and coalition forces as invaders and are compelled on a tribal and nationalist level to resist. A combination of organized resistance by Taliban forces coupled with a growing nationalist/tribal resistance will only make defeating the opposition more difficult.

According to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan, “… is serious and it is deteriorating…the Taliban insurgency has gotten better, and more sophisticated, in their tactics…” To this end, August has been the deadliest month to date for American troops, with 51 dead. According to the Defense Department, 800 members of the U.S. military have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan as a result of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The top American commander in the region, General Stanley A. McChrystal continues to work on a major war strategy review and has yet to request additional troops above those already added by President Obama. There is speculation that thousands more troops will soon be added. Since taking office President Obama has sent an additional 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan for a total of 68,000 in country, well below what the commanders need to “win in Afghanistan”.

So far, because so many Americans have been focused on the economy, health care, and other domestic issues, Afghanistan has not been the focal point of their interest. This is slowly beginning to change as more conservatives and progressives alike are beginning to compare the military escalation in Afghanistan with the failure in Vietnam.

The similarities between Afghanistan and Vietnam may be more perceived than real but the hearts and minds of the people can prove to be more powerful than military realities. Col. Henry Summers, a military historian once said to a Vietnamese counterpart, “You never defeated the US in the field.” To which the counterpart replied, “That may be true. It is also irrelevant.”

In his speech “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence”, Dr. King called the Vietnam War an “enemy of the poor.” It drained precious financial and human capital away from important poverty and other social programs. In this time of catastrophic global economic recession the Obama administration has requested $65 billion to fight the war in Afghanistan in the FY 2010 budget. Total annual spending in Afghanistan will soon eclipse that of Iraq, draining precious financial and human capital away from unemployment, education and other social programs needed today.

As with the Vietnam government of President Diem, the Afghan government of President Karzai is viewed by many of its own citizens as corrupt. By his own admission President Karzai has said, “The banks of the world are full of the money of our statesmen.” Providing foreign aid to a country where the resources are stolen and mismanaged is becoming more difficult to justify.

President Johnson’s rational for US engagement in Vietnam was to stop the spread of Communism. He believed that if Vietnam fell to the Communists, all of Southeast Asia would fall like dominos. President Obama has taken ownership of former President Bush’s “War on Terror”. “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.” Like Communism, the “War on Terror” is a very nebulous foe, difficult to identify and defeat. Like the Communists, the Taliban is not a unified or monolithic movement it is more of an ideology than tangible enemy. Without a clear objective, an enemy that you can identify, and an exit strategy, Afghanistan will become more like Vietnam.

The American public is finding this effort more difficult to support as the fiscal crisis continues to paralyze the economy and no clear rational or exit strategy is being articulated by the Obama administration. According to the Associated Press, just over 50 percent of respondents to a Washington Post-ABC News poll recently released said the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting. According a recent poll conducted by The Economist, 65 percent of the respondents said the US will withdraw from Afghanistan without winning. According to another ABC News poll support along party lines is beginning to shift. Support for decreasing the U.S. deployment has risen by 20 percent since January among Democrats, but also by 15 percent among independents and by 12 percent among Republicans. Since March, views that the war’s been worth fighting have lost 14 percentage points among Democrats, but also 7 percentage points among independents and Republicans alike.

President Obama and his advisors should learn from the mistakes of former President Johnson, history, some ancient some modern, and not repeat them. This is the region of the world that has never been defeated militarily. It is where empires go to die. The Greeks, Indians, Persians, Mongolians, British, and Russians have tried to hold Afghanistan but never succeeded.

While, according to Admiral Mullen, the insurgents tactics have “gotten better, and more sophisticated…” US tacticians remain mired in the same failed logic and processes. The US and its allies could “disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…” if more of the oppressed people of Afghanistan came to “…know the generosity of America and our allies.” If America actually dropped more “…food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan…” than munitions, political as well as military conflicts could be easier to resolve.

The problem with a more humanitarian focused solution is that those who fuel and promote the military industrial complex in America do not profit from the sale of humanitarian assistance. They profit from war. You can’t win by just replacing Alexander the Greats war elephants with F-18 fighter jets and drones. This is why, if America is not smart, Afghanistan/Pakistan will become President Obama’s Vietnam and once again be where empires go to die.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

August 29, 2009

“The Dream” Remains a Vision

Filed under: Uncategorized — @ 1:34 am

 

WilmerMain

By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

On August 28, 1963 during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and delivered one of the most famous speeches in world history, “I Have A Dream”. What has troubled me over the years is how Dr. King, the visionary, prophet, and revolutionary’s vision, action, and ultimate sacrifice have been hijacked, compromised, and relegated to being those of just a dreamer.

Dreamers are safe. People are comfortable with dreamers. Why? To be a dreamer you must be in a restful state, usually asleep. Dreamers are comfortable in that sleep state. Dreamers are docile, easy to manipulate, and non-threatening. To cast Dr. King in the light of a dreamer allows people to be convinced that action resulting from clear vision is not necessary. It allows the oppressed to be fooled into being patient and non-revolutionary; yours will come by-and by.

We hear those powerful words "I Have a Dream…" What many fail to realize is that Dr. King was no dreamer. He was a visionary, not some abstract thinker or philosopher. He was a prophet and a true revolutionary.

As I understand it, the original title of the “I Have A Dream” speech was “Normalcy—Never Again.” If that is the case, that title, “Normalcy-Never Again” is a real indicator of what was to come. It’s a clear statement that what had been accepted-what had been normal, i.e. oppression in America would no longer be tolerated.

Dr. King the realist states, "…we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land…” That was no dream; that was the Negro’s reality in 1963 and a clear indictment of the social conditions in America at that time. It continues to be the reality for too many in America today. A reality for those children languishing in inner-city schools, their parents who are loosing their jobs and loosing their homes, and those unjustly incarcerated in American jails and prisons.

Dr. King the strict constructionist referred to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. He stated, "It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned…America has given the Negro people a bad check – a check which has come back marked insufficient funds." Again, no dream in that statement, that’s a clear indictment of the human condition!

Dr. King the prophet offered hope by saying, “But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.” He said this because he clearly understood the power of hope, as a minister he clearly understood the power of faith.

Before Dr. King talks about the dream, he says that we must march ahead. “We cannot turn back. … We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.” In light of the November 25, 2006 murder of Sean Bell, the March 16, 2000 murder of Patrick Dorismond, the February 4, 1999 murder of Amadou Diallo, and many others, African American’s still find themselves victims of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality, racial profiling, and Driving While, and some times Walking While Black.

The "dream" reference actually comes towards the end of the speech. As Dr. King was close to ending his nine-minute delivery he said, “…so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream.” It’s important to understand that he spoke of the dream in the context of the horrific reality for “Negro’s” and the poor that he had just articulated. What makes the “dream” significant is its juxtaposition against America’s reality, failures, and oppression of its own citizens; their nightmare!

Today, many see President Obama’s historic accomplishment as evidence of the fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream, a “post-racial” America. This is in fact evidence that America has made progress on the long and difficult road towards racial tolerance and acceptance. However, there are still many miles left to travel.

As long as African American men are incarcerated at a rate of more than six times the rate of White men and the incarceration of Black women continues to grow at record numbers, the “Dream” will remain a vision. As long as unemployment among African American’s is more than twice the rate of White Americans and as long as studies show that a Black family’s income is a little more than half that of a similar White family’s income, the “Dream” will remain a vision. As long as African Americans continue to deal with Driving While Black, excessive high school dropout rates, and imbalances in health care, the “Dream” will remain a vision.

Until every American’s reality reflects the very founding principals of this great nation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The “dream” for too many in America will remain a vision.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

August 26, 2009

Afghanistan/Pakistan, Where Empires Go to Die – II

Filed under: african american scholars, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: , , , — @ 4:51 pm

image

by Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

Under the pretext of responding to the September 11, 2001 attacks in America, the United and States and Great Britain invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 under the banner of Operation Enduring Freedom. President Bush 41’ told the American people that the US strikes were,

“…designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places…At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan… ”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq in order to bolster the forces in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. “It’s time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan.”

I believe that this tactic was taken by the Obama team in order to placate the anti-Iraq contingent of the American electorate on the left while not leaving himself vulnerable to the “soft on defense” hawkish argument on the right. As a campaign tactic this approach proved to be successful. In reality, this may prove to be one of the greatest miscalculations President Obama has made. The real question here becomes, what’s the best tactic to accomplish this end?

According to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan, “… is serious and it is deteriorating…the Taliban insurgency has gotten better, and more sophisticated, in their tactics…” To this end, according to the Defense Department, as of Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 724 members of the U.S. military had died in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan as a result of Operation Enduring Freedom. Of those, 548 troops were killed by hostile action.

The top American commander in the region, General Stanley A. McChrystal continues to work on a major war strategy review and has yet to request additional troops above those already added by President Obama. There are currently 57,000 American soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan, well below what that commanders need to “win in Afghanistan”.

The military problem is also compounded by deteriorating political reality. As with the elections in Iran, voting irregularities and accusations of fraud in Afghanistan are raising political tensions and destabilizing the political infrastructure with the country and region. What could make the reported irregularities more problematic in Afghanistan than Iran are the ethnic divisions that run deep within their culture. President Karzi is a member of the Pashtun group. The Pashtun’s control the south which is a stronghold of the Taliban. Karzai’s major challenger Dr. Abdullah’s support is based in the more peaceful north, which is dominated by Tajiks and other ethnic groups. If the basis of disenfranchisement is perceived to fall along ethnic lines, such divisions could be very difficult to resolve.

Since 2001, in spite of President Bush and now President Obama’s noble speeches and military tactics, the US and its allies have not “disrupt(ed) the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations”. The US has not been able to successfully “attack the military capability of the Taliban regime”. President Obama and his advisors should learn from history, some ancient some modern, and not repeat it. This is the region of the world that has never been defeated militarily. It is where empires go to die. The Greeks, Indians, Persians, Mongolians, British, and Russians have tried to hold Afghanistan but never succeeded.

While, according to Admiral Mullen, the insurgents tactics have “gotten better, and more sophisticated…” US tacticians remain mired in the same failed logic and processes. The US and its allies could “disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…” if more of the oppressed people of Afghanistan came to “…know the generosity of America and our allies.” If America actually dropped more “…food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan…” than munitions, political as well as military conflicts could be easier to resolve.

The problem with this solution is that those who fuel and promote the military industrial complex in America do not profit from the sale of humanitarian assistance. They profit from war. You can’t win by just replacing Alexander the Greats war elephants with F-18 fighter jets and drones. This is why, if America is not smart, Afghanistan/Pakistan will once again be where empires go to die.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

August 19, 2009

The Problem with Our Post-Racial America

Filed under: african american scholars, black scholars, dr wilmer leon, racism — Tags: , , — @ 1:56 am

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

In 1903 W.E.B. DuBois wrote in The Souls of Black Folk, “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line, –the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in Asia and Africa, in America and the islands of the sea.” In 1968 the Kerner Commission determined "Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—-separate and unequal."

In 21st Century so-called “post racial” America the problem is still race. African American’s like Derryl Jenkins are still being brutalized by the police in north Minneapolis, MN; shot in the back of the head while handcuffed like Oscar Grant in Oakland, CA; and mistaken for perpetrators and killed by fellow officers like Officer Omar Edwards in New York City.

Many questions still need to be answered about these latest tragedies. What leads these officers to perceive people of color as a threat? Why do the police feel the need to use excessive force first and ask questions later? This takes me to the continual discussion about racism (white supremacy), its perceptions, and emotional responses that people of color deal with all too often.

Dr. Francis Cress Welsing defines racism (white supremacy) as the local and global power system structured and maintained by persons who classify themselves as white, whether consciously or subconsciously determined. This system consists of patterns of perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, speech, action and emotional response, as conducted simultaneously in all areas of activity (economics, education, law, etc). Even though some of the officers involved in these types of incidents are African-American, the analysis still applies.

There is a recent history or context in which these most recent tragic events must be examined. On February 4, 1999, an unarmed Amadou Diallo was shot and killed by four plainclothes New York Police Department officers.  On January 28, 2000, a 29-year-old, off-duty, plainclothes African-American police officer named Cornel Young Jr. was shot to death in Providence, RI while coming to the aid of fellow officers. The officers mistook officer Young as a perpetrator and shot him in the chest, head and stomach. On the evening of January 11, 2001, in Oakland, CA Detective William Wilkins Jr., a veteran narcotics undercover officer, was shot and killed by two rookie officers in another tragic case of mistaken identity.

These are just a few examples of police abuse and mistaken identity. Rodney King, Sean Bell, Patrick Dorismond, the record is replete with example after example.

It’s not that the officers intentionally shot Officer Edwards or the others, or beat Derryl Jenkins because of the color of their skin. The recent history and context in which these events occurred force one to ask – if the perceived perpetrators had been white, would the police officers who shot them have felt so threatened? Would the police officers’ patterns of perception, logic and symbol formation have been different reacting to a White suspect or threat vs. an African American/Hispanic suspect or threat? Would this difference in perception have resulted in a different emotional response? Would that different emotional response have given those individuals one more moment, one more instant of consideration, bringing about a different result – perhaps resulting in their lives being spared?

Why is it that the victims of these mistaken-identity shootings and excessive uses of force are disproportionately people of color? Why, as Mayor Bloomberg of New York stated in the Sean Bell case, "officers had reason to believe an altercation involving a firearm was about to happen" and the suspects are non-White, do the officers kill first and ask questions later? When the police arrive on the scene and find a white plainclothes officer effecting an arrest, do they kill first and ask questions later? When white plainclothes officers arrive on the scene as back-up, do other officers shoot first and ask questions later?

Again, in most instances intent in not in question; it’s patterns of perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, action, and emotional response, resulting in death. How many times have police officers mistaken the identity of white individuals, resulting in their deaths? It’s disproportionately African American cops and African-Americans armed with wallets that are getting killed and brutalized.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC

August 17, 2009

Black News: Dr. Wilmer Leon and Dr. Robert Brown Speak on Stress Management

Filed under: Uncategorized — @ 2:11 am

In this episode of “On with Leon", Dr. Wilmer Leon speaks with the man who successfully sued Saddam Heussein. Click here to listen!

August 14, 2009

At What Point is Michael Vick Rehabilitated?

Filed under: african american scholars, black men, black scholars, dr wilmer leon — Tags: , , — @ 9:30 pm

by Dr. Wilmer Leon

On December 10, 2007 suspended Atlanta Falcon’s quarterback Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months in federal prison for his role in a dog fighting ring. He was also found to have been involved in killing pit bulls that did not demonstrate sufficient fighting prowess.

Michael Vick, once one of the highest paid players in the NFL with a 10 year $130 million contract that provided him with an $11.4 million salary in 2006 and $6 million salary in 2007 made 12 cents an hour in his job at the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan. He filed for bankruptcy; claiming assets of $16 million and liabilities of $20.4 million. Vick is on the hook for judgments of $2.4 million to the Royal Bank of Canada and $1.1 million to Wachovia Bank, both because of loan defaults, and $4.5 million for a sports agent who sued him and won.

On July 20, 2009, after serving 18 months of his 23 month sentence, Michael Vick was released from Leavenworth Federal Prison. After having served his time, on August 13, 2009 signed a two year contract with the Philadelphia Eagles.

Dog fighting is illegal and disgusting. Killing dogs for failing to demonstrate sufficient fighting prowess is unconscionable. With that being acknowledged, at what point has a person who has been convicted of such horrible things and served his sentence, paid his debt to society? At what point is a person allowed to resume his career and demonstrate that he is rehabilitated?

Many Philadelphia football fans are outraged that Eagles management signed Michael Vick. Some fans are threatening to turn in their tickets while others are refusing to watch Eagles games. Sports radio and blogs are full of fans disgust with his signing.

This issue is bigger than Michael Vick. Michael Vick is grown man, still a talented and gifted athlete. If he plays his cards right and with a little luck, Michael Vicks felony conviction will never prevent him from earning a comfortable living and feeding his family.

Unfortunately, Michael Vicks good fortune is not the same for the over 1.3 million individuals that were convicted of felonies in 2004 (most recent data) or the almost 2.3 million people incarcerated in America. How do these individuals successfully integrate back into society after they have served their time? This issue is much more important than Michael Vick.

One wonders how a set of fans who have pushed handicapped fans from opposing teams down ramps; put a ten year old girl with a Giants jersey into a trash can; booed Santa Claus; or beat up Chief Zee, the Redskins mascot, smashing his eye, breaking his leg and stripping him to his underwear can be upset for signing Michael Vick? Their hypocrisy is nauseating.

It is interesting that Michael Vick would make his return to the NFL in Philadelphia, the city that housed America’s first penitentiary, the Walnut Street Jail. The word "penitentiary" came from the Pennsylvania Quakers and their belief in penitence and self-examination as a means to salvation. One would hope that the football fans in the City of Brotherly Love would actually show some in this instance.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” on Sirius/XM Satellite radio channel 169 and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

August 13, 2009

Dr. Leon and Dr. Robert Brown Speak on Stress Management

Filed under: Uncategorized — @ 2:11 am

Two educated Alpha Men on Sirius/XM break it down for the world to see.  Dr Wilmer Leon and Dr. Robert Brown discuss how to cope with the stress of a changing environment.  Click here to listen!

August 12, 2009

Is Healthcare Reform on Life Support? – Dr. Wilmer Leon

Filed under: Uncategorized — @ 11:46 pm

image

By

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

According to 2008 U.S Census Bureau data approximately 47 million or 15.8 percent of the U.S. population, were without health insurance during 2006 — a 4.9 percent increase. In 2005, census figures showed that 44.8 million people, or about 15.3 percent of the population, lacked health insurance coverage. According to a report released by the Institute on Medicine, the average cost of family health-care coverage more than doubled from 1999 to 2008, from $1,543 to $3,354.

Based upon these realities, presidential candidate Obama made health-care reform a central theme of his campaign. He promised to achieve universal health care in his first term and to cut the average family’s health care health-care costs by $2,500. In the on-going health care reform debate it is very important to remember that as a result of this and other campaign promises, President Obama won the 2008 presidential election with 53% of the popular vote to Senator McCain’s 46% and 68% of the Electoral College vote to McCain’s 36%.

According to a New York Times/CBS News poll taken in June, 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt. According to a June poll conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute 83 percent of respondents favored and only 14 percent opposed “creating a new public health insurance plan that anyone can purchase.” These numbers indicate that health care reform is very important to the American people.

Click to read.

August 9, 2009

Dr. Leon Speaks with Annette John-Hall

Filed under: Uncategorized — @ 2:04 am

Annette John-Hall of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Dr. Wilmer Leon speak on issues of race.  Click here to listen

August 8, 2009

On with Leon: What to Make of this “Teachable Moment”?

Filed under: Uncategorized — @ 1:26 am

On this episode of “On with Leon,” Dr Leon talks with listeners who have strong opinions on Henry Louis Gates, Barack Obama and the “Teachable Moment.”  Click here to listen

On with Leon: Are Black Farmers Being Exploited?

Filed under: Uncategorized — @ 1:05 am

Dr Wilmer Leon interviews Monica Davis about the plight of Black Farmers".  Click here to listen!

Dr Wilmer Leon Interviews Suzanne Simons

Filed under: Uncategorized — @ 12:42 am

Dr Wilmer Leon interviews Suzanne Simons about her book “Master of War: Blackwater USA’s Erik Prince and the Business of War".  Click here to listen!

August 5, 2009

Wilmer Leon Discusses the Health Care Crisis

Filed under: health care crisis, your black life — @ 3:44 pm

 

Wilmer Leon

In this interview Wilmer Leon speaks with Dr. Brenda Griton-Mitchell and Anastassia Zinke about the health care issue in the United States.  They discuss the problems with the health care system and what can be done to improve it.  Click the above image to hear the interview.

Dr. Leon: Does Obama Talk Down to Black People?

Filed under: Uncategorized — @ 2:02 am

 

Drs. Mack Jones, Robert Smith and Wilmer Leon do an in-depth analysis of President Obama’s speech to the NAACP.  Click here to listen!

July 30, 2009

In the President’s “Teachable Moment” What Should We Learn?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , — @ 11:03 pm

WilmerMain

By

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

This afternoon, President Obama, Sgt. James Crowley, and Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. will sit down at the White House to “clear the air.” The President’s objective is to bring the parties together and through their personal interaction move the national dialogue on race forward. In the President’s “Teachable Moment” what should we learn? We should learn how one’s perceptions can color their reality. We should also learn the danger of trying to contort a non-race based issue into a dialog or valuable lesson on race.

In all of the accounts of Dr. Gates’ arrest there has never been any indication that Sgt. Crowley used racial slurs, epithets, gestures or any other means to inject “race” into the arrest. Even Dr. Gates’ attorney, Charles Ogletree, when asked about racial profiling during a CNN interview said, “I’ve never said anything about racial profiling; you’ve never heard those words from me, it’s a case of bad judgment…we won’t know about the race element until all of the facts are in.”

How did the element of race enter into the equation of Dr. Gates’ arrest? He injected it! In a July 21, 2009 interview in The Root, Dr. Gates said, “I can’t believe that an individual policeman on the Cambridge police force would treat any African-American male this way…and more importantly I’m astonished that it could happen to any citizen of the United States…” Dr. Gates’ turned an investigation of a breaking and entering and his subsequent arrest for disorderly conduct into a case of racial profiling.

While Sgt. Crowley is looking at Dr. Gates’ Harvard ID, Dr. says in The Root interview,

“Now it’s clear that he had a narrative in his head: A black man was inside someone’s house, probably a white person’s house, and this black man had broken and entered, and this black man was me.” How could Dr. Gates read Sgt. Crowley’s mind? Dr. Gates perceptions were beginning to color his sense of reality and turning an investigation of a breaking and entering into a case of racial profiling.

In 2005 the ACLU provided a definition of what racial is and is not. The definition reads as follows, "Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual’s race, ethnicity, religion or national origin… Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors.” Dr. Gates was not targeted based upon his race or any other characteristic. He was simply the individual in the home where a breaking and entering had been reported.

Sgt. Crowley was not passing by Dr. Gates’ home and upon seeing (profiling) a Black man in a White neighborhood decided to investigate this seemingly strange occurrence. Sgt. Crowley was responding to a reported breaking and entering at Dr. Gate’s residence. Most police officers will tell you, “safety first; better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.”

What should we learn from the President’s “Teachable Moment?” We should learn that contrary to popular belief, President Obama’s election in no way signaled a move into a “post-racial” America. Racial profiling is a reality for African Americans, Latino’s, and Muslims and the election of a Black President can not make that go away.

When Sgt. Crowley appeared on Dr. Gates’ porch and asked Dr. Gates to step outside, Dr. Gates said, “All the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, ‘No, I will not.’” Dr. Gates’ instinct was real. His fear was based on a history of lynching’s, cross-burnings, and black men disappearing into the night at the hands of the Klan.

Dr. Gates’ instinct was a reaction to a recent history of police perceptions of threat resulting in the shooting deaths of people of color. On January 1, 2009 Oscar Grant, an African American, was killed by a white BART police officer while hand-cuffed and face down; May 28, 2009, NYPD off-duty officer Omar Edwards, an African American, was killed by a white fellow officer who mistook him for a perpetrator; November 27, 2006, Sean Bell, an African American was mistakenly killed by NYPD; January 12, 2001 plain clothes officer with the Oakland, CA Police Department, Willie Wilkins, an African American was killed by a fellow officer who mistook him for a perpetrator; January 28, 2000 plainclothes police officer Cornel Young was killed in Rhode Island by a white fellow officer and academy classmate who mistook him for a perpetrator; March 15, 2000 Patrick Dorismond, a Haitian immigrant was mistakenly killed by the NYPD; February 4, 1999, Amadou Diallo, a Guinean immigrant was mistakenly killed by the NYPD.

In spite of the reality of racial profiling, lynchings, cross burnings, and the more recent history of police shootings, Dr. Gates allowed his fear and instincts to color his reality. By his own account, he injected race into the circumstance.

What should we learn from the President’s “Teachable Moment?” We should learn that contrary to Matt Bai’s 2008 article in The New York Times, President Obama is not the end of Black Politics. As long as unemployment among African American’s is more than twice the rate of White Americans (four times in New York) and as long as studies show that a Black family’s income is a little more than half that of a similar White family’s income, Black politics will be alive and well.

There’s a lot that can be learned about race and racial profiling in America from President Obama’s “Teachable Moment”. When a person views a problem as a nail, their solution will probably be a hammer, even if the problem is a screw. It’s good that Dr. Gates’ arrest has become the catalyst for the dialog on race. Unfortunately, it’s the wrong example to use.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “On With Leon,” and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com.

© 2009 InfoWave Communications, LLC.

July 22, 2009

Hello world!

Filed under: Uncategorized — @ 9:59 pm

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Powered by WordPress