Sunday, November 21, 2010



By: Fahim A. Knight-El

My wife talked me into going to see, the movie “For Colored Girls” last weekend directed by Tyler Perry, it was originally based somewhat on the 1974 Broadway stage play titled, “For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf”, authored by Ntozake Shange. My wife, is a huge fan of Tyler Perry and his work in which most of his movies she hasn’t missed, but let me be a bit honest here, if it was left up to me, I probably wouldn’t have gone to view any of Tyler Perry’s movies. Yet, this is not to downplay or demean how crafty and talented Tyler Perry is as a producer, director, scriptwriter and no doubt this brother is a creative artistic genius; literally a story from rags to riches. But out of love and respect for my wife (we do not always agree, but I respect her insight and perspective even if it is a dissenting opinion), we have gone together to see a number of his films.

We have viewed together on the big screen Tyler Perry’s films such as “Daddy’s Little Girl”, “The Family that Preys”, “Why did I Get Married?”, “Madea’s Family Reunion” and “Medea Goes to Jail”. Perry has a loyal black following and a number of his films have scored huge at the box office because of these loyalists. Thanks to the power of black people’s ticket purchasing and as I stated above blacks ordinarily comes out in huge numbers to support Tyler Perry’s Films (we are a very predictable people). However, like most black filmmakers and directors his films are no different and are of very little substance and are made to merely entertain—keep them laughing, happy and docile (modern day Amos n’ Andy). Also, I am a huge supporter of black film makers (I am more of a supporter of independent filmmakers).

But I must say right off the back that most African American films are often shallow and entertaining and lack real political substances. I consulted my good friend Troy Muhammad for some answers, he has been in the film industry for over twenty-five years he stated: “The problem is that not many folk go see conscious Black flicks; not enough to make a dent at the box office at least not since Spike Lee first hit the scene. Now I believe that if the flick is good and well done everyone—black, white, blue, etc., will go see it.” There are perhaps some exceptions to this dismal era in the life of black creativity in twenty-first century. Muhammad further stated there were some socially conscious film makers and directors, however, those individuals such as: “The Hudlin Brothers, Matty Rich, Bill Duke and Antoine Faqua are absent, or have decided that strictly Black theme Flicks don't appeal to the masses.”

This writer also knows that blacks do not control Hollywood and the images that come out are systematically created with intended covert purposes and agendas, which is being shaped and molded by powerful hidden forces. I hear African American constantly praising Irvin “Magic” Johnson, the former Los Angles Lakers basketball player and Hall of Famer and his prior investments in bringing movie theaters to depressed and dilapidated areas of urban America. But Magic Johnson has minuscule influence on the images that Hollywood decides to put on the big screen. This writer respects Magic Johnsons entrepreneurial ventures and he has done extremely well as a black business man, but he has no idea how the minds of those who controls mass mediums function.

Let me digress, a bit prior to the movie coming out, Tyler Perry appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show, a reactionary Negro woman who for twenty years has played it very safe. How many African Americans have she helped to become millionaires? That’s another subject for another time. Perry talked about his abusive past as a child where he was raped and sexually molested as a young boy. There is no doubt Tyler Perry appeared to have been traumatized by these events and perhaps have left him permanently psychologically and socially scarred.

Minister Ava Muhammad in her book titled: “The Force and Power of Being” stated: “We suffer from divorce, death, illness, the humiliation of unemployment; all of these things lead to a build up of hate, bitterness and resentment, which does not resolve our problems, but scars the soul. Our communities have become a place where we can not seek peace when we come home in the evening, a place where we suffer what I defined earlier: trauma, or shock, and violence against the physical and mental systems. And we’re undergoing this trauma, self-respect and self-confidence tend to disappear.” (Reference: Ava Muhammad; “The Force and Power of Being”; pp. 34-35).

This writer can not imagine—even thirty or forty years later the feeling of anguish, which Perry may still experience throughout his daily life, that could range from insecurity, betrayal and the torment of being raped and sexually molested by a family member could be haunting. He shared his childhood experiences with Oprah and the pain and hurt were visible and it was probably more painful having to recall and relive the trauma of physical abuse and sexual abuse. But it is also evident that Mr. Perry has some sexuality issues that are still unresolved—whether he is homosexual or heterosexual seems to be an internal battle that he is fighting (he won over the black Christian community initially with his black religious theme plays and homosexuality is still not a well accepted or embraced lifestyle in the black church).

This writer thinks that the movie For Colored Girl was more of a depiction and representation of his own personal psychosis in which each character perhaps were telling us a little something about unresolved aspects of Tyler Perry’s life. Thus, each character for the most part experienced some aspect of personal violence and I will tell you right of the back the movie was an indictment of black men and black women. Here is my opinion of why Black women, in particular, should be outraged because the question has to be raised whether or not Tyler Perry was implying that black women were incapable of finding and choosing loving relationships that were integrity based, trustworthy and worthy of their love. He depicted Thandie Newton who played the character Tangie who was a nymphomaniac, which gave the impression of being incapable of true love and met men on an animalistic level). Perhaps he was even implying something far more socially debilitating and sinister relative to the available pool of black men in which black women have to pull from (social and psychological inept black men seemed to be in abundance).

The truth of the matter is there are plenty of good black men who are not rapist, murders, womanizers, homosexuals or engaged in domestic violence, etc. There are some black women, in particular feminist who may believe that this movie was liberating because many black women have been victims of these male inflicted pathologies and may see fit to applaud Tyler Perry for having the courage to foster this type needed conversation outside of our homes, the black community, and presenting this to the broader American society, perhaps for an extended debate. Nevertheless, the intent of the movie serves as an indictment and unfair generalization of the behavior and social attitudes of African American men. I am looking for a few good black men to standup and denounce and condemn this movie as being reactionary and counterproductive to the cultural and social development of a people who are already in crisis.

Haki R. Madhubuti in his book titled, “Claiming Earth: Race, Rage, Rape, Redemption; Blacks Seeking a Culture of Enlightened Empowerment” stated: We become a people who do not care what others think about us. The empowering of one’s self places the you in you at the center of your universe. As long as we allow others outside of our families or extended families to judge and direct our futures, we will never become centered or focused on that which is best for us or defined by us. Empowerment at its root means being a self-determining and self-reliant person who is secure in one’s own personhood and who functions within a knowledge base that is current, cutting edge, and expanding.” (Reference: Haki R. Madhubuti; “Claiming Earth: Race, Rage, Rape, Redemption; Blacks Seeking a Culture of Enlightened Empowerment”; p. 236).

Let me start by stating that African Americans pathological syndromes can not be represented in a historical vacuum and a more responsible approach would have been to revisited back to the evil and abusive system of Chattel Slavery (1555-1865) in which for 310 years blacks (Africans) were victims of violence—rape, murder, lynching, dividing of the black families, etc., perpetrated by a system of white supremacy. The late Yale University Professor John Blassingame in his book titled, “The Slave Community” deals with the effect of the slave plantation life had on the evolution of slave personality. I would like for my readers to just reason with me for a moment and try to imagine the anxiety, the pain, the fear, inhumanness, degradation and how this pathology was transferred into the DNA of Africans who were victims of this daily type brutality and the survival behavior patterns that emanated from this human tragedy. Three centuries of cruelness can not be overlooked when you are critiquing, evaluating, assessing or just trying to understand the black experience (psychologically and socially).

Sister Shahrazad Ali in her book titled, “The Blackman’s Guide to Understanding the Blackwoman” stated: “In examining the Black women’s childhood the Blackman will have ample opportunity to scrutinize his own. All must focus on the forces, the individual personalities and environments from which they emerged. From these memories they will be able to examine together the long term effects of slavery and hard times. It will invariably be found that the disparity between the Blackman and the Blackwoman was already present when they were born. It has existed a very long time, with each generation contributing their own part to the decline of Black male and Black female interpersonal relationships. It is not really something that the present day Blacks invented. It is an inherited habit of neglect, dissatisfaction and perversion. The aforementioned three habits are not rules, nor are they prerequisites to living in today’s world. They are patterns of behavior brought on by suggestions and conclusions drawn by Western societal morals and mores.” (Reference: Shahrazad Ali; “The Blackman’s Guide to Understanding the Blackwoman”; p. 176).

This approach as outlined by Ali would have politicized Perry’s script and these type Negroes do not have the courage to standup to their ex-slave master’s children as free and independent black men. They are often rewarded for bamboozling us and kowtowing to their paymasters. How could these variables not enter into cinema settings, plots and genres even in a movie such as For Colored Girls? This was the root cause of our psychological and sociological dysfunctional behavior, but Perry omitted and negated post traumatic stress syndrome or what our sociologist Dr. Joy DeGruy Leary called Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome. If this movie would have been produced and directed by a white film director, it would have caused a huge outcry from the African American community. The criticism would have ranged from the depiction of reinventing old stereotypes, negative images and how could we allow black males to be thrust into such violent images?

Black organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Ben Jealous and Reverend Al Sharpton of National Action Network would be screaming boycott and demanding that Hollywood issue an apology, as well as donate some money to a black sponsored charity. These big so-called Negro leaders are good at blackmailing corporate America, but none did it better than Reverend Jesse Jackson—he hustled a lot of corporate money directly into his personal bank account. But I guess because it’s Tyler Perry and Tyler Perry Studio, a black man and black film maker, we have a double standard and he gets a free pass to portray these negative stereotypical images and relationships with little to no opposition from black America. There is no call to boycott Tyler Perry or demand that he issue black America a public apology. Our silence gives way to us being in complicit and/or is willing to surrender ethical and moral high ground for the sake of being loyal to the race? This movie should be condemned and he needs to know, if we are going to continue support his films, we will not tolerate images that portray blacks in such a negative light.

My wife about half way into the film looked at me and said she had enough lets get up and leave. She said this was too painful, but as a social critic I talked her into sitting through the entire film because I was curious, if there would be some silver lining or redemption at the end, however there were none forthcoming. Black men, in particular should be outraged; almost every male character in the film were negative, violent, sexually confused, insensitive, abusive, psychological deranged, etc.

Earl Ofari Huchinson in his book titled, “The Crisis in Black and Black,” stated: “Blacks practically bankroll Hollywood with their dollars. They buy an estimate one out of four movie tickets to all American films. What are they getting for their movie spending splurge? Do they help Hollywood reinforce the Sambo, Mammy, Amos n’ Andy, ‘Gangsta,’ sexually degenerate image of themselves? Should blacks turn off to those black filmmakers who specialize in creating spectacles of degradation of blacks on the screen? Can blacks do anything to insure that black filmmakers, actors, and scriptwriters turn out positive films and TV productions that entertain and uplift and inspire?” (Reference: Earl Ofari Huchinson; “The Crisis in Black and Black,”; p. 131).

Perry tried to balance the pain and hurt by depicting and injecting actor Hill Harper, a detective in the film as a token good guy and the only black male who wasn’t violent and abusive to his woman. This token character did not overcome the psychological theme that For Color Girls created in the minds of black people in which one positive black male role model stuck out like a soar thumb. This writer is by no way suggesting or implying that some of the pathological circumstances and behaviors that Perry’s movie addressed and identified isn’t germane to black life and no doubt we need to have a critical and open conversation relative to domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, teenage pregnancy, HIV-Aids, Down Low and homosexuality, feminism, mental health, violence, the problems of incapability of loving and demonstrating sustainable emotions towards one another, etc. Dr. Khallid Abdul Muhammad used to call it that black love.

The actor Michael Ealy’s character was named Beau Willie, a military veteran who was deeply depressed and suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and was depicted as being violent towards his children and live-in girlfriend, which was played by actress Kimberly Elise (character Crystal). Beau Willie was an alcoholic that possessed serious mental health issues and could not get the necessary mental health treatment he needed to deal with his schizophrenic behavior. Perry implied that this character mental state was correlated to his U.S. Service involvement and after fulfilling his duty to his country he was discharged with a plethora of military related mental health issues. Perry missed a golden opportunity to highlight what Veterans are confronted with after fighting on foreign battlefields and so-called defending the United States democracy—they are used as U.S. Foreign Policy Tools then cast aside as useless vagabonds. The government does not care about Veteran’s long term health diagnosis after they leave active duty. Beau Willie suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and because of negligence (the system failed this man)—no professional mental health treatment or counseling services were made available to deal with his diminishing cognitive ability.

It led to this black male character eventually killing his two children by dropping them out of a high rise apartment building window after going into a jealous rage (his fate was incarceration and still no treatment). The system has failed so many U.S. Veterans and it is no more evident than those soldiers who served in the Vietnam Conflict—high incidents of homelessness, substance abuse users (drugs and alcohol), mental health issues, physically disabled, unemployed, criminally prone, etc. But Perry perhaps did not have the intestinal fortitude to indict the United States Government, instead the focus became on the victim (Beau Willie) and the perpetrator (US Government) took little culpability for what they had produced—a monster. We have U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and are going undiagnosed, because the government does not want to pay for the necessary long term treatment and disability prognosis of so many war embattled soldiers.

The character Bill performed by actor Khalil Kain who met Yasmine which was performed by actress Anika Noni Rose. Bill appeared to be a standup gentleman in which based on the first date abided by all the gentleman like rules and impressed Yasmine enough that the next date would be an invitation into her home where she offered to cook him dinner. This passionate and what appeared to be respectful black man metamorphosed into an enraged violent rapist who sexually raped Yasmine. Rape is no doubt one of the most heinous and violent acts, it violates every aspect of the human essence. But Bill’s criminal act centered on the questions of trust and betrayal (which extended much further than the immediate victim and perpetrator) whether or not black women could be safe in the company of even black men who appeared nice and respectful. Bill perhaps was a serial rapist who lured his victims based on his good looks and gentlemanlike charm. He was eventually murdered (stabbed to death) by another woman whom he was attempting to rape. It is the subtle implications of the character Bill that is so everlasting and enduring in the psyche of black male and female relationship. Black men depicted as rapist is very unsettling to me as an African American male.

Earl Ofari Hutchison in his book titled, “Black Fatherhood: The Guide to Male Parenting” stated: “Now, let’s look at the other side. Many black men do whatever it takes to develop a strong and loving relationship with a black woman. They believe they have an obligation to strengthen and preserve the black family. They are aware of the proud tradition of generations of black fathers who have faced the roadblocks of racism and oppression side-by-side with their women. Who, they ask, can better understand their problems? Who is better equipped to face the difficulties with them? Who better to build the bond of unity with them than a black woman?” (Reference: Earl Ofari Hutchison; “Black Fatherhood: The Guide to Male Parenting”; p. 69).

The character Carl played by the actor Omari Latif Hardwick who was married to the character Jo played by the actress Janet Jackson. She was a highly successful business woman who had money, intelligence and sense of thriftiness—but aloof, emotionally detached and materialistic. Her husband Carl was on the Down Low; straight men who have sex with other men, but shun the label of being a homosexual and define their relationship in different terms from the meaning of traditional homosexuality behavior. This writer viewed Carl as a closet homosexual who betrayed the bonds of marriage by committing infidelity and having male sexual affairs outside of his marriage. Carl’s reckless behavior and lifestyle led to him contracting HIV and transmitting HIV to his wife and his sexual confusion infused pain and hurt into his marriage and his irresponsible sexual behavior could be a death sentence to him, his wife and to his promiscuities sexual partners that he was engaging relative to having unprotected sex. This character as well epitomized the ultimate betrayal of trust and love.

The damaging inference was that black women still can not find comfort and a level of security in marriage, it used to be the other woman, but now, it could be other man in which some black men are on the Down Low—closet homosexuals who are married or involved in heterosexual relationships, but often unknowing to their spouses and girlfriends, they are having sex with men. The author J.L. King explores this behavior in his book titled, “On the Down Low: A Journey into the Lives of 'Straight' Black Men Who Sleep with Men.”

Richard Lawson's character Frank who was sexually and romantically involved with Loretta Devine’s character Juanita. But Frank was unstable and it was evident that Juanita cared much more about him than he did about her. The inference was that he possible had another family and woman and was using Juanita for her kindness. Frank would move into her apartment, but often abandoned her on a number of occasions without reason or cause (would pack his belongings and leave without notice to Juanita), which led to Juanita constantly experiencing these emotional highs and lows. The lasting and dangerous inference is that black women should expect behavior from black men that is incapable of commitment and maintaining a healthy relationship.

Lastly, I very seldom, critique movies on my Blog, but I could not let Tyler Perry get away with this without raising a voice of opposition. So often, we as blacks allow other blacks, a free pass to portray images and sing lyrics that are detrimental to the well being of black life and we do nothing because of a shared ethnicity and nationality. We should demand more from our singers, rappers, musicians, entertainers, artists, scriptwriters, filmmakers, etc., other than art which contributes to our cultural demise and social destruction. Art and music are higher languages of communications, which shapes customs, folkways, mores, and impact values. We cannot continue to sit idled and do nothing and allow Tyler Perry to continue business as usual, just because he is a black man and owns a black movie company in Atlanta, or any other filmmaker to use their artistic skill level to assault so-called African American life. There are much needed conversations that the black family needs to have—but it is counterproductive to have these conversations from the vanish point of old stereotypes and images that were systematically created by external forces designed to divide and conquer. The movie gets two thumbs down from this critic.

Fahim A. Knight-El Chief Researcher for KEEPING IT REAL THINK TANK located in Durham, NC; our mission is to inform African Americans and all people of goodwill, of the pending dangers that lie ahead; as well as decode the symbolism and reinterpreted the hidden meanings behind those who operate as invisible forces, but covertly rules the world. We are of the belief that an enlightened world will be better prepared to throw off the shackles of ignorance and not be willing participants for the slaughter. Our MOTTO is speaking truth to power. Fahim A. Knight-EL can be reached at fahimknight@

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

Monday, November 15, 2010



By: Fahim A. Knight-El

This article came about due to the firing of Juan Williams, a reporter on National Public Radio (NPR). He was a former national correspondent for the Washington Post, where he also worked as an editorial writer, columnist and a local, national and White House Reporter. He has written for the “The Atlantic”, “The New Republic”, and The Washington Post Magazine. Williams prior to his termination from NPR was appearing quite regular on FOX News (the network deemed conservative and rightwing by many) and some of his comments while appearing on FOX were considered by NPR management as breaching the ethical guidelines that governs professional journalism (I don’t think NPR directors view FOX News as journalism).

I believe NPR management accused Williams of offering up bias political commentary and this was the straw that broke the camels back in which Williams stated on the Bill O'Reilly show: "Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don't want to get your ego going. But I think you're right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality. I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Moreover, as much as I abhor and detest Juan Williams’ insensitive and stereotypical comments as being distasteful and obnoxious, as well as being inflammatory; it was speech in my opinion that did not rise to the level of censorship (or mandated termination from his assignment at NPR) and Williams had every right to feel for his personal safety in the company of Muslims. His verbal assault against Muslims should have been protected as free speech and his NPR managers should have recommended perhaps some diversity counseling over termination.

They have tried to cover their firing decision by maintaining that Williams role as a NPR Journalist required his approach to reporting news to be governed by a higher standard of professional conduct. This writer has always tuned into NPR’s various social commentaries and over the years has enjoyed the tidbits of rare information that was being dispersed. However, I was totally disappointed at the firing of Juan Williams and let me again make it crystal clear, I am not defending Williams' ignorance (his statements represents a high level of ignorance and backwards thinking); I am defending his right to free speech and his termination from NPR represented another assault on the civil liberties of the American people. Yet, unlike most Americans, I find the actions taking by NPR against Williams far more dangerous than anything Williams could have ever stated in his anti-Muslim tirade. These types of actions make reporters and commentators reclusive and fearful of deviating from the official script.

Juan Williams has every right to sue NPR for wrongful termination and for violating his constitutional right. He was entitled to his opinion and I think we as taxpaying citizens need to question NPR’s continued suitability as a recipient of public funding (their decision to fire Williams was very poor judgment and it did not demonstrate tolerance for disagreeable speech). I guess liberal views from NPR’s vanished point are considered protected speech, but conservative views weren’t deemed for equal consideration as protected speech.

FOX News immediately signed Williams to a two million dollar contract and I do not know, if he will totally fit into FOX News ideological paradigm and rightwing conservatism. He authored a book in 1987 titled, “Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years 1954-1965” and was well received by the liberal academic community. A Journalist is supposed to report news impartially and objectively—bias and subjective reporting compromise the intent of what professional reporting is about. But this writer is of the opinion that all news is bias and slanted and the truth isn’t necessarily based on empirical findings. Williams critics tried to draw a line in the sand and delineate between what op-ed commentators do relative to expressing their personal opinions on a topic and the responsibility of professional journalist have in their duties to report the news, which is govern by a different set of rules of ethics and standards.

Nevertheless, as a student I took a few courses under the title of research methods and it was impressed upon us in order to be good researchers you had to first learn how to detach one's self from the research and present the information in an impartial manner which lends to credibility and reliability (in the process for the search for truth) accuracy of the reporting or research without emotionalism and prejudice. The concept of free speech is exemplified best when we are confronted with speech that we may disagree with and do we vehemently possess a willingness to defend and protect that person's legal right to express their views and opinions without obstruction or impediment. Although, we disagree. This is the real test when it comes to free speech.

The United States Government since 9/11 has been using public testers to see if the people have the will to resist the repressive measures that is coming down the pipe and they deem free speech as a danger and threat to their quest to continually duping and controlling humanity. They do not desire to have people who are free thinkers and critical thinkers—they prefer government control robots. The U.S. Government directly after 9/11 quasi censored the American people from having a critical discussion about the 9/11 hoax and free speech was under a government harness and it was almost liken to an act of sedition and treason, if someone attempted to offer the slightest criticism or contrary opinion to the official version of what the government and the controlled propaganda machines were conveying as the truth in relations to the events surrounding 9/11. Free speech is one those civil liberties that government has been trying to reel in and they will eventually use these private censorship scenarios as legal precedence to silence dissident voices who disagree with the government.

CNN reporter Rick Sanchez was terminated from CNN for allegedly making anti-Semitic remarks. Sanchez stated: “I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like {Jon} Stewart. And to imply that somehow they -- the people in this country who are Jewish -- are an oppressed minority? Yeah.”

This writer opposes any forms of bigotry and racism and this includes anti-Semitism and has been fighting injustices all his adult life. But I do not think Rick Sanchez is an anti-Semite and those who labeled him as such is being a bit in genuine; thus, I do not think he believes in the theory of an international Jewish Conspiratorial Cabal who is bent on dominating the world.

Now, if Sanchez was quoting from the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” or Henry Ford’s book “The International Jew” or any other treatise which might be perceived as being anti-Semitic, it might have justified Sanchez being terminated. Let me give you and example, I have been reading a book titled, “The Jewish Phenomenon” authored by Steven Silbiger who I am assuming is Jewish. Silbiger records and documents prominent Jewish success in every endeavor (he cite wealthy Jewish individuals names and Fortune 500 corporations that Jews own and control) such as in business, sports teams ownership, entertainment, communications, television stations ownership, newspapers, banking and finance, etc.

Yet, the Jews represent less than 3% of the United States population and they have accumulated an inordinate amount of wealth, resources and power according Steven Silbiger. Silbiger’s book is a well respected piece of literature and the book possesses a subtitle: “Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People” and in all fairness he didn’t say anything different than what Rick Sanchez echoed, which essentially got Sanchez in trouble. This writer does not view Silbiger’s book as being anti-Semitic and not many Jews would classify him as an anti-Semite. However, he was allowed to have this type of conversation without being labeled an anti-Semite and Rick Sanchez perhaps fell victim to some over zealous persons and/or forces at CNN that called for his head.

The book was written with the intent to give non-Jewish people a peep into the many success stories and accomplishments of this minority sector. This writer was interested in Silbiger’s book to evaluate and assess were there things in the Jewish religious and cultural paradigm that contributed to their dominance on the global stage and could humanity learn something from their success. Sanchez publically talked about Jewish influence in media and some believed that he crossed the line; it led to the termination of Rick Sanchez from CNN; moreover was this an example of stifling free speech, which is determined by those who possessed the power and influence to silence views and perspectives that they may disagree with.

I do think speech can cross the line in which I remember the late Jimmy ‘the Greek’ Snyder (Jimmy ‘the Greek’ Snyder and I lived in the same city for many years), a CBS sportscaster who lost his job for publically expressing racial stereotypical remarks when he was describing African American basketball players physicality and skill levels (there are some things that we as human beings do better than other human beings) and downplaying the black athlete intellectual ability to think got him in trouble. Jimmy ‘the Greek’ Snyder stated: "And he practices to be the better athlete, and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes way back to the slave period. The slave owner would breed this big black with this big black woman so he could have a big black kid. That's where it all started." There was a huge public outcry to terminate Jimmy ‘the Greek’ Snyder from CBS for these insensitive and racial stereotypical comments back in the 1980s. This writer does believe that there are times we can be over sensitive; in particular when it comes to the subjects of race and religion and often in these two areas free speech is often asked to take a subordinate role relative to the emotions and hypersensitivity these two subjects garnish and invoke.

The two examples that I cited Juan Williams (NPR reporter) and Rick Sanchez (CNN Anchor) lets us know that free speech isn’t free and there is a price to pay if you disagree with the popular version of the truth. In both cases, I do not think either comment were venomous enough to incite, impede or provoke violence or warrant any concern outside of the realms of ignorance. I equally do not believe that these perhaps insensitive comments had risen to the level of being deemed hate speech. Why weren’t Williams and Sanchez’s remarks protected under the United States Constitution—First Amendment Right? What position did the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) took on behalf protecting Williams and Sanchez right to exercise free speech? (they both seemed to have taking a hands off approach)

Or did they cave into powerful influences and it became easier to overlook the law and in lieu of their non-defense on behalf of Williams and Sanchez who appeared to have become expendable victims. But I believe in the long run society will pay a greater price for not defending their right to perhaps say some reprehensible things.

We also witness Keith Olbermann face suspension for donating money to two democratic candidates in which MSNBC stated, it was against policy for their news reporter employee to make donations to political candidates or political causes without first getting prior approval from MSNBC management. I am assuming that the intent and spirit of this policy was that these donations if leaked to the public could give the assumption that Olbermann was partial to the Democratic Party and this position would compromise his ability to impart fair and balance reporting.

This too was a First Amendment Right issue, in particular news outlets have always been on the giving and receiving end of political contributions—this isn’t anything new. But to punish Olbermann was a blatant violation of free speech and in my opinion he had every right to make these donations as a private person and as an American citizen. Where do we as citizens draw the line when it comes to protecting and defending our civil liberties from repressive measures (private and governmental entities)?

There will be those that would applaud these three news agencies CNN, MSNBC and NPR based on how the corporate mediums have framed the pros and cons of the three above said cases. Perhaps those who do not know that corporate media is only an extension of government and works in the interest of the political aspirations of government—they have been invested with the authority to mold and shape public opinion in the interest of the status quo. The news that we get have been thoroughly filtered and sanitized—bias and subjectively crafted by the powers that-be to totally control the thinking of its intended audience.

It is systematic government propaganda, which is slanted to ensure that the slaves never show a propensity to think outside the box. We have always thought that our democracy was built upon having a noble interest of protecting free speech, as long as it did not interfere with the goals and aims of the State (this aspect cannot ever be overlooked). Perhaps we have not noticed that since 9/11, our government has become more intrusive and every facet of our lives is now subject to government scrutiny. They have duped us into believing that our national security interest calls for more government intervention into the private lives of its citizens in order to keep us safe from Islamic extremist. Yeah! Right.

Noam Chomsky in his book titled, "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest For Global Dominance" stated: "The grand strategy extends to domestic U.S. law. As in many other countries, the government used the occasion of the terrorist atrocities of 9-11 to discipline its own population. After 9-11, often with questionable relation to terror, the Bush administration claimed, and exercised, the right to declare people--including US citizens—to be 'enemy combatants' or 'suspected terrorist' and to imprison them without charge or access to lawyers or family until the White House determines that its 'war on terror' has been successfully concluded: that is, indefinitely." (Reference:Noam Chomsky;"Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest For Global Dominance"; p. 26).

We are actually living in some repressive times in which the status quo covertly set us up, real nicely with inducing the 9/11 tragedy or better yet the masterful hoax and perhaps this will serve as one of the greatest deceptions of all times. The 9/11 hoax had multiple agendas and at the top of list was reigning in American Civil liberties. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as thusly: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

They sent the American people and the globe into fear and panic mode and systematically spoon fed them a heavy dose of propaganda and lies about Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda (knowing that we lacked the ability to discern truth from falsehood) and further led them to believe that radical Muslim Terrorist was coming to get them—the boogieman syndrome (this ordinarily creates more fear and more panic). The dumbfound masses believes that the United States Government has their interest at stake and for this reason they trust the government. Many of us do not even have the ability to look around in order to see that we have literally transitioned into a total police state because we have been condition to think and believe that these massive build ups of Executive Orders, Terrorism Acts and legislation, laws, enactments, etc., (the office of Homeland Security) is aimed at some foreign external entities (the other guy) and have yet to realize that intended victim of these repressive maneuvers are being put in place for the American people.

The Enemy Combatant Laws were established with the intent to protect the state from potential civil disturbance, as well as the Military Commission Act. Thus, when the time comes to suspend the United Constitution and declare outright Marshal Law against the citizens of these United States of America; there will be no legal barriers protecting us from outright state sponsored brutality. I am long standing member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and I support their goals and objectives—the right to bear arms is protected under Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. But they passed the Brady Bill to disarm the American people and other legislation which is designed to render the people defenseless. When the government disarm themselves then may be we should consider disarming ourselves until then I advise you to hold onto to your Smith and Wesson.

I must admit, I too once believed that the government genuinely worked in the interest of the American people. I later learned that we were pawns and cannon fodder, which media, education, politics, and our perceptions of the world was all being manipulated in order to keep humanity under control. This writer can recall right after 9/11, academics and intellectuals could not objectively critique and analyze these events and many hid their views unless they would have been called unpatriotic. Thus, immediately after 9/11, it was deemed treasonous to question and disagree with the Bush Doctrine. So scholars and journalist were being pushed into a corner by neo-Fascist and reactionary forces while the need for an objective analysis and critique of the 9/11 events would have been received with suspicion and with anti government sentiments. However, without a legitimate evaluation, the American people were forced to rely on the government controlled corporate media and they furthered appealed to the raw emotions of the American people—terrorism became associated with Arab Muslims and most of all we were led to believe that our so-called national security was allegedly being threatened by Islamic extremist.

Yet, simultaneously the United States Government invoked the United States Patriot Act and devised new legal parameters and strengthened laws, which to strip the American people of their basic civil liberties. This writer weighed in on the free speech and First Amendment Right issues that have recently confronted our society because I do not believe these issues just appeared coincidental. But as our legislation and laws continue to become more reactionary; they are setting the stage to impose more massive restrictions in the area of free speech and with a civil liberties onslaught.

The Internet and our ability to travel the world’s superhighway and engage the global society has proven to be more bothersome to those who are bent on establishing a closed society. Lastly, stay awake until we meet again and if no one challenges your thinking; it will cause you to continue to wander in darkness and perhaps miss out on a life opportunity to free yourself from mental bondage. The time is steadily winding down and as we observe this privilege of free speech today, but tomorrow you and I may not get the opportunity to openly share these types of thoughts because this privilege could be snatched away at a blink of an eye. I am appealing that you wake up from your slumber and lets work to reclaim our constitution and restore dignity back to our society. Freedom is a divine right.

Fahim A. Knight-El Chief Researcher for KEEPING IT REAL THINK TANK located in Durham, NC; our mission is to inform African Americans and all people of goodwill, of the pending dangers that lie ahead; as well as decode the symbolism and reinterpreted the hidden meanings behind those who operate as invisible forces, but covertly rules the world. We are of the belief that an enlightened world will be better prepared to throw off the shackles of ignorance and not be willing participants for the slaughter. Our MOTTO is speaking truth to power. Fahim A. Knight-EL can be reached at fahimknight@

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El

Sunday, November 7, 2010



By: Fahim A. Knight-El

The midterm elections in the United States should have given the American people some clear indications of how disappointed and dissatisfied the American people are with President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. This writer, ordinarily before every election would often have a political conversation with his daughter who is twelve years of age. My daughter in her own way, is very astute and politically savvy. She had seen all these Tea Party television political ads and she had heard snippets of sound bites from some of the tea party backed candidates. Let me tell you right off the back, she likes Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell—she said they do not seem as mean as some of the other Tea Party candidates and lastly she said they both looked and dressed nicely.

Then she pressed to ask me, if I was going to vote for a Tea Party candidate in which this led me to the core of this civic discussion that we were having just prior to the midterm elections. Thus, this became a teachable moment in which I explained to my daughter that I do not vote party, but I vote on which party (Republican, Democrat, Independent, Third Party, etc.) and candidate are representing my issues and interest. I proceeded to further explain to her that African Americans vote party and not issues (over 94% of African Americans are registered Democrats) and this has compromised their collective bargaining power to be effective players in the game of politics and to get their political agenda front and center.

However, this writer has never believed that electoral politics was the sole answer and solution to the social, political and economic predicament affecting black people. We have been voting for a very long time in this country, but our collective plight as a people has not changed and I would admit that there have been some important gains, but for the most part our gains have been token success at best. We need to take our destiny into our own hands and stop looking to some lying politician to be our political messiah and yet we are steadily pulling the lever for reactionary and petite bourgeosie candidates who uses us to further their own political and economic interest (only the classes benefit and not the masses). I personally don't give a damn about American style electoral politics (I totally understand that voting will never render us total freedom, justice and equality), its nothing but an illusion and sham (sophisticated state supported con) designed to give the appearance that we live in a participatory democracy—this factor keeps us quietly sedated while the invisible Elitist continues to run circles around the ignorant masses (robbing us blind).

'We the People' lost power over 100 years ago and/or if not longer. I recently heard Senator-Elect Dr. Rand Paul of Kentucky talking about taking back the country (who does Dr. Rand Paul wants to take the country back from?). May be he realized that an injustice was done to the so-called Native Americans and he want return the stolen land and resources back to the so-called original man (now this would be a good humane gesture on the part of Dr. Rand Paul). This is the type of hypocrisy and polarizing message of patriotism that the Tea Party advocates. If Dr. Rand Paul truly wants to know who stole our country, he just needs to consult his father, Republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul of Texas whom this writer has a lot of respect for and perhaps he could explain to his son that those who stole our country met on Jekyll Island in 1913, as international bankers and established a monetary policy that usurped the United States Constitution and this was the beginning of the dismantling of our government.

Surely, Dr. Rand Paul must know that this is the most dangerous sector to the liberties and freedoms of the American people, in particular and the globe in general. Congressman Ron Paul has been one of the most vocal lawmakers and politicians on Capitol Hill who have criticized the Federal Reserve—these are the principal culprits who stole our nation, our constitution, our democracy and stole the wealth of our nation. Some of the Patriot movement has been duped into believing that Latinos and Blacks have stole their nation and have yet to realize that there are some invisible forces with a lot more power and influence than these above mentioned marginalized people and possess a much more sinister agenda.

The white electorate showed up in big numbers for this midterm election because President Obama’s election to the office of president has somewhat acerbated racial tensions inside America. Whites in America right after Obama’s election bought up a lot weapons and ammunition; they were somewhat fearful that President Obama was going to pass legislation relative to gun control (and disarm them) but in reality, they were arming themselves because what they perceived as heighten racial contradictions because a black man was now commander-in-chief and this wasn’t settling well with the good ole boys. It was not because they were mischaracterizing President Obama’s policies as being Socialist oriented because many of them had never read the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and their ignorance were evident in their assessment of Obama’s policy—this was only a political distraction and smokescreen which to hide behind in which the real deal was racial rage.

The other misnomer was the falling economy which was attributed to Obama and Democrats, which they allowed America to forget that President George W. Bush brought this nation to the brink of economic destruction. Now, lets be clear a lot of the political, social, and economic problems and instability he inherited from President George W. Bush administration. Something went wrong long before President Obama was sworn in as commander-in-chief and the Democratic Party did very little to expose the mess that Obama had inherited.

President George W. Bush in his new book titled, “Decision Point” in which Amazon editorial staff stated: “President George W. Bush describes the critical decisions of his presidency and personal life. Decision Points is the extraordinary memoir of America’s 43rd president. Shattering the conventions of political autobiography, George W. Bush offers a strikingly candid journey through the defining decisions of his life. In gripping, never-before-heard detail, President Bush brings readers inside the Texas Governor’s Mansion on the night of the hotly contested 2000 election; aboard Air Force One on 9/11, in the hours after America’s most devastating attack since Pearl Harbor; at the head of the table in the Situation Room in the moments before launching the war in Iraq; and behind the Oval Office desk for his historic and controversial decisions on the financial crisis, Hurricane Katrina, Afghanistan, Iran, and other issues that have shaped the first decade of the 21st century”.

“President Bush writes honestly and directly about his flaws and mistakes, as well as his accomplishments reforming education, treating HIV/AIDS in Africa, and safeguarding the country amid chilling warnings of additional terrorist attacks. He also offers intimate new details on his decision to quit drinking, discovery of faith, and relationship with his family. A groundbreaking new brand of memoir, Decision Points will captivate supporters, surprise critics, and change perspectives on one of the most consequential eras in American history – and the man at the center of

Dr. Rand Paul is perhaps viewing the present day political and social contradictions in America from a 200 year old historical paradigm that is rooted in an skewed Confederate ideology and relating it to one of the greatest moments in American history which was in 1776, the Declaration of Independence—some of the Patriot movement is wrapped up in a nostalgic form of moral and ethical Puritanism, it boarders on self righteousness. Some of the Tea Party fringed activist have boarder on nothing short of treason and sedition—some have called for civil war type arm resistance and even succession. I am a constitutional constructionist and I agree that we have every right to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution from those who seek to weaken this great document and infringe upon the rights and liberties of the American people, which are protected under the U.S. Constitution.

The Tea Party should be outraged that President Bush and Congress passed the U.S. Patriot Act and instead of repealing health care reform, why not repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, in particular since you are concern about American liberties? Why not repeal the Federal Reserve Act? Let me tell you why the Tea Party aren’t dealing with real and tangible issues, it is because these damnable hypocrites are more concern about maintaining white supremacy than bringing about real change and challenging that 1% who has enslaved all of humanity. How can you ignore the fact that President Bush was a Gentile Front and agent provocateur for the Elitist who induced 9/11 as well as the global economic meltdown?

But you do not hear the Tea Party radicals addressing these type issues, which renders their tactics and strategies as being reformist and far from being revolutionary in scope. My studies have taught me that all social, political, and economic movements are controlled and instigated by the Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. So it is difficult for me to assess and evaluate the Tea Party outside of those who shape and dictate political trends, public policy as well as control every political movement. We often view these upstart movements as being grassroots and not able to grasp that their agendas are designed to benefit the agenda of the ruling class. The three above powerful organizations control dissention and revolutionary trends.

Black leaders, in particular and black folk in general, have been reluctant to criticize President Obama and his policies just because we share the same skin color and ethnicity (sort of he is bi-racial and I am not). This neglect helped place him and the Democrats on a wayward political course. Thus, after the 2008, presidential election, they felt invincible—they controlled the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the office of president. What else could the Democrats ask for? President Barack Obama negated his most loyal base, which was black voters and took for granted that their loyalty would exceed their level of apathy towards his public policy.

This writer has said over and over again, that it was insane for African Americans to be a one party voting bloc electorate as their only political option and strategy, in particular in a two party system. This phenomena in my opinion, is equated to being an act of political suicide and detrimental to their political progress and has rendered them as being political whores for the Democratic Party. Black leadership such as Reverend Al Sharpton, in particular has steadily conditioned black folk to continue to give President Obama a free pass and not challenge his reactionary policies. What is in the deal for Reverend Al Sharpton, Ben Jealous and Marc Morial? Perhaps they have been promised a butter biscuit by the White House (this class of Toms are dangerous to the legitimate political aspirations of the masses of black people), if they could keep black folk in check and believing that President Obama shares their aspirations—they might even be rewarded with some molasses to put on that butter biscuit. Black leadership has sold us sentimentalism and a false sense of racial solidarity and for this we continue to cast ballots for a party and candidates who do nothing, but betray our interest. These Negroes are just happy to get an invitation to the White House in which to raise their personal status as being important and so-called having the ear of the president.

This writer would have more respect for President Obama, if he invited Reverend Jeremiah Wright or Minister Louis Farrakhan to the White House, but this would upset his paymaster and that small minority who controls him and all politicians on Capitol Hill and they would punish him, if he invited Wright and Farrakhan without their permission and consent. Obama and all other politicians know their place and they do not move unless the puppeteer pulls their purse strings. Yes, for example, his Foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is atrocious and yet over 35% of black folk are unemployed and underemployed in the United States (and the sad thing about this reality is that they are stringing the American people along and not telling them the truth that their jobs are gone for good and never to return).

Obama doesn’t have the authority to stimulate the economy and neither does congress. Bush was given orders to send America and the globe into panic mode while the Invisible Elitist ushered in a new world paradigm—money became devalued, property devalued, markets could not be stimulated and the credit based and debt system slowed global goods and services almost to a halt (this just about caused an Economic Depression in 2008). The Federal Reserve ensured that the markets would be flooded with worthless currency as well as heighten inflation at the same time—these variables were being induced to create panic and fear and ultimately these crises altered the world forever. If you did not know this, perhaps you should whisper this to the Tea Party that Ben Bernanke controls the country and is part responsible for the economic mess that we are experiencing in 2010. Their anger at President Obama is misguided to say the least, and those who are responsible for the domestic deficit and the trade deficit do not live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but at 2000 L Street Northwest, Washington D.C. (office of the Federal Reserve).

The U.S. Arm Forces is the only viable employer for our young men and women. But our tax dollars are being used to support the military industrial complex as well as dispersing U.S. Foreign aid to prop up international governments around the world. The Tea Party championed the slogan 'We the People" but they have been duped into believing that financial entitlements giving to the poor is wrecking the United States economy. They are not challenging the foreign welfare states who are receiving billions of dollars annually from the U.S. federal Government (why is this most important factor and variable being overlooked?). Why not put a referendum on the ballot to curtail aid to these international welfare states? If you are serious about lessening and controlling our escalating national deficit and demonstrating fiscal responsibility. The Tea Party knows that to question U.S. Defense and the recipients of U.S. foreign aid would put them on a collision course with the real power brokers who are hidden under many layers of deception and manipulation (we could balance the budget tomorrow if the United States taxpayers were not burden with huge amounts of American tax dollars going to foreign aid).

Moreover, for the Tea Party not to engage in this most timely discussion renders their political objectives as being suspicious and suspect. Who are the beneficiaries of these huge defense contracts? Surely someone is benefitting and if we are in an economic crisis, why haven't our policymakers proposed a bill in congress to curtail and withhold foreign aid to these welfare states? This writer would be in support of rechanneling those tax dollars to reeducate and retrain Americans and create industry to sustain our people. This is a common sense approach and if we are financially supporting these welfare nations with United States tax dollars, then at least every American should be afforded dual citizenship in these foreign nations who are the recipients and beneficiaries of our hard earned tax dollars.

Blacks do not leverage their vote and resources like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), perhaps the most powerful and influential pro Israel lobby in the United States and let me even take this contention a step further; there is no other lobby group of its equal in the United States. AIPAC lobby on behalf of Zionist and Jewish interest and in reality the majority of the United States policymakers are controlled by AIPAC (this powerful lobby group actually dictates American Foreign Policy). The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) is just lapdogs for the interest of everyone else, and unlike the members of AIPAC, they lack the knowledge of self and have not accepted a common history and doesn’t see the importance and relevance to lobby on behalf of black folk. We should take lessons from the Jews who have vowed to defend Israel and protect the Jewish interest with their last dying breath and this should be our position toward Africa.

Obama initially poised himself as the candidate of change and ran on a slogan echoing the catchy statement: "Change You Can Believe in" and the first thing he did was to fill his top cabinet post with former President Bill Clinton's cabinet members and Washington, DC insiders (he even kept Bush’s Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on board—a warmonger). These moves were contradictory to the resounding message of change, which was the theme that created all the initial excitement and it were some of these factors that angered a lot of voters during this midterm election). It did not look like change to me, but in the excitement and euphoria, that the United States of American had elected its 44 president and in deed to some this was a very special and momentous occasion in American history, because it was the first African American to be elected to the highest office in the land. America and the world were looking for change and had anticipated with Obama's election there would be change and after two years it has become evident that President Obama’s agenda was no different than his predecessor George W. Bush.

He took office with a very high approval rating and I believe he thought that he could use his charisma and charm to excite his base in the twelfth hour of the midterm elections and that this alone would be enough to overcome any pollster deficits and galvanize the Democratic electorate to ensure victory (man was he fooled). The Democratic party lost seats in the United States of House of Representatives because the black vote was taking for granted and the lack of African American voter turnout negatively affected the Democratic party success in the midterm elections. Here is the new math the Republicans will gain 61 House seats and 8 Senate seats pursuant to the midterm elections. This is what people are missing the Tea Party should have established a third political party and ran candidates independent of the Republican Party because their agenda will be co-opted by the established Washington DC Republican machine.

The Tea Party made Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele’s job a lot safer and they should offer Rush Limbaugh an ambassador position because without his syndicated radio broadcast where he beat the hell out President Obama, Democrats and liberals on a daily basis and the efforts of Fox News and all the voices of the radical right contributed to the Tea Party success in this midterm election. But even with their success nothing is going to change on Capitol Hill, the Tea Baggers are in for a rude awakening and come January it is going to be business as usual and these newly elected congresspersons will be asked to play ball.

The Tea Party and Tea Party Express started to mobilize two years ago and unlike the Democratic Party they had an agenda and they recognized that Americans are dissatisfied with big government. I applaud their efforts to take the battle to the trenches and now they have the respect of all America and may be they will cast aside the musket and accept the ballot and read the Declaration of Independence at congressional ceremonial meetings. Perhaps this new position that they are in will dim the literal interpretation of how they perceived this great document prior to November 2, 2010. Now, are they part of the British (the power and colonial masters) or will they represent the oppressed colonist—if they don't do right lets cast some tea into all the harbors of America and protest these new tax assessors and collectors sitting in Washington DC. Lastly, I am thirsty, may I have some tea please and hold the white sugar.

Fahim A. Knight-El Chief Researcher for KEEPING IT REAL THINK TANK located in Durham, NC; our mission is to inform African Americans and all people of goodwill, of the pending dangers that lie ahead; as well as decode the symbolism and reinterpreted the hidden meanings behind those who operate as invisible forces, but covertly rules the world. We are of the belief that an enlightened world will be better prepared to throw off the shackles of ignorance and not be willing participants for the slaughter. Our MOTTO is speaking truth to power. Fahim A. Knight-EL can be reached at fahimknight@

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-El