Charles Barkley – A Bully Who Should Just Stick To Golf – By Wayne Johnson, Attorney, Political Economist

barkley-golf-e1357677193869Charles Barkley Swinging Golf Club

Charles Barkley is an NBA Player who is overrated as a basketball player.   He is definitely nobody you want to watch or even listen to.   He has statistics, but he is not exciting to watch on the court and he is far less exciting to listen to.  He earned most of his accolades as a basketball player by pushing men of lighter weight around the court.  Let’s face it, he is no Michael Jordan, and he certainly is no Dr. J.


No one in his or her right mind would care to watch basketball if there were ten (10) players like Charles Barkley on the floor at the same time.  He alone could not sell out a  stadium.  What’s more, I certainly do not want to hear any of that gibberish about Black people being scumbags and crooks he allows to spew from his mouth.  Obvioulsy, he believes he is an exception to the rule.  I suppose it would be asking too much for one of those white cops to get a hold of him and shoot or choke him so he can realize that sometimes all you have to be is Black to receive that special treatment.  Why does he refuse to acknowledge that there are scumbags and crooks amongst his white slave masters?


Although terrible at golf, Barkley is more exciting as a golfer than a basketball player or a commentator.  I watched him for several minutes as he ripped the carpet, taking multiple swings and never even touching the ball, and that was after several lessons by the master, Tiger Woods.   Amazing.  I wondered how a person that uncoordinated could ever even dribble a basketball.  However, if it were not for basketball we never would have heard of him.  He certainly is not an intellectual.


He is an extreme butcher. If I were a referee I would probably have fouled him out in the first 5 minutes of every game.  I most certainly would have charged him with several technical fouls for being a bruiser.


He is brash, mean spirited, controversial, and sometimes just plain ignorant.   He makes comments about things that he does not think about or maybe he is just incapable of thinking about.   The white media loves him because, like Bill Cosby, most of his comments attack Blacks who are unable to defend themselves.


Most recently, he weighed in on the Ferguson case.  He mentioned that the looters are not Blacks, but scumbags.   I cannot defend looting because I have never looted.  What I have always said is what nerve?  What gall?  People who benefited from massacring an entire continent of folks and enslaving an entire continent of Africans crying foul when a few stores are looted or burned.  Can we not see how this is all related?  But for those actions, or action of modern day slavers there would be no disgruntled descendants of former slaves or any sympathizers.


Did I mention that many of the looters are not Blacks, but whites?


Similarly, I cannot exonerate or defend the police officer for shooting the young man.   I do not know exactly what happened that evening. I can say that it is an epidemic, police shooting and otherwise killing or harming unarmed Black men, sometimes for petty crimes or no crimes at all, oft-times just for flunking the attitude test.


George Stephanopoulos asked the Darren Wilson if there was anything he thinks he could have done to avoid killing the unarmed teenager to which he replied in the negative.   What is a “no brainer” is no one should end up dead for walking in the middle of the street or for stealing a handful of cancer sticks.   Maybe Wilson should have just left Michael Brown alone or waited until his back up arrived.


Because Barkley has spent his entire life on the basketball court, and he is such a huge person, he probably never encountered a bad police officer. Because he is so large the police are probably scared to detain him…. Maybe it is just extremely difficult from a physical standpoint to shoot or handcuff a person who is kissing your behind.


Maybe there are better ways to challenge the system. Maybe it is time for a complete overhaul.


What an idiotic statement to make about protesters, calling them scumbags, or supporting the Grand Jury’s decision to not indict Officer Wilson.


Well, the founding fathers must have likewise been scumbags because they stole and destroyed the property of the crown.


Maybe Barkley does not know that this country was founded to support the rights of the forefathers to own slaves at a time when the crown was considering ending slavery in its colonies.   There is a book entitled “Slave Nation” that suggests that was the case.  I wonder if Barkley will be so bold as to call the founding fathers scumbags or will he continue to bark only the tunes that will endear him to those who fatten his pocket book.


Barkley was probably that huge slave who the master used to keep the rest in check.   When the master said up, he said up. When the master said scumbag, he said scumbag.

Wall Street – Its relationship to Slavery and Protest – By Wayne Johnson, Attorney, Political Economist

I read an article some time ago that suggested Wall Street was named because of the walls that housed slaves for sale.


I like to cross check my references and this is what I discovered. Wall Street was indeed founded on slavery and, to this day, it remains a key pillar in upholding racial inequality and economic oppression. However, its relationship to slavery was a little more tenuous.


The Dutch West India Company utilized labor of enslaved Africans who were first brought to colony around 1627. The African slaves built the wall that gives Wall Street its name, forming the northern boundary of the colony and warded off resisting natives who were indigenous to the area. Thus, slaves built the wall and slaves, and insurance for slave owners were some of the main commodities sold therein. However, the wall itself was built to defend the fort from the indigenous people, but not to keep slaves corralled.


So when immigrants come to America and brag about how rich some of them have become, and look down upon the descendants of slaves, I like to give them this analogy…


Compare two parcels of land, one filled with gold, the other a barren wasteland. If you are permitted to work on the wealthy parcel your efforts may yield wealth. If you are relegated to the barren wasteland, your efforts will yield nothing.


Given that the slave trade made this country one of the richest in human history, if you travel here and open a store, you may become wealthy.


Even if you are here and not allowed to participate in the wealth, you will be just as poor as the person working on the barren wasteland. Although Blacks were here since this country’s inception, it was not until violent protests broke out in the 1960s that opportunities presented themselves. Many are still not permitted to the opportunities offered others in business and education. Many are still discouraged by teachers, those who are paid to inspire them.


In 1664, The Dutch relinquished control of the colony to Britain and New Amsterdam was renamed New York in honor of the Duke of York.


The Royal African Company had a royal monopoly on the British slave trade and the Duke of New York was a major shareholder. With the Dutch gone, the British maintained the system of slavery in New York. They immediately created a series of laws to protect it. In 1665, a law was passed that legalized slavery. In 1682, slave masters were given the power of life-and-death over their slaves.

blog-royal-african-logo Insignia of the Royal African Company


In 1702, New York adopted its first comprehensive slave code and it equated slave status with being African. The entire system of slavery was justified by an ideology of white supremacy that considers black Africans inferior and white Europeans superior — an ideology that for most Blacks and whites exists today.


Slavery became the backbone of New York’s economic prosperity in the 1700s. To normalize this massive trade in human beings, in 1711, New York officials established a slave market on Wall Street. Slave auctions were indeed held at Wall Street selling African slaves as property to traders wanting to buy them.


Between 1700 and 1722, over 5,000 African slaves entered New York, most of whom came directly from Africa, while the rest from British colonies in the Caribbean and southern colonies. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, as Phyllis Eckhaus points out, New York had “the largest urban slave population in mainland North America”. Therefore, New York was a crucial location in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, which established it as the world’s financial capital.


Many well-known companies and financial institutions benefitted from the trans-Atlantic slave trade.  They include Lehman Brothers (which went bankrupt in 2008), J.P. Morgan Chase, Wachovia Bank of North Carolina, Aetna Insurance, Bank of America, and the Royal Bank of Scotland.  Banks, such as Wachovia’s predecessors Bank of Charleston, South Carolina, and the Bank of North America, and J.P. Morgan Chase’s predecessor banks, made loans to slave owners and accepted slaves as “collateral”.


When the slave owners defaulted on their loans, the banks became the new owners. The Lehman family members who established Lehman Brothers started their company to trade and invest in cotton, a cash crop produced by African slaves. Aetna sold insurance to slave owners who wanted to protect their investments in slaves aboard slave ships in case one of them died (this was a very common occurrence as millions of African slaves died on ships carrying them from Africa to the Americas).


The insurance company’s policies compensated slave owners for the loss of people who were considered “property”. To this day,there are lawsuits against these corporations to seek reparations for their participation in the trans-Atlantic slave trade.


When I see people, including Black people, protesting the killing of Michael Brown, and others, I am surprised to hear them quote the founding fathers that they insist established this country to pursue freedom and democracy for all.


That was never the intent of the founding fathers. The founding fathers, most of which were entrepreneurs and aristocrats had no such plans for the common man, or women, Native Americans, or Africans, who were regarded as stocks, bonds, and other forms of property.   The United States was founded to make money and the pursuit of happiness was synonymous with the pursuit of wealth.   In fact, nearly all of the original rights in the Constitution were included to protect the right to make money, and to get the King off their backs so they did not have to pay Royal taxes and tariffs.


Even when the founding fathers protested, their protests were designed to attack the wealth of the King. For example look at the Boston Tea Party when tea, alcohol, and other products from the crown and his cohorts were tossed into the Boston Harbor. So when people protest, the peaceful protest is not an end, but a means.


If peaceful protest gets results it is a preferred manner of voicing dissatisfaction.   However, if you are seeking to overturn the system, you must confront the system on all fronts and levels, and not just relegate your efforts to a single strategy, particularly one that is comforting to the group you hope to frustrate and you hope one day will honor your demands.   In other words, one should not play solely by the rules of the people to which you are at odds.   That is a losing strategy, and is not designed to force your oppressor to capitulate or concede to your demands.


What many do not recognize is an intelligent oppressor has already decided what he or she is willing to surrender before the conflict begins, and he or she begins to negotiate from a lower place before the reactionaries take to the streets.   They view the burning and looting of their giant corporate stores as a cost of doing business. However, burning and looting small mom and pop operations is usually not a good strategy because it isolates those who are most willing to sympathize with you.


To Serve One’s Country and Make the Ultimate Sacrifice – By Wayne Johnson, Attorney – Political Economist


We hear how good it is to serve one’s country, by making the ultimate sacrifice.

What does it mean to serve your country? What is the ultimate sacrifice?

Who actually serves one’s country?

President Obama often gives praise to those who allegedly served their country.

First Lady Obama heads a program that supports the families of those on active duty.

Rarely does a President actually serve in the military, and it is even rarer for a First Lady to serve in the military.   Furthermore, it is very unlikely that a President or First Lady, or any politician has ever been on duty in active combat.   In Vietnam, the brunt of the combat soldiers were poor whites and Blacks.

So why do politicians encourage us to put our lives on the line? Why do they offer incentives or entice people to put on the uniform?

If you qualify you may be eligible to receive benefits from the G.I. Bill, you may receive:

1)             In a Public school: All Tuition & Fee Payments for an in-state Student

2)            In a Private or Foreign school up to $20,235.02 per academic year National Maximum.

3)            You may also be eligible to receive Burial benefits for the deceased service member, which include:

  1. a) A gravesite in any VA national cemetery with available space, perpetual care of the grave at no cost to the family, a government headstone or marker, Presidential Memorial Certificate, and a U.S. burial flag;
  2. b) Dependency and Indemnity Compensation at the monthly rate of $1,154 for a surviving spouse, with additional benefits for dependent children; and
  1. c) Life insurance, which most military members carry at the highest level,


But, what does it really mean, and whom are you really serving when you believe you are serving your country?

I know politicians claim that people who serve in the United States Military are spreading democracy and fighting for freedom against tyranny.

That is rarely the case. What you are really fighting for is big business’ prerogative to increase its wealth. So when you put on that uniform you are like a security guard for America’s wealthy corporations. You are much like the security guards who protect Wal-Mart, except you are on a grander scale, you have more at risk, and the weapons are much more sophisticated.

The United States could care less about whether dictator X is killing his own people or some other people unless it has an economic interest in the area. In fact, the United States supports or has supported many of the alleged dictators who allegedly kill their own.   Personally, I’d rather they kill their own instead of killing one of mine.

Let’s face it, the average person does not really care about who dies or how many die, as long as they and their loved ones are not targeted. Also, as average citizens, we do not care if any country is run by a President, a Parliament, a King, or a General so long as we have bread on the table and the rules are not overbearing.

We often hear about the Buffalo Soldiers, a Black segregated unit of the United States Army.  I read about how great they were when they served in the United States Army. The Buffalo soldiers were indeed soldiers.  They followed orders.  They were respected by those they fought; however, they were not respected by the White people in this country.


Buffalo Soldiers

I am not particularly proud of their legacy. They killed Native Americans.  They cleared trails so that the United States Army could get to the West coast to kill Native Americans and Mexicans.  They also went to Cuba and other places to help corporate America control markets.

The Tuskegee Airmen were likewise respected by those they fought, but not by the white people in this country.

When Blacks served in World War I, in some states they could not receive a hero’s welcome when they returned home.  Many had to fly flags from other countries at the victory parades.

The United States will support a ruler in a heartbeat, so long as America’s corporations benefit. Under those circumstances to Hell with democracy, women’s rights, or whether a person is beheaded or stoned to death for adultery.

The military supports corporate interests and in doing so, corporate America is able to cash in on oil and other valuable resources. In some places, the main resource is discounted labor, far lower than the cost of labor here in the United States. The bottom line is profit.

Given that is the ultimate goal, corporate America should hire soldiers first because in serving what they think is their country; they are really serving corporate America.

Not all corporate America benefits from a strong military. The obvious corporations who benefit are the military-industrial complex, those who produce war machines. Companies that rebuild infrastructures such as Bechtel and huge energy companies like Halliburton also benefit. Companies like DuPont and Standard Oil benefit. It is usually the richest, most racist, and most sexist, and most Republican corporate interests that benefit from superior military might and control of foreign lands.

It is a contradiction; however, Liberals Support Hiring War Veterans Over Conscientious Objectors.

Liberal and so-called progressive politicians speak out of both sides of their mouths.   They object to war, and they claim to support conscientious objectors, yet when it comes to hiring preferences, they support hiring veterans over conscientious objectors.   Because we believe to choose to tell ourselves that we are fighting for our country does not make it so. What if you discover that your country is wrong, or immoral, should you have the legal option to abandon the team?

I always tell people that Bush II is my favorite President. He was the most colorful. He was not shy and he was not afraid to take the bull by the horns. He told Congress that they were either with him or against him. When he completed his first invasion of Iraq, he stood on a United States ship and proclaimed: “Mission accomplished.” We laughed when several months later the insurgency rose to do battle. However, Bush II had the last laugh.  He indeed accomplished his mission, that being, to regain control of the Iraqi oil for himself and his corporate friends.

One politician told me that they support the veterans first hire policy because it is not their fault they serve and kill. Many of them come from poor and underprivileged families and they have few choices, but serve in the military.

Well, what about those who voted for you and those who make a conscious decision to work to change injustice?   Who will hire them first?

Well, what about those who are just as impoverished, but they are also intelligent enough or compassionate enough to not want to kill or be killed just to better their economic position?   Who will hire them first?

Besides, if you want to encourage peace, you should hire peace lovers first, and pass a peace lovers bill.

The American Negro League, Form Before Substance – By Wayne Johnson, Attorney

In recent years, the numbers of Black or African American Major League baseball players have been sobering. According to the league, only 8.3 percent of players on 2014 opening day rosters identified themselves as African-American or black.


2014 SF Giants, A Team with no United States Born Black Players

The highest percentage of African-Americans in the majors, according to research by Mark Armour of the Society of American Baseball Research, was 19 percent, and that was in 1986.


1973 Oakland A’s

Historically, because blacks were not being accepted into the major and minor baseball leagues, they formed their own teams and had made professional teams by the 1880s.


1924 Negro League World Series

The first known baseball game between two black teams was held before the Civil War on November 15, 1859, in the City of Nnew York. The Henson Base Ball Club Jamaica Queens scored 54 runs and they defeated the Unknowns of Weeksville, Brooklyn.

During Reconstruction, Black baseball clubs were comprised mainly of former Union solders that had not much else to do.   Even then it was difficult to schedule games because whites would not grant Black permits to play in many locations. Many of the good Black Baseball teams became traveling teams because the white people would not allow them to have a home field.

At the end of the 1867 season “the National Association of Baseball Players voted to exclude any club with a black player.” So, in some ways Blackball, as well as many other Black businesses thrived under segregation and “Jim Crow Many “Black teams earned the bulk of their income playing white independent ‘semipro’ clubs.

The few players on the white minor league teams were constantly dodging verbal and physical abuse from both competitors and fans. Then the Compromise of 1877 removed the remaining obstacles from the South’s enacting the Jim Crow Laws.

Moses Fleetwood Walker was possibly the first African American major league baseball player

The first nationally-known black professional baseball team was founded in 1885 when three Negro clubs, merged to form the Cuban Giants.

The success of the Cubans led to the creation of the first recognized “Negro league” in 1887 – the National Colored Base Ball League.

About 1910, J.L. Wilkinson started the All Nations travellng team. The All Nations team would eventually become one of the best-known and popular teams of the Negro leagues, the Kansas City Monarchs. After World War I, many of the Black teams thrived as Americans had money to spend on baseball games.

At the height of baseball, the league saw faces like the homerun hitting champions, Hank “The Hammer” Aaron and Barry Bonds. Who can forget Oakland’s Ricky Henderson who stole 130 bases in one season, and had more lead off homeruns than any other baseball player.

The league prematurely cut Barry Bonds’ career amidst an alleged steroid/dishonesty scandal. However, no one know why the league would not resign Ricky Henderson, who could out perform many in the professional leagues, and arguably had many years left to showcase his talents, while baseball allowed Nolan Ryan and Cal Ripken, Jr. to continue to compile statistics long after they should have been placed out to pasture.

With Black participation in major league baseball dwindling, it may be necessary to rethink and restart the Black baseball clubs so that Black people can have a source of income.  It is sad that in some major cities the unemployment rate for Black men is over 18%.  The wage gap between white men and Black men is still greater than any other group.  Blacks are still detained and arrested more than any other group.

The saddest thing is unless we experience a tragic event, like a natural disaster or witness a police shooting of an unarmed Black person we are not willing to admit we are at a disadvantage and/or we are unwilling to take any action to improve our situation.

We are still unwilling to admit how our use of concepts like “good hair”  and “light skinneded” (misnomer for light skinned) contribute to our demise.  In my opinion, using those terms are way worse than the use of the word “nigger” because wanting what we mistake as good hair or light skin is a state of mind that relegates us to an inferior position.  The word nigger is undefinable and is subject to varying interpretations.  Personally, I would feel more offended if someone described a Black person as having good hair or being light “skinneded” than if that person described him or her as a nigger.

We may have to return to Black power to feed our families.

What did Hunter Strickland of the San Francisco Giants say to Royals Salvador Perez on October 22, 2014, during the World Series? – By Wayne Johnson, Attorney, Policital Economist


From the Looks of the Video, it appears Hunter Strickland Yelled: “Get in the dugout boy!” 


If indeed he did call another grown man a boy I can see why the Royals’ bench cleared out, and none of the Giants left their respective bench.  They were not going to defend some racist pitcher from the backwoods of Thomaston, Georgia.


It is difficult to conceive; however, even in 2014, with Black people in the White House, there are places in the United States of America that Black folks dare not venture, places where the confederate flag unfurls.  Black folks better not say much or look white folks in the eye.  They’d better be on their best behavior, meaning they’d better step off of the sidewalk and permit white people the right to pass first.  No sane Black man will boldly go where no Black man has gone before.


Strickland claims he was upset because Salvador said something in Spanish to him he couldn’t understand. That is unlikely.  Moreover, that doesn’t mean he should call him boy.


It was not appropriate or polite for Strickland to yell that racial slur to Perez.  Of course, many will pretend they did not hear it.  Also, the  video of Strickland’s mouth making the apparent racial slur has been removed from many websites.  Others will pretend that a white man calling a Black man a boy is not a racial slur.  Others will say that Strickland was so upset that he lost his cool.


If there are no excuses for domestic violence, there should be no excuses for racial slurs and there should be no cover ups.


I recall some white people pretending they did not know that making references to Black people and watermelon and/or Black people and fried chicken are in any way racial.


Let’s face it Black men do not take too kindly to being ordered around, ordered to go into the dugout by opposing team members, or being called boys by White men. Being called a boy is synonymous to or like being called a “Nigger.”  This is what slave masters commonly called African slaves, even African slaves who were senior citizens.   It is what the so-called Knights of the Ku Klux Klan called Black men before they tortured or lynched them.


Regardless, it is not appropriate to refer to men as boys in a derogatory manner.


What is more disturbing is the way the media is trying to pretend it is unaware what Strickland said or that it is possible to determine what he said by reading his lips or magnifying the sound.


In this day and age, some people still prefer to cover up for white men and magnify mistakes by Black men.  After all “White Boys will be boys.”  When it comes to domestic violence, the media is having field day with domestic violence, as if white police officers do not have the highest incidence of domestic violence.  See Suing the Police in Federal Court, By Wayne Johnson.


It is not like white people do not have the worst record for violence against people of color in the the history of the entire world.  If it came down to it, I’d rather be slapped around than have an Atomic bomb leveled on me, or be forced into bondage or be deprived of my land and livelihood and be forced to be subservient to a group of foreigners in my own land.   Of course, I’d prefer none of the above.


Publicizing wrongdoing on the part of Black men, while covering up wrongdoing of white men does a disservice to the world. This is why there is such a huge wage gap between Black and white men, and Black men are under and unemployed. This is why Black men are beaten and shot by the police when white men are rarely detained.  This is why there are so many Black men incarcerated.


I listened to this interview the other day on the Charlie Rose Program. He was interviewing a staunch Zionist who said he would not consider giving the Palestinians a state unless he see signs of real change. He said he would have to see educational reform. For him educational reform would be Palestinians changing their textbooks to remove all negative historical references to Jews.


I do not know if that is appropriate. However, I will not believe that white people are serious about ending racism unless and until I see educational reform on their parts. I will have to see things like White men ceasing to refer to Black men in derogatory fashion. More importantly, I will have to see men in the media ceasing to pretend they did not see or hear racist comments or actions when they are put out there for the world to see and hear.


We need educational reform now.