Handwritten in the back cover of my journal entitled “A Stolen Life” I have Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. In transcribing it, I did not pity my ancestry, who could not read or write during slavery, nor was I celebrating the triumphs of the Selma to Montgomery Marches of 1965. I was twenty-something and eager to affect change in how we treated abuse victims. I wanted to get a feel for what Dr. King himself must have been struggling with as he wrote his speech.

One thing director Ava DuVernay makes clear in her film Selma is the overwhelming faith Dr. King had in his country, in his community and in God. He had in had a youthful exuberance for securing the constitutional right of African Americans to vote in Selma, Alabama. He wrote his speeches not because he felt sorry for his people or because he wanted to be a superhero, but rather because he wanted to be with them under the sun. He wanted to understand his own and his brethren’s civil condition and from there make a social difference.

According to history, one of Dr. Martin Luther King’s resolves for change included leading thousands of Americans on a series of three marches across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965. The first march met with violent resistance from state troopers. The troopers yielded during the second march, but Dr. King turned away. He and those thousands prayed that not only they but their president, Congress, and the favor of future generations would also pass by those state troopers. Their prayers were answered in due process and the third march commenced. With the people of the United States as his witnesses, Dr. King led several more thousand people across the same bridge with the protection of the federal government. DuVernay makes this a turning point in the fortunes of the efforts of Dr. King and the SCLC clear in Selma for today’s youths. It is a strong point by which a man of faith, friendship and family leads a young nation of racially segregated cultures to a secured right to vote for everyone, and to their common civil rights being enacted into law, again.

History was accurately depicted in Selma through DuVeray’s use of real footage. Her efforts made identifiable any differences between actual events and cinematic ones for young adults. But she also affectionately treated the likely emotional reality of the footage cinematically. It is one thing for a student who believes in protest these days to imagine what it must have been like to be in the presence of Dr. Martin Luther King.  It is another to experience an artistic vision of being on Dr. King’s team of youthful activists.

For a youngster to be able to sink into the shoes of esteemed persons in any film, some dramatic accommodations must be considered. DuVernay makes such accommodations through her ironic but consistent and formally subtle blend of lighting, performances and video recording in this picture. Her use of hard and soft shadows, organic and inorganic personifications as well as camera angles that work on both sides of the line paint a multi-dimensional picture that includes documented history, indescribable human fear and relentless determination as they collectively tear down contemporary walls that define what is black and what is white in the south in the 1960’s.

The screenplay and the editing in Selma are less effective in conveying what must have been the heat of those days than DuVernay’s refined vision. One-liners occasionally hurt the quality of the piece as a whole. And, more importantly, the script blatantly exhibits Dr. King’s Selma speeches. While catering to the audience who wants to feel what it was like to sit through those speeches and move with them, this artistically exposes the temper lead actor David Oyelowo puts into his oral performance of Dr. King  which in turn results in a less original depiction of, however similar to, Dr. Martin Luther King’s famously articulate demeanor. Cutting in a few more voice-overs for the speeches might have improved this condition. What felt like a slow story at times could have been edited to the benefit of the film’s pace. That said, however, a number of modern-day slow-motion editing techniques make this film quite a positively edgy assembly of images and no doubt increasing the pace of the speeches would have clashed with that.

Casting and actor performance make Selma a Dr. Martin Luther King movie unlike its predecessors. It connects it to youthful passion for protest and revolution and also to the warm sense of camaraderie among activists. The film’s incorporation of modern-day techniques not only in editing but also in formulating makes it a Hollywood fresh.

Historically relevant and artistically compelling, I give Ava DuVernay’s Selma an Earth Colony review of six-and-a-half stars out of seven.


dead end

A dead end lies before us. It is being shown to us by the light of our history. When we study not only the structural characteristics of the institution of slavery but also the intestinal fortitude of millions of individual Africans, that history highlights for us what was for them the reason for their survival.  It also implies what will cause us to fail.


It is common knowledge that millions of slaves endured pain of every conceivable kind. They endured the pains of hunger, thirst, beatings, whippings, rape, the murder of kinfolk and neighbors, extreme cold, extreme heat, disease, humiliation, intellectual deprivation, high infant and maternal mortality rates, physical mutilation, forced incest, child sexual abuse, and lives lived under constant authoritarian repression.  They did so for hundreds of years.


But they endured. They endured because individually and collectively their will to live was greater than the sum of all resistance to them. For every act to suffocate their humanity their will to take in yet another breath of life prevailed.  In that breath which filled their lungs they exhaled into the world a universal movement that turned history in a new direction.


If there is an argument for a morality not born of the flesh but of the spirit, one which springs forth from what in a human being is soul alone, then it must be expressed as the greater ‘ will to live’ against the lesser ‘sum of all resistance’ to it. That being true then it must also be true that African people in America under a system of total repression were not only a moral people but they were also the major moral force shaping United States history for the 100 years following the civil war.   


Their ‘will to live’ has left a wide trail in its wake. That trail was paved by the descendants of slaves. They were those generations of people constituting millions upon millions of souls who in word and in deed shouted out to the world that ‘We Shall Over Come!’ And in their train along the span of that trail followed Asians, Latinos, Women, and all others who were raised from the dead by the cry of African people ‘Rise Lazarus!’ live and walk to freedom with us here in these United States.   


No rational person would argue that today we are on a moral and social upswing. Rather now, and in the light of our past, our future prospects as a people and as individual citizens are uncertain.  Serious questions should now be asked by each and every one of us. We should ask ourselves whether or not the scale of our moral measure has tipped against us? Is it now the case that our ‘will to live is outweighed by the sum of all resistance to it? 


The social facts in support of that proposition are frightening and are rubbed in our faces daily. Our collective moral sentiments have slid down a steep slope. And if those facts are true then what will become of us? What will become of us if we do not reinvigorate the intestinal fortitude our ancestors had?  If we agree that they are our moral frame of reference, it begs the question: are we now an immoral people?


Our behavior and words are moral forces. They are no different than fire for both our behaviors and words are energies, too.  They can cause combustion.  They are forces that move about and impact things and people around them. They have weight and can cause explosions. They can shatter things and people. They can cause implosions by destroying people psychologically. These forces move at a rate of speed like all things. They gather momentum and they can also accelerate when combined with other behaviors. For those reasons we are now headed to a point in our history when the light of our past shall be overcome by the darkness of an undetermined and uncertain future.


We are approaching a dead end and we are accelerating and gathering momentum along the way.  It is the kind of challenge like no other we have ever faced. For, it has been constructed by our own hands not by the hands of others and it stands before us within us.  Now, we are the sum of all resistance to ourselves. Now we behave as though we do not want to live. We do not comprehend that what we face cannot be overcome by colliding with it. We must stop before we collide with it.


That wide trail which was blazed by so many of our ancestors has now become a narrow beaten path along which we walk.  And if we look back over our shoulders we will see that no longer do others follow us. For we are no longer moral leaders; we no longer possess the high ground.  


Asians, Latinos, women, and others have parted ways and gone on to enjoy the fruits of their labor. We are now alone; we no longer cry out ‘Rise Lazarus!” rather we whine aloud with arms outstretched and with open palms.  What we are on my dear people is a death march. It may be that our time in the United States is coming to its end. For it is a social fact that we have hit rock bottom.  Denial of that fact will avail us nothing for ‘pride goeth before a fall’.


If there is hope then it must be hope in God and a visceral ‘will to live’. It must be the ‘will to live’ which our forebears had in such abundance that they could share it with the entire world. It must be that same intestinal fortitude which drove our people to do all that they could do to make a place for themselves and us in these United States against the sum of all resistance.







Welcome to Earth THE HIJACKING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, by Doug Hammerstrom, Attorney at Law

picture of 14th amendment

Constitutional Law courses in law schools teach that the Fourteenth Amendment defines the limit beyond which state legislation may not impinge on property rights. They also teach that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights and imposes its limitations upon the states. But what do these legal doctrines have to do with the plain purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment – to assure political rights for the newly-freed slaves? And how did these doctrines arise out of the Fourteenth Amendment?



While society was grappling with bringing former slaves into U.S society, the power and influence of corporations was also on the rise. While very few people were turning their attention and energy to bringing former slaves into society – indeed, far more energy was being put into NOT bringing them into society – corporations were using a great deal of their wealth to hire lawyers to advance their interests in the courts. The Fourteenth Amendment offered an opportunity to advance corporate interests, and the corporate attorneys set out to exploit it.



Of the 150 cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment heard by the Supreme Court up to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 that established the legal standing of “separate but equal,” 15 involved blacks and 135 involved business entities. The scope of the Fourteenth Amendment to secure the political rights of former slaves was so restricted by the Supreme Court that blacks won only one case. The expansive view of the Fourteenth Amendment that comes down to Constitutional Law classes today is the result of corporations using the Fourteenth Amendment as a shield against regulation. Ultimately the Plessy decision left Jim Crow laws, state laws discriminating against blacks, in place because of doctrines developed in those corporate shield cases.



How ineffective the Fourteenth Amendment was for blacks in the 19th century is told well by Richard Stiller in his book, Broken Promises: The Strange History of the Fourteenth Amendment (1972). Things did not look good for the freed slaves immediately after the Civil War and the assassination of Lincoln. Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In his veto message he said it was not proper “to make our entire colored population . . . citizens of the United States.” Johnson’s veto message was a signal for violence and murder all over the South.



Thaddeus Stevens led the successful fight for the Fourteenth Amendment. The first section of the amendment declared blacks to be citizens of the U.S. [the language parallels language in the Dred Scott decision and overrules Dred Scott ] In July of 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, it looked as if racism sustained by law was dead in the United States.

 Picture of freedman

 For a short period of time things went well for blacks. Negroes held office widely in the South. Free public schools, set up for the first time in the south after the Civil War, served black and white children equally. Louisiana’s state constitution required integration in the new public schools. In order to preserve this status, a civil rights bill was promoted in Congress. The law, not passed until 1875, made segregation in public facilities – such as hotels, restaurants, and railroads – a federal offense. In 1873 when the Supreme Court heard the Slaughterhouse Cases, its first Fourteenth Amendment case, the Court rebuked the attempts of business interests to use the amendment, saying that the Fourteenth Amendment’s “main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro.” Justice Miller added, “We doubt very much whether any action of a State not directed by way of discrimination against the Negroes as a class, or on account of their race, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision.”



By the mid-1870s, however, the mood had turned. Reconstruction was ended in a deal cut to resolve the 1876 presidential election. Some of the Court’s justices were racists. One of these was Stephen J. Field. After the 1873 decision he wrote to a friend: “I belong to the class who repudiate the doctrine that this country was made for the people of all races. On the contrary, I think it is for our race – the Caucasian race.”



 In United States v. Cruikshank (1876) the Court said that the Fourteenth Amendment “adds nothing to the rights of one citizen against another.” Yet Congress had written the amendment to do just that. The hearings on the Fourteenth Amendment indicated that most of the abuses being suffered by Negroes were at the hands of individual white persons rather than state governments or those acting under color of law. Congress had just made its intent evident in the Civil Rights Act of 1875. However, when the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of that act in 1883, the Court cited Cruikshank, amazingly negating Congress’s intent in that act on the basis of the Court’s divination of Congress’s intent in passing the Fourteenth Amendment. Logic would say that Congress might have known its own intent in enacting the Fourteenth Amendment when it drafted the Civil Rights Act just two years later and passed the Act just seven years later.



 Meanwhile, the corporate lawyers picked up on a point made in Justice Field’s Slaughterhouse dissent: that the amendment was broad enough to protect all of U.S society from the deprivation of fundamental, natural law rights, and that the Supreme Court had a duty to fashion decisions to protect those rights. Ironically, this was the argument the abolitionists made for ending slavery that was rejected in the Dred Scott case. The argument became the basis for what is known as substantive due process.



 In what was to become a familiar assertion, railroads in Illinois complained in the State Railroad Tax Cases that the Illinois tax laws violated due process because corporations were taxed differently. In Munn v. Illinois, Justice Field continued his crusade for the corporations and the assertion of substantive due process. The majority decision allowed the state to set rates for grain elevators because, though private property, they were “affected with a public interest” and “affect the community at large.” In his dissent, Field threw a laissez-faire-fit at this ‘socialist’ ruling. One piece of the substantive due process doctrine became a Supreme Court procedural mandate when the Court majority accepted Field’s view that determination of the reasonable limits of due process was a judicial function.



In Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases the assertion again was made that taxes violated a railroad’s due process rights. The assertion was also made – for at least the third time before the Supreme Court – that corporations are persons under the Fourteenth Amendment. The corporate legal campaign to gain ‘personhood’ status finally succeeded when the report of the opinion in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific. R.R. contained a statement purportedly made by Chief Justice Waite before oral argument that “(t)he court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.” The statement is suspect because the issue was argued. The case was decided on other grounds and the Court directly declined to decide the Constitutional question. Justice Field cited Santa Clara as holding that corporations are persons in a later case, and that notion of Santa Clara’s holding has stuck.


In the same year – 1886 – the Court again stated that the court might intervene and make its own assessment of the propriety of rate regulations in The Railroad Commission Cases. The substantive due process doctrine reached its full flower in Lochner v. New York. The U.S. Supreme Court invoked ‘substantive due process’ to substitute its judgment for that of the New York legislature in holding that a law regulating the working hours of bakers violated the Fourteenth Amendment.



In Davidson v. New Orleans, Justice Miller remarked that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment rarely had been invoked in the near-100 year history of the Constitution. Yet the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment lately was being invoked regularly. The author would suggest the difference was the litigation spending of the railroads in the latter period. Yet by 1877 only nine Fourteenth Amendment opinions had been rendered. From 1877 to 1885, twenty-six additional opinions were issued. In the 13 years before 1912, 409 due process opinions were handed down. From 1886-1912 two cases restrained or annulled State action involving Negroes, and 39 cases restrained or annulled State action against corporations.



While the corporations were triumphant in wielding the Fourteenth Amendment as a shield against democratic control, blacks were abandoned by the Supreme Court. Not only was the law not used to protect their Constitutional rights, the law was used affirmatively to degrade them. Ten years after Plessy, the Supreme Court ruled that a state could force white people to discriminate against black people even if they did not want to. A private college that had voluntarily educated black and white students together since the Civil War was forced to expel the black students when, in Berea College v. Kentucky , the Court upheld a Kentucky statute that said black and white students could not be taught in the same school. The white students sent a farewell letter to their former classmates. “Our sense of justice shows us that others have the same rights as ourselves. We hope never to be afraid or ashamed to show our approval of any colored person.”



In response to the Berea decision, states and cities of the South rushed to follow the Court’s lead. They passed laws criminalizing white people’s voluntary association with black people. In countless cases in the South the sight of a black or white family entertaining visitors of the other race resulted in a call for the police and a threatened arrest. 



The results of Jim Crow laws were not just degrading, they were deadly. Dr. Charles R. Drew, whose research on blood plasma led to the development of blood banks and who was the head of the American Red Cross blood banks in WWII, bled to death on his way to the colored hospital, which was further away, because the white hospital refused to treat him. An uncounted number of black accident victims died because they were denied help by “white” ambulances, hospitals and doctors.



Corporations, on the other hand, hijacked the Fourteenth Amendment and have used it to consolidate their power in the U.S. and the world. Corporations have gained many of the inalienable rights of humans guaranteed by the Bill of Rights with their status as “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Through their right of free speech they have captured our legislatures and regulatory agencies. They have used the key to the courts that the Fourteenth Amendment provides them to invalidate legislation that might have slipped through their control of the legislative process.



One hundred and fifty years of investing wealth in lawyers and using those lawyers to flood the courts with the corporate perspective on the law has led to corporate culture defining the world through law. The provisions of law corporate lawyers argued for in U.S. courts in the 19th century they now write into international trade agreements. The U.S. economy’s colonization by corporations serves as the model for the colonization of the world by multinational corporations




C=B:E. Learn this equation because your life may depend upon it.  It means that the carrying capacity (C) of any given environment increases or decreases as the biotic potential (a living being’s potential to have offspring)(B) goes up or down in relation to resistance by the environment (E) going up or down.  For example, I once lived on a 500 acre farm in Mississippi during the 1950s.  My grandfather had 16 children. Now there were 18 persons on the land. They were each given an acre or two on which to build a home when they married.  Each of the sons and some of the daughters married and then built homes for themselves on the family farm.

They in turn had over 8 or 9 children. So now that original 2+16=18 had become 2+16×9 or approximately 160 descendents plus my grandfather and grandmother (162). By the mid 1950s, the number of grandchildren had become so numerous that it became impossible to apportion land to each grandson upon their marriage because to do so would have decreased the agricultural capacity of the farm and its gross domestic product or put another way it would have reduced how much commodities the farm could produce in a year. Also there was the risk that over use of the soil would have depleted it as well as water resources. All of that over time would have decreased the amount of surplus produce and money earned each year thus slowly causing each family to suffer a decline in their overall quality of life.

Those 160 grandchildren grew to maturity and started to have children.  Even if each of them had but 5 children apiece which was normal in the mid 1950s it would have constituted 2+16+160×5=818 more family members. Therefore it was no longer feasible to continue the tradition of giving direct descendents an acre or two from the land and a share in the wealth produced by the farm. The carrying capacity of the farm land was reduced by the resistance of the environment to any further population growth because there were too many mouths to feed and not enough resources to insure that each new generation could get from the farm an equal or greater share of its resources.  It was impossible to maintain a reasonable standard of life for all. It was a clear example of the law of diminishing returns.


The law of diminishing returns is applicable on a worldwide basis, too.  There are over 7,100,063,581 (billion) people on earth right now as of this writing.[1] Each generation of people in developing nations want to live an American lifestyle and so want to live in cities and have more material luxuries than what the previous generations had. Our world population will increase to over 9 billion in two decades. But at the same time in the more industrialized countries fertility rates are decreasing to far below replacement levels.[2] That indicates that later this century (2048 or 2050) our world population is going to nose dive and it may never recover. It may not recover because the environment will resist human recovery because the environment will not meet the basic needs of human beings worldwide.

Note this, 50% of all life is supported by the oceans and seas and 80% of the world’s human population lives on coastal regions. Big sea life stocks are down by 90% since 1950 and most stocks are predicted to collapse by 2048 because of new bottom trawling and dredge techniques for fishing.[3] Now, approximately 1000 species of animal go extinct every year compared to just 3% per year for hundreds of thousands of years. Fresh water lakes are drying up, too. For example, Lake Mead in Nevada is at an all time low; Lake Chad in Africa is virtually dried up.

None of these facts are a surprise to government experts. Their studies anticipated these conditions decades ago and are correlated with global population growth. They also predicted even worse conditions to come in the 21st century.  Some people will argue that there are moral reasons such as greed and waste which are the causes of the problems cited above.  Other people will argue that the cause of our problems is the irresponsible use of modern fossil burning technologies. Still other people will argue that our problems are unavoidable and therefore are the inevitable outcome of ‘divine command’ necessity even though there are hundreds of religions throughout the world with different divine command prophesy each contradicting the other. The only thing that we can predict with absolute certainty about future human behavior is that we will seek out food and water and that we will reproduce offspring whenever possible.

The fact is there have been natural crises before which predate written history and all known religious world views.  For example, approximately 80,000 years ago natural disasters reduced the human population to about 2,000 individuals.[4] So, what we face is neither solely due to immorality nor solely due to the burning of fossil fuels. The environmental problems we face are a combination of each. The fact is that we like every other life form on earth are subject to thousands of natural cycles which interplay with the demands which organic life makes on what for us are limited resources.

We are now at a hinge period in natural history and civil history.  It just so happens that both catastrophic natural changes and our moral decline are in sync. But even if we were doing fine morally we’d still be in decline. The fact that we are not doing fine morally means that we face a horrible nightmare. There is nothing that we can do to stop natural cycles from playing out to their natural end. Those forces do not conform to our logic and are absolutely impersonal in their operations.  We will not stop our moral decline either.


My 750 relatives migrated to the northeast, east and west coasts to find their means of support in large urban centers. They individually made more cash income and had between 3 and 6 children per household. Some bought homes and earned equity in those homes. Others rented. But whether they rented or bought their homes they shared a common economic loss; none of them were making, producing or growing things anymore. They didn’t pay attention to that because it was so convenient to just go to the grocery store for produce they once grew.  All of that reinforced an illusion of prosperity but in reality they were becoming poorer.

All seemed to be going well for a few decades. My folks plunged head first into the golden age of materialism in America. But what they didn’t see was the coming of an economic tsunami. Nor did the people who presented themselves as their leaders see it coming. The complexities of urban life started to erode the moral basis of their traditional upbringing. Crime went up especially drug use. Drugs, like crack cocaine, were imported into their neighborhoods to siphon off their surplus cash income. For those reasons and many others, mothers and fathers began to increasingly walk away from their children and never to return.  The family was broken and under the circumstances it will be impossible to put the traditional family back together again because it was born of a different soil.  Then they found themselves surrounded by a different culture in which homicide and suicide became normative.

To compound the moral crisis facing my folks they then got a hard lesson in capitalism. Major corporations started to relocate overseas to exploit cheap labor and to avoid taxation.  Now in the cities without as many factory jobs, cash flow started to dry up. Reality started to set in during the 1980s. African American unemployment numbers started to increase while an annual 3% inflation rate eroded the value of the dollar while drugs and prison life eroded the moral fiber of whole neighborhoods.

Now thousands of my relatives and millions of other African Americans became stranded in economically broken cities like Detroit, Mich., Oakland, Ca. and Compton, Ca.; they are in deep trouble. But given all of that there is another piece of the puzzle they do not have; it is the demographic piece and none of the so called leaders are really telling us what is coming and coming soon.

Between 1946 and 1964, about 7,500,000 African Americans were born as part of the baby boom generation. By use of simple arithmetic we can see into the future. If we add 85 to 1965 it would make a person born in 1965 eighty-five years of age in the year 2050.  By that time most baby boomers will be dead. There would be by that time a total loss of 7,500,000 African Americans.  Over that 19 year period beginning in 2031 leading up to 2050, our folks will suffer an increasing death rate due to many health related causes correlated with a decreasing fertility rate which is now (2013) at below replacement (1.9 babies per women 15 to 44) and the largest population decline in their history.  Things will never be the same.  We can see in the present demographic figures the answer to the question ‘why?’

The birth rate for married African American women was 137.3 per 1000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 in 1950. That birth rate peaked in 1959; 1959 was the year that the birth control pill was approved by the FDA. By the year 1997, the birth rate for married African American women was 70.7 per 1000 women ages 15 to 44. That is a near 50% decrease in the birth rate. At the same time there was a corresponding increase in births to unmarried African American women. Beginning in 1946, the number of births to unmarried African American women was 17.3 births per 1000 or 17%; by 1995 it reached 50.5 per 1000 or 70% of all births to unmarried African American women ages 15 to 44.

In 2005, the ratio of live births to abortions for married African American women was 71.9 births to 18.8 abortions. Conversely, unmarried African American women are more likely to abort their fetus. The facts compel us to conclude that African American women are more likely to carry their baby to term if they are married. But the trend is toward fewer and fewer marriages in the future.  The decline in the marriage rate is correlated with a rise in abortion.  The conclusion? Destroy the black family and they will terminate their own black fetuses.

From 1973[5] to 2011, there have been 54,559,615 reported abortions in the United States. Of that number, 72% were done by African American women. That equals 39,282,922 abortions over a 40 year period.  The ratio in 2005 for unmarried African American women is 67.8 births to 62 abortions. Between 1993 and 2005 for every birth there was an abortion among unmarried African American women.  This is an ethnic catastrophe.

What we are compelled to infer based upon these facts is that the abortion rate and/or birth control to prevent birth will probably remain high at over 48 per 1000 African American women over the next ten years. Two factors make this likely. The children of the baby boomers are the most physically unfit and culturally maladjusted generation of African Americans to ever live. Secondly, the unmarried rate will likely remain high or increase. Approximately 73% of African American women are unmarried. Thirdly, sexuality is independent of marital status.  It adapts to all circumstances. Water conforms to the vessel into which it is poured.

We need not make a moral judgment regarding abortion and a women’s right to choose for us to have common ground upon which to agree that there will be catastrophic consequences for all African Americans alive during the later part of the 21st century for the high abortion rate and declining marriage rate.  We should start now to prepare ourselves for what is to come.


Civil rights is no longer the big issue. We have been given all the civil rights that we will ever get in America. The civil rights bag is empty. We African Americans are actors on the vast stage of human history in this hinge period. Global changes are quickly reducing the carrying capacity of the earth itself and we are on it and so we too are in trouble. There are going to be unimaginable changes. We are not prepared for those changes in whatever form they take.

So called African American civil rights proponents who continue to apply the same strategic formula that Dr. Martin Luther King did in the 1950s and 60s would have you think that the most pressing issue or set of problems facing African Americans today in 2013 are those same civil rights issues of the last 200 years.  They are political whores for the major democratic and republican parties; they are turned out to turn tricks for those parties to get for them ‘black’ votes. They are used by the elite as distractions from the more pressing issues we face. They are wrong and it may cost us many lives if we do not see through their fallacious arguments.


The strategies of Dr. King were tooled for the constitutional issues and civil rights circumstances of a particular era. Those unique circumstances which existed in the 1950s and 60s are no longer central issues for us. For example, much of the industrial base of the Unites States has relocated outside the United States and thus no longer exists in urban centers such as Detroit Michigan and Oakland California; they are not coming back. The economic non-employment participation rate for African Americans is 41.8%[6]. The high school dropout rate in most urban centers is over 50% for African American males. African Americans give over $1,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars away every year and over 33% of our people live in poverty. These are not the government’s problems. The Constitution does not mandate government to make jobs for its citizens; it was established to protect constitutional rights, to defend against foreign enemies, to enforce civil and criminal law, and to take a census every 10 years.

Therefore, for these and other reasons the civil rights strategies are not applicable to the problems which we face today because today’s problems are economic and moral through and through. Our problems today are different by nature and will not be solved by mass public demonstrations.  We must evolve a new family structure which will be efficient in the socialization of our children. We must keep our money. We must pool our money. We must build our capital. We must publicly shame those who don’t.

[1] See:

[2] Euro Stat and U.S. Bureau of Census: 1.5 in Japan; 1.9 in the United States;1.9 United Kingdom; 1.4 in Germany; 1.4 Italy; 1.6 in Russia


[4] 74,000 Years Ago, the Human Species Was at the Brink of Extinction, by Stefan Anitei, pub. SoftPedia, 2007

[5] Roe v. Wade, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973)

[6] Current Population Survey, 2009