Laura Loomer’s Degrading Attacks Deserve More Than Condemnation: Let’s See How That Goes

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

Laura Loomer’s recent attacks on Florida Democratic Senate nominee Angie Nixon and other Black women in public life were not simply ugly politics. They were an attempt to belittle, degrade, and strip accomplished public officials of dignity by reducing them to racist and sexist caricatures. Reports said Loomer targeted Nixon, U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley, former Rep. Cori Bush, and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson with language that fused racial contempt, gendered abuse, and crude stereotypes into a single performance of dehumanization. She described the five women as “ghetto, entitled, race-obsessed, destructive Black b—hes” and claimed they were unfit for the power they hold.

The distinction of fusing those elements matters. Calling the episode “controversial” is accurate but is also far too mild. Loomer’s rhetoric was degrading because it did not argue with these women’s records, ideas, votes, or judicial reasoning. It attacked their humanity. It relied on familiar anti-Black tropes meant to portray Black women as disorderly, unintelligent, angry, or unworthy of authority. The goal was not persuasion; it was humiliation. In that sense, the language functioned less like political commentary and more like a public attempt to put Black women “back in their place.”

Loomer’s criticism appears to have been sparked in part by Nixon’s opposition to resolutions honoring conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Nixon had argued that Kirk’s remarks about Black people were harmful and that honoring him risked validating white supremacist politics. Loomer could have answered that argument with evidence, context, or political disagreement. Instead, she chose degradation. By escalating from a public policy dispute to racialized insult, she revealed how quickly some political actors abandon debate when a Black woman asserts moral authority.

Nixon’s response was notable because she refused to accept the terms of the attack. She insisted on being addressed by her elected title, a demand that cut to the heart of the matter. Loomer’s rhetoric was designed to deny status, seriousness, and legitimacy. Nixon’s insistence on “Representative” restored the basic fact that she is not a prop in someone else’s spectacle. She is an elected official, a Senate candidate, and possibly the first Black person to represent Florida in the U.S. Senate. 

However, when Nixon told Loomer to address her as “Representative,” Loomer responded with another racial stereotype. She escalated the exchange, invoking “Ebonics” and telling Nixon she might need to bark at her and tug her leash for the lawmaker to understand. Moreover, Loomer continued attacking Nixon and on Sunday said she stood by her remarks.

The backlash exposed a political line so blatant that at least one figure not known for delicate rhetoric felt compelled to condemn it. Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene rejected Loomer’s comments as hateful and racist. 

Meanwhile Maryland Gov. Wes Moore accused Loomer of turning racism into a business model for attention and clicks. Those responses underscored the central problem: when racism is packaged as provocation, it can become profitable, repeatable, and politically useful unless people across the spectrum refuse to normalize it.

Loomer’s refusal to apologize made the degradation even clearer. A sincere critic might clarify, retract, or reconsider. Loomer instead, using the classic Trump model, amplified, using similarly themed remarks and continuing the exchange, treating the outrage itself as proof of relevance. That is the machinery of modern political cruelty: say something demeaning, wait for condemnation, then claim victimhood or free-speech martyrdom while the original targets absorb the cost. Black women are expected to endure the insult, answer it with poise, and then continue governing as if the attack were just another day online.

That expectation is precisely why the episode deserves more than a passing rebuke. Loomer’s rhetoric was not merely rude, excessive, or politically incorrect. It was degrading in its purpose and dehumanizing in its effect. It attempted to convert Black women’s public leadership into an object of ridicule. Nixon’s answer points toward the only adequate response: name the racism, reject the spectacle, and insist that public life cannot function if racial and sexist humiliation is treated as entertainment. Condemnation is necessary, but it is not nearly enough, unless it is paired with a refusal to reward the conduct that made the condemnation necessary in the first place. “Laura Loomer’s Degrading Attacks Deserve More Than Condemnation: Let’s See How That Goes!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, conduct your own web searches. Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Laura Loomer’s Degrading Attacks Deserve More Than Condemnation: Let’s See How That Goes

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

Ossoff’s “Natalie” Remark & the Ensuing GOP Faux Outrage

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

Summary: The controversy over GA Sen. Jon Ossoff’s “Natalie” remark is best understood as a test of consistency. The line may have been clumsy, but the outrage from Trump’s allies rings hollow, given Trump’s long record of degrading comments about women, especially women who challenge him publicly.

  • Access Hollywood: Trump was recorded boasting that famous men can kiss women without waiting and “grab them” by their genitals.
  • Pageant dressing rooms: Trump told Howard Stern that, as a pageant owner, he could go backstage while contestants were dressing because he was “inspecting” the pageant.
  • Megyn Kelly: Trump responded to her questions about misogyny by saying there was “blood coming out of her eyes” and “blood coming out of her wherever.”
  • Black women journalists and public figures: April Ryan, Abby Phillip, Yamiche Alcindor, Omarosa Manigault Newman, and Rep. Maxine Waters have been targeted with insults such as “stupid,” “racist,” “dog,” “crazed, crying lowlife,” and “low IQ individual.”

The uproar over Ossoff’s reference to Natalie Harp reveals the selectivity of modern political outrage. At an Atlanta rally, Ossoff accused Donald Trump of neglecting the presidency, saying Trump would rather “build his ballroom and travel with Natalie” than do the job. Trump allies called the line sexist and demeaning. Some even claimed she is not a public figure.

There is a fair critique here: political attacks should focus on power, conduct, and policy rather than insinuation. But let’s be clear, there is a bright line that distinguishes implying, which rests with the speaker, and inferring, which lies with the hearer. 

Harp’s proximity to Trump makes her role a legitimate subject of scrutiny, especially given reports that she helps prepare, select, or post content for his social media accounts without ordinary White House review. That is not a private relationship; it is political influence. Yes, Ossoff could have made his point without mentioning Harp, but the claim that she is irrelevant to Trump’s public conduct is impossible to sustain.

The backlash is especially hard to take seriously, when considering Trump’s record. He was recorded boasting that famous men can kiss women without waiting and “grab them” by their genitals. He told Howard Stern that, as a pageant owner, he could go backstage while contestants were dressing because he was “inspecting” the pageant. He answered Megyn Kelly’s questions about misogyny by saying there was “blood coming out of her eyes” and “blood coming out of her wherever.” These were not isolated lapses; they were part of a pattern of contempt.

That pattern is especially stark in Trump’s treatment of Black women who challenge him. April Ryan, Abby Phillip, Yamiche Alcindor, Omarosa Manigault Newman, and Rep. Maxine Waters have been told to sit down, accused of asking “racist” or “stupid” questions, called a “dog” and a “crazed, crying lowlife,” or branded a “low IQ individual.” Those insults draw on familiar stereotypes while punishing women for doing the work of questioning power.

So yes, Ossoff’s line was inelegant. But Trump’s allies are not defending a universal standard of respect for women; they are weaponizing one woman’s name while excusing a long record of contempt toward many women. The outrage over “Natalie” would carry more weight if it came from people who objected when Trump bragged about sexual entitlement, invoked pageant ownership to justify entering dressing rooms, demeaned Megyn Kelly, called Omarosa a “dog,” or belittled Maxine Waters and Black women reporters with racially loaded condescension. Instead, it looks selective, tactical, and hollow. Until Trump’s defenders apply their standard to Trump himself, their fury is not a principle. It is a performance.

The point is not that every flawed remark deserves endless condemnation; it is that moral standards lose meaning when they are applied only to political opponents. If Trump’s defenders want to claim the mantle of respect for women, they must confront the record of the man they defend. Otherwise, the outrage over Ossoff’s comment is not a defense of women at all. It is a partisan shield for Trump. This has been the story of “Ossoff’s “Natalie” Remark & the Ensuing GOP Faux Outrage!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, conduct your own web searches. Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Ossoff’s “Natalie” Remark & the Ensuing GOP Faux Outrage

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

Obama Played the Inexperience Card (Edition X)

Posted on by
Reply

It’s time to Break It Down!

Note: This is a reprised, amended, and expanded presentation of my original blog post, a version of which I have subsequently shared eight times.

Happy 19th Anniversary “Break It Down!”

Today, in acknowledgment of another anniversary of this publication, as I have often done in years past, I am revisiting my inaugural post.

Before launching into that post, it is only fitting to add a little context. My original blog entry centered on a young lion named Barack Obama, then still emerging on the national stage, moving toward what would, for all practical purposes, become his era.

Tempus fugit—time flies. Today marks a significant milestone in the life and development of “Break It Down!” I began this blog on August 20, 2007, on something close to a lark—almost a dare. That was exactly nineteen years and 990 editions ago, come tomorrow. Since I have told the backstory several times over the years, I will spare readers the full recounting today.

What I will note, however, is that on that summer evening I spent five paragraphs considering the experience—or, more accurately, the perceived lack of it—of then Senator Barack Obama as he navigated the early stages of his historic presidential campaign.

In a nutshell, Post #1 consisted of five brisk paragraphs and a sign-off:

“In an apparent, calculated act of derring-do, Obama declares the virtue of inexperience. Gotta love it!

Personal footnote of recollection: I remember Jimmy Carter running the classic “anti-Washington” campaign in 1975–76—one built, in part, around his lack of Capitol Hill experience. And you know what? It worked.

The problem was that once President Carter sent many of the reigning bureaucrats and policy wonks home, he was left with an assembly of newcomers who did not fully understand how to get things done in Washington. 

The result was that a very smart man, a genuine humanitarian, and an otherwise successful leader presided over what was widely perceived at the time as a disastrous presidency. His single term was fraught with serious challenges—the Shah of Iran, double-digit inflation, runaway gas prices, and the outrageous interest-rate and mortgage morass—as well as public-relations gaffes, from the infamous killer rabbit story to the failed helicopter rescue attempt.

Fortunately for former President Carter, he lived long enough and did enough good work after leaving office to distance himself from much of that unremarkable one-term tenure, which ended with a resounding defeat at the hands of the cowboy actor, the Teflon guy.”

Of course, none of that had anything directly to do with Obama—except in the unlikely event that he prevailed. If he did, I wrote, let us hope he would not take the inexperience thing too far. As President George W. Bush constantly reminded us, getting to the White House is one thing; providing prudent and effective leadership once there is quite another. In hindsight, of course, we know President Obama not only prevailed but went on to win re-election and serve a second term.

As we are now endeavoring to navigate a sometimes tortuous and always unpredictable second year of 45/47’s second term—separated from his first term by Joe Biden’s solo run—we are buffeted by the collective exigencies of the TACO tariff policy, the Day 1 Promise Series, the mass-immigration morass, trying on new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh who will wrap up his first Quarter in office within the week, the continued broadside attacks on the Smithsonian museums, especially the National Museum of African American History and Culture, constant efforts to deflect attention from the infamous so-called Epstein Files, the circuitous saga of installing a new Attorney General and former (or current personal counsel) Todd Blanche, the now you see him, now you don’t fiasco of hiding POTUS in a catering truck, only to ensconce him on a “third” plane, while leaving the press corps and several staffers on the erstwhile Air Force-1, which in effect, was temporarily reduced to a decoy plane, and finally, traversing Mr. Trump’s war-of-choice with Iran and the quest to determine if the Strait of Hormuz will ever again be open again, as it was before Trump joined Netanyahu in a launching an attack on Iran. It is enough to make one say, “Where is Obama when you need him?” I kid, I kid.

Barack Obama, whom many Democrats—and even some Republicans—regard as a sterling orator, won wide acclaim more than two decades ago, in 2004, when he addressed the Democratic National Convention in Boston. At the time, he was an aspiring U.S. Senate candidate, fresh off an unexpected landslide victory in the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary. That victory catapulted him into rising-star status within Democratic Party circles, and he leveraged that newfound celebrity into a speaking role at the 2004 convention, where he delivered in spectacular fashion. He went on to win his Senate race in Illinois and served four years before mounting his successful 2008 presidential campaign.

For context, here is how national news outlets framed the Democratic presidential campaign on August 20, 2007:

Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Debate in Iowa

Obama posits virtue of inexperience: What rivals criticized as naiveté; he presented as a break from the status quo.

At that Iowa debate, Obama attempted to turn his perceived lack of national experience into a strength. Challenged by rivals over his readiness and recent foreign-policy comments, he argued that Washington experience alone had not prevented the country from making grave mistakes. “Nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney,” Obama said, pointing to those who had helped lead the nation into the Iraq War. His broader point was that conventional thinking had become a habit in Washington—and that habit, he suggested, was part of the problem.

Senator Christopher Dodd countered that a president would not have time to get ready after taking office. Former Senator John Edwards, while acknowledging that Obama’s views added something to the debate, warned against airing hypothetical solutions to serious foreign-policy problems. Obama, for his part, held firm: experience mattered, but judgment mattered too.

Reflecting now on the 2008 campaign, I am struck again by how swiftly time and events pass. I am reminded, especially, of how a supremely confident senator from Illinois approached his moment. That moment propelled me to write the words, “Obama Played the Inexperience Card!” In the years since, he has gained an enormous amount of experience—political, presidential, historical, and otherwise. “Obama Played the Inexperience Card – Edition X!”

I’m done, holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, conduct your own web searches.Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Obama Played the Inexperience Card (Edition X)

This post was augmented by AI.

A Ruse By Any Other Name: Presidential Primer on How to Slip Away

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

Reports published this week described an unusual security operation surrounding President Trump’s departure from Ankara, Turkey, after last month’s NATO summit. The public-facing story began normally: cameras saw Trump enter an older Air Force One (AF-1) aircraft, and journalists and some staff members believed they were traveling on the same plane as the president. Behind that familiar departure ritual, however, officials reportedly carried out a carefully staged diversion that moved him onto a third aircraft before the flight left Turkey.

The reported ruse, which one outlet dubbed “Three Plane Monty, centered on misdirection. Trump had arrived in Turkey on a newer, Qatari-donated Boeing 747-8 that had been adapted for presidential use. But before leaving Ankara he announced that he would use an older AF-1 aircraft instead, describing the choice as being “for old time’s sake.” That explanation implied the switch was sentimental or logistical rather than urgent. 

The older jet then became the visible stage for the deception: it was positioned for departure. Press and staff were aboard, and Trump entered it in full view of cameras.

According to reporting, the key move happened only after Trump boarded the decoy aircraft. A catering truck, the kind normally used to load meals and supplies onto planes, was positioned on the far side of the jet, away from the cameras’ main view. Through that ordinary-looking service vehicle, the president was reportedly moved out of sight and transported to a different aircraft, later identified in reports as an Air Force C-32A, a military version of the Boeing 757. That third plane—not the older AF-1 that the public and press believed he was using—carried him from Ankara to Royal Air Force Mildenhall in the United Kingdom.

That visible performance mattered because the ruse depended on more than moving the president from one aircraft to another. It required everyone watching to believe the ordinary sequence of presidential travel was unfolding exactly as expected.

The reason for the deception, according to news reports, was a credible threat tied to Iran and allied proxies. U.S. officials were said to have been concerned that adversaries might deploy a Surface-to-Air (SAM) to target the aircraft believed to be carrying the president as it left Turkey. 

By allowing observers to believe Trump was aboard the older AF-1 while placing him on a separate military jet, security planners reduced the risk that any hostile actor could confidently identify his actual location. In that sense, the ruse was less about secrecy for its own sake than about creating uncertainty at a moment when certainty could have been dangerous.

The operation also reportedly left some people on the decoy aircraft unaware of the switch. Journalists and certain White House staff members traveled on the older AF-1 believing Trump was onboard. Reports said press cabin window shades were kept closed, reinforcing the controlled environment around the movement. 

The deception allegedly continued even after the separate aircraft landed. Before deplaning, Trump was returned to AF-1, allowing passengers on the decoy flight to remain unaware that he had not actually traveled with them. That final step made the operation more complete: the ruse did not end once the third plane was airborne but continued until the normal appearance of presidential travel could be restored. If accurate, that detail illustrates how presidential security can rely not only on armored vehicles, secure communications, and military aircraft, but also on ordinary-looking objects and routine airport procedures.

Some aboard the decoy flight reportedly did not realize that the president was absent, because the transfer had been concealed. Once the details emerged, the reaction was a mix of surprise, curiosity, and recognition that the secrecy had been deliberate rather than accidental. 

For journalists in particular, the episode underscored how limited a view even the traveling press corps may have during sensitive security movements: they can witness the visible ceremony of departure while remaining unaware of the operational decisions taking place just out of sight.

Public discussion of the episode has focused on both the seriousness of the threat and the sensitivity of revealing such protective methods. Officials quoted in news reports expressed frustration that classified tactics had entered public view, warning that disclosure could make similar operations harder in the future. That reaction echoed concerns expressed after initial reports emerged that security concerns has caused ditching the Qatari-gifted plane in favor of a previous AF-1. The Trump Administration DOJ issued and subsequently rescinded subpoenas targeting The New York Times reporters for security leaks. The current response was more of the same.

The incident offered a rare glimpse into the layered nature of presidential travel security. The visible aircraft, the stated explanation, the press arrangements, the service truck, the third plane, and the return to Air Force One all formed parts of a single deception plan. The result was a departure that appeared routine from one angle but, according to the reporting, was designed to conceal the president’s true route until the illusion was no longer needed.

At the highest level, the operation was a success. The President was unscathed, and protecting POTUS is always critical at all costs. The press corps and anyone else traveling in a Presidential Party does so with full knowledge that they may be subject to heightened danger. Most, however, do not expect to be used as a decoy, and/or placed in that position unknowingly. One could certainly make the case that by traveling on AF-1, an aircraft designed with a plethora of defensive and offensive capabilities, the journalists and staff members were best positioned to survive an enemy assault, should one have come. Still, to place the working press, and even administration staff (presuming they didn’t know either) in that position unknowingly, is in a word, unseemly. Of course, considering Trump sees much of the media as the enemy of the people, it doesn’t exactly land as a surprise. “A Ruse By Any Other Name: Presidential Primer on How to Slip Away!”

I’m done, holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, conduct your own web searches.

A Ruse By Any Other Name: Presidential Primer on How to Slip Away

This post was augmented by AI.

The GOP’s Max Miller Dilemma: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery

Posted on by
1

BREAK IT DOWN!

The controversy surrounding Rep. Max Miller has become a revealing dilemma for Republicans: how to balance loyalty, political survival, and the hard limits of Trump-era defiance. Miller, an Ohio Republican and former aide to Donald Trump, is facing intense pressure over allegations made by his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, the daughter of Sen. Bernie Moreno. Miller has denied wrongdoing, but the accusations have triggered calls for him to leave Congress and abandon his reelection campaign. The dispute has also drawn in Trump himself, whose public sympathy and private political realism point in different directions.

Publicly, Trump has avoided an outright break with Miller. Asked about the allegations, he described Miller as a good person and framed the matter as a painful family dispute. Privately, however, multiple reports said Trump phoned Miller and warned that his political position had deteriorated. According to accounts of the call, Trump told Miller that the race would be difficult and that he was not sure Miller would be able to pull it out. That warning sharpened the dilemma: Trump could stand by a loyal ally and risk a damaged seat or acknowledge that loyalty does not always translate into electability.

Miller’s response deepened the dilemma rather than resolving it. In a CNN interview, Miller said he reminded Trump of the resilience Trump showed in 2016, when many political observers believed his campaign could collapse after the release of the Access Hollywood tape. Trump refused to quit, weathered the scandal, and went on to win the presidency as the 45th president of the United States. Miller’s point was clear: if Trump could survive a moment that seemed politically fatal, Miller argued, then he too should not be expected to retreat simply because party leaders feared the consequences.

The comparison is politically useful for Miller, but it is also risky. Trump’s 2016 survival became a central myth of his movement: never apologize, never retreat, and trust that supporters will filter scandal through partisan loyalty. By invoking that example, Miller is trying to cast his own refusal to step aside as strength rather than stubbornness. He has insisted that his constituents know him better than national commentators do, and he has argued that the race will be decided locally rather than by pressure from Washington, cable news, or the extended Moreno family feud.

Still, Miller’s situation is not simply a matter of campaign grit. Republicans reportedly fear that keeping him on the ballot could place an otherwise winnable Ohio seat at risk. The deadline for replacing him has added urgency to the pressure campaign. If Miller withdraws in time, party leaders could seek another nominee; if he stays, the party may be forced to defend a candidate under a harsh spotlight. That explains why Trump’s private warning carried such significance. It suggested not a moral judgment, but a hard political calculation: Miller might be loyal, but loyalty does not guarantee electability.

The episode captures a familiar tension in Republican politics. Trump’s brand rewards defiance, yet Republican strategists still worry about swing voters, suburban discomfort, and the down-ballot consequences of scandal. Miller is betting that the Trump model of endurance remains transferable. His critics are betting that this case is different, and that allegations involving family violence cannot be absorbed through partisan messaging alone. Whether Miller’s invocation of 2016 proves shrewd or self-defeating will depend on whether voters see him as resilient, reckless, or simply too damaged to continue.

For now, the imbroglio has turned Miller’s campaign into more than one Ohio House race. It has become a dilemma about how far the Trump model of political survival can be stretched. When Trump told Miller winning would be difficult, Miller answered with Trump’s own biography: the Access Hollywood tape, the calls to quit, the refusal to leave, and the eventual victory. It was in effect, the ultimate “Be like Trump retort. 

Miller’s repeated refrain is, he is not leaving the race; he is confident he will win. Regardless of whether he is that confident, or he has picked the ironic moment to be a poseur and engage in classic Trumpian bluster, that answer forces members of the Grand Old Party to choose between two lessons from the Trump era: never surrender under pressure or recognize when damage to a candidate may damage the party as well. “The GOP’s Max Miller Dilemma: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery!”

I’m done, holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.” 

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Miller_(politician)

The GOP’s Max Miller Dilemma: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

Jay Clayton’s DNI Confirmation and the 2020 Election Test

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

Jay Clayton’s confirmation as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) places a longtime legal and financial regulator at the center of the nation’s intelligence apparatus at a politically charged moment. The Senate confirmed Clayton in a 51–47 party-line vote, giving President Donald Trump a permanent intelligence chief after a turbulent stretch in which acting Director Bill Pulte drew criticism from lawmakers in both parties. Clayton, a former chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, will now oversee the coordination of 18 intelligence agencies and help shape the intelligence briefings delivered to the president.

The vote might have been less contentious had Clayton’s confirmation hearing gone differently. Democratic senators repeatedly pressed him to say plainly that Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. Clayton, who used several sentence structure combinations refused to say those precise words, or anything approximating them. Instead, he said that Biden had been “certified” as president and had gone through the constitutional process. He also told senators, “I’m not an election denier,” while steadfastly avoiding saying Biden won. 

For Republicans, those answers did not disqualify him; for Democrats, they became a central reason to oppose his nomination.

The exchange mattered because the Director of National Intelligence is expected to deliver unvarnished assessments, even when the facts are politically inconvenient. The intelligence community’s credibility depends on a leader who can separate evidence from loyalty tests and resist pressure to validate preferred narratives. Clayton’s supporters argue that his experience managing major institutions and navigating sensitive legal matters gives him the discipline needed for the job. His critics counter that refusing to acknowledge a basic electoral fact raises questions about whether he will speak candidly to power.

Clayton also takes office as Congress debates the future of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a powerful warrantless surveillance authority that had become entangled in the fight over intelligence leadership. Republican leaders suggested that confirming Clayton could help restore momentum to reauthorization talks. Democrats, however, warned that the role should not be treated merely as a procedural obstacle to renewing surveillance powers. They argued that the person leading the intelligence community must command bipartisan trust, particularly when that office handles sensitive information about elections, foreign threats, and civil liberties.

The controversy over Clayton’s answers also reflects a broader pattern in Washington: the 2020 election remains a recurring test for nominees seeking positions of public trust. For many Democrats, acknowledging that Biden won is not a partisan demand but a threshold question about respect for democratic outcomes. For many Republicans, the focus on the question is viewed as political theater or an attempt to relitigate past disputes. Clayton attempted to thread that needle by recognizing the certification process without explicitly endorsing the wording his questioners sought.

Now that he has been confirmed, Clayton’s performance will be judged less by the hearing transcript than by how he leads. If he protects intelligence work from political interference, restores confidence after Pulte’s brief and controversial tenure, and offers the president accurate assessments regardless of political convenience, he may quiet some doubts. If the office becomes a vehicle for revisiting election grievances or advancing partisan narratives, the questions raised during his confirmation hearing will look less like a distraction and more like an early warning, somewhat akin to concerns expressed about former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and current Secretary of Defense ((War), Pete Hegseth.

Clayton begins the job with authority, but not consensus. His confirmation gives the intelligence community a Senate-confirmed leader, yet it also leaves him with a credibility challenge. The central issue is no longer only what he would say about 2020. It is whether, as DNI, he will defend the intelligence community’s obligation to tell the truth plainly when the truth is difficult. That is the gist of…“Jay Clayton’s DNI Confirmation and the 2020 Election Test!”

I’m done, holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/28/politics/jay-clayton-director-national-intelligence

Jay Clayton’s DNI Confirmation and the 2020 Election Test

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

In Loving Memory of Jean: A Life of Grace, Strength, and Devotion

Posted on by
1

BREAK IT DOWN!

From time to time, I share a personal post. This week is one of those times.

There are many metaphors for the fleeting thing we call life. The list includes, but is not limited to:

A Journey

An Adventure

A Rollercoaster

A Garden

A Stage

A Book

A Battle

A Puzzle

Climbing a Mountain

Sunrise to Sunset

That’s 10; suffice it to say, there are many more. 

A couple of months ago, I attended the homegoing service of a longtime family friend, who was a centenarian. A couple of weeks ago, I attended the funeral of a nonagenarian; the mother of one of my good friends. This past weekend, I paid last respects for a dearly beloved octogenarian cousin. Three Black women, wives, mothers, grandmothers; all three educators. Cumulatively, they amassed 284 years of life on this earth. So many of us were blessed and highly favored by their presence.

Indeed, each of them was extraordinary, and lived an amazing life. Nevertheless, this post is about Jean, and for her family. I met over 67 years ago, June 6, 1959, the day she married my first cousin, Jesse.

Jean Rhem Wiggins, age 88, was born on January 17, 1938, in Kinston (Grifton really), North Carolina, and entered eternal rest on July 1, 2026, in Durham, North Carolina. The years 1938 and 2026 are on opposite sides of the proverbial dash. The dash represents her life well-lived. 

She leaves behind a legacy of love, perseverance, faith, and quiet strength. Jean carried the spirit of her hometown throughout her life: a spirit rooted in family, dignity, hospitality, and resilience. Those who knew her will remember not only the years she lived, but the grace and spirit with which she lived them.

Jean’s life was marked by devotion to the people she loved. She shared a meaningful life and lasting bond with her husband, Jesse, and she was the proud mother of her children, Cedric and Cynthia. Through them, her love continued to grow across generations. She was blessed with four grandchildren, Jessica, Shirai, CJ (Cedric Jr.), and Jason; one great-grandchild, Skylar; and two beloved goddaughters, Spring and Cheryl, each of whom held a special place in her heart. To her family, she was more than a wife, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, or godmother; she was a steady presence, a source of wisdom, and a reminder of the importance of faith, kindness, and togetherness.

Jean knew all too well what it meant to endure. After beating cancer, she subsequently spent years on dialysis. She faced the demands of illness with courage, dignity, and determination. The journey was not easy, yet she continued to show strength in ways both visible and unseen. Though Jean and I had known each other for decades, we really became close as she contemplated dialysis. After she decided to try it, she and I spoke almost daily. For years. Every once and a while, Jean would call me. But, mostly, weekdays, weekends, at home, traveling, on the highway, in hotels, in airports, from NY, California, Hawaii, Africa, Asia, Europe, I called Jean. It was our daily constitutional. 

She enjoyed it. She didn’t understand why I did it, but she knew she enjoyed it. I did it for her. I did it for Jesse. I did it for Cynthia, and Cedric, and for Jessica, Shirai, CJ, and Jason, and for Skylar, and Spring and Cheryl. I did for my family because I knew they needed their matriarch. She was their rock, and anything I could do to help keep her engaged and fighting for another day would make them happy. That made me happy.

On June 30, I visited her at Duke Hospital and later at Hock Pavilion Hospice, where it was clear that after years of labor, treatment, and perseverance, she was tired. Even so, she was at peace with her decision to transition from labor to reward.

Jean’s passing is deeply felt by all of us who loved her, but her life continues to speak through the memories she leaves behind. Her laughter, her words of encouragement, her lessons, and her love will remain treasured gifts. She helped shape the lives of her children and inspired generations of students she taught. Her grandchildren and great-grandchild inherit not only her name and family history, but also the example of a woman who lived with purpose and dignity.

Those who were blessed to know Jean understood that love is often shown in simple, lasting ways: in a listening ear, a familiar voice, a gentle correction, a warm welcome, or a prayer offered at just the right time. She gave of herself in ways that mattered. Her presence brought comfort, and her memory will continue to bring strength.

As family and friends reflect on the life of Jean Rhem Wiggins, we give thanks for 88 years of life, love, and perseverance. From her beginnings in Kinston to her final days in Durham, and the days in New York, Greensboro, High Point, Columbia, and Richmond in between, her journey was filled with meaning. Though she has departed from this earthly life, the love she gave remains alive in the hearts of her husband Jesse; her children, Cedric and Cynthia; her grandchildren, Jessica, Shirai, CJ (Cedric Jr.), and Jason; her great-grandchild, Skylar; and her goddaughters, Spring and Cheryl,  and a host of extended family and friends and classroom pupils.

Jean will be remembered with gratitude, honored with love, and missed beyond words. May her soul rest in peace, and may our entire family find comfort in knowing that her life was a blessing, her strength was an inspiration, and her legacy will continue to be a resonate forever.

Farewell; rest in eternal peace Jean! “In Loving Memory of Jean: A Life of Grace, Strength, and Devotion!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

In Loving Memory of Jean: A Life of Grace, Strength, and Devotion

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

Appeals Exhausted: Trump Pays E. Jean Carroll $5.625 Million

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

Donald Trump’s payment of $5.625 million to writer E. Jean Carroll marks a significant moment in one of the most closely watched civil cases involving the former and current president. The payout stems from a 2023 federal jury verdict in Manhattan that found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s and for defaming her after she publicly accused him. The original award was $5 million, but the amount grew to $5,625,005.48 because of post-judgment interest that accumulated while Trump pursued appeals and the money remained in a court-controlled account.

The case began after Carroll, a longtime advice columnist and author, alleged that Trump assaulted her in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan in the mid-1990s. Trump denied the accusation, said he did not know Carroll, and accused her of fabricating the story. Carroll sued, arguing that Trump’s public denials damaged her reputation. A jury later found that Carroll had proved her civil claims by a preponderance of the evidence, the standard used in civil cases. The verdict did not find Trump criminally guilty, but it did impose civil liability and monetary damages.

The payout became possible only after a long appeals process. Trump had deposited money into the court’s registry investment system while challenging the verdict. That arrangement effectively held the judgment in escrow, protecting Carroll’s ability to collect if Trump lost his appeals. In June 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Trump’s appeal, leaving the lower-court judgment intact. Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan then ordered the funds released, noting that Trump had delayed payment for years. A federal appeals court rejected Trump’s last-minute effort to block the transfer.

The issues surrounding the case go beyond the dollar amount. First, it highlights the power of civil litigation to address allegations that may be too old for criminal prosecution. Carroll’s lawsuit was aided by New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which temporarily allowed survivors of sexual abuse to bring civil claims even after the usual statute of limitations had expired. Second, the case underscores the legal risks of public denials that go beyond rejecting an accusation and instead attack the accuser’s honesty, motives, or character. Defamation law allows plaintiffs to seek damages when false statements harm reputation.

The case also raises questions about accountability for powerful public figures. Trump has continued to deny wrongdoing and has described the litigation as politically motivated. Carroll and her attorneys have framed the verdict as a vindication of her credibility and a broader victory for survivors who speak publicly about alleged abuse. Because the case involved a former president, and later a sitting president, it also tested the boundary between political speech, personal conduct, and legal responsibility.

Another major issue remains unresolved: Carroll also won a separate $83.3 million defamation verdict related to additional statements Trump made about her. That larger judgment is still subject to further appeals. The $5.625 million payment therefore represents not the end of the broader dispute, but the first completed financial recovery from Carroll’s legal victories. It shows how jury verdicts, appeals, interest, and escrow arrangements can shape the practical outcome of high-profile civil litigation. More importantly, it demonstrates that even politically charged cases ultimately turn on evidence, legal standards, and the ability of courts to enforce judgments. Moreover, for those who supported Mr. Trump’s position that Ms. Carroll’s claims were bogus, the people have spoken, the courts have upheld the people’s decision, and the defendant has paid the plaintiff. Enough said; what else ya got? “Appeals Exhausted: Trump Pays E. Jean Carroll $5.625 million!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

https://www.npr.org/2026/07/14/nx-s1-5893598/e-jean-carroll-trump-sexual-abuse-defamation

Appeals Exhausted: Trump Pays E. Jean Carroll $5.625 Million

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

The Color of Free Speech in America

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

On July 4, 250 members of the Patriot Front marched through the streets of Washington, D.C. One poignant photo captured by Reuters photographer Cheney Orr featured a young (unidentified) Black woman in a DC train car, loaded with masked members of the White Supremist group. She did not avert her eyes. Rather she sat in solemnity amid the cowards who refused to reveal their faces…ostensibly because they may be your neighbor, your relative, your boss, or perhaps, even your subordinate. The Trump administration has not condemned this act, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum called the march an expression of free speech.

Considering that Trump and the GOP have promoted recent efforts to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, weaken the Voting Rights Act, and challenge majority-Black voting districts, characterizing a White Supremacist march as free speech is, well, special. 

The strategies, if you want to call the march a strategy, may appear to belong to different worlds. One is a street demonstration by an openly white nationalist organization; the others involve formal politics, litigation, legislation, and administrative policy. Yet comparing them reveals an important tension in American public life: extremist movements often express racial hierarchy in blunt symbolic terms, while mainstream political actors can pursue race-conscious outcomes through the language of colorblindness, institutional neutrality, or anti-discrimination.

Patriot Front’s march was explicit theater. Reports described masked members carrying Confederate flags, chanting “Reclaim America,” and presenting themselves as defenders of a supposedly endangered national identity. The group has been identified by civil rights monitors and news organizations as white supremacist and anti-immigrant. Its message depends on spectacle: uniforms, flags, synchronized movement, and the occupation of symbolic space on Independence Day. The point is not merely to argue policy but to project intimidation and belonging—who counts as “real” America and who does not.

By contrast, Republican opposition to DEI, race-conscious voting protections, and Black-majority districts is usually framed in institutional and legal terms. DEI programs are criticized as unfair preferences or ideological bureaucracy. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is challenged as an improper use of race in districting. Majority-Black districts are described by opponents as racial gerrymanders rather than remedies for vote dilution. This position presents itself as a defense of equal treatment: government, schools, and employers should not classify people by race, even for remedial purposes.

The contrast, then, is one of style, legitimacy, and mechanism, but January 6, 2021, complicates the boundary between symbolic politics and political violence. Patriot Front operates outside the mainstream and uses openly exclusionary symbolism. GOP policy arguments operate through courts, state legislatures, school boards, executive orders, and agency rules. Yet the attack on the U.S. Capitol showed how claims about a stolen election, when amplified by political leaders and accepted by organized supporters, can move from speech into coercive action. The First Amendment protects protest, assembly, petitioning government, and even harsh or offensive political expression; it does not protect violence, true threats, or incitement directed toward imminent lawless action. That is of course, unless the President of the United States opts to grant clemency to roughly 1600 convicted January 6th defendants, which Trump did by signing Presidential Proclamation 10887, on his first day in office, January 20, 2025. The vast majority received full pardons, while there were 14 commutations, and several hundred dismissals of pending prosecutions.  

This First Amendment distinction is essential to the comparison. Patriot Front members have a constitutional right to march and express hateful views so long as they do not engage in violence, targeted intimidation, or unlawful conduct. Likewise, Republicans have a constitutional right to argue that DEI programs are unfair, that race-conscious districting is unconstitutional, or that voting-rights law has gone too far. But constitutional protection for speech does not settle the moral or democratic consequences of that speech. The question is not simply whether a march, slogan, lawsuit, or campaign message is legally permitted. It is whether the protected expression is being used to expand democratic participation or to normalize the exclusion of disfavored groups from equal citizenship.

Moreover, the comparison becomes sharper when one looks at consequences rather than language. Eliminating DEI can reduce institutional efforts to address racial exclusion in hiring, education, contracting, and workplace culture. Weakening the Voting Rights Act makes it harder for Black voters to challenge maps that dilute their political power. Eliminating majority-Black districts can reduce Black representation, especially in Southern states where racially polarized voting remains significant. Even if the stated rationale is colorblindness, the practical effect likely results in preserving or restore existing racial disparities.

While that does not mean the GOP position and Patriot Front’s ideology are identical…it does demonstrate how they may achieve similar ends. It is important to distinguish a political party’s legal arguments from a white supremacist movement’s open racial nationalism. Many conservatives say they sincerely believe DEI programs are divisive and that race-based districting conflicts with equal protection principles. A democratic society must allow debate over how best to remedy discrimination. But the distinction in motive does not erase the overlap in effect when both approaches weaken tools designed to counter racial hierarchy.

The central difference is that Patriot Front dramatizes white grievance as an identity movement, while anti-DEI and anti-Voting Rights Act politics translate similar anxieties into policy. The central similarity is that both can narrow the meaning of equal citizenship. 

January 6 adds another warning: democratic speech becomes dangerous when it is used not to persuade voters, but to delegitimize votes, intimidate public officials, or overturn lawful political outcomes. One form of exclusion marches through the capital under white nationalist symbols; another dismantles institutions created to expand participation and representation; still another attacks the peaceful transfer of power while invoking constitutional freedom. In that sense, the issue is not only whether racism is shouted in the streets, argued in court, or defended as free expression. The deeper question is whether American democracy will protect the First Amendment while also defending the voting rights, representative districts, and civic remedies necessary to make equality real. The answer will go a long way in determining “The Color of Free Speech in America!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

The Color of Free Speech in America

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

America at 250: Celebration, Memory, and Debate

Posted on by
1

BREAK IT DOWN!

The famed O’Jays released a song in 1975 entitled Livin’ For The Weekend. It was arguably one of the R&B anthems for the Bicentennial, spending two weeks atop the Charts in 1976. As is the case this year, the holiday landed on the weekend (Sunday). This Saturday July 4, 2026,  United States will mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a milestone often called the semi-quincentennial. Like the centennial in 1876 and the bicentennial in 1976, the anniversary invites Americans to celebrate endurance: a republic that has survived civil war, economic depression, global conflict, social upheaval, and repeated tests of democratic institutions. The occasion naturally calls for fireworks, parades, public ceremonies, museum exhibits, and renewed attention to the founding ideals of liberty, equality, and self-government. Yet America’s 250th birthday is not only a party. It is also a national argument about memory, identity, and the meaning of patriotism.

The central promise of the anniversary is civic reflection. The Declaration’s claim that “all men are created equal” remains one of the most powerful statements in world history, even though the nation that adopted it tolerated slavery, excluded women from political rights, displaced Native peoples, and restricted citizenship for many groups. Over 250 years, Americans have repeatedly used the founding language to demand a fuller democracy. Abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights leaders, labor organizers, immigrants, veterans, and ordinary citizens have all appealed to the nation’s founding principles while insisting that those principles be made real. In that sense, the anniversary should honor both the founders’ achievement and the generations who challenged the country to live up to it.

That balance is where many controversies begin. Some Americans want the semi-quincentennial to emphasize unity, military strength, national pride, and gratitude for the country’s accomplishments. Others worry that a purely celebratory approach not only promotes selective history, but actually endeavors to re-write history, minimizing slavery, Indigenous dispossession, racial segregation, immigration struggles, and conflicts over civil liberties. Critics of official commemorations have argued that some events risk replacing historical complexity with patriotic spectacle, aka, in some circles, performative patriotism. Supporters answer that national anniversaries should inspire confidence rather than deepen division, and that excessive criticism can obscure the country’s extraordinary experiment in constitutional government. Odd that those supporters have no problem contesting the celebration of some of the elements that have clearly contributed to making America…America. Elements such as those highlighted in the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which the current administration has pushed to be scrubbed, DEI, which the administration has forcefully worked to roll back, the Voting Rights Act, which has been reduced to only a shell of its former iteration, don’t forget the indignities foisted upon Black Americans during the episode we now know as Juneteenth, and finally, one of the storylines of this week, Birthright Citizenship, which President Trump attempted to eliminate by Executive Order, but which was at least temporarily spared by virtue of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling.  

Another controversy involves politics. Although national birthday celebrations are usually presented as nonpartisan, the 250th anniversary has unfolded during a sharply polarized era. Disputes have arisen over who controls the official narrative, how public and private money is raised and spent, and whether major events are being used to promote a particular political leader or movement rather than the nation as a whole. Debates over competing organizations, donor transparency, and the tone of large public gatherings show that commemoration is never neutral. The way a country tells its story reveals what it values, what it fears, and whom it chooses to include.

A useful anniversary should do more than praise or condemn. It should create space for honest patriotism: love of country strong enough to celebrate achievement and mature enough to see failure. America’s 250th anniversary can be meaningful if it resists two temptations–the temptation to turn history into propaganda and the temptation to treat the nation’s flaws as its whole story. The United States has always been unfinished. Its founding ideals were imperfectly applied, but they also gave later generations a language for reform. To commemorate 250 years well is to recognize that democracy depends on memory, argument, participation, and renewal. The best birthday gift Americans can give their country is not unquestioning applause, but a renewed commitment to making its promises truer. Ready or not, Saturday is coming. “America at 250: Celebration, Memory, and Debate!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

To subscribe, click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space, and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult search engines for more information on the subject.

America at 250: Celebration, Memory, and Debate

This post was augmented by the use of AI.