Strange Union

The most loyal segment of the Democratic Party for the last 75 - 80 years, descendants of slaves of American antebellum slavery, as far as is commonly known, still have never been a part of a Democratic Party presidential ticket (president and vice-president), let alone any other major party. Obama, after all, is the biracial son of a mid-twentieth century Kenyan immigrant.  Nor has any descendant of slaves ever ascended to the lofty rank of Speaker of the House of Representatives.  Some pundits have said that Obama, himself, would never have reached his high heights had his ancestry been traced back to slavery.  These same pundits and/or others, speculating about the former black Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick, a descendant of slaves, have been saying or all but saying that he can't possibly run for president in 2016, because, you know, there's already a black president in office, and of course there can't be back-to-back black presidents.  There's not a constitutional amendment against consecutive black presidents, of course.

Lest we forget, the Democratic Party isn't the party that trumpeted abolition. Lincoln, and the radicals in the Reconstruction era, like Thaddeus Stevens, were Republicans.  However, all the preceding is just a historical aside about the relationship between blacks and the Democratic Party, which the former nearly votes as a bloc for the latter's candidates for all offices, big and small.  Never mind that Democratic politicians, just as imperialistic as their Republican counterparts, do just about everything they can to set back this loyal following of theirs, from making international trade agreements that devastate urban economies to being the biggest supporter of internationalism, generally (not that their G.O.P. counterparts are far behind), which makes their most fervent loyalists take a back seat to migration, globalism, et al.  Yet, they still get their votes at an astoundingly high rate.  A strange union, indeed.

[Revised on 5/20/15.]

The Next Attorney General

Just when you thought things at the Dept. of Justice might be looking up with wisecracking (think Eddie Haskell of the old "Leave it to Beaver" show) A.G. Eric Holder quitting, the Obama govt. nominated a right-winger, Loretta Lynch, to take his place.  Reportedly, she thinks the present N.S.A. surveillance protocols, with its dragnet of innumerable law-abiding citizens, presents no real problem with the Constitution, and it looks like she might be showing little respect to states' rights/the 10th Amendment, especially when it comes to a handful of states rebelling against the draconian edicts of an overreaching Congress regarding marijuana and drug enforcement.  On the other hand, she might be better than Holder in actually doing something more than a slap-on-the-wrist to big-time, professional white collar criminals, but expect more of the same, a la Holder, when it comes to looking the other way at war crimes, by some high-level officials/personalities.  A continued, long-standing problem with American moral standards, generally.  Expect Lynch to be less of Obama's toady than Holder, however, which is just a guess on our part.  Whether that's good or bad is anybody's guess.

Post-script: Jan. 29, 2015:

So this might be Loretta Lynch's first case: what to do about the man who flew a drone onto the White House grounds; bring charges against him or not?  So far it appears that someone can fly drones over the White House with nothing but shrugs, not even a night in jail (although, if you don't have the right demographics, such as not working for an intelligence agency ...), by the various security details and the Dept. of Justice, but veer a car away after being stopped by a secluded barricade, even if impacting the barricade was accidental -- as no one seems to know precisely whether the incident involving the Connecticut woman in Autumn, 2013 was accidental or not -- and get the death penalty without trial or jury.  The police should have arrested the woman, who was black, not kill her, as her baby laid near or beside her.  She posed no immediate threat to anybody as she tried to drive away, though seemingly ignoring police orders.  Apparently, there were little or no governmental inquires, or official concern, about yet another bizarre shooting by police in general.  Just another day in America.

[Originally posted on Commoner on 1/29/15, under the title "The New Attorney General;" revised on 2/11/15.]