(Akiit.com)

“Therefore, the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him.” — Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”

“War – an act of violence whose object is to constrain the enemy, to accomplish our will.” — George Washington, General of the Continental Army

First, I want to say, Honor Memorial Day to everyone. This is not a day of happiness, but a day to reflect upon the sacrifices of those who made the “last full measure of devotion” for our nation.

I came on active duty as a U.S. Army Field Artillery Second Lieutenant on 1 November 1983. I arrived at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, for my Field Artillery Officers Basic Course on 30 October. That was one week after the 23 October Beirut barracks bombing, which killed 241 Marines, Sailors, and a Soldier. The Islamic terrorist attack was executed via a truck bomb by Hezbollah, the proxy terrorist army of the Islamic Republic of Iran. While attending the University of Tennessee, I became very aware of Iran due to the Islamic revolution, which ushered in the tyrannical regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the seizing of our U.S. Embassy and taking American hostages for over 400 days. For those who would quip that we have embarked upon a “war of choice,” that is an absurd assertion. Iran has been at war with the United States since our Bicentennial in 1976, for almost 50 years. And the recent battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in thousands of American troops being killed and maimed by Iranian-made explosive force penetrators (EFPs), a very lethal IED (improvised explosive device). If there was any justification for entering into combat operations, Iran has provided plenty.

However, in prosecuting this combat operation, we have failed to comprehend the premise of Sun Tzu, the imposition of our will. The “Art of War” was mandatory reading for us new Lieutenants, and we had to submit a report on it as one of our graduation requirements. One does not make deals with a maniacal, tyrannical theocratic enemy. You simply overwhelm them with focused combat power and leverage the other elements of national power (the D-I-M-E theory): diplomatic, informational, military, and economic.

Wars are fought at three levels: strategic, operational, and tactical, with each having its respective tasks and purposes. The key element is that there must be mutual support, which we call in the military “nesting” of these objectives with each other. The strategic level would assess what the global goals, objectives, and tasks would be. When it comes to Iran, it is imperative to undermine the regime leadership by way of kinetic action, but also delegitimization, along with targeted economic actions. Also, from the strategic level, how can Iran be isolated from external support? This is what I call the 21st-century axis of evil: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Islamic jihadists, and transnational narco-criminal terrorist organizations (TNCOs). I would refer to this as peeling back the layers of the onion, a major strategic task. We have started against the TNCOs and Venezuela, having success, and it would appear that Cuba is teetering as they have lost vital support. Iran is another layer of that axis that we can affect.

At the operational level, which is the theater of operations, the Middle East, we must endeavor to neutralize and eventually eliminate the means by which Iran holds the region hostage. A key part of this is to negate any Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz. Back in the late 90s, I was the 18th Field Artillery Brigade (Airborne) operations officer. It was the largest and most diverse artillery unit in the Army. We supported the XVIIIth Airborne Corps, but we were given a mission to support the 82d Airborne Division in a contingency operation simulation exercise to seize the Iranian city of Bandar Abbas, at the Strait of Hormuz. LTG(R) Keith Kellogg was the Commanding General of the 82d Abn Div at that time. He would be a great advisor on this critical operational mission. Allowing Iran to hold the region, as well as the world, hostage by way of the flow of energy resources is unacceptable. A critical operational objective would be U.S. control of the Strait of Hormuz and adjacent islands, such as Qeshm, and also seizing Kharg Island to separate Iran from its major source of revenue. And, we should isolate Iran from external arms support, such as the rail line enabling such from China.

Then, the tasks and objectives at the tactical level are clear: destroy Iran’s military capability and capacity, and support the strategic and operational goals. One thing that is vital at the tactical level is what we call OPTEMPO, meaning operational tempo, momentum. Unfortunately, with all the so-called negotiations and deal-making exploits, we risk losing such. Tactically, to impose your will upon the enemy means you stay on offense, strike him incessantly, and be relentless, giving them no breathing space or opportunity to rearm and refit. If you do not believe in the importance of such, read the maneuvers of Gen. George Patton in World War II. There was a reason why the Germans feared him.

Combat operations are conducted in phases with respect to the varying levels: strategic, operational, and tactical. Each phase has its tasks and purpose, with a designated end state. The end state is determined by what is called MOE, measures of effectiveness. For example, the operation planners are constantly reviewing and assessing the phase objectives, and when a certain level is met, let’s say 85 percent, then they can recommend a transition to the next phase. Right now, we are clearly operating under a “fog of war,” being told the war is over, it is not over, we are waiting for a deal, or we are one hour from restarting combat operations. There has to be clarity, and my assessment is that it is missing.

Another key aspect of prosecuting a combat operation at the various levels of warfare is to understand the enemy’s center of gravity. It is that which, if effectively engaged, will cause their defeat. The mad mullahs, crazed clerics, and delusional tyrants, in uniform and out, in Iran, do not care about their people. Therefore, threats against their bridges and power plants mean little. But if we start cutting them off from their source of revenue and freezing their personal international accounts, along with those of their relatives residing outside of Iran, that is a critical center of gravity. As well, we have to enable the Iranian people to rise up. Sadly, we see what happens when a populace is disarmed, similar to the desire of the American Marxist left. From the standpoint of informational warfare, we should seek to create a divide between theIranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), their version of the Roman Praetorian Guard, and the regular Army. I would like to see us go back to the old-school leaflet drops, after all, we do have aerial dominance over Iran.

Prussian General and military strategist Carl von Clausewitz, whose book On War was another mandatory read, spoke of the paradoxical trinity: the tendencies of the people, the commander and his army, and the government. He advocated that a successful war or combat operation cannot be accomplished without the alignment of the three. I would offer that we do not have that alignment, and it comes back to effective messaging, strategic, operational, and tactical synchronization, and clarity of mission. And please, enough about the War Powers Act. Barack Obama outsourced our military to Islamic jihadists for seven months in Libya.

We must defeat Iran. It is the next layer in defeating the 21st-century axis of evil. But, we cannot do so, thinking that military policy is done by social media. We must have an effective plan and stick to it in order to impose our will on the Islamic regime of Iran. This ain’t about making a deal. Deals are transactional.

War is hell, and it is about fighting, and fighting does mean killing. Two opposing generals from the Civil War gave us those maxims.

Columnist; Allen West

Official website; https://x.com/AllenWest

(Akiit.com) On Monday, two teenagers killed three men at the San Diego Islamic Center, then killed themselves. What a pointless spasm of violence it was. It took a few days for The New York Times to flex their rhetorical muscles and blame conservatives.

On the top left of Thursday’s front page, the headline read: “Islamophobia Spreads Fast, As Does Fear: Mosque Attack Reflects Rise in Overt Hatred.”

The second paragraph from reporters Shaila Dewan and Jill Cowan was blunt: “To some, the killings seemed like an inevitable result of a swell of Islamophobia in the United States and around the globe. Anti-Muslim rhetoric on the right has become louder,” spurring “a new phase of overt discrimination and fears of violence.”

The words “inevitable result” do a lot of work. Conservative rhetoric will “inevitably” be blamed, but no one has to prove a causal connection. This kind of sloppy smear caused Sarah Palin to sue the Times over their suggestion that her placement of targets on congressional districts in a pamphlet somehow led to the shooting of then-Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) by an apolitical nihilist.

The Times reporters quickly turned to assigning blame to President Donald Trump, Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) and Trump ally Laura Loomer, who used the term “invasive species” for Muslims. Most Americans believe in our history of religious liberty and tolerance. That is different from being critical of Islam in general — Muslim countries often don’t allow any religious freedom — or Islamic extremists in particular. Criticism of Islam is not automatically “Islamophobia.”

The rise of radical Muslim Democrats in office, from New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), causes the Times to worry about “increased vitriol against them.” No one at the paper worried in print about “increased vitriol” against Trump leading to “fears of violence,” despite the three assassination attempts.

This very same newspaper recently celebrated Islamic extremist Hasan Piker on one of its podcasts, as he spoke in warm terms of the man who was filmed assassinating a health insurance CEO on the street, because he was guilty of “social murder,” so he had it coming. “Fears of violence” seem to only flow in one direction. Some violence is apparently socially acceptable.

Likewise, the Times turned to the Council for Islamic-American Relations as their source of data on Islamophobia. CAIR “received more civil rights complaints last year than it had recorded in any year since 1996.” CAIR leader Nihad Awad was quoted as calling on public figures not to fuel “hatred and division that inevitably inspires acts of violence.”

They did not recall what their reporter Peter Baker noted in 2023, after the Oct. 7 massacre of 1,200 Israelis by Hamas. Awad celebrated the mass murder: “The people of Gaza only decided to break the siege, the walls of the concentration camp, on Oct. 7.” This group should be no journalist’s idea of an “anti-hate” or “anti-discrimination” or anti-violence group.

“PBS News Hour” also turned to a CAIR official, deputy director Edward Ahmed Mitchell, who proclaimed without challenge, “Anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States is completely out of control.” Anchor Geoff Bennett also acted unaware of CAIR’s record of cheering mass murder, asking Mitchell, “What’s it going to take to really lower the temperature?”

If these liberal journalists seriously wanted to lower the temperature, they’d stop linking violence to nonviolent speech, and they could try harder to notice when their designated leftist “hate” experts are engaged in vicious hate themselves.

Columnist: Tim Graham

Official website; http://www.efayewilliams.com/

(Akiit.com) Growing up in the South, food meant everything. You could walk into somebody’s house and know exactly what kind of mood lived there by the smell coming from the kitchen. Fried chicken snapping in hot grease. Pots of greens bubbling low on the stove for hours. Candied yams sitting beside baked macaroni so thick and rich it barely held together on the spoon. Folks laughed louder around those meals. Problems got pushed aside for a little while. Family members who argued all year could still sit together once the plates came out. That is why soul food became such a powerful part of life inside the Black community. It carried comfort during times when comfort was hard to find anywhere else.

But truth has a way of showing itself whether people want to face it or not. A lot of families now look around and realize too many loved ones are getting sick younger than they should. Somebody always talking about blood pressure medicine. Somebody else checking sugar levels before eating dessert. Another person breathing hard after walking a short distance. Many Black men reach middle age already carrying health problems that slowly wear them down year after year. Plenty of Black women spend so much time taking care of everybody else that their own health gets ignored until doctors finally force serious conversations.

Older folks used to say certain meals “put strength on your bones.” Back then life demanded physical labor almost every single day. Men worked outside in brutal heat, lifted heavy equipment, spent long hours in factories, or handled jobs that burned energy nonstop. Women stayed moving too. Cooking, cleaning, raising children, washing clothes, gardening, and managing households kept people active from morning until nighttime. Heavy meals matched the lifestyle. Today things are different. Most people spend hours sitting down. Cars replaced walking. Screens replaced movement. But eating habits barely changed at all.

That mismatch creates problems over time. A body can only take so much grease, salt, sugar, processed meat, and oversized portions before warning signs start showing themselves. Maybe somebody notices swollen feet. Maybe energy disappears quicker than before. Maybe headaches become regular. Some ignore symptoms for years because the damage happens slowly. Nobody wakes up unhealthy overnight. It builds little by little while people keep saying, “I’m alright.”

Food also became emotional comfort for many people. Tough day at work? Grab fried food. Feeling stressed? Eat something sweet. Feeling lonely or drained? Go back for another plate. A lot of folks are not even eating because they feel hungry anymore. They are eating because certain meals remind them of safety, childhood, family reunions, or moments when life felt lighter. That emotional connection runs deep across Southern households.

Modern grocery stores made things worse too. Earlier generations often cooked with fresh ingredients straight from gardens or local markets. Now everything comes loaded with preservatives, chemicals, sodium, and artificial flavoring. Fast food became normal because people are tired, busy, and trying to survive. Quick meals slowly replaced balanced cooking. Soda replaced water in many households years ago. Snack foods became everyday habits instead of occasional treats.

Pride sometimes blocks honest discussion. Tell somebody their food contains too much sodium and feelings get hurt immediately. Suggest healthier cooking methods and suddenly folks think tradition is under attack. But wanting Black men and Black women to live longer should never sound disrespectful. There is nothing wrong with trying to protect your body before serious illness arrives.

Most people can think of somebody whose health declined because habits never changed. Maybe it was a grandfather who ignored every doctor warning until his heart finally gave out. Maybe it was an aunt who lost mobility after years of unhealthy eating. Maybe it was a father who kept saying he would “start next month” but never actually changed anything. These stories repeat themselves constantly because too many people normalize suffering instead of prevention.

Children pay attention to all of this too. They watch what adults eat. They notice how meals are prepared. If every family gathering turns into overeating, young people grow up believing excess is normal. If vegetables only appear drowned in grease and salt, healthier choices start looking impossible before kids even reach adulthood. Habits pass down quietly from one generation to the next.

Nobody is saying soul food should disappear. That would never happen anyway. The history connected to those meals runs too deep. The real issue is balance. Greens can still taste incredible without enough sodium to raise blood pressure through the roof. Chicken can be grilled or baked and still carry flavor. Water can replace some sugary drinks. Portion sizes can shrink without people feeling deprived. Small changes matter more than dramatic diets most people abandon after two weeks.

Exercise matters too. Earlier generations stayed active naturally because life demanded movement. Today staying healthy requires more intention. Walking around the neighborhood, stretching, lifting weights, or simply spending less time sitting can improve health tremendously over time. Too many Black men carry stress, exhaustion, poor eating habits, and lack of movement all at once. Eventually the body starts fighting back.

Money becomes another issue once health problems pile up. Prescription medication costs keep rising. Hospital visits create pressure on entire families. Some hardworking people spend retirement years inside clinics instead of traveling, relaxing, or enjoying life peacefully. Watching loved ones struggle through surgeries, dialysis, or mobility problems changes the way a person thinks about food forever.

The difficult part is that many health conditions connected to diet develop slowly enough for people to ignore them. One fried meal will not destroy somebody. The danger comes from years of imbalance without enough movement, hydration, rest, or moderation to offset the damage. Too much sugar. Too much grease. Too much sodium. Not enough fresh food. Eventually the body reaches a breaking point.

Many younger people already understand this but feel uncomfortable challenging family traditions openly. Nobody wants tension during holidays or cookouts. Nobody wants older relatives making jokes because somebody picked grilled fish over fried pork chops. Still, protecting your health sometimes means accepting temporary criticism from people who may not understand your decisions yet.

Healthy eating does not mean bland eating either. Fresh garlic, onions, herbs, peppers, smoked seasoning, and natural spices can create amazing flavor without overwhelming dishes with grease and sodium. Air fryers help. Grilling helps. Fresh ingredients matter. A healthier approach does not erase Southern culture. It simply updates old habits using better knowledge.

There also needs to be more honest conversation inside the Black community about prevention before tragedy happens. Churches, beauty salons, barbershops, gyms, and family gatherings should include real talk about nutrition and long term wellness. Too often people wait until somebody lands in a hospital bed before taking health seriously.

Life eventually teaches everybody the same lesson. Strength alone cannot outrun poor habits forever. A person may feel unstoppable while younger, but time changes things. Energy shifts. Recovery slows down. Blood pressure rises. Weight becomes harder to manage. Earlier choices begin revealing themselves physically whether somebody likes it or not.

Soul food will always hold emotional value throughout the South. Those meals carried families through difficult periods in American history. They brought comfort during painful moments and joy during celebrations. That history deserves respect. But real love also means evolving when necessary. A healthier future does not require abandoning tradition completely. It simply requires caring enough about Black men, Black women, and future generations to make wiser choices before more lives disappear too soon.

(Akiit.com) Socialism will always find an audience because it appeals to base envy and resentment. Ginning up a mob to be mad at “oligarchs,” “Wall Street barons,” “kulaks” or “billionaires” is cheap and easy.

So, it was refreshing to hear Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the fourth richest man on the planet, offer unadulterated praise of the moral and economic superiority of capitalism in his recent interview with CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin.

You could practically hear progressives gasping when Bezos claimed that “the value to society and civilization from my for-profit companies will be much, much larger than the good that I do with my charitable giving.”

As we’ve seen, billionaires are far better at dispensing capital to productive sectors of society than charity or government. The United States is better off when Bezos keeps his wealth away from Congress or Zohran Mamdani. Amazon and other similar mega-corporations create more jobs, save people more money and foster more self-reliance than any government program.

The profit motive is much more effective at improving people’s lives than good intentions. This is not a moral judgment, merely reality. Bezos hatched a great idea at the right time, then parlayed and scaled that idea into a massive success. He’s probably created somewhere around $11 trillion in wealth for society since he started his company. He broke no laws doing it. If you don’t like it, don’t use or work for Amazon.

We don’t have the same luxury when it comes to the state. Leftists are convinced that bilking billionaires holds the key to solving all society’s tribulations. But if I said that confiscating all of Bezos’ wealth wouldn’t even be enough to keep the government going for a week, it would be an understatement. Confiscating all the wealth from every billionaire in the country would only fund the federal government for around a month, probably less.

Which is why, as history has aggressively demonstrated, sooner or later, the socialist definition of “the wealthy” will include you.

“They think there’s a fixed pie. One pizza and seven people, who’s going to get two slices? That is not how economies work,” Bezos told Sorkin. “It isn’t a fixed pie. It grows.” And by “they,” he means people like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, double Bachelor of Arts degree earner in international relations and economics cum laude from Boston University, whose entire economic agenda is predicated on juvenile zero-sum fallacy.

Though Bezos had many excellent things to say about the morality of free markets and wealth creation, he also proposed a well-intentioned but corrosive policy idea that’s gotten most of the media attention: zeroing out taxes for the bottom half of earners.

“Why is a nurse in Queens who makes $75,000 a year paying more than $1,000 a month in taxes, when the best way to put money in someone’s pocket is to not take it out in the first place?” Bezos asks, adding that while bottom earners only contribute around 3% of total revenue, keeping that money is “very meaningful” to an individual.

No doubt.

The contention that the wealthy don’t pay their “fair share” is probably the biggest myth in American politics. The United States has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. The top 1% taxpayers pay around 45% of all federal income taxes, while the top 10% pay around 75%. Whether you think the rich can afford it or not, it’s unhealthy and unstable for a country to rely on a sliver of people to prop up the government. That doesn’t sound like the workings of a healthy “democracy.”

The problem, though, with zeroing out taxes for around 70 million Americans isn’t only about balance sheets. It’s about feeding an existing moral hazard that reinforces the perception Bezos was decrying. We can’t tap the wealthy to foot the bill for everything.

We are already charging much of our spending to future generations through debt. But voters, need it be said, would be even more likely to support profligate spending knowing they didn’t have any federal tax bill.

Even in those Scandinavian welfare states that Sen. Bernie Sanders and other socialists mythologize and fantasize about, everyone pays. Virtually every Danish family, for instance, is on the hook for over 50% of their income in taxes — and that’s not even counting a 25% sales tax on everything they purchase. Do you want a welfare state? Fine. Pay for it.

If we flattened taxes so that everyone was compelled to cough up a “fair share,” we’d have revolution on our hands. It’s going to be virtually impossible to fix our progressive tax code. At the very least, we shouldn’t exacerbate the problem by detaching more citizens from the cost and scope of their government.

Columnist; David Harsanyi

Official website; http://twitter.com/davidharsanyi

(Akiit.com) Donald Trump is the undisputed king of the Republican Party. Earlier this month, Trump exacted revenge on Indiana state senators who had opposed his call to redistrict the Hoosier State; his endorsees won a majority of races against incumbents. Last weekend, Trump successfully nuked Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) from political life, relegating the incumbent to a shocking third place in his statewide primary. And this past Tuesday, Trump-endorsed candidates across the nation won every primary race — 37 victories and zero defeats. Overall, Trump’s approval rating among members of his own party sits around 81% — down from last year but higher than comparable second-term approval metrics for either Barack Obama or George W. Bush.

On the one hand, then, things could not possibly be going better for Trump within the GOP fold. It is only when one considers the generational divide among Republican voters, especially on matters of foreign policy, that things begin to look a bit bleaker.

The latest New York Times/Siena College poll reveals some startling age-based demographic splits within the MAGA coalition. Sixty percent of Republicans 18 to 44 want an overall new direction for their party beginning in 2028; only 33% want to follow Trump’s course. Seventy percent of young Republicans want the post-2028 GOP to chart a new course when it comes to U.S.-Israel relations; only 20% want the party to continue Trump’s close embrace of the Jewish state. Fifty-six percent of young Republicans want a new direction on Iran; just 35% want to follow Trump’s antagonistic stance.

Young voters shifted notably to the right in the 2024 election. Trump’s political challenge, in this midterm election year, is to keep these new MAGA voters firmly in the coalition while not alienating the loyal older MAGA voters who have served as his core base since 2016 — and who overwhelmingly approve of his second-term job performance. Given the consistently greater reliability of older voters in turning out to vote, simply pandering to the younger generation’s various desires would be foolish at the most rudimentary political level.

So, what to do? The answer is to lead with vision, conviction and confidence, as great men of history do.

Consider foreign policy, which is the most divisive cross-generational issue within the GOP. There is an undeniable foreign policy chasm between Republican boomers, who often get their news from cable TV, and Republican millennials and zoomers, at least some of whom get their news from “Podcastistan” subversives. The explanation for this divide is that many older Republican voters have been around long enough to see actual American military success in the world. Many younger Republican voters, by contrast, spent their formative years in a milieu wherein the failures of 21st-century American foreign policy were all but universally acknowledged. In short, older voters have seen foreign policy success, but all younger voters know on the world stage is failure.

The solution is to alter the entire paradigm, and flip the script on its head, by demonstrating unambiguous success on the world stage.

All younger voters have seen is endless boondoggle after endless boondoggle. There are numerous reasons for this, including the mission creep inherent in the failed neoconservative/liberal humanitarian project of “democracy promotion,” overly restrictive and self-defeating rules of engagement, and transnational institutions (such as the United Nations) that take a tendentious view of “human rights.” Regardless of the causes, there have been no decisive military victories to speak of. And that is the reason our “forever wars” go on, well, forever.

So how about showing younger voters what real, decisive victory looks like?

Trump came closest to doing that with the astonishing extraction of Venezuelan strongman (and illegitimate leader) Nicolas Maduro in January. Iran has been a bit of a different story. What began as an extraordinary shock-and-awe campaign has become a quagmire. Voters are understandably concerned about rising gasoline prices, but the solution is not to repeat the cardinal sin of decades of American foreign policy blunders: starting a war and then failing to finish it. The debate over whether the Iran war is wise may have been a worthy discussion before it started. But at this point, it’s irrelevant.

The easiest way for Trump to stabilize oil markets while saving political face is to keep on pushing — with force — to achieve the four key goals of the Iran operation: an open Strait of Hormuz, the cessation of Iranian regime funding to its regional terror proxies, the end of the regime’s ballistic missile and drone programs, and the successful ferreting out of the regime’s enriched uranium stockpile. Unless and until those four things happen, the Iran operation will have achieved only partial success.

Even better, younger Republican voters will finally get a taste of real victory over a hardened adversary. Gas prices will come down. The MAGA coalition would yet again coalesce. Trump would yet again be king of all of MAGA. And for the GOP, the midterms could be saved.

But it depends on Trump leading with conviction and confidence by ripping off the proverbial Band-Aid and finishing the Iran job once and for all.

Columnist; Josh Hammer

Official website; https://x.com/josh_hammer

(Akiit.com) My grandmother was born in 1916 on the same red Virginia ground where her grandfather was born enslaved. She lived to one hundred and five. She carried the weight of what her family had been to my family, and what her family had been to itself, the way you carry a stone you cannot put down. When she died, the stone passed to me.

I went looking.

What I found was a paradox written in blood.

The man Thomas Jefferson called “the most learned and logical” of the founding generation was my fifth great-grandfather. In 1766 he wrote that Parliament’s fleets and armies might give it power, but not right. He wrote that shackles, however nicely polished, would never sit easy on free men. He was Jefferson’s cousin and political mentor. He helped invent the American argument.

He owned thirty human beings.

In 1769, in Jefferson’s first session in the House of Burgesses, the young man asked his old mentor to do one brave thing: introduce a bill making it easier for masters to free the people they enslaved. Bland did as Jefferson asked. He was denounced as an enemy to his country. In Jefferson’s words, he was “treated with the grossest indecorum.”

He kept his thirty slaves. He died still holding them.

That is the strange courage of the founding. A man who understood that government without consent is tyranny could not break the shackles in his own house. He indicted himself with his own argument. So did Jefferson. So did every Virginia patriot who signed his name to natural rights while holding the title to another human being.

They wrote the creed anyway. They knew it would destabilize them. And the argument they could not finish was picked up by the people they would not free.

A hundred years later, the great-great-grandson of the man they would not free left the place of his enslavement as a teenager and never looked back. He cobbled shoes. He preached. He kept a lighthouse on the same point of land where the patriot’s plantation once stood. In 1879 the people of Prince George and Surry Counties elected him to the Virginia House of Delegates as part of the most successful biracial coalition in the nineteenth-century South.

They abolished the poll tax. They tore down the public whipping post. They founded what is now Virginia State University. They rebuilt the colleges the war had broken. They funded free public schools for every Virginia child, Black and White. They built, for one bright moment, the Virginia the patriot could have written into law and would not.

The Danville Massacre of 1883 ended that coalition with bullets. The argument went unfinished again.

It is unfinished still.

Read the grievances in the Declaration of Independence one more time. Standing armies in our streets without the consent of our legislatures. The military rendered superior to the civil power.

Quartering armed troops among us. The protection of armed men, by mock trial, from punishment for murders committed against us.

Last June the President federalized California National Guardsmen and active-duty Marines and sent them into Los Angeles over the governor’s objection. A federal judge ruled it violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Patrick Henry warned of exactly this in 1788. He used almost the same words.

The Fourth Amendment was written because British officers used general warrants — blank checks to search any home, any paper, any person. In 2024 the Fifth Circuit ruled that geofence warrants, which sweep up the data of everyone near a crime scene, are “modern-day general warrants” forbidden by the Constitution. The court named the colonial writs of assistance.

Section 702 of FISA lets the government query Americans’ communications — swept up in surveillance of foreign targets — without a warrant. The 1033 Program has poured seven billion dollars of military gear into ten thousand local police departments. Breonna Taylor was killed in her bed. Amir Locke was killed in his sleep. Both by officers serving no-knock warrants. Both, in the language of 1776, victims of armed troops quartered among us, protected from punishment by a mock trial.

This is not a left issue. It is not a right issue. Ron Wyden and Rand Paul wrote the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act together. The ACLU and Cato agree. The grievances are not partisan because the grievances are not new. They are the same grievances written in the same hand against the same kind of power.

The patriot understood the principle and could not live by it. His descendant lived it and was outvoted by force. My grandmother carried the weight of that unfinished business her whole life and never put it down.

It was unfinished in 1776. Unfinished in 1865. Unfinished in 1965.

It is unfinished now.

And it is ours to finish.

Columnist: Ben Jealous

Official website; https://twitter.com/BenJealous

(Akiit.com) At a news conference within hours after the shooting rampage at the San Diego Mosque the San Diego Police Chief said the obvious.,” the shooting would be investigated as a hate crime until it’s not.” His add on “it’s not” gave with one hand and took back with the other on the issue of whether the rampage was a hate crime.

The FBI was only marginally less equivocal about whether the shooting was a hate crime. A top official promised to leave no stone unturned and said, “there was definitely hate rhetoric that was involved.” But he also gave with one hand and took back with the other. He quickly added that he did not see the murderous attack as “a specific threat to the mosque.”

The irony is that the alleged shooters, Clark Cain and Caleb Vazquez, left little doubt just why they shot up the mosque. In what’s usual in these kinds of mass killings, the shooters leave a disjointed journal filled with scribblings that spew hate against Blacks, Jews, and Muslims. The pair did the same. If ever there was a smoking gun on a hate motive for the killing, they provided it with their diatribes against Blacks, Jews, and Muslims.

But why should that surprise? Surveys have repeatedly shown that hate crimes, violence, and harassment, and threats against Muslims have been almost the norm in many circles. Dozens of neo-Nazis, anti-government, white supremacist groups, and tens of thousands of individuals spew hate with aplomb. The site’s writers lambaste blacks, Jews, gays, and are unabashed in praise of Hitler. They perennially exhort their readers and followers to arm themselves to the teeth against the imagined assault by the federal government on white people’s rights. It was virtually a given that the murders would fire the horde of racists up, and ignite a frenzy of debate, speculation, denial, and even veiled acquiescence to the murders.

Cain and Vazquez, the alleged mosque killers, are the sort of nut jobs who would be perfectly comfortable with the white nationalist crowd.

However, even when the Cains and Vazquez’s are known tracked, monitored, and surveilled and worse commit hate acts, they often evade full punishment. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, but rather muddled, confused, and outright lax enforcement and prosecution of hate acts. Even when the FBI and local law enforcement agencies ID them for their propensity for violence their hands are still tied.

Federal prosecutors are loath to step on the toes of police and prosecutors in criminal cases no matter how badly the crime is tainted by race, gender, or religious hatred. Federal prosecutors flatly say that hate perpetrators are more likely to be convicted and get stiff sentences in state court. That makes good legal and political sense.

Yet, that’s not the only reason for their hands off of the Cains and Vazquez’s. Except in the highest profile cases, they see these prosecutions as no-win cases with little political gain, and the risk of making enemies of local police, DAs, and state officials. Hate crimes may be horrific but they are largely seen as common crimes and are treated as such. Few state prosecutors will chance inflaming racial passions and hatred by slapping a hate crime tag on a case.

There’s also the belief that hate crimes are mostly a thing of the past. When they do occur, they are isolated acts committed by a handful of quacks, and unreconstructed bigots, and that state authorities vigorously report and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes.

When Congress passed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, it compelled the FBI to collect figures on hate violence. However, it did not compel police agencies to report them. Record keeping on hate crimes is still left up to the discretion of local police chiefs and city officials. Many police departments still refuse to report hate crimes, or to label crimes in which gays, Jews, and minorities are targeted because of race, religion, or sexual preference as hate crimes.

Still other police departments don’t bother compiling them because they regard hate crimes as a politically loaded minefield that can tarnish their image and create even more political friction. The official indifference by many police agencies to hate crimes prevents federal officials, even if they wanted to more aggressively enforce civil rights laws, from accurately gauging the magnitude of civil rights violence.

Clark and Vazquez’s hideous rampage almost certainly would have been treated as a murder, charges if they had lived. But in the hands of the Trump DOJ they may well not have been slapped with federal hate crime charges. This glaring laxity is just enough space for the Cains and Vazquez’s of America to run loose.

Columnist; Earl Ofari Hutchinson

One can visit this brother online over at; TheHutchinson Report.

(Akiit.com) “What Alito doesn’t mention is that since 2013, the racial turnout gap around the nation has exploded. It beggars belief that Alito was unaware of this fact. He reached back nearly 20 years to include the only two elections in American history in which Black and white turnout reached parity. Surely, he or one of his clerks checked to see whether they could update the Shelby County argument that racism in American elections was over by using more recent data. But the data is unambiguous: Roberts’s assurances in Shelby County were spectacularly wrong.” — Kevin Morris, Brennan Center for Justice

What happens when the highest court in the land issues a decision based on faulty reasoning or inaccurate data?

The shameful Plessy v Ferguson in 1896 decision obliterated 30 years of hard-fought progress toward racial equality under the law and thrust the nation into the dark and violent era of Jim Crow.

Last month’s decision in Louisiana v Callais, like 2013’s Shelby v Holder, is destined to live in infamy alongside Plessy. We cannot and must not a single moment – let alone 70 years, as we did with Plessy – to rectify the Court’s mistake.

The Court and Congress must acknowledge the Callais decision was based on misleading data and restore the provisions of the Voting Rights Act that it overturned.

The deluge of racially-motivated voter suppression laws that Shelby unleashed made a mockery of Chief Justice John Roberts’ claim that “current conditions” did not justify federal protection against discriminatory state voting laws.  So, too, does the frenzy of states to enact racially gerrymanderied frenzy congressional maps disprove the majority’s assumption that states would not exploit Callais to disguise discrimination as partisanship.

Even more egregiously, Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion relied on a false claim –“copied almost verbatim” from a Trump administration filing – that Black voter turnout had exceeded white voter turnout in two of the five most recent presidential elections.

As The Guardian’s investigation revealed, the administration’s false claim rested on a misleading voter turnout calculation: The administration calculated turnout using the entire adult population – including non?citizens, disenfranchised individuals, and others ineligible to vote, which artificially inflates turnout figures—particularly for Black voters.  The generally accepted standard for calculating voter turnout is the Voting?Eligible Population (VEP).   By the common standard, Black voter turnout in Louisiana has consistently trailed white turnout in every election since at least 2012.

In fact, the racial turnout gap not only widened nationwide since Shelby, it grew twice as fast in counties previously covered by the preclearance requirement that Shelby overturned.

Instead of acknowledging the truth of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s observation that “throwing out preclearance when it has worked … is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” the majority blithely ignored the wreckage Shelby left in its wake and used its own willful delusion to justify even further destruction.

Constitutional law cannot rest on false facts.  Hard won civil rights protections cannot be snatched away on the basis of manipulative sleight-of-hand.

The Supreme Court itself has explicitly recognized that precedents resting on demonstrably false or fundamentally outdated factual assumptions warrant reconsideration or overruling.  In his concurrence in Ramos v Louisiana, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s wrote, “A precedent that is egregiously wrong…or based on a demonstrably false factual premise should not continue to bind the Court.”

The Supreme Court has the power to shape political power and voter representation for generations. Plessy, to the nation’s everlasting shame, grotesquely distorted that power. This generation has the opportunity—and the responsibility—to steer the nation back toward justice.

Columnist; Marc Morial

Official website; http://twitter.com/MARCMORIAL

(Akiit.com) Willie E. Brake, an African American entrepreneur who was born with a disability, is the Founder of All About Technology, a Detroit-based business that is proudly celebrating 25 years of being ahead of the curve in expanding technology access, delivering trusted computer sales and service, and helping bridge the digital divide across the community.

All About Technology, a certified disability-owned minority business enterprise, has grown from a technology sales and service business into a trusted community resource for individuals, families, seniors, students, small businesses, and organizations seeking reliable, honest, and accessible technology support. The company’s milestone anniversary recognizes a quarter-century of helping people connect to opportunity through technology.

“Technology has the power to connect people to opportunity, independence, and community—but only when it is accessible to everyone,” said Brake. “At All About Technology, our mission has always been about more than computers. It is about helping people work, learn, communicate, and participate fully in today’s digital world.”

A refugee entrepreneur, published Personal Technology columnist, educator, nonprofit leader, and longtime community advocate, Brake is widely known for his patience, honesty, and deep understanding of his clients’ needs. His hands-on commitment to understanding and, most importantly, resolving technical challenges has positioned All About Technology as a dependable resource for those who need more than a transaction—they need guidance, trust, and support.

Before founding All About Technology, Brake, who was recently featured in Model D Media, spent more than 12 years in increasingly responsible roles with Fortune 100 companies across the automobile, consulting, education, and manufacturing industries, working in locations around the world. Those experiences helped shape his passion for problem-solving and his belief that technology should empower people, not exclude them.

Brake’s community leadership extends well beyond business. He serves as the Executive Director of a local nonprofit, is an adjunct faculty member at Wayne County Community College, and supports youth development through internships, job shadows, and employment partnerships that expose young people to meaningful workplace experiences.

As All About Technology celebrates its 25th anniversary, the company remains focused on closing gaps in access, affordability, digital literacy, and technology support—especially for individuals with disabilities, seniors, youth, and underserved communities. The company also continues to explore ways and seeks trusted, reliable partners to expand electronics recycling and redirect refurbished technology to people and organizations that need it most.

Brake is an active, duly initiated life member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., and an avid learner who earned credentials from Wayne State University, University of Phoenix, Harvard Business School, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, and the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. A native of Detroit, he is the proud father of one daughter, Olivia Madison.

“All About Technology’s 25-year journey is a Detroit story,” Brake added. “It is about resilience, service, innovation, and a belief that every person deserves access to the tools and support needed to thrive in a digital world.”

Learn more at All-About-Technology.com.

About
All About Technology is a Detroit-based certified disability-owned minority business enterprise providing computer sales, service, technical support, and community-centered technology solutions. For 25 years, the company has served as a trusted resource dedicated to bridging the digital divide and helping individuals, families, businesses, and organizations access and use technology with confidence.

For press inquiries, contact 313-218-4888 or press@all-about-technology.com.

(Akiit.com) Lily Bell, an African American educator for more than 40 years based in Macon, Georgia, has released a new book, Beyond the Myth: Morality and the Black Community, that compellingly dives into the contradictions and silences that have shaped generations. As an author, speaker, and podcast host, she is on a mission to bring awareness to how the lack of healing in Black communities is harming Black and urban youth.

For generations, the Black community has often been described as moral, churchgoing, God-fearing, disciplined, and upright. It is a narrative repeated from pulpits, passed down through families, and reinforced by respected voices within the community. Bell says that she once embraced that narrative herself, but over time, she says she was forced to confront a difficult reality: no community is inherently more moral than another, and at times, the Black community has also fallen short of the standards it publicly claims. That realization became the foundation for her work and raised deeper questions about the impact such contradictions can have on generations of young people growing up within those beliefs.

According to Bell, the series is not designed to tear down the community, but rather to encourage honesty so healing can begin. She argues that healing cannot happen when abuse, trauma, and dysfunction remain unnamed or hidden behind respectability and image protection. In her view, the long-standing pressure to preserve the appearance of morality has too often resulted in silence, ignored pain, and cycles of harm being repeated across generations. Through her writing and discussions, Bell emphasizes that only truth, accountability, and direct confrontation can break those cycles and better protect future generations.

Bell acknowledges that some of the conversations explored in her work may feel uncomfortable or even controversial. However, she believes silence itself has become a greater betrayal. She explains that many of these cultural myths originally developed as a survival response to racism and negative stereotypes, serving as a way for Black Americans to affirm dignity and resilience. Yet Bell argues that survival through silence is not the same as healing through truth. Her work aims to challenge illusions, expose hidden issues, and push the conversation toward restoration, accountability, and authentic healing within families and communities.

The project extends far beyond a single book and includes a broader collection of books, discussions, and multimedia content designed to continue the conversation.

Among the featured titles is Beyond the Myth, which explores how generational silence and secrecy can contribute to ongoing harm within communities while calling for greater accountability and protection of children.

Another title, Exposing Hidden Abuse: Silence and the Path to True Accountability, examines the role that trusted figures, institutions, and traditions can play in sustaining silence around abuse and trauma. Bell also authored Home is Where the Hatred Is: From Survival to Restoration, a work focused on family dysfunction, survival, buried truths, and the long-term effects of unresolved trauma within the home.

In addition to her books, Bell hosts a podcast and video series through her Healthy Self With Lily Bell YouTube Channel. The platform explores abuse, trauma, secrecy, accountability, and healing within the Black community, often focusing on the emotional and psychological impact of silence within families, churches, and community institutions. Bell says the goal of the platform is to prioritize truth over tradition, healing over image, and accountability over silence.

Her books are available physically on Amazon and digitally on PayHip.

For press inquiries, contact healingwithlilybell@gmail.com or 562-661-8609.