Back in 2012, in the early morning hours of September 7th, Raynaldo Cuevas was working at a corner bogeda in New York when two masked men entered, pointed guns his way demanding cash from the register.  When a passer-by noticed the robbery and called the police, the masked men panicked and in their hesitation, Cuevas took the opportunity to bolt from the store, getting away from the gunmen only to literally run into an armed policeman who shot him as he escaped.  Cuevas would be pronounced dead at the hospital.

Two days later, the San Francisco 49ers kicked off their 2012-2013 regular season against the Green Bay Packers, a game they would win. Two months later, second year quarterback Colin Kaepernick would enter a regular season game against the Saint Louis Rams, replacing quaterback Alex Smith, who left the game with an injury.  He would not relinquish the role for the duration of the season.  Two months after that, Kaepernick would lead the San Francisco 49ers to Super Bowl XLVII in New Orleans, Louisiana.  The following video is from the pinnacle of Colin Kaepernick’s NFL career at the start of the NFL Championship game.

At about five minutes in, you’ll notice Colin Kaepernick standing somberly as Grammy Award winning artist, Alicia Keys sung the National Anthem.  At this point, he would not achieve a higher status as a professional in his career.  The entire world was watching.

Can you imagine the impact Colin Kaepernick would have made if he announced during the pre-game of the world’s most watched game, in America’s most popular sport, that he would not play a single down until the man who shot and killed Raynaldo Cuevas faces justice for his murder?

That would have been quite a statement.

Instead, however, in 2016 during the NFL preseason, a game Colin Kaepernick was not starting, he quietly sat while the National Anthem was played.  Since then, the social and mainstream media outrage has been nothing short of epic.  Kaepernick, who does indeed, has every right to do what he pleases in response to the National Anthem and to suggest otherwise would be the antithesis of what this nation is about.  He would later say he sat during the National Anthem as a form of protest of the way this country via law enforcement treats persons of color and the lack of accountability for their actions.  That is his excuse, whether you agree or disagree.

To Kaepernick’s credit, since his protest, there has been an increased conversation on police accountability and the way persons of color are treated in America, which effectively only happens when something like a terrible shooting occurs.  But many of us are not new to these conversations.  We are often vocal about these topics and issues and take action to get more to engage in these conversations so we all can collectively learn and grow as a society.  We are also glad to have a contributing voice from a notable pro athlete who feels passionate enough to join the conversation.

But as forthright and active we are in demanding these conversations, there are those who do not want to engage in these conversations.  They don’t see them as relevant as we do or they feel the attention given is misdirected or mischaracterized.  Or, by virtue of the reaction give to Colin Kaepernick’s protest, they are distracted by perceived grievances of disrespect and disloyalty of the actions of others.  When Kaepernick sat during the National Anthem, you know what the country collectively talked about?  They talked about him being unpatriotic.  They said he disrespected the military(as if they’re the only one’s honored by the National Anthem????).  They called him a rich overpaid jock craving attention.  I called him a crybaby that threw a tantrum because he got benched.  We said all of this and a whole heck of a lot more, very much including your usual avalanche of racially unambigous accusations and taunts.

However, what these same detractors are not talking about is exactly what Colin Kaepernick wanted to call attention to by protest.  And sadly, that is the fault of Kaepernick’s alone.  He could have made them listen.  He could have started a conversation where others would join in, and with him bsing a popularly followed celebrity, many would have wanted to listen, whether they agree or not.  But with his form of protest, the group he wants to speak with have tuned him out before he said a single word.  Good job.

Am I saying Colin Kaepernick is wrong for protesting?  No.  Like I said, he has every right and every reason to do so.  I am saying the convenience of it certainly causes me to question his sincerity.  For six years, Colin Kaepernick has been in the NFL, he’s had an undeniably successful career and has flourished in NFL stardom.  He had every right and reason to protest on the biggest stage.  More importantly, he had the opportunity.  But through a Super Bowl and three NFC Championship games, with the attention of the world on his every word, he stayed silent.  However, only after being benched last season, losing the starting job this season, during a preseason game, he explains his sitting through the National Anthem as a protest of oppression against persons of color.  It seems like if he really wanted to call attention to the way minorities are treated by law enforcement, he certainly went about it the way to do the exact opposite and call attention to himself instead.

Back in 2011, Colin Kaepernick’s rookie year, the NFL owners and the Players Association could not agree on new collective bargaining agreement causing the players to decertify their union in protest.  When the NFL players went on strike in 1987 and 1982, they were willing and did forfeit compensation for the year, along with playing football.  When Muhammad Ali refused to step forward and be drafted to fight in Vietnam, his title was stripped from him and he lost three prime years of his career.  When a swarm of Black Lives Matter protesters walk in the middle of oncoming traffic, causing it to jam for hours, YOU have to know that people protesting black men being shot has disrupted your day.  When you protest, there are consequences to that protest.  Colin Kaepernick sitting during the National Anthem did not cause him consequences he wasn’t on his way of losing already.  Protest involves sacrifice.  That is precisely what gives it power. And that power inspires change.  Protest without sacrifice, by definition cannot have the impact.  And this is what I feel Colin Kaepernick failed to understand.

And to be honest, without the sacrifice, protest has no staying power.  Will anyone remember that Colin Kaepernik once took a knee or sat during the pregame of a game he wasn’t playing?  Afterall, he’s not nearly the football player to protest police actions against minorities.  He’s not even the first pro athlete to sit during the National Anthem.  Back in the 1990s, Chris Jackson, who was seen as a Stephen Curry before there was a Stephen Curry, he converted to Islam and changed his name to Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf(just after the World Trade Center was bombed, by the way).  In March of 1996, he sat during the playing the National Anthem.  Abdul-Rauf was then suspended and within months traded.  And a couple of seasons later he was out of the NBA.  His skills didn’t slip.  He just posted career highs in points, assist, steals and three-point percentage.  But he was in the prime of his career, at the height of his career and did what Kaepernick did.  And lost his career for it.  That’s sacrifice.

The unfortunate reality is that most of America will forget how Colin Kaepernick protested, much like they’ve already ignored why is protesting.  Again, we’ve seen conversations on respecting the military and pregame rituals and exercising First Amendment rights and whether or not the Star Spangled Banner is a racist song.  You know what we’re not discussing?  Raynaldo Cuevas.  Or  John Crawford or Eric Garner or Tamir Rice or the other roughly 2,000 persons of color shot by police since Colin Kaepernick has been in the NFL.  And if that is the conversation Kaepernick wants to have, then he has the responsibility of getting people to listen.  If your spouse cheated on you and you look at her and say “&% $@#, why in the hell you do that?”, would the very next topic addressed be the marriage infidelity or the expletive just used?

Yes, Colin Kaepernick, like all Americans have the right to protest guaranteed by the first Amendment.  But those rights are only effective when used responsibly.  And quite frankly, this is something forgotten not just by him with his form of protest, but forgotten by most Americans protesting him in turn.

At some point, it should be much harder to forget American History.  Especially when that history becomes sensationalized in cinematic masterpieces that American audiences have thoroughly enjoyed for decades.  Let’s take Brian De Palma’s 1983 Crime Thriller, Scarface.  The movie, is about a Cuban refugee named Tony Montana, who becomes one of the most powerful drug kingpins in the country.  The basis for the main character’s background was based on the true events of the “Muriel Boatlift” in 1980, which saw thousands of Cuban refugees leave Cuba to seek asylum in the United States.  Among these refugees were numerous persons released from correctional and mental health facilities in Cuba, one of which was the fictionalized Tony Montana.

1983’s Scarface is actually a remake of the 1932 film of the same name, which used an Italian immigrant instead(who was actually based on the Brooklyn-born Al Capone) who came to the United States during the wave of “New Immigration” of Italian and Jewish immigrants from eastern and southern Europe dating back to the 1880’s.  A film about an immigrant coming to the United States victimizing unsuspecting Americans via a life of crime.  This is a running theme, not just in cinematic history, but also in actual American history.  Griselda Blanco and the Cocaine Cowboys from the 1980’s and 1990’s.  Lucky Luciano and La Cosa Nostra in New York before that.  Immigrants coming to the United States, bringing their native country ills and using them to live the American Dream.  Sensationalized or not, these stories are familiar to the American public.  Which gives plenty of ammunition to a typically duplicitous and ethically challenged politician to use to their advantage.  Only now, this politician just happens to be the 2016 Republican Nominee for President, Donald Trump.

When Donald Trump kicked off his campaign for this nation’s highest office, it would only be a matter of minutes before he began to stir such fears of criminal immigrant populations to ravage our American society.  He said that not only is the Mexican government sending immigrants to the United States, but they’re also sending the worst that they have to offer.  Very much like Scarface‘s Muriel Boatlift of 1980, but unlike the actual Marielitos, who were for the most part blue collar workers trying to escape a communist dictator, Trump practically slandered ALL immigrants crossing the Mexican border as real life Tony Montanas.

Donald Trump’s fictional understanding of immigration would not end there.  Within a few months, he would learn about the Syrian Civil War and the ensuing refugee crisis resulting from it.  After blaming the crisis on our invading of Iraq(which definitely isn’t the cause, by the way), he said that the refugees aren’t mostly women or children(which they are), but actually mostly men(no) who are strong men of a fighting age(wrong again).  He went on to suggest that Syrian refugees could possibly be a “Trojan Horse” for the Islamic State to invade America, something he’s continued to repeat even this week.

His main argument, which was augmented by attacks in San Bernadino and Orlando(by Americans born in America, by the way) is based on the assumption that we are not and cannot properly or fully vet refugees coming to America.  For this reason, Donald Trump has proposed what he described as “extreme (extreme(extreme)) vetting” to include values based vetting of applicants seeking asylum.  Which is odd considering he suggest vetting to see if refugees’ values on gay rights, gender equality and religious freedom match our own when the bulk of his supporters would fail such ideological vetting themselves.  Now, while he offered very few details outside of that, it truly sound as if Donald Trump has no understanding of how our immigration system actually works.  It seems as if he thinks immigrating to the United States is much like it was in the 1800’s on Ellis Island, a paper application, an eyeball skimming by customs and a stamping of a passport.  While typical immigration to the United States is no parts simple or easy(which is partly why we have the problem now), the process with which we handle refugees and Syrian refugees is even much different from that.  Refugees who are seeking asylum in this country are screened by a half dozen federal and international agencies and organizations over the course of about two years, much of it outside of our borders, which is also done on a continuous basis, effectively having refugees prove they are no threat to this nation.  This is the reason why the number of Syrian refugees in the United States is roughly the size of a city neighborhood.  Which is also why the overwhelming majority are indeed women and children.  So despite, what Donald Trump believes(or leading others to believe), we can and are fully vetting these refugees.  And quite frankly, we have far more home-grown problems to handle than the fictional problems these refugees are not causing.

What’s truly lost in Donald Trump’s sort of ignorance isn’t the effects upon American society that isn’t seen, but it’s the effects on war torn societies, which produces refugees, that are often ignored.  Last week, in the Rebel-held territory of Aleppo, Syria, an airstrike hit the family home of Omran Daqneesh.  Though he, his brother and sister were pulled from the smoldering ashes of the dwelling alive, the world saw, in graphic detail a vivid reminder of what the crisis in Syria is all about.  Omran, who was caked in dust and blood, wore a look of Hell that has shocked those across the world who have seen his visual.  Last year, the world was equally shocked by the death a boy, no older than Omran, who washed up on the shores of Turkey attempting to leave the Syrian country being devastated by war.

Meanwhile, here in America, we will forget about what happened to Omran in Aleppo.  Just like we forgot about what happened in Turkey last year.  We forget facts like overall since 2001, most refugees that come to the United States are from Iraq, which is where the Islamic State was started and is currently based.  Yet we’ve resettled over 100,000 Iraqi refugees alone.  None have been charged in a single case of domestic terrorism.  Actually none of the 750,000 refugees since the 2001 terrorist attacks have been charged with terrorism.  Now, without having to knock on wood there are specific reasons why that hasn’t happened.  It’s because of our complicated history of immigration and issues resulting that we’ve completely restricted the screening and entry process.  But it’s the fact that we are uniquely a nation of immigrants, for immigrants and by immigrants that despite this, we WILL continue to allow those suffering and living through hardships residency.  Of course we have to be smart and stay as vigilant as we have been, but to go against this and to renege on the promise of what makes us America is simply unAmerican.  Yes, there are undesirables that can and will slip through the cracks.  But for every Lucky Luciano, Griselda Blanco or Charles Ponzi, there will also be a Andrew Carnegie, Albert Einstein, Steve Jobs and Barack Obama.

The New Colossus, the poem written on the Statue of Liberty, which was often seen as the gateway to the United States and our very symbol of American freedom, it says “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.  Yearning to breathe free.  The wretched refuse of your teaming shore.  Send these, the homeless, temptest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”  There is no equivocation there.  You are not expected to speak a particular language, worship a particular faith or live a particular life to come to America.  It is the acceptance of these lives as they are that has already made America great and why we will continue to be even greater.  And that’s something we can never lose sight of.

The Presidential Election of 1964 was a turning point in American history.  Lyndon Johnson, who had lost the Democratic Nomination in the last election to the eventual President, joined the administration and was set once again to run for the presidency that year.  Despite being an early favorite, he had opposition from the left wing of the Democratic Party at the Convention and a brewing scandal involving an attack on American interest overseas that threatened the legitimacy of his candidacy.  Sound a little familiar?

On the Republican side, however, their primary contest was a fight over the future direction of the conservative movement.  The “Eastern Establishment” wing of the Republican Party, which had dominated the GOP for decades, was receiving a challenge from Arizona Senator, Barry Goldwater.  Goldwater whose opposition to “New Deal” liberalism and unionism and a heavy-handed foreign policy ushered in a new brand of staunch conservatism.  Winning primaries in the South and the West, Goldwater entered the 1964 Republican Convention a surprising favorite over establishment Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney and William Scranton.  They, along with many other Republicans including former President Dwight Eisenhower, believed that Goldwater’s brand of conservatism was too extreme for America.  This would inspire Goldwater to echo the rather famous line during his acceptance speech, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice… moderation in the in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”  Senator Goldwater and the GOP embraced extremism and began the general election by turning away from the moderate voices within their party.  That said, during the general election, the prominent Establishment Republicans refused to endorse or campaign for him.  And while other Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower and his Vice President, Richard Nixon, eventually backed his candidacy, they also had to distance themselves at times and call for repudiation of certain parts of Goldwater’s platform.

This too should sound familiar.

Well, the sides were set.  Lyndon Johnson vs Barry Goldwater.  And in one of the more lopsided elections in history, Lyndon Johnson beat the brakes off of Barry Goldwater, 486 Electoral Votes to 52.  A 61-39% margin.  The “Eastern Establishment” also known as the “Rockefeller Republicans” were right about their fears of Barry Goldwater’s strict and hardline conservatism.  They knew the country would reject it and that is exactly what the country did.  Resoundingly.  Eventually Barry Goldwater would go back to the Senate and continued to be the standard bearer for conservatism.  Until of course his lukewarm acceptance of choice on abortion rights in the 1970s and deeply critical stance on the emerging “Religious Right” in the 1980s put him out of the mainstream of where his party was.  In 1986, Goldwater decided not to run for his sixth term and was replaced in the Senate by three-term Congressman and war hero John McCain.

Since then, John McCain has served rather admirably in the senate.  There have been a few bumps in the road, but with his penchant for speaking plainly and, like his predecessor, willingness to stand up to the Religious Right, McCain is easily one of the most well liked and respected men in American politics.  However, that reputation is in serious jeopardy.  Senator McCain has his toughest re-election campaign in his career and his opponent’s greatest weapon is the Republican Nominee for president, Donald Trump.

This election year, Republican candidates nationwide will face the same fight over the direction of their party as they did in 1964.  For the last few years, the Republican Party has had a bit of an identity crisis.  While being lead by elected leaders like Senators McCain, Mitch McConnell, House Speakers like Paul Ryan and John Boehner and of course President George W. Bush, the base, or electoral foundation of conservative voters, have rebelled against that leadership for what they saw as a lack of adherence to their conservative principles.  Although this rebellion did not happen when President Bush was spending hundreds of billions of dollars in wars we could not afford while cutting taxes making them even more unaffordable(they inexplicable waited until Barack Obama came into office), the conservative base launched movements like the Tea Party in response to government overspending.  Coupled with social conservatism, the absolute backlash to the nation’s first African American President and a utter rejection of compromise, the conservative movement has been moving in two divergent paths once again.  And this time, those following the more extreme path has a Presidential nominee on the ballot in November.  Because it worked out so well for them last time they did back in 1964.

Now, Donald Trump can deny the realities of how elections work.  He has after all given thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton throughout her political career.  But the reality is he’s on the top of the Republican ticket.  Every other conservative will have to run with his name and reputation attached.  And anyone running against these Republicans will do everything they can to tie Donald Trump and his extremist rhetoric and behavior to their opponents.  Which is exactly what’s happening to John McCain. Nationally speaking, McCain’s home state of Arizona, which has voted for a Democrat for president ONCE in nearly 70 years is a polling toss up.  Georgia, which has been equally paltry for Democratic candidates has been polling in favor of Hillary Clinton in recent polls. Similar trends have been shown in other states and with other candidates.

I do have to admit, I write this with the full knowledge that many Republicans, and possibly most Republicans disagree with Trump’s candidacy.  I know many cannot identify with his extremism.  But they will be identified as being culpable and responsible for him, no matter how they may feel.  Succinctly speaking, his actions speak louder than their words.  On the other side of the conservative coin, I get it.  I really do.  The conservative base feel frustrated and ignored by the “Establishment ” that has taken them for granted at best and at worst used them.  Now they want revenge by throwing a wrench into the Establishment machine to turn things upside-down or to bring balance back to the GOP.  But while the GOP wrestles with the direction of their party, they have rather lost sight of the bigger picture or do not care.  The Republican Party is currently losing this election.  While most polls have Clinton up anywhere from 4 to 9 percent, one polls actually has her up by 15%.  The largest lead in any poll President Obama had in 2012 was 13% and no time in the age of polling has a candidate with any lead as large would go on to lose the general election.

Back in 1964, eventual Governor and President ronald reagan spoke in defense of Senator Barry Goldwater.  In talking about the role of government he spoke the famous line “So we have come to a time for choosing.”  And while at the time reagan was referencing the role of government in relation to the Democrat Lyndon Johnson vs the Republican Barry Goldwater, this year I suggest there is a new time for choosing. Again as reagan suggested, not left vs right, but they can choose to stand up for limited government and hoping for the best in humanity, principles even I know that the GOP is about.  Or choose to have you and your party represented by a glorified slum lord turned reality TV star emboldened by a vein of extremism and nationalism that history has clearly shown to be unacceptable even when we’re at our most divided. An argument can be made that in 1964, Goldwater and the Republican Party could not have foreseen the electoral cataclysm they were headed for when they decided to embrace the more extreme side of their ideology.  But as Shakespeare wrote, “what’s past is prologue.”  Barry Goldwater’s perceived extremism defined his election.  And while it may ultimately also doom his senatorial replacement, John McCain, it definitely is a road map that the GOP is also headed down, full bore, in 2016.  Will you be the party of principles that picks it’s love for their country more than their hate for Hillary?  Or will you be the party that ignores history and embrace extremism?  It is not worth the price, especially when what you’re buying is damages you in the process.

Be that as it may, the choice is yours.  Choose wisely.

This week in American Politics has been quite the week.  The daily news cycle has left behind and forgotten all about abusive over-policing tragedies and sociopathic gunmen responding to them and dove head-first in to the national political conventions of the Democratic and the Republican Parties.  This is an official start of the 2016 General Election, which will culminate with one party controlling the White House.  All week long, we’ve heard how the Democrats, lead by Secretary Hillary Clinton and Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, have ruined and will ruin America.  Now, we’ll hear how the Republicans, with Donald Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Pence, are a danger to America and the rest of the world.  With the back and forth and in-fighting between each party, it’s hard for normal people to tell which side is right… or which side is… left?

Thought I was going to say wrong?  As if one side actually has the definite truth.  Well, as a wise man once told me, “you’ll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly from a certain point of view.”  And it’s that point of view that has caused several self-professed Democrats to levee criticism at Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine as not being “progressive enough” or not even really Democrats to begin with.  Similar criticism has been given to Donald Trump in consideration of his history supporting abortion rights and government-backed social programs.  But it’s like some have forgotten what makes the “Democrat” in the Democratic Party and vice versa.  I can’t help but to wonder do they know what actually is a Democrat?  Or what is a Republican for that matter?  How is the Party of Abraham Lincoln now the Party of Donald Trump?  Why is the Democratic Party, the party that fought for the expansion of slavery now the party that fights for every social and civil right humanity desires?

To understand how these political parties became the parties we know today, you have to look back how our nation began.  Believe it or not, we were not always like this.  Our first President, George Washington never affiliated himself with a political party.  But from the very beginning, we were a nation wanting to determine how best to run a new democratic state.  Coming from an more authoritarian monarchy of Great Britain, many felt such centralized control was doom to tyranny.  They were called Anti-Federalist or Democratic Republicans.  Others, who were called the Federalist, believed that having centralized authority could be provide order and rule of law.  Throughout President Washington’s first term, the division between the two sides was minimal.  However, by his second term, Vice President John Adams and Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton lead the charge for for the Federalist while Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson and then Congressman James Madison opposed them in the Democratic-Republican Party.  If you know your history, you might know what happened next.  After John Adams lost re-election to Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton lost his life to Jefferson’s Vice President, Aaron Burr, the Federalist begin to lose power and relevancy.  From 1801 to 1829, the Democratic-Republicans held power throughout Congress and the Presidency.  But because of a pretty nasty election(even for today’s standards) in 1824, Andrew Jackson, who was defeated in his bid for the White House that year, was renominated by a new opposing party in 1828, the Democratic Party.

When the Democratic Party helped get Andrew Jackson elected President in 1828, it must be noted that this was not the Democratic Party that we know today, nor was it anything like the former Federalist Party before.  This Democratic Party was the heir to the former Democratic-Republican Party, and like it’s predecessor, it opposed a strong federal government and supported individual economic interest.  This interest, of course included the enslavement of African-Americans.  For almost 30 years, the Democratic Party was opposed by another party that supported a strong federal government, the Whig Party.  And they collapsed over their inability to address the issue of slavery.  This lead to the formation of yet another party that would strongly oppose slavery as it would support a strong federal government, the Republican Party.

By 1860, the two political parties we have today were now a part of American politics.  The Democratic Party was the party that supported business and economic interest and the Republican Party prioritized expanding the role of the federal government.  Today, those two parties have categorically switched philosophies from where they were when Abraham Lincoln was elected.  What happened?  What started the party switch?  Believe it or not, it was slavery itself.  With the Democratic Party, lead mostly by southern states, wanting to preserve their right to practice it and the Northern-backed Republicans wanting to preserve the union and stop the expansion of slavery, the two sides fought in our Civil War.  This was a war that was only ended when President Lincoln used the power of the federal government to out industrialize the Southern states.  We built railroads to move troops, added states and manpower, which created more jobs to sustain the war effort.  As a result of this sustained build-up, the typically Democratic-friendly businessmen and industrialist heavily profited from this expansion of the federal government lead by a Republican administration.  Now, with the Civil War ended, Democrats begin to support the expanding federal government because it was good for business and the Republicans supported the strength of that federal government.  And while the Republicans did support the Civil Rights of freed African-Americans, that begin to change in 1876 when Republican Rutherford Hayes agreed to end Reconstruction in the south, which largely protected the interest(and lives) of African-Americans after the Civil War.  The Republican Party begin to emphasize less about social and civil rights and be more concerned about the business interest that it was started to gain support from.

The Democratic Party was on a different path.  Secluded mostly to southern states after the war, the Democrats were still a party of business interest and against Civil Rights of African-Americans, but this begin to change in response to the surging business support that both the Democratic and Republican Parties enjoyed.  In 1896, to try to go back to their roots of being a party for the “common man”, Nebraskan Congressman, William Jennings Bryan was able to defeat business-friendly President Grover Cleveland for the Democratic Nomination, which would effectively be the end of the Democratic Party’s staunch support from big business.  This left the Republican Party as the only party supportive of economic freedom.  Over the next 30 years, the Democrats would continue to be the party that was anti or against the Trust(or corporate interest) in America, supported workers rights and unionism.  The Republicans, for the most part opposed them and continued to elect pro-business Presidents like William McKinley, William Taft, Warren Harding and Herbert Hoover.  By the end of this period, the Party’s hands-off approach to business would contribute to the Great Depression and the election of Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Party’s support of government spending.

Throughout the early 20th Century, the two parties had effectively switch philosophies on an economic basis, however, on social issues the parties remained largely consistent.  But with President Roosevelt’s support of federal government investment to help lift the country out of the Great Depression, this included lifting all Americans, including African-Americans.  These policies were supported by President’s John Kennedy(who’s father served in the Roosevelt Administration) and his successor Lyndon Johnson.  And it was here where the parties and their voters really  begin to switch.  When President Johnson, a southern Democrat, with ties to the traditional Democratic Party, pushed for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he turned away from the older Democratic Party of the south and embraced civil rights.  In turn, the older mostly southern Democrats(northern Democrats were already supportive of civil rights) turned away from him and largely abandoned the Democratic Party, joining the Democratic base that resisted the passage of the Civil Rights Act as well.  They joined the Republican Party, which, by now, solidly supported the role of a “limited government” and economic conservatism, along additional conservative values of being pro-life and the promotion of “family values”.  African-Americans, now being fully integrated in American politics would back the political party that back their economic and social interest, the Democratic Party.

And now, here we are today.  As divided within each party as we are against each party.  But I am a Democrat.  I support men and women’s choice in family planning.  I support immediate redress for gun violence that has plagued our communities.  I support the civil rights of individuals to marry who they like, to pee where they want, to protest how they wish and to pray to what faith they follow.  I expect the government to guarantee those rights.  That is what makes the the Democratic Party the Democratic Party.  A few years ago, I attended a forum, with a Republican colleague for a group of students and first time voters.  A closing question we were given asked the difference between Democrats and Republicans.  My Republican colleague responded by saying Democrats trust the government while Republicans trust people more.  That was a fair opinion, which has some validity.  But I had to remind her and the class, it isn’t simply the government we trust.  It was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln that reminded us that America is a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”.  We, the people are the government.  And as a Democrat, I believe in the full participation of all those people.  Just as President Lincoln did.  That made him a Republican.  And that is what makes me a Democrat.

Dear America,

I have a question for you.  Do you remember back when you were little and you had the “Monster in the closet” or the “Boogie-Man” that you swore was out to get you in your dreams?  Maybe it was after watching that first horror movie you know you know weren’t suppose to watch, but your older brother or sister wanted to scare the bajeezus out of you just for shits and giggles.  Maybe it was just something that terrified you for no particular reason that just gave you the heebie-jeebies.  You remember your childish fright creature, don’t you?  I do.

Believe it or not, mine was… Mr. Snuffleupagus.

Yep.  The weird imaginary friend of Big Bird on Sesame Street.  Ask my brothers.  I was scared. To. Death. Of Suffleupagus.  Every time he’d come on screen I would freak the heck out, crying, hollering, ducking my head in the couch cushions, anything to escape what I thought was impending doom coming at me.  My brothers teased me about it until at least my 20s, no joke.(They also teased me about Donna Summer, who I also thought was scary for some odd reason?!)  But then I grew up.  I realized that “Snuffy” was not scary at all.  He was fictional.  He couldn’t kill me.  He was friendly.  In fact, I actually begin to think he was kind of… cuddly.

Three years ago, when I started this project, Your Friendly Neighborhood Black Man, I had a point to make.  It was a play off of a popular fictional character, Spider-Man, who often describes himself as “Your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man”. He tells this to most people who, thanks to the bad press he receives, see a masked man as a threat or someone to be afraid of and not what he actually is; a hero or someone who wants to help.  And like the fictional Spider-Man, that is often how many black males are perceived, despite our intentions.  We are seen as a threat or someone to be afraid of.  And yes, just like Spider-Man, this is a perception often produced through the media.  But I’ve also noticed that this fear is born of other sources as well.

Not to get into any specifics, but there have been several occasions where, in my personal and professional life, I have come across certain individuals who I could not help but to notice the different ways they would interact with me than with other contemporaries.  These individuals, typically white males or females, I notice that they are able to interact with other white males or females and be social or cordial, conversational or otherwise pleasant.  However, in my presence, I didn’t get any of that.  These individuals are not too talkative or conversational.  They’re most typically uncomfortable, squeamish and often they’ve been spiteful or aggressively terse.  And it’s extremely noticeable.  I’m not sure if they are able to notice it, but I am.  And others who have similar experiences notice this as well.  And given how I was raised, I found this deeply troubling.

Now, as often as this has happened, it initially confused me.  I didn’t get why this would happen.  I would think “I wouldn’t do this to you, so why would you act this way towards me?”  But then that forced me to think about why I would not act in that way.  I was raised in a middle class neighborhood, in a middle class community, in a predominately white city.  Outside of my parents and my brothers, the people I had to interact with on a daily basis, teachers, classmates, neighbors, friends, they were typically white.  This was my life.  It was the world I knew.  So as I grew older, my ability to interact with people who were of a different culture or race or ethnicity of my own was something I had to have.  So, in my personal and professional life, I was functionally able to employ that same ability with others comfortably.  But to my realization, not everyone has had as sustained experiences with people outside of their world.  And this lack of experience has an affect on their ability to associate with those outside of it.

Let me put it to you a different way.  A couple of years back, the Public Religion Research Institute did a study on the people individuals associate with and broke it down demographically.  What they found was pretty polarizing.  For the sake of simplicity, let’s say that a white person and a black person each had exactly 100 friends in life.  The study found that this white person would only have ONE(out of 100) black friend.  The black person would not fair much better, eight of their 100 friends would be white.

If you doubt these results, do me a favor.  Next time you find yourself out at a social gathering or at a familiar setting, at a party or going out for drinks with friends, something like that.  Look around you and notice everyone in the room.  Are most of them of the same race?  Are they mostly from similar backgrounds as yours?  If you’re white, think about how many people of color that are in your life.  Not just that one teller at the bank or the guy with the office/cubical next to yours.  How many people of color are in your world and have an effect on your life?  If you’re black, it’s honestly not too much different.  The only thing is, we live in a world where we are the minority.  It’s almost impossible for us to live in a world that is devoid of white people so many of us have been able to adapt.  The same can’t be said for the majority.

Last week was one of the most tumultuous weeks America has experienced in years, probably decades.  What started with the recorded shooting death of a black man by police, being the 558th such person this year, it was noticed by a few.  Before it could be noticed by all, another recording surfaced on the following day of another black man dying on video due to being shot by the police.  These extremely public shootings caused thousands across the nation to immediately protest these actions and the historic actions experienced by Black America.  However, before the nation could even feel the affect of these protest, a lone and heavily armored and armed gunman, targeted, shot and killed law enforcement officers in Dallas, Texas in the latest of a long line of mass shootings in America.  Since then, every citizen in this nation has struggled with the ability to grasp how to respond to each of these tragedies.  Some seek to blame.  Some seek healing.  What we have to seek is a way to change our worlds.

The police officers who shot Alton Sterling and Philando Castille probably weren’t the racist of racist people.  To be perfectly honest I’m am ABSOLUTELY sure that I would be able to get along with those guys just fine.  They probably like football, watch Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead.  They probably have kids and have enough compassion to want to see them raised right.  If not, they have people in their lives they do care for, which means they DO have the capacity for love.  I cannot imagine they set out on their day last week to kill black men.  What happened was they were put in a situation, where they faced an unknown, assumed the worst and acted accordingly.  We all have the potential to do the same thing, especially if we are given an unknown entity.  It is that unknown that would cause us to react irrationally or to react out of fear.  Whenever I saw Mr. Snuffleupagus and screamed my little 4-year-old heart out that was out of fear.  I’d see those large eyes, furry bloated body and trunk slowly creeping his way down the street and assumed the worse.  I didn’t know any better.  He was an unknown entity.  And it is human nature to not only fear what we don’t know, but to react to it out of fear.  And that’s what those police did.  To them and to many others, we are the Mr. Snuffleupagus or the monster in the closet.  However, if we took the time to re-evaluate our perspective, we’d realize there’s nothing to fear.  We’d realize there is no moster in the closet.  We’d realize that Snuffy was just Big Bird’s friend.  But we don’t because we often do not take the time to broaden our perspective and make our world bigger.

Going back to Spider-Man, despite the Daily Bugle’s efforts, he is generally seen as a hero and no one’s afraid of him.  But in the real world, our worlds can be so often segregated and monolithic and not even realize it.  It is far to easy and extremely likely that if you are white in America, you can go through your daily life and not have a single impactful experience with any persons of color or culture.  And when you are then put into a situation where you had to interact with someone different, you cannot relate or appropriately socialize with such a person.  And when this persons takes actions that you are not accustom to, it can easily be misinterpreted or taken the wrong way with which it was attempted, which would cause them to react protectively and yes, aggressively.  On the other side of the coin, Black America’s experience with white persons can also have an affect on their perceptions.  If the only persons in our lives that were white were a cop coming to arrest us or our family, a teacher suspending us or giving us detention or a supervisor that is firing or reprimanding us, that too would have an effect.  If our interactions is only limited to individuals who can often have an only adverse relationship with us, that could also color how we perceive all of that race in an adversarial light.

America, we have to make our worlds bigger.  We cannot survive if the persons in our lives are just like us.  That was not what this nation is about.  We won’t be able to grow or learn if our lives continue to be monolithically white.  Or black.  Or latino.  Or Asian. Or straight. Or Christian.  That is how we stop weeks like last week from happening.  We live in an ever-increasing multicultural society and we have to embrace it for our own sakes.  Not just for the sake of acceptance.  But for the sake of knowledge.  If we are unable to recognize the humanity in others that are not like us, then we can only see them as a threat to our own humanity.  And in the words of my favorite philosopher, “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.”  We have to realize that there is nothing to fear.  Afterall, we’re only human.

Regards,

Your Friendly Neighborhood Black (Hu)Man

“Patriotism.

There’s a word thrown around a lot.  It inspires passionate debate and is worn like a badge of honor, and with good reason.  Because it means love and devotion for one’s country.  Love.  For a word designed to unite, it can also be pretty divisive.  You see there’s more to patriotism than flag-sequence onsies and rodeos and quadruple cheeseburgers.  Patriotism is love for a country, not just pride in it.  But what really makes up this country of ours?  What is it we love? It’s more than just a huge rock full of animals like cougars and eagles right?  It’s the people.

Do me a favor.  Close your eyes for a second, I want to try something out.  Picture the average U.S. citizen.  Think about it.  How old are they?  What’s their hair like?  How much can they bench?  You got one? Okay.  So chances are the person you’re picturing right now looks different than the real average American.  There are 319 million U.S. citizens.  Fifty one percent are female.  So first off, the average American is a woman.  Cool, huh?  Is that what you pictured?  54 million are latino.  40 million are senior citizens.  27 million are disabled.  18 million are Asian.  That’s more people in the U.S. that play football and baseball combined. Nine million are lesbian, gay, bi or transgender, more than the entire amount of people in the state of Virginia. Around 10 million are red-head.  5.1 million play Ultimate Frisbee and three and a half million are Muslim.  Triple the number of people currently serving in the United States Military.

Almost half the country belongs to minority groups.  People who are lesbian, Afircan-American and bi and transgender and Native American and proud of it.  We know that labels don’t devalue us, they help define us.   Keeping us dialed into our cultures and our beliefs in who we are as Americans.  After all, what’s more American than freedom to celebrate things that makes us… us.  I mean it’s stitched into the Stars and Stripes of this country.  From the Constitution to Gettysburg, to our motto: E Pluribus Unum, From Many One.  It’s even our country’s name… The UNITED STATES.

This year, Patriotism shouldn’t just be about pride of country.  It should be about love.  Love beyond age, disability, sexuality, race, religion and any other labels.  Because the second any of us judge people based on those labels, we’re not really being patriotic are we?

So let’s try this one more time.  Close your eyes.  Picture the average Joe or Joan or Juan or Jean-Luc.  The real people who make America… America.  And this year, whenever you feel the urge to don those star-spangled shorts or to set off fireworks the size of my biceps to show love for our country, remember to love America is to love all Americans.  Because love has no labels.”

240 years ago, this week, representatives from across the thirteen British Colonies in the Americas gathered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Their goal was to move those colonies to separate from the Kingdom of Great Britain.  One such representative, Thomas Jefferson, was asked to draft a declaration, which stated:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

These were the words that started the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.  From that moment, we defended our Independence in a Revolutionary War that secured our freedom and liberty and own destiny as one nation.  The thirteen Colonies felt a greater connection to each other than they did to the British Crown. From then, this prideful feeling of geographic nationalism, born through revolution, would spread worldwide, shaping many borders we now know today. In South American and East Asia, nations gained its independence from the Spanish Empire. And in Europe, with France first freeing itself from its monarchy and then from the Empires of Napoleon, geographic nationalism continued to spread across the continent. By the turn of the 20th Century, the rise in nationalism would spread to eastern and southern Europe and the Balkan states. This would inspire, one nationalist, whose goal was to unite a Serbian nation, to assassinate the heir to Austro-Hungarian Empire, Franz Ferdinand. This would be the cause of the First World War, a war that would lead to the death of over 15 million people. When the war was ended, to prevent such a conflict from happening again, the Allies divided the German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire and Ottoman Empire, redrew national borders and created the League of Nation whose expressed goal was to prevent future conflicts by a “collective security” agreed upon by multiple nations.

Unfortunately, the results of World War I was the precipice on which caused the outbreak of World War II. This time, instead of a Serbian nationalist seeking to unite a Serbian nation, it was German nationalist seeking to unite a German nation with German people who felt they were unfairly divided at the end of World War I. The German nationalist, of course, was Adolf Hitler and the German nationalism he used was Nazism. And this brand of ethnic nationalism lead to the death of over 65 million people worldwide, the most destructive conflict in the Earth’s history. By its end, a twice-devastated Europe knew it’s survival depended on cooperation of all their nations to have a vested interested in the well-being of each other. It was said the antidote to the extreme nationalism that lead to these destructive conflicts was to be cultural and ethnic integration. This initially lead to increased economic integration, which created the European Economic Community, which itself, when combined with a monetary union, culminated in what is commonly known today as the European Union. A Federation of nearly 30 nations across Europe who have combined to facilitate the free movement of people, goods, services and capital across all of Europe for the benefit of all of Europe. The hope was to increase familiarity and human connection to recognize the humanity in each of us for the good of all of us.

Last week saw the end of a political movement in the United Kingdom where the British voted on whether or not they should remain in the European Union or leave. The United Kingdom European Union Memeberahip Referendum or “Brexit” was a close but extremely contested vote. In England, those who voted to leave won, a decision which was completely unexpected to some but absolutely welcomed by others. The reasoning for the Brexit was to have increased control of economic and undoubtedly social borders, which supporters felt was taken from them and given to another entity without their best interest in mind. The “Leave Campaign” touted slogans such as “Britain First”, which meant that the British should consider what’s good for Britain before they consider what’s good for Europe. This was a campaign that depended upon geographic and cultural nationalism as much as socioeconomic integration. It was the same nationalism that Europe feared, which caused the creation of the E.U., would also inspire forces within England to vote to leave the E.U. Ironically, they joined out of fear of nationalism and left by embracing. Amid the upheaval of the Brexit, a British Memeber of Parliament, Joanne Cox was brutally murdered by a man with ties to British Nationalist and Neo-Nazi groups. As he attacked Cox, witnesses heard him shout “Britain first!” the same slogan used by those wishing to separate the United Kingdom from the European Union.

When these events happened over the last week, it caused a panic across the world and within the United States, many of us could only speculate on the reverberations of what was decided in England and how their decision would affect us nationally. Many see the same sort of nationalism that pushed the Brexit is the craft of nationalism that is currently being witnessed in our presidential campaign explaining the popularity of Donald Trump’s candidacy. Not to mention, going back to our declaration of our Independence, many have also drawn similar parallels to England’s pho “declaration of indepence” as noted by Brexit advocate Nigel Farage, who is the leader of the UK Independence Party.(Which coincidentally also happens to be the political party with the largest representation of members in the E.U.’s own Parliament.)

What we saw in England, we fear could be reflected here in America. What we don’t realize is, that no matter the similarities, what happened there will have an extremely harder time being replicated here. For one, the United Kingdom’s population is 87% non-hispanic white, while in the United States that same demographic is 64%. Electorally speaking, the majorities of white male voters that breeds the sort of nationalism that these campaigns thrived on has been an ever decreasing number for nearly 30 years now. Simply put, there are not enough white voters for that to be a dependable voting block to sway an election any longer. More than that, imagine the circumstance if an alleged white nationalist shot and killed a Memeber of Congress shouting “Make America great again” a week before the November election. Would this be a country that would then have a Donald Trump as president and embolden such a sentiment by giving it electoral validity?

When the United States declared their Independence in 1776, the world was a different place. Geographic and cultural bands that once group us gave us an identity, which was hard to break considering how unconnected the world was. These geographic and cultural differences often lead to conflict due to a lack of understanding of how others live and what they value. These conflicts continued and we’ve witnessed the power to destroy entire nations. But now, information and technology has connected us in a way our Founding Fathers could only dream. The European Union was created with the purpose of preventing conflict that is born of nationalism gone unchecked by increased cooperation. American Historian, Carter G. Woodson once said that increasing social and professional contacts among different races could reduce racism. Racism is the natural and inevitable extension of nationalism being unchecked. Wanting to control the social progression of your nation is something all independent governments would want. But when it comes at the expense of making the world smaller and less inclusive, that will only breed more fear, more ignorance and more hate. Those bonds of information are threatened when other cultures and ethnicities are excluded from yours. When Donald Trump says “make America great again”, talking about barring Muslims and Latinos from entering the United States, that only makes it harder for us to learn from other cultures that are not our own. He professes to build a wall to keep out unwanted persons, however England has shown him a way of building that wall without brick or mortar. Withdrawing from the European Union puts up the kind of barrier that will not only hurt England but such an action has been shown to repeatedly be the kind of action that can threaten the entire world. Dangerous decisions like the E.U. Referendum will certainly have a negative impct on the United Kingdom. It already has. But the entire point of the United States of America was to be a single nation made for immigrants by immigrants. Fact of the matter was, it was Great Britain’s obstruction and discouragement of immigration to the Colonies that became one of the primary grievances that inspired our Declaration. That is not who we are. That is not who we ever were. We are a better nation because of our ethnic and cultural integration. More pointedly, we ARE a nation because of our integration. That is who we are.
 

“The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.”

This was the answer the newly crowned Heavyweight Champion, Muhammad Ali gave when asked about his philosophy of life.  At 50, Muhammad Ali was one of the most revered men throughout the entire world.  As an athlete, that reverence was on display four years later in 1996 when the former Olympic Gold Medalist was given the honor of carrying the torch to light the Olympic flame during the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia.  Muhammad Ali, in his fifties, was a worldwide goodwill ambassador and was known as such for the rest of his life.  A life that ended suddenly on June 3rd of 2016.

Muhammad Ali not only viewed the world differently at 50 than he did at 20, but the world viewed him differently at 50 than it viewed him at 20.  By the age of 20, Ali, who was still known as Cassius Clay, was an up and coming heavyweight contender with a flashy style and extremely loud mouth.  At age 2o, with his boxing moniker, the “Louisville Lip” was brash, boastful, went out of his way to be heard and seen and brutally taunted opponents into matches against him and most annoyingly WHILE engaged in a match against him.  This was the strategy he used to get a match against Sonny Liston, whom everyone assumed would knockout Clay and do it rather quickly.  That didn’t happen.  Clay beat him and beat him easy.  Clay’s skill was his speed, which he used to hit Liston whenever he wanted and avoid every punch thrown at him.  At 22, Cassius Clay became the youngest fighter to defeat a reigning champion in boxing history.  And history is what happened.

“I know where I’m going and I know the truth, and I don’t have to be what you want me to be. I’m free to be what I want.”

Back in the early 1960s, Black athletes were not as prevalent as they were today.  Yes the likes of Jim Brown, Willie Mays and Bill Russell were becoming stars in their own right, they weren’t anything like we see black athletes today.  They certainly had not the sort of prestige and privilege they do today.  Muhammad Ali, willfully went against that grain.  But you have to put into perspective what he was.

Fact #1:  He was Black.  The Civil Rights Movement had only begun to get off the ground.  Black men and black people in general were still effectively second-class citizens in many ways, if not by law, certainly by expectation.  They “had their place”.  Some were burgeoning stars, but we’re respectful and we’re consider safe and likeable, much like a Jackie Robinson.  Not Ali.

Fact #2:  He was arrogant.  Muhammad Ali was really good at what he did and he knew it and was not afraid to tell you about it, quickly displacing the given moniker, the “Louisville Lip” with a chosen moniker, “The Greatest”.  If mainstream America had their opinions on the place and status of black people, it certainly was made worse with one as proudly boastful as Ali was.

Fact #3:  He was Muslim.  Not just any typical Muslim, which then had not the same connotation as it does today.  But Muhammad Ali, shortly after winning his title had began using the name Muhammad Ali when he joined the Nation of Islam, which was notable for its extremism and militancy.  Think what Black Lives Matter is today with the reputation of today’s Klu Klux Klan.  That was how the majority felt about the Nation of Islam.  Now imagine one of the more popular athletes in American sports joins such a group.  How would we react today if Tom Brady or Bryce Harper announced very publicly that they are joining the Aryan Brotherhood.  How would America and the World treat these figures in today’s world?  That was the position Muhammad Ali was in.  The biggest difference is that Bryce Harper and Tom Brady are already accepted and welcomed figures.  Muhammad Ali was Black and arrogant and then had the audacity to join Black Separatist, who the nation feared and rejected, to make it even worse.

The aversion to what had become to Muhammad Ali wasn’t just with mainstream White America, but it was also held by many within Black America.  Former champions like Joe Louis were shunned by him.  Jackie Robinson, the first Black player in the Major Leagues, who was rather universally accepted by most Americans, he would not bring himself to call the Muhammad Ali by his new name.  This action was repeated by other fighters like Ernie Terrell and former champion, Floyd Patterson.  Patterson, who before facing Ali, said he wanted to beat Ali to “bring the title back to America”.  This was Muhammad Ali in 20s.  Reviled by White America.  Disrespected by Black America.  This would be bad enough, but as a militant, arrogant black athlete in the 1960s, he then made it worse.

Fact #4:  Muhammad Ali refused to be drafted into the Vietnam War.  Across America young men were being drafted to go to war and Ali was expected to do the same. Yet, he refused. He did what thousands of others could not do and would not do. The United States of America was in the mist of stopping the spread of Communism and fighting for the world’s freedom and America’s most notable champion refused that fight. What he did, many across America considered unpatriotic and shameful. But because of his very public personal and religious beliefs, he would not accept being drafted. And he did this at the expense of his career. Not only was Muhammad Ali a champion at the top of his career, in the prime of his career, by his actions and his suspension and facing imprisonment, Muhammad Ali was willing to give up his career for an undetermined length of time. It should have been a matter of months, but it ended up being a matter of years and could have easily been a matter of decades. There was no way to tell but he still refused.

And that’s when things started to change. We saw the toll the war begin to take on our population and specifically, black men who mostly fought it. Not to mention, if there is one thing all Americans can recognize, no matter the guise, is a man that is self-made and a man who gains his own achievements on his own merits. They also recognize when something is unjust and done without order. The American people recognized Muhammad Ali’s skill and his championship he earned and they saw it taken away from him and not because of something he could not do. He did not lose his title. It was taken from him. And just like he did, freely telling crowds about his greatness, he took that same message about his own career. And surprisingly enough, the people started to listen.

“Ali Bomaye!”

Eventually, Ali was able to make it back to boxing. He suffered a setback in his attempt to regain his championship in 1971 against Joe Frazier in the most watched bout in the world. But his star was not diminished. Frazier would receive a savage beating from another Olympic Medalist and Champion, George Foreman. Foreman who was universally feared by the public in general, let alone all other heavyweight boxers, he was challenged by Ali in Zaire, Africa. The Rumble in the Jungle it was called. When Ali arrived in Africa he was celebrated in a way that he wasn’t in America. Crowds flocked to him by the thousands shouting his name, wanting to be with him. Ali would go on to win. Something no one assumed he would do. His next great test came against his greatest rival, Joe Frazier, in yet another part of the world, the Phillipines. Muhammad Ali would not only face insurmountable challenge after insurmountable challenge but he made sure the world was able to see him over come each of these challenges. And as much as he brought his displays of talent to the world at large, he also brought something even more invaluable; himself. An ambassador of Black America and Islam, to a world that is unfamiliar with each.

I talk a lot on politics and society and the world as we see it. Yes, I tend to keep conversations friendly, but one way to get me to shut up about it is to talk boxing. I’m a huge fan of the sport and there’s almost no conversation that does not feature Muhammad Ali. But it’s almost impossible to talk about Muhammad Ali and not talk about the man he had become later in his career and after. Given the circumstances today, where certain presidential candidates have made remarks and criticisms of Islam and Muslims worldwide, recognition of Muhammad Ali and the life he’s lived is critical in bridging the gap of misunderstanding and misconceptions of what Islam actually is. He was probably the world’s most recognizable Muslim and the most visible example of what being a Muslim looks like. Even towards the end of his life when he was no longer able to speak, his actions spoke much louder. In the ring he was the greatest. But outside the ring, in his life, he was much more. For as much as he is known for his skill in the ring, his greatest fights were outside the ring. When he was between ropes with a pair of gloves on he was unquestionably a champion, known as ‘the Greatest”. But to the rest of the world, he wasn’t just “the Greatest”, he was the entire World’s Greatest.

“Live everyday as if it will be your last because some day you’re going to be right.”

Okay, I change my mind.

Right now, the Iowa Caucuses, the first contest of the 2016 Presidential Election cycle is days away.  And while Senator Ted Cruz has pulled close, Donald Trump has managed to hold on to his lead in the polls.  He’s in the lead in Iowa.  He’s in the lead in New Hampshire.  He’s in the lead in the SEC Primary states.  I am ready to concede that Donald Trump might become the Republican Nominee for President of the United States.  I have to say, I honestly thought, by this point, potential Republican voters would have come to their senses and said “This guy is bullshit, I’m voting for Cruz.”  Or “this idiot has no freaking clue, I’m voting for Rubio.”  Or even, “this guy’s to controversial, I’m voting for Christie.”  None of that has really happened though.  And I am indeed surprised.  Or was.

Months ago, I along with many other proposed liberals blamed the rise of Donald Trump, a man who has no grasp of complex issues but continues to pretend he does, a man who is unquestionably the biggest gaping asshole to ever grace American politics, a man who has faked conservatism just to claim victory in a popularity contest, a lot of such liberals blamed his rise on the Republican party and more specifically the Conservative movement.  We’ve made claims that their apparent disdain for immigrants and Muslims and fear-mongering of fictional dangers of things the President is not and has not done, that these elements have made it possible for those who believe in such irresponsible lunacy to power an irresponsible lunatic like Donald Trump allowing him to launch a full campaign for the most powerful position in the entire world.  We’ve blamed you.

Well, fret no more my dear friends across the aisle.  I have figured out who is really to blame.  And it is not you.  It is not the Republicans who, for the most part have rejected Donald Trump and his… act.  However, in America politics, there is one group, that has not only refused to reject Donald Trump, but have fully embraced him and his insults, lack of reason and accountability and all that is the trainwreck of a campaign he’s running. It’s actually one group conservatives love to blame almost as much as they like to blame President Obama.

Trump’s TRUE supporters are not rednecks, Bundy Ranch supporters or other “angry American” types.  Those that are truly responsible for Donald Trump, his biggest supporters, they go by names like Chris Matthews, Chris Wallace, Don Lemon, Chuck Todd and Wolf Blitzer.  They are powerful, well-financed and have been known to push their own agenda.  They trumpet his brashness, idiocy and hate unlike any other and in ways that those who show up at Trump rallies could only begin to hope to emulate.  They even have their own Super PACs that support Trump’s presidency and they’re ccalled Fox News, CNN and MSNBC.  And they have been in full gush mode for going on seven months now.  And they had us all fooled.

The problem is Trump joke.  And we see these kind of jokes pop up every cycle.  That joke candidate that runs against actual candidates that nobody pays attention to and even less take seriously. Every year you have a Alan Keyes or Lyndon Laroche or someone launch a presidential campaign and they’re typically agenda-driven and go nowhere fast. Though it’s for a number of reasons, but the main reason these candidates are ignored is because if anything, the race for president is a serious deal and we take it seriously by considering serious people. That’s not Trump. He’s Eugene McCarthy. Hes that random porn star that runs for office for whatever reason. He’s “Rent To Damn High” Jimmy McMillian. He’s Vermin Supreme(that’s an actual name, not an insult). He’s like that 9/11 Truther or a Birther that runs for President every year just to make a point and fizzles out, except Donald Trump actually IS a birther. He should be treated the same way we treat all these guys. The only thing is, every other year the media ignores these people because we know they’re jokes just like they do. But for whatever reason Trump is different.

Almost every nightly news broadcast, no matter what else happened in American politics, Trump becomes the subject and predicate. One one hand, they like to talk about all the vile, disgusting and moronic things he says and does and how much it makes him unelectable. But then on the other hand, he’s all they talk about. Last week, the Democrats had a Town Hall and CNN literally spent half the time post show talking about Donald Trump. This week, the Republicans have a debate scheduled and one Trump has said he wants no part of. If he doesn’t want to be a part of the debate, why even talk about him? He’s literally removing himself from discussion. And instead of talking about how to alleviate the tax burden on middle income Americans or doing something about low wages and underemployment, you know things Donald Trump knows nothing about, why will they continue to talk about Donald Trump? What are you seriously expecting to happen that hasn’t already?

And so, I had to change my mind. To my surprise of the gullibility of the American electorate, I can no longer blame conservatives for Donald Trump. A few months ago, I declared that if the Republicans want to win the White House, they have to put a stop to Donald Trump or the Democrats will do both. And while still firmly support this statement, I recognize even your efforts are being thwarted by the negligence of every media outlet that continues to replay this circus every single night. I mean, regardless of whether you love or hate your wife’s cooking, if you get it force-fed to you night after night, you’re going to get use to it. And that’s exactly what the press is doing. They’ve been feeding the public chocolate for so long that, I hate to tell you but… that’s not actually chocolate you’re eating… it’s a steam stinking pile of drizzled yak poo. You just can’t tell the difference any longer. Because the truest Trump supporters, that have had his back the entire time is the mainstream media. He’s made as much of an embarrassment of them as he’s made a mockery of our political process. And this is getting out of hand.

This week, Walt Disney Studios will release the seventh installment of the Star Wars series, Star Wars: The Force Awakens.  Arguably the most popular and recognizable franchise in film history, millions have grown up watching, reading and playing the adventures seen in these films for nearly 40 years.  The latest movie will see the continued exploits of the Rebel Alliance, turned Resistance fighting against the First Order, which was once the Galactic Empire.  In the early episodes, it was the Jedi Knights and Galactic Republic against the Trade Federation and the Confederacy of Independent Systems.  As we watched these stories unfold, you might have seen an awesome science fiction expression of space, impossible technology and futuristic themes that dominate the genre.  I, however see much more than that.  Star Wars is the ultimate retelling of democracy, tyranny, religion, politics and war that is as old as our civilization itself.

Now, despite the themes in Star Wars being rather timeless, the conception of the story had its genesis back in 1962, where the creator of Star Wars, George Lucas, who was a fan of the likes of Buck Rodgers, Flash Gordon and sci-fi heroes of that time, found his true passion in auto-racing.  Unfortunately for him, this passion would lead to him getting into a violent car crash, nearly costing him his life and landing him in the hospital for months recovering.  With little to do, stuck in a hospital bed for weeks, George Lucas had plenty of time to watch the television set in his hospital room and it was around this time that coverage of the crisis in Vietnam was beginning to dominate the news.  What Lucas watched, as he recovered, was a low technology, loosely organized resistance force, the Viet-Cong, challenge a more technologically advanced, militaristic and tightly organized army in the American-backed South Vietnamese and win.  How they were able to win is the question Lucas sought to answer when he began writing Star Wars a decade later.

Earlier, I mentioned the overall scope of the competing forces throughout the films: the Jedi and the Galactic Republic vs the Trade Federation and Confederacy of Independent Systems as well as the Rebel Alliance and the Galactic Empire from the original trilogy.  Each themselves reflect familiar themes that are current in our world we know today.  To that end, if you look at the plot of the films, the subtext of what they are actually about is told within. Take the first movie in the series(chronologically 4th made), The Phantom Menace. Ostensibly, the movie is about a galactic trade conglomerate attempting to force the queen of a small planet to bend to their will, an idea plotted by a senator, who represents the planet in a galaxy wide republic, who himself is beholden to an ancient evil cult vying to rule the galaxy. That alone is the plot of the first episode. However, once you remove the science fiction elements from the story, here’s what you are left with: a powerful labor union exerts it’s control over a local government forcing a broken and corrupt democratic republic to bend to the will of a right-wing religious group. That sounds less science fiction and more of a story of real world political intrigue. Now, as the Star Wars saga unfolds, what happens is we see a powerful, yet thoroughly corrupted senator, named Palpatine, is elected to lead the Republic and with the imminent threat of civil war and the fracture of democratic rule from threats within, he convinces the legislative body to slowly give up their freedom in the name of greater security. Eventually, he’s able to seize absolute control over the republic and transform it to an authoritarian ruled, heavily militarized oppressive empire.

That is Star Wars in a nutshell. And if you look at our current social and political environment, what might have just seemed like a silly space fantasy, is more reflective of what we see in our nation over the last several years and even reflected in societies and civilizations of the past. In Star Wars, we saw the Galactic Republic transform from a large democratic body to an tyrannical Galactic Empire. The Empire did not go to war with the Republic. The Republic was never defeated in battle, nor was it usurped by a power enemy. The actual enemy was from within the Republic itself. It became so powerful that it could not control it’s individual parts. If you look at history, practically every great democracy would share a similar path of Star Wars’ Galactic Republic. The Roman Empire began as a Roman Republic. It even had a senatorial body that survived the republic within the Empire, just as Star Wars did. In France, 1400 years later, it was democratically ruled by a Senate until Napoleon Bonaparte became First Counsel and was eventually crowned Emperor by the senate, much like Chancellor and Emperor Palpatine did in Star Wars. 120 years after Napoleon, Europe saw the rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany from the Weimar Republic, which was a representative democracy in Germany at the time. And just like in Star Wars, where the chancellor was continuously granted more emergency powers, which he used to render the senate obsolete as Emperor, Hitler followed the same path as chancellor, eventually rendering the ruling Reichstag obsolete as he became Fuhrer. In fact, most democracies are hardly ever ended by outside agitators, but are taken over from rogue elements from within and often is the case these elements are swept in to power by popular demand.

Our current Presidential elections have featured similar elements that are present in history, also reflected in Star Wars.  Of course, you don’t have to look hard or far to see rhetoric from the likes of Donald Trump and compare it to the rhetoric and actions seen in Star Wars.  When Jedi Knight, Obi-Wan Kenobi says that the evil Dark Lords of the Sith “deal in absolutes”, I can’t help but to think of Trump’s penchant to over-exaggerate and ignore nuance, how everything is the biggest ever or best ever, as he often stays.  In the same vein, the way the Sith Lord, Palpatine pointed to the religious order, the Jedi as the bad ones threatening their democracy is much like Trump’s pointing to Islam as the bad ones threatening our democracy.  That we must give him power because he is the one that can save us from what he tells us is the threat.  But the most striking example of such a parallel, is with the fervent and loud support someone like Donald Trump has received for the things he’s said.  Although I am of the absolute belief that Donald Trump has no path to the Presidency, this was the same situation seen in Star Wars, Episode I.  Then Senator Palpatine was one of thousands of nameless senators, but when he used a tragedy to boost his own profile, he was swept into leadership by popular support.  Just as incredibly, we see Trump’s polling numbers surge in the days following tragedies in Paris and San Bernardino.  Step by step, the actions seen in Star Wars have direct comparisons to words and actions that are more familiar today and in history.

18th Century Scottish historian, Alexander Tytler, developed a theory on democracy and the cycle it takes.  He posed that a society starts in bondage and oppression.  From there faith and courage leads to society’s liberation.  However, that liberty eventually leads to complacency and apathy, which allows for certain elements to take advantage, causing a dependency or a need for a savior.  This dependency then causes the society to willfully give up their liberty for bondage again.  As I noted, most democracies have gone through similar cycles.  The obvious question is of course, is the United States of America doomed to follow the same path?  Will we share a similar fate as Vietnam, Rome, France and Germany in the past?  This was the same path illustrated by George Lucas in Star Wars, with the apathetic Republic replaced with the oppressive Empire, which itself spawned the courageous Rebel Alliance and Resistance.  As America navigates this cycle, we achieved our liberty from the bondage of a British Monarchy 200 years ago.  Are we at the point of complacency and apathy in our country that our liberty will eventually turn to bondage and tyranny?

In Episode III, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, Senator Amidala, who was the queen from Episode I and opposes Palpatine’s authoritarian transformations has a line towards the end of the film.  As she sits in the Senate Chamber listening to Palpatine play upon the fears of the body, he announces that they must form a Galactic Empire to secure their society from all threats to which hundreds of other senators cheer their support.  She turned to a friendly senator and said, “So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause.”  When Donald Trump announced that the United States should ban all Muslims from entering the United States, what struck me was not his proclamation, which is rather typical and unsurprising coming from him by now.  What really gave me pause was the cheering from the crowd as he made the announcement.  Is Donald Trump the Phantom Menace seen from Episode I?  Can America scare itself into tyranny?  Some say we already have.  Some say we’re inevitably headed that way.  I say, I’ve seen this story before…  Only difference is it was on a screen, in a galaxy far, far away.