The rumours have circulated for decades. Did the CIA flood the inner cities of the US with crack cocaine in the 1980s? Was the American government actually responsible for the crack epidemic?
Often dismissed as a conspiracy theory, but passionately believed by huge sections of the population – the idea that US intelligence agencies knowingly protected drug traffickers and played a role in bringing cocaine into the US is one of the most often repeated stories of the War on Drugs.
But what is the truth to these allegations? It turns out the real story is perhaps even stranger than the street-level gossip.
This is how one reporter exposed a web of CIA cover-ups, and how the rest of the media destroyed him for doing so.
The Most Intense Heartfelt Description Of Racism I Ever Filmed
As my subscribers know, I have done thousands of interviews in my life. This interview with journalist, civil rights advocate, lawyer Roger Wilkins was one that I never forgot. I asked him to be straight and honest with me and to speak to his grandchildren in the future, of his experiences. That is exactly what he did, with such intensity and clarity. During this challenging time with the black lives matter movement and police unfairness and the coronavirus pandemic, I thought that I would present Roger’s comments again. I always felt that every student (at any age) should hear Roger to better understand what was experienced by so many Americans during slavery, in the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, and, to some extent, today. I want to take the time in this description to thank Roger Wilkins for the effort and energy he put into his responses to my questions.
Dear Candidates: Here Is What Black People Want
We long for the same things as everyone else, and yet few campaigns treat us as if our experiences matter.
We predicted that there would be different responses among black people of various ages, locations and family structures, and there were. Not everyone is affected the same way by the issues we all face. The need for adequate health care, for example, takes on greater urgency among black people in Alabama where Republican lawmakers are blocking Medicaid expansion.
But what surprised us the most was how few candidates treat us as if our differences and experiences matter.
Here is what we found:
The most common response among people who were politically engaged was that no politician or pollster has ever asked them what their lives were like. Fifty-two percent of respondents said that politicians do not care about black people, and one in three said they care only a little.
Yet this doesn’t stifle our participation in politics. Nearly three in four respondents said they voted in the 2016 presidential election, and 40 percent reported helping to register voters, giving people a ride to the polls, donating money to a candidate or handing out campaign materials. Six in 10 women surveyed reported being electorally engaged. These responses debunk the myth that black communities don’t show up to vote — we do and we bring other people with us.
Black communities, particularly black women, will be instrumental in deciding the next president. Nearly 60 percent of respondents were women, and nearly half lived in the South.
We want the things that everybody deserves. Ninety percent of respondents, for example, say that it is a major problem that their wages are too low to support a family, and that figure jumps to 97 percent among those who are electorally engaged.
.. For every dollar white men earn, black women, for example, earn 65 cents, whereas white women earn 82 cents. Black families make up a large portion of those who use public housing assistance programs, which are underfunded and lacking in meaningful oversight. And then the average cost of attending a public college with in-state tuition is roughly $14,000 a year — that’s out of reach for black families whose median household income is $40,000.
.. These results may not surprise anyone who is paying attention. But what is surprising is how few candidates address the issues that affect black communities or meaningfully court them.
Consider that, of the first $200 million spent by left-leaning independent groups in the 2016 presidential campaign, none was aimed at mobilizing black voters. In California, where I live, the Democratic Party reportedly raised $30 million in the last election cycle but spent only about $50,000 on black voter engagement.
‘Shut up and dribble’: Fox News host extends Trump’s efforts to silence political athletes
Oh, and LeBron and Kevin: You’re great players, but no one voted for you … So keep the political commentary to yourself or, as someone once said, shut up and dribble.”
The “shut up and dribble” command isn’t that different from the “shut up and sing” directive many conservatives lob at liberals in the entertainment industry who are critical of policies on the right.
And the “stay out of politics” sentiment is usually a viewpoint only reserved for their political opponents. After all, the president often praises athletes that support his view of America, such as New England Patriot Tom Brady, who once kept a “Make America Great Again” hat in his locker.
.. Ingraham, who was once floated as a possible White House press secretary to replace Sean Spicer
.. The idea that the “court” of political punditry belongs to a host on the president’s preferred cable network is bound to get pushback.
What makes Ingraham an expert — a host on a cable network with primarily white hosts and conservative guests — on issues related to people of color in urban areas?
.. America is incredibly divided politically. And most Americans point to Trump, who called NFL players protesting racism “sons of bitches,” as one of the main agitators. But that probably isn’t going to change by telling people to sit down and be quiet, particularly when they are voicing concerns on issues many Americans are concerned with themselves.
By Ingraham telling Americans who don’t agree with her views to “shut up and dribble,” it further isolates certain groups and leads them to add the host — and her network — to the list of influential voices who do not understand the concerns of those who do not look like them.