(Akiit.com) Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was direct, forceful and blunt when he said that the USDA does not tolerate racial discrimination. This was Vilsack’s widely circulated public explanation for firing Shirley Sherrod. There are two problems with this. One, the world now knows that Sherrod did not do or say anything to merit being branded a bigot and sacked. Vilsack and President Obama subsequently apologized to Sherrod and offered her her job back.

The second problem is more troubling. Vilsack should have been talking about the shameful and disgraceful treatment of black farmers by his agency, and the equally shameful and disgraceful treatment of the farmers by Congress. The day after Vilsack issued his lofty pronouncement about zero tolerance for racial discrimination, Gary Grant, President of the 20,000 member Black Farmer & Agriculturalists Association, flatly called Vilsack’s statement “a complete lie.” He had good reason. During the past quarter century, tens of thousands of black farmers have lost their land, homes, and livestock, due to the blatant refusal by the USDA to make or guarantee loans to them.

The farmers have filed individual and class lawsuits, staged sit-ins, held protests marches and rallies challenging the naked discriminatory lending practices of the USDA. Shirley Sherrod was one of them. She and her husband and a cooperative of black farmers were refused loans and their farms were foreclosed on in 1985. They filed a suit. It took more than two decades of legal wrangling but finally Sherrod and her husband and the other farmers won their suit and were awarded damages $13 million in damages.

The USDA has revamped its operations, has an active civil rights division, and says it carefully scrutinizes its lending program to prevent bias. This doesn’t mean that the USDA has totally righted its past racial wrongs. In a statement, the black farmer’s association notes that the USDA has not punished any of its agents or officials that encouraged or turned a blind eye to discriminatory lending. A decade ago the USDA shelled out $2.3 billion to the farmers to settle the discrimination suits. But that didn’t end the injustice. Thousands of black farmers that lost their land did not get a nickel. They were excluded from the settlement through bureaucratic bungling, technicalities, and challenges by Bush Justice Department officials.

A decade later, with the approval of President Obama, Vilsack, agreed to a second settlement of $1.25 billion. This again didn’t end the injustice. Congress had to approve release of the funds. It set a deadline of March 31 for approval. The deadline came and went. Congress went on spring vacation without approving the money. It set another deadline of May 31 for approval. That date also came and went with no action.

GOP conservatives and the right-wing talking heads then went to work. They railed that the settlement was a deficit buster, was unjustified, and a political giveaway by the Obama administration to appease black Democrats. The presumption being that all the black farmers are Democrats and dutiful Obama voters.
Read The Full Story…

(Akiit.com) “Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.” - Unknown

The above quote is a favorite that has infiltrated Facebook status updates and blogs around the Internet with increasing regularity. It also illustrates why one of the most powerful themes shaping this election year is anti-incumbency. The longer an elected official been in office, the more vulnerable they are becoming to being caught in the undertow of a wave of angry voters.

All the reason why beleaguered Representative Charles Rangel, buffeted by news that a Congressional investigative panel will hold him to account for a wide range of ethics violations, should be increasingly worried about his future. Though the New York Democrat represents overwhelmingly Democratic Harlem, anything is possible in a volatile political environment.

Ever the combative politician, a defiant Rangel insisted on Friday that he “look[s] forward” to a public trial, which will be the first of its kind since James Traficant - a flamboyant Ohio Democrat with a distinctive hairstyle - was dispatched from Congress amid corruptions charges.

Rangel’s case, however, is the latest in a dismaying series of black politicians who have run afoul of legal and ethical rules while in office yet still retain public support. His ethical woes can be reflected through the prism of black voting patterns. Why does it seem that many black voters rally behind corrupt or disgraced political figures - and in many cases still cast votes in their favor?

The powerful Harlem Democrat is well-known for bringing home the bacon for his constituents; yet like many other black elected officials, represents districts that suffer from relentlessly poor economic prospects. Once elected, these professional politicians seem to abandon all sense of judgment as they seek to enrich themselves and expand their influence, all while doing little to improve lives for their voters.

Fealty to troubled black politicians by black voters is an unsettling but unfortunately recurring phenomenon. Ex-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s public service career proved stubbornly durable, as he remained in office for years as the stench of ethics violations wafted around him. At the height of his troubles, Detroit voters rallied around him. Most recently, a prayer vigil was organized to commemorate his 40th birthday - his first as a convict.
Read The Full Story…

(Akiit.com) Reacting to Andrew Cuomo’s all-white political ticket in New York, a Brooklyn councilman has called for a black-led organization. That’s so 1960s…

Trying to be a better son, I’m attempting to call my mother more regularly. And I couldn’t believe the doozy she laid on me during a recent conversation: Her Brooklyn church hosted the launch of a new political party. The New York Freedom Democratic Party. An all-black political party? Excuse me? Did I fall asleep and wake up in 1960? Who knew we’d mark the 25th anniversary of Back to the Future by going back to the past?

Not to fear. Charles Barron, the Freedom Party nominee for governor, says the party’s portrayal is a bit off. ” Somebody said to me is this party only for black people? No, ” Barron told the crowd at the church, according to Our Time Press. ” It’s going to be black-led, but anybody can join us. We welcome anybody, but we are leading this. We said, ‘You don’t want us; fine.’ Let’s do our own party. This is shaking them up. ”

I don’t know how ”our own party” is the ticket for anything … except ridicule and derision. It’s certainly not the remedy for New York’s all-white top of the Democratic ticket–Andrew Cuomo for governor, Bob Duffy for lieutenant governor, Thomas DiNapoli for comptroller and The Five Heartbeats competing for attorney general. No wonder Cuomo has courted black support for months, and placed a call to Rev. Al Sharpton to discuss diversity in Cuomo’s would-be administration.

Look, just because America has an all-white party (read: the GOP), that doesn’t mean black folks should replicate such foolishness. Besides, the math is such that we’ll never win anything without a coalition that includes white, brown and yellow supporters.

But, bless their hearts, there they were, more than 250 folks marching to the historic Siloam Presbyterian Church, where anthems such as ” Say it loud! I’m Black and I’m Proud! ” were played in a large meeting room over the sanctuary on June 27. They gathered to launch their movement and listen to Barron, a current city councilman and former Black Panther. Barron had announced his intentions two weeks earlier, saying that his party would be a place for minority voters who were disenchanted with the Democratic Party.

” The Democratic Party has taken our vote for granted for many, many years ,” Barron told the New York Times, adding that Duffy’s selection was ”the latest slap in the face. This political blackout by Andrew Cuomo is outrageous, that he would be comfortable going with an all-white state slate,” Barron said.

It’s true that black voters are in a dubious position, caught between a party that’s presumptuous about black support and a party that’s not even pretending it cares. But trying to form a separate political party makes as much sense as armed revolt. No matter how much pride we took in groups such as the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam, we’d all be dead or still under Jim Crow if we followed their lead.
Read The Full Story…

(Akiit.com) President Obama gave a speech yesterday at The American University in Washington outlining his vision for immigration reform. He explained how the divisive sentiment in Congress and lack of support from Republican leaders has left the reform agenda held hostage. Their need to win — by ensuring Obama loses on everything - -makes the prospects of a bipartisan bill unlikely.

The fact that an overwhelming number of the Americans want reform should be the major stimulus for congressional action. The widespread negative response to state legislation on the issue, like the one in Arizona which makes racial profiling inevitable, has been just the latest impetus for a federal government to act.

What remains to be seen is whether President Obama can convince the Republican leadership to lay down their partisan swords and do their jobs. The primary reason for immigration reform is the need to protect our borders as a sovereign nation, the second is to provide the millions of otherwise law-abiding, illegal immigrants a path to citizenship which allows families to stay together and offers a humane solution to the process, and finally the importance of a streamlined federal approach which prevents misguided state-by-state laws that are separate and unequal.

The sad truth, as President Obama made plain in his speech, is in a political climate where the right-wing insists on opposition no matter what, crippling the Republican centrists who would otherwise support reform; and the impending mid-term elections in November where all politicians are willing to risk integrity for pandering and political survival.

President Obama’s speech was informative but nothing new. He has made the case for immigration reform many times, both during his candidacy and his 18-month presidency. The issues are clear, the solutions are outlined, and the path is paved. All we need is a Congress willing to do it.

One insightful economist, Robert E. Knight, who worked for the Federal Reserve after receiving his PhD in Economics from Harvard has stated: “No nation incapable of securing its borders is fit to be called a nation.” This is perhaps no more true now, since we live with the unfortunate realities of terrorism and the memories of 9/11. To be clear, the main focus of immigration reform today is at the Mexican border — which is not an issue of terrorism, but the old story of the poor seeking wealth.

America, as we all know, is a nation of immigrants and their descendants. Ellis Island and the Statute of Liberty are constant reminders of this very fact. This nation was populated by immigrants from all corners of the globe, who with their dreams, ambitions and hard work built what is now arguably the most powerful and productive country in the world. It would be amiss to insist that the millions of Mexican-Americans, whether they are naturalized citizens or not, do not daily contribute to the economic, political and social capital of the nation.

What is at issue is how to deal with border security when it has been neglected for so long. President Obama’s approach, which admittedly has borrowed heavily from George W. Bush’s failed attempt, is to provide a path to citizenship for the millions who are here illegally and are already upstanding, tax-paying citizens (for all intents and purposes), yet lack the legitimacy of paperwork and passports. The path to citizenship is vital to protecting families and avoiding an inhumane policy of raids and deportation.
Read The Full Story…

(Akiit.com) An Obama will again address the NAACP’s annual convention starting July 9 in Kansas City. It just won’t be President Obama. He spoke last year to the convention, but will not be making a return engagement. First Lady Michelle Obama will give a talk, and it’s not really billed as a keynote speech, more an informal workshop type discussion on her signature issue, the campaign against childhood obesity. She’s not listed in the confab’s 10 page schedule of speakers, panels and workshops.

There are two theories about the president’s no-show at the convention. One he’s adhering to his avowed, cautious, goal of doing and saying nothing that belies his race neutral stance as the president of all the people. An appearance or a message to the convention wouldn’t violate that. Obama appeared last year and there was no issue. And every Democratic and GOP president including Reagan and George. W. Bush has either spoke to the convention or delivered a message to the convention since there’s been an NAACP convention. With the exception of Bush, and only because he boycotted the convention for the first six years of his White House tenure, presidential addresses raise no eyebrows.

Another possibility is that Obama fears that an appearance before a racial advocacy group like the NAACP will give more ammunition to the Obama loathers, Palin and Tea Party activists. This is even less plausible. A no-show at the NAACP convention won’t do anything to stop their non-stop opposition of his agenda and him. And he almost certainly knows that.

Obama did not give an official reason why he’s skipping the convention. But one can fill in the surface blank. His plate is full with Afghanistan funding and logistic problems, putting the finishing touches on the financial reform bill, addressing the ongoing BP spill, and the looming fight over energy reform bill, stalled jobless funding bills, and the never-ending requests to promote Democratic candidates. These are all plausible reasons for skipping the convention. But there are problems with his failure to appear. He’ll be in Kansas City the day before the start of the convention to attend a fundraiser for Democratic Senate hopeful Robin Carnahan; so isn’t a schedule tweak possible? If not, a video message from Obama to the convention is certainly more than doable. An appearance or a message from him is the politically expedient, the practical and just simply the right thing to do.

The black vote has been the Democrats’ trump card in every election for the past half century, win or lose. If black voters had not turned the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries into a virtual holy crusade for Obama, and if Obama had not openly in the South Carolina primary and subtly in primaries thereafter stoked the black vote, he could easily have been just another failed Democratic presidential candidate. The Through its voter education, awareness, and mobilization campaigns, the NAACP played a enormous role in galvanizing and boosting the numbers of black voters, nearly all votes for Obama.
Read The Full Story…