We have allowed ourselves to sit back and let political machines control our politics. When someone in Baltimore asks WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY----WHY CAN WE NOT FIX THE PROBLEMS IN OUR CITY WITH POLS ELECTED AS DEMOCRATS-----I say----because they serve Republican institutions. There is nothing Democratic in Baltimore.
“Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.”
Politics is WAR (figuratively)---it is a battle and in Baltimore's case a battle between Republicans and Democrats. The first rule of war is KNOW YOUR ENEMY. If a Baltimore Democratic committee and candidate does not shout out that Johns Hopkins and Baltimore Development Corporation are VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY conservative Republican----the 'enemy' of Democrats----then those pols have no intention of even getting into the battle.
WHEN CITIZENS BELIEVE BALTIMORE IS RUN BY DEMOCRATS WHEN ALL POLICY IS WRITTEN AND CONTROLLED BY VERY NEO-CONSERVATIVE INSTITUTIONS----THERE IS NO BATTLE----
The first step towards battle is knowing for what you are fighting. This is where WE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DEMOCRATS need to declare separate views WITHIN the Democratic Party. Social Democracy vs Neo-liberal global free market democracy. One takes the 20th century progressive social democratic policy of social benefit before market profits-----the other brought in by Clinton in the 1990s----the market benefits over social welfare.
MARKET VS SOCIETAL BENEFIT----THAT IS THE BASIC DIFFERENCE WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Now, Republicans are also MARKET VS SOCIETAL BENEFIT so when Clinton took the Democratic Party to this Republican stance on markets----it killed the Democratic base of labor and justice. Less than 20% of the Democratic Party is market-based-----80% of the Democratic base is social based.
A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE NEEDS TO STEP FORWARD AND MAKE CLEAR-----ARE YOU WORKING FOR POLICY THAT HAS CORPORATE WELFARE FOREMOST----OR ARE YOU WORKING FOR THE BENEFIT OF PEOPLE.
That is what a Democratic primary is about-----allowing Democrats having differing views to know what Democratic stance a candidate will take. Today, we have corporate/market Democrats pretending they are social Democrats-----AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM FOR DEMOCRATIC VOTERS. Today's media wants to pretend that all Democrats are neo-liberals and no social Democratic platforms ever make the news.
Clinton/Obama neo-liberals have a battle plan that is totally based on mis-information. Making sure Democratic voters do not know where policy goals lead----they simply pretend they will be people and not profit policy. This is when primaries become captured and scripted---where there is no platform or policy stances.
Social Democracy Is 100% American
July 3, 2015
by Harvey J. Kaye Bill Moyer
For some time we have feared that Republican politicians were losing their minds. Now it seems we must worry, as well, that Democratic politicians are losing their memories.
Appearing late last week on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri insisted that Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont “is too liberal to gather enough votes in this country to become president.” Indeed, responding to the fact that candidate Sanders is not only drawing big, enthusiastic crowds to campaign events in Iowa and New Hampshire, but also pulling within 10 points of frontrunner and party favorite Hillary Clinton in certain state polls, McCaskill said: “It’s not unusual for someone who has an extreme message to have a following.”
Extreme? McCaskill’s remarks indicate that we may be in more trouble than we thought. For some time we have feared that Republican politicians were losing their minds. Now it seems we must worry, as well, that Democratic politicians are losing their memories.
Clearly, McCaskill’s attack — which, to me, smacked of red baiting — was intended as a dismissal of Bernie Sanders’s candidacy based on the fact that Sanders, who has repeatedly won elections in Vermont as an independent and then caucused with the Senate Democrats, is a self-described “democratic socialist” or “social democrat.” And of course, we all know that social democracy is not just unpopular in the United States, it is un-American.
Well, think again. Social democracy is 100 percent American. We may be latecomers to recognizing a universal right to health care (indeed, we are not quite there yet). But we were first in creating a universal right to public education, in endowing ourselves with ownership of national parks, and, for that matter, in conferring voting rights on males without property and abolishing religious tests for holding national office.
Thomas Paine by Laurent Dabos, National Portrait Gallery (Wikicommons)
But there’s even more to the story. It was the American Revolution’s patriot and pamphleteer, Thomas Paine — a hero today to folks left and right, including tea partiers — who launched the social-democratic tradition in the 1790s. In his pamphlets, Rights of Man and Agrarian Justice, Paine outlined plans for combating poverty that would become what we today call Social Security.
As Paine put it in the latter work, since God has provided the earth and the land upon it as a collective endowment for humanity, those who have come to possess the land as private property owe the dispossessed an annual rent for it. Specifically, Paine delineated a limited redistribution of income by way of a tax on landed wealth and property. The funds collected were to provide both grants for young people to get started in life and pensions for the elderly.
Ladies Tailors Strike
Think again. The social-democratic tradition was nurtured by Americans both immigrant and native-born – by the so-called “sewer socialist” German Americans who helped to build the Midwest and, inspired by the likes of Eugene Debs and Victor Berger, radically improved urban life by winning battles for municipal ownership of public utilities. By the Jewish and Italian workers who toiled and suffered in the sweatshops of New York and Chicago but then, led by David Dubinsky and Sidney Hillman, created great labor unions such as the International Ladies Garment Workers Union and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. By the farmers and laborers who rallied to the grand encampments on the prairies organized by populists and socialists across the southwest to hear how, working together in alliances, they could break the grip of Wall Street and create a Cooperative Commonwealth. By African-Americans who came north in the Great Migration to build new lives for themselves and, led by figures such as the socialist, labor leader and civil rights activist A. Philip Randolph, energized the civil rights movement in the 1930s.
And think again. Think about the greatest president of the 20th century, Franklin Roosevelt, whose grand, social-democratic New Deal initiatives – from the CCC, WPA and Rural Electrification Administration, to Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act — not only rescued the nation from the Great Depression, but also reduced inequality and poverty and helped ready the United States to win the second World War and become the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth.
Fighting for the Four Freedoms
Moreover, those we celebrate as the Greatest Generation, the men and women who confronted the Great Depression and went on to defeat fascism, fought for the decidedly social-democratic Four Freedoms – freedom of speech and religion, freedom from want and fear – and the chance of realizing them at war’s end.
Polls conducted in 1943 showed that 94 percent of Americans endorsed old-age pensions; 84 percent, job insurance; 83 percent, universal national health insurance; and 79 percent, aid for students — leading FDR in his 1944 State of the Union message to propose a Second Bill of Rights that would guarantee those very things to all Americans. All of which would be blocked by a conservative coalition of pro-corporate Republicans and white supremacist southern Democrats. And yet, with the aid of the otherwise conservative American Legion, FDR did secure one of the greatest social-democratic programs in American history: the G.I. Bill that enabled 12,000,000 returning veterans to progressively transform themselves and the nation for the better.
Nor did that generation of veterans give up their social-democratic aspirations. On reaching middle age in the 1960s, they enacted civil rights, voting rights, Medicare and Medicaid; established protections for the environment, workers and consumers; and dramatically expanded educational opportunities, especially in public higher education.
We ourselves honor America’s social-democratic history with two great monuments on the National Mall – not just the FDR Memorial, but also the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial. Yes, King was a democratic socialist. Drawing on the New Deal experience, embracing the American tradition of Christian socialism and peaceful activism, and believing, like so many of his generation, that Americans could harness the powers of democratic government to enhance freedom and equality, he campaigned for both racial justice and the rights of working people and the poor.
Senator McCaskill’s attack on Senator Sanders appears to have been launched on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Its rationale rests on the belief that, in the light of the past 40 years of conservative ascendancy and liberal retreat, her words were simple common sense: Aren’t we, as the talking heads tell us, a center-right nation?
Well, no, we are emphatically not. And it is regrettable that by swallowing this myth, the present leadership of the Democratic Party, embodied in the Democratic National Committee has, in election after election, shrunk from some of the party’s best traditions in order to keep up in the race for campaign cash, even to the extent of marginalizing and openly scorning what is described as its “left wing.”
Indeed, when America’s purpose and promise have been in jeopardy we acted radically, progressively, and, yes, as social democrats. Hillary Clinton herself seemed to recognize the power of that history and its legacy by launching her new presidential campaign at New York City’s Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island. Though she never did actually pronounce the words of FDR’s Four Freedoms, her speech revealed some awareness of a reviving — dare we say it? — social-democratic spirit? Whether simply tactical or genuine on her part is an important question that remains to be answered.
Bernie Sanders may never appear at Four Freedoms Park. But he sounds like FDR, not simply because you can practically hear him saying of the one percent what FDR did — “I welcome their hatred” — but all the more because of what he wants to do: tax the rich, create a single-payer national health care system, make public higher education free to all qualified students, create jobs by refurbishing the nation’s public infrastructure, and address the environment and climate change.
But even more critically, like FDR he doesn’t say he wants to fight for us. He seeks to encourage the fight in us: “It is up to us to launch the most heroic of all struggles: a political revolution.” If that is “extreme,” then Democrats like McCaskill are not just forgetting their history, but trying to suppress it.
That Sanders, given his background, is garnering huge crowds who shout his name with an enthusiasm reminiscent of the heyday of the People’s Party in the 1890s, radiates a special glow. Americans may once again be remembering who they are and what they need to do to recapture a government now in thrall to the Money Power. And that ain’t extreme. It’s fundamentally American.
This is the battle line between social Democrats and Neo-liberal global corporate Democrats and as this article states-----Democratic voters have allowed corporate neo-liberals to redefine our people's party. The Democratic Party IS NOT THE PARTY OF BIG BUSINESS----REPUBLICANS ARE.
Social Democrats are the politicians supporting small business. It was always the party of the people and large corporations are not for the people. Republicans have always been the party of wealth and corporate power and they drove corporate industrial power and wealth for a few. This is where Clinton neo-liberals have killed the people's party----by making the Democratic Party work for the same corporate and wealth agenda as Republicans. IT IS WHY WE THE PEOPLE ARE GETTING CRUSHED----WE HAVE NO POLS PROTECTING US.
This is the major Democratic Primary issue at all levels of government. Democratic voters did not vote for this dynamic----remember, Democratic voters have since Clinton come out to vote less and less because -----THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING CORPORATIONS OVER PEOPLE.
The article below was written by a Wall Street market group and indeed---they would like to make people believe the Democratic Party is now controlled by big business just as the Republican Party is. This is pure propaganda. This is why the national Democratic Party is divided between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton with most of the Democratic base falling into Bernie territory-----
A POLITICAL BATTLE HAS ONE GROUP TRYING TO CONFUSE THE OTHER BY MAKING IT HARD TO GET CORRECT INFORMATION AND NO ONE DOES THAT BETTER THAN CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS.
If you have only 20-30% of registered Democratic voters coming out to election primaries having only Clinton global corporate candidates----THEN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS NOT CONTROLLED BY BIG BUSINESS---WE THE PEOPLE are simply having to regroup and create new political battle strategies. Calling what Obama is doing an example of democratic stance IS RIDICULOUS.
WALL STREET WANTS US TO BELIEVE IT HAS THE PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC PARTY----BUT IT DOES NOT. THIS IS THE BATTLE FOLKS FOR DEMOCRATIC VOTERS FOR SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.
December 2, 2013
The Democratic Party Is Now The Party Of Big Business
By Jeffrey Dorfman
The traditional view of American political parties and their special interest groups is that the Republican Party represents big business and social conservatives while the Democratic Party represents labor unions and the poor. However, evidence suggests that this situation has changed. Labor unions and the poor are still linked with the Democratic Party. Small business is strongly with the Republicans at the moment, thanks to Obamacare, and social conservatives still lean Republican (and certainly not toward the Democrats). However, big business has now aligned itself with the Democratic Party.
Big business is working with the Democrats in favor of immigration reform because they want to expand the labor supply so they can hire people for lower wages. Big business has also received special treatment under the Affordable Care Act and they are happy to have received those favors. Also, big business likes the Obama Administration's practice of picking winners and bestowing subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of corporate welfare because they are the beneficiaries.
Small business is sticking with the Republicans because these business owners pay the tax bills on their business profit (usually as personal income) and see all the government interference and redistribution programs as unwelcome taxes on their hard work and entrepreneurship. Social conservatives are not happy with Republicans all of the time and are never happy with all Republicans, but they have nowhere else to go.
Big business has changed teams because its executives do not personally pay the corporate taxes for their companies, have access to many ways to avoid or minimize tax liability (both personal and corporate), and can afford lobbyists to arrange for special treatment and favors. This administration, with its willingness to rewrite or ignore laws when it suits its purpose, fits perfectly with big business happy to benefit from what others have accurately termed crony capitalism.
Immigration reform is likely to impose large costs on society and taxpayers by making existing workers and their families eligible for government benefits that they are currently not able to collect. Big business does not care because it can benefit from lower labor costs and more potential customers for its products and is good at avoiding taxes. Democrats don't care about the costs because they want the voters and favor income redistribution anyway. On immigration reform, big business and the Democrats are clearly on the same page.
Big business has been given multiple waivers from the Affordable Care Act. First, many big companies were given waivers between 2010, when it passed, and 2013, as it was ramping up toward full implementation. In particular, a number of large corporations were allowed to continue health plans for their employees that did not meet ACA requirements (foreshadowing, anyone?). Then, this year, the Obama administration arbitrarily delayed the employer mandate for a year, allowing businesses to continue whatever their health plans had been (including nonexistent) for another year before they must start to incur additional costs and penalties. Extensive lobbying efforts by big business paid off again, while millions of ordinary people are spending hours or days trying to use a nonfunctional website to find out their health insurance fates.
Small businesses do not benefit from corporate welfare unless by accident. Big business, however, collects billions of dollars in corporate welfare every year. Big drug companies can benefit from federally funded medical research, big manufacturers like GE and Boeing benefit from both direct government handouts and indirect ones when the U.S. provides foreign aid with strings attached, requiring the recipient countries to spend the money buying American products. Airlines used to pay for airport security. Now the government provides it and taxes air travelers for the privilege of being groped. GM and Chrysler got billions in bailouts. A long list of green energy companies benefited from federal handouts and loan guarantees. Big business has perfected the art of lobbying the federal government for special favors and the Democrats are happy to play along.
When government is willing to bend the rules to suit its supporters those who have the most influence also stand to gain the most. Big business certainly has the resources to successfully lobby government. The expansion of government has led to many more opportunities for government to either benefit or hinder big business. That has increased the rent seeking behavior by many big businesses. It has also led to a realignment of big business and its political interests.
While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce still lines up with the Republican Party in many instances, its individual members, especially the largest ones, are increasingly forming alliances with the Democratic Party. A number of prominent CEOs have been strong and visible backers of President Obama. While this might simply be a result of their private political views it seems much more likely that the rationale is the hope that such open support will be rewarded with politically bestowed favors that translate into millions or billions of dollars of corporate profit.
President Obama and the Democratic Party are committed to income redistribution and are openly hostile to the rich in principle. In practice, they are happy to help the rich prosper if those partnerships lead to political victories for them in other arenas. This symbiotic relationship has paid off in record corporate profits. Big business has switched its support to the Democrats and that move already has paid impressive dividends.
Jeffrey Dorfman is a professor of economics at the University of Georgia, and the author of the e-book, Ending the Era of the Free Lunch.
BIG BUSINESS REPUBLICANS CRUSHED SMALL BUSINESS TO TAKE THAT MARKET SHARE AND THEY DID IT BY PUSHING MORE AND MORE TAXATION AND REGULATION FROM BIG BUSINESS TO SMALL BUSINESS.
So, in Baltimore where almost everyone is working class, poor, and a majority of black citizens----you have a Democratic majority who want social democracy but are not getting any of it from the Democrats they elect. Baltimore is different in that the politics are neo-conservative---
WHAT IS THE BATTLE PLAN???????
IT IS DOUBLING-DOWN ON PUBLIC POLICY DISCUSSIONS IN BALTIMORE. FORCING CANDIDATES TO TALK ABOUT SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC ISSUES IN PRIMARIES WILL OUT THE NEO-LIBERAL GLOBALISTS FROM THE SOCIAL DEMOCRAT.
Allowing Republicans to take the issue of small business after centuries of being the party of Industrialists is ridiculous. It is social democracy that created the Small Business Association-----small businesses thrived throughout last century under social democracy. It was global market economic that killed and stagnated our US economy and that is the Industrialists.
'My claim that democratic socialism, or, social democracy, includes capitalism, and is what this country needs in order to restore our great nation to one that is governed “by the people, for the people.”'
Social democracy included regulating/taxing BIG BUSINESS to control their power and growth. This protected small business. What happened as Big Business Reagan/Clinton neo-liberalism took hold---regulations and taxes fell harder on small businesses as they were taken off of Big Business. They did that because Big Business wanted to kill small business and take it's market share.
IT WAS NOT SOCIAL DEMOCRATS WHO MOVED HEAVIER TAXATION AND REGULATION TO SMALL BUSINESS---IT WAS BIG BUSINESS REPUBLICANS.
Capitalism and Social Democracy
By Scott Langdon on October 23, 2015
If you want to debate how superior capitalism is to social democracy, you might want to learn what they both mean
Every day in the United States, people talk, argue, fuss and fight about politics, the economy, capitalism and social democracy. We do it at work, social events, over pizza and beer during halftime of Monday Night Football. Virtually anywhere we gather together. But perhaps our greatest gathering place where we’re at each other’s political throats is on social media, specifically, Facebook.
When I first got on Facebook in 2008, I decided that I would treat my conversations the way my Grandfather told me to keep all polite conversations – completely free of any mention of religion or politics. The problem with that idea was soon brought to light when I realized the potential of social media and Facebook in particular.
Facebook and the other social media platforms give us a forum to make our voices heard in ways never before seen in our world. What we say matters a great deal to those who think as we do, and as well as those who hold different worldviews. Discussion and debate can actually make our world a better place as we seek to understand those with whom we come in contact.
But the more connected we become, and the more we debate important political and social issues, the more important it is that we have a common understanding of the language we are using, specifically as it pertains to politics and this coming presidential election.
Last week I wrote a piece on Democratic Socialism. That ignited a firestorm of debate in my social media world, which didn’t surprise me. What surprised me were the arguments made by my friends on the right. One person challenged me by claiming that Hitler and the Nazis were socialists, while another posted a bogus meme of a school teacher from Denmark who was purportedly saying, “don’t be fooled by those socialist talkers,” while yet another basically said, “I don’t want the ‘Government’ telling me what to do!”
On the surface, it seemed as though we were on opposite sides – my conservative social media friends on the right and my liberal friends and me on the left. It’s still likely to pan out that way as we head to the polls next November, but for now, I wondered how far apart we actually were, and how many of our differences could be chalked up to misunderstanding and misuse of political language.
Those on the other side of the discussion from me are particularly fond of capitalism. They say the American way of free market capitalism has made this country great. Capitalism and socialism are polar opposites and mix about as well as oil and a bottle of Evian. Again, that is their claim. My claim that democratic socialism, or, social democracy, includes capitalism, and is what this country needs in order to restore our great nation to one that is governed “by the people, for the people.”
Every argument against the ideas of the left claim a power called “The Government” is going to do everything from taxing small businesses straight into the ground to taking away guns from every legal gun owner. Then the argument always seems to end with my favorite phrase in a political debate, “and then where does it end?” Well, for those who love their good old capitalism, maybe you would benefit from a clear definition and some perspective.
Author and activist Francis Moore Lappé puts it this way: “Capitalism is an economic system in which the person or body owning capital – productive resources like raw material and labor – has the power to make decisions as to the use of these resources and who benefits from them.”
That means that the capitalist (the one who owns the capital) is in control. The workers are not in control; neither are the community members, or even the government. In this system, capitalists seek to gain for themselves the highest possible return on their investment. That is why the rich get richer and the poor continue to get poorer.
One word that Americans know very well is the word freedom. We love that word, In fact Republicans exploit it all the time. We love it so much that we become blind to what has become of our country. We let the richest 1% of our population lead the other 99% of us in a rousing chorus of our freedom song, while we walk with blinders on straight to the poorhouse.
How free are we when so many have no real stake in their work? I understand what it means to start and own a small business. Small business owners want the government to allow that business to flourish. It’s good for everyone. But, what about the corporations who are beholden to the shareholder? They don’t care about the community, the environment or the working people they lay off if their bottom line isn’t being met.
Social Democracy allows for the stakes to change. It adds rules and safeguards to capitalism so that the wealthy can no longer gamble away the homes and well-being of everyday people. Workers can have a stake in what they are working for without the fear of losing it. For all who complain that all socialism does is give money to people who don’t want to work, what it actually does is give incentive to workers by giving them stake in what they labor to produce.
There’s plenty of time for debate between now and November 2016, but no matter what side of the fence you decide to land on, it’s always helpful to get a firm grasp on the vocabulary being spoken by all sides. The more informed we are, the easier it’ll be to fight off the guy with onion dip breath who decides to get chatty about politics during the halftime show at the Super Bowl party.
STOP ALLOWING CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS AND REPUBLICANS DEFINE THE ISSUES-----LEAD WITH SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC HISTORY
If you are a social Democrat you are shouting the difference between regulated markets---markets operating under social benefit vs corporate profit.
Republicans have all last century worked to shed all regulations and taxation placed on Big Business so they are teamed with today's Clinton neo-liberals in what they call free market---total deregulation and this has been called NAKED CAPITALISM vs social capitalism. The American people see as Big Business pays less and less taxes and deregulation dismantles oversight--we have the fraud and corruption taking all revenue from our economic system and this kills small business. Before Clinton it was only the Republicans pushing this. Social democracy protected against this.....such as creating Glass Steagall banking wall to keep Wall Street from our banking system.
So, social capitalism( same as social democracy) created a stable economy for small businesses to prosper and people kept their businesses most of their lives.
This video is a great example of what free market capitalism has led to---this discussion on the FED who championed free market and global corporate expansion. It is right-wing Republican policy.
THE SECOND STEP IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY BATTLE IS TO KNOW AND DEFINE YOUR STANCE AGAINST REPUBLICANS AND CORPORATE DEMOCRATS.
Naked Capitalism and QE2
- published: 09 Nov 2010
- views: 8940
- author: TheRealNews
Below you see one example of how citizens in Baltimore are trying to find political solutions to what is killing our local economy and pushing people deeper into poverty. Citizens in Baltimore's underserved communities are often recruited and trained to become cheerleaders for the very policies that are killing the economy and driving the impoverishment. They are told we need global corporations for jobs---we need to dismantle more and more oversight and accountability ----get rid of corporate taxes.
This is what leads to Baltimore's incredible injustice and cycles of crime and violence.
In Loving Memory of our Brother Mr. Kendall Fenwick
If at the end of this post you want to cry, kindly do so. After all it is written, to rejoice with them that do rejoice and weep with them that weep. I know I have...and in fact I honestly have to fight it back as I type.
Imagine if Kendall Fenwick really did get the support that he wanted and so desperately needed for himself and his family just two or three weeks ago. None of us, with the exception of those who knew him would have never, ever heard his name. Well, he didn't get that support and we all ran to his rescue a little too late to really make a difference. That alone is enough to make you cry.
News reports focus on one criminal aspect of this senseless murder. And as usual...there's no known suspect. But within the larger context, there are larger sets of circumstances that led to Mr. Fenwick's murder, and the suspect list is enormous. Why don't we do this, let's gather a listing of all the names of Baltimore murder victims from 2015 all the way back in time til, say...1980? I'm sure that's a couple thousand names. But now, let's take from, the same time frame, 1980 up until the day of Kendall's murder in 2015. Let's begin to do the math.
How many, recreation centers, job training programs, trade schools, summer jobs programs have been cut within that same time and how many thousands of young people have been negatively impacted as a result of these cuts. Thousands upon thousands, right? Okay, now let's look at all the elected officials holding office from those same time frames forward and backwards. Something interesting will emerge--organized crime. Wanna know why robbery, murder, drug sales and senseless street killings have continued to rise? Let's look at the voting records of our elected officials and we learn that the policy formulation process killed Mr. Fenwick. The greed of developer's and their bought and paid for political muscle killed Mr. Fenwick's dreams, expectations and his aspirations until the very end, all he had left to give was his life. All he wanted was to put up a fence to shield his children from the grime that grew just a little too close to his front door. People who build gated communities with their wealth don't have the same problem, yet their gates are to protect them from the very people they rob on a daily basis. No one wants to talk about them. Some of them came out, stood around with their hands in their pockets, talked with the press and posed for camera's. Kendall is dead.
Sure we all ran to his aid, but we were all entirely too late to save him. So all our efforts were symbolic gestures that said "hey man wish I could've been there, I couldn't, but here's the fence you wanted". We can't continue to blame senseless street violence as the root cause to all our problems. It's not the root, it is but a symptom. The Baltimore City council is just as much at fault as the killers. Look at the conditions of the city on any given day. Private wealthy businessmen who control the city through organizations like the Abell Foundation, the Baltimore Development Corp., the Greater Baltimore Committee, the Board of Estimates, the Comptroller's office, the Fraternal Order of Police and the deceitful tactics of media in compliance with the cover up of true facts have all helped to set the climate for Mr. Fenwick's murder. We volunteered...it was for the most part sincere efforts. But can we do that same thing tomorrow for someone else who's in the same predicament, but haven't been murdered and is practically unknown.
The Sun Paper quotes something I said, but not in it's entirety. Scott Dance writes, "After a couple of weeks, no one's going to care until it happens again.... The larger picture is social, it's political, it's economic, he said, emphasizing the lack of jobs for young black men in the neighborhood." (Monday, November 16th 2015). But the essence of what I said is in the above paragraph. I meant it. White racism, black ineptitude, corporate greed, spiritual degeneracy, disdain for the common people, scaled back, but badly needed resources, indifference, hypocrisy, stupidity, and a demon with a gun all combined to murder our beloved brother Kendall Fenwick. In the end, the fence is up but we have a man down and he's never coming back. But what can I, you, we, he, her you, them, us do to stop another one from dying in like manner...if not worse. No one has been charged in this murder, but according to what I know...the list of the usual suspects ain't even gonna get examined, although it is longer than you've probably imagined. Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta end this post right here, because I can hardly see, and these tears only make it worse.
In loving memory of our Brother, Mr. Kendall Fenwick