KANYE WEST WAS RIGHT ABOUT 400 YRS OF SLAVERY BEING A “CHOICE FOR BLACK PEOPLE” (TRUTH HURTS)

KANYE WEST WAS RIGHT ABOUT 400 YRS OF SLAVERY BEING A “CHOICE FOR BLACK PEOPLE”:

WILL HIS LATEST CONTROVERSIAL COMMENTS BE THE FINAL NAIL TO SEAL KANYE'S COFFIN?

I'M SURE MY PERSONAL BLOG POST ON THIS TOPIC WILL ANGER SOME PEOPLE TOO.

BLACK PEOPLE ARE STILL IN SLAVERY NOT DUE TO RACISM, BUT BECAUSE WE REFUSE TO WORK TOGETHER FOR THE COLLECTIVE GOOD.

WHAT KANYE SAID WASN’T POPULAR BUT IT'S DEFINITELY TRUE…….HE IS FINALLY WAKING UP.

SLAVERY HAS BEEN ABOLISHED SO WHY CAN'T BLACK PEOPLE SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER & WORK TOGETHER IN THE 21st CENTURY FOR THE COLLECTIVE GOOD?

WHEN BLACK PEOPLE WAKE UP AND THINK FOR THEMSELVES THEY ARE LABELED “MENTALLY UNSTABLE” OR AS “TROUBLEMAKERS” WHO NEED TO BE DESTROYED.

REAL LEADERS CAN'T BE AFRAID TO SPEAK THE TRUTH.

21st CENTURY BLACK LEADERS DON'T WANT TO REALLY HELP THE BLACK COMMUNITY, THEY JUST WANT FAT POCKETS.

BLACK PEOPLE ARE STILL IN SLAVERY NOT DUE TO RACISM, ONLY BECAUSE WE REFUSE TO WORK TOGETHER.

BLACK MEN ARE JEALOUS OR INSECURE OF BLACK WOMEN SO THEY RUN OFF TO WHITE WOMEN & LATINO WOMEN.

BLACK WOMEN OFTEN TRY TO TEAR DOWN OTHER BLACK WOMEN.

BLACK VOTERS STILL LARGELY VOTE DEMOCRAT WITHOUT PROPERLY VETTING THEIR OWN CANDIDATES.

BLACK LEADERS FREQUENTLY IGNORE THE PLIGHTS OF IMPOVERISHED BLACK YOUTH, ESPECIALLY IMPOVERISHED YOUNG BLACK MEN.

BLACK POLITICIANS & BLACK BUSINESS OWNERS ARE ONLY IN IT FOR PERSONAL GAIN NOT TO HELP OTHERS.

THOUSANDS OF YOUNG BLACK MEN ARE WRONGLY INCARCERATED ANNUALLY YET BLACK LEADERS KEEP PARTYING AND LAUGHING.

BLACK SENIOR CITIZENS ARE THROWN AWAY LIKE BAGS OF TRASH.

MANY OLDER MARRIED BLACK MEN PREY UPON LOW INCOME SINGLE WOMEN AND USE THOSE WOMEN FOR SEX, OFTEN RESULTING IN MORE BABIES.

MANY BLACK CHURCH LEADERS FLEECE BLACK CONGREGANTS FOR MONEY YET DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT BLACK COMMUNITIES.

BLACK RETIRED SOLDIERS OVER THE AGE OF 60 ARE FORCED TO TAKE MEDICATIONS WHICH LEAD TO A SLOW DEATH.

BLACK AFRICANS COME TO AMERICA AND IDENTIFY AS BEING ONE STEP ABOVE BLACK AMERICANS.

THUS THE BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITY IS STILL IN SLAVERY 400 YEARS LATER BY CHOICE.

I REPEAT.

WHAT KANYE SAID WASN’T POPULAR BUT IT'S DEFINITELY TRUE…….HE IS FINALLY WAKING UP.

BLACK PEOPLE ARE STILL IN SLAVERY NOT DUE TO RACISM, BUT BECAUSE WE REFUSE TO WORK TOGETHER FOR THE COLLECTIVE GOOD.

WHEN BLACK PEOPLE WAKE UP AND THINK FOR THEMSELVES THEY ARE LABELED “MENTALLY UNSTABLE” OR AS “TROUBLEMAKERS” WHO NEED TO BE DESTROYED.


Post Sources: CNN, Kanye West, Breakfast Club, NY Times, RNB Philly, The Hill, TMZ, Youtube


****** Kanye West just said 400 years of slavery was a choice


Tuesday brought us two Kanyes.

The first was a man who opened up about his mental health, his family, and his art in a nearly-two hour interview with radio host Charlamagne Tha God.

The second was a Kanye who appeared at the TMZ headquarters where he had this to say:

"When you hear about slavery for 400 years ... ...

For 400 years? That sounds like a choice."

The rapper went on to add:

"You were there for 400 years and it's all of y'all. It's like we're mentally imprisoned."

Provocative statements are second nature to the 40-year-old rapper. And this week he's been making headlines left and right, including proclaiming his love for President Trump.

But when he made his off-handed remark about slavery, TMZ employee Van Lathan took him to task for it.

An employee confronts him

"While you are making music and being an artist and living the life that you've earned by being a genius, the rest of us in society have to deal with these threats to our lives," Lathan said.

"We have to deal with the marginalization that's come from the 400 years of slavery that you said for our people was a choice."

Lathan added, "Frankly, I'm disappointed, I'm appalled, and brother, I am unbelievably hurt by the fact that you have morphed into something to me, that's not real."

Kanye tries to explain

As his words lit Twitter on fire, Kanye tried to explain what he meant. Here is his series of tweets Tuesday evening:

"[T]o make myself clear. Of course I know that slaves did not get shackled and put on a boat by free will.

My point is for us to have stayed in that position even though the numbers were on our side means that we were mentally enslaved."

And then Kanye quickly made it about Kanye:

"[T]he reason why I brought up the 400 years point is because we can't be mentally imprisoned for another 400 years.

We need free thought now.

Even the statement was an example of free thought. It was just an idea.

Once again I am being attacked for presenting new ideas."

Breastfeeding Until The Age Of 3? No Way! Kiddie Porn Or "Attachment Parenting"??

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Each time I look at the recent TIME Magazine Breastfeeding Cover I think "Kiddie Porn".

Disgusting!

I am the Mother of two Adult Sons.

When my Sons were Babies I did Breastfeed them up until almost prior to their First Birthday.

Choosing to stop Breastfeeding them just prior to Age One was my personal preference as a Mother.

However.....

I would NEVER, EVER have Breastfed my Sons up to the Age of 3!

I don't care what Dr. Bill Sears or anyone else says, choosing to Breastfeed a 3-Year-Old is NOT "Attachment Parenting", its just plain Crazy and NOT Emotionally Healthy for Children.

Especially little Boys who have to grow up & become Strong, Men!

I believe TIME Magazine's Breastfeeding Cover was Provocative, Shocking, Brilliant & Controversial as it relates to Selling Units and the Magazine's bottom line, even if it does promote a style of Parenting that may NOT be Popular.

Yes this kind of Shock value does in fact Sell, just as Sex Sells.

The ironic thing is if an Adult posts a Video of a 3 or 4-year-old Child Sucking on a Woman's Breast, that Adult would be Arrested for promoting Kiddie Porn NOT for promoting "Attachment Parenting"!

Thus the question becomes NOT "Are You Mom Enough?" but Are You "Mom Enough" to STOP Breastfeeding Your Children before the Age of One or once they are able to Walk, Talk, Use the Bathroom Alone & Eat Real Table Food just as an Older Child can?


Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy?



Jamie Lynn Grumet, the 26-year-old mother featured on the cover of Time magazine breastfeeding her 3-year-old son, has done more this week than become the poster woman for “attachment parenting,” the sometimes laudable movement that advises parents to be physically and emotionally available and responsive to their children.

She has shown the limits of such a concept, and the ways in which it can be twisted into a bizarre, contemptible caricature of itself.

Grumet is a model, and models have to have at least healthy dose of narcissism (television journalists like me, too, by the way).

But I fear Grumet has more than what’s healthy.

Because she thought nothing of becoming far more famous than she ever was or ever would have been by getting naked on the cover of Time using her son as a prop—letting him, in fact, look right into the camera and be completely recognizable while sucking her nipple.

He may never be better-known for anything than for being a breastfeeding 3-year-old on the cover of a national magazine.
Ever.
When he enters school later in his young life he may be ridiculed for it.

And these realities hint at a woman who could (and I have not evaluated her) have very poor boundaries and be willing or likely not only to nurture a child, but to absorb him, deny him his personhood and render him no more than her appendage.

In short, it is not at all clear who is the “parent” in the Time magazine photograph.

Is Grumet responding to real and healthy needs emanating from her son’s psyche, or is he responding to her potentially outsized needs to be the center of attention and the object of desire (if only for warmth).

Who, we can legitimately ask, is feeding whom?

See, Grumet loves being photographed.
And she apparently loves having her son breastfeed.

And she loves attention.

And she’s happy enough to get naked in front of other people (which there may be nothing wrong with—for her).

But that may or may not be the case for her 3-year-old boy, which seems not to have mattered to her—at all. And if his will was bent to hers in order to have him suck his mother’s nipple in front of a photographer and makeup artist and art director and all of America, then it stands to reason that his will may be being bent to hers in all sorts of ways—including protracted breastfeeding.

The truth is that what Time magazine may have unwittingly captured and been party to was a grotesque form of psychological abuse—the parading into public of an intimate moment (intimate for mother and child) at the sole direction of that child’s mother, who didn’t stop to think that her child may not be able at the age of three to know what he thinks about the whole thing, much less to stop it, if he wanted to.

Grumet has stained the attachment parenting movement by documenting how easily it can go wrong, when used as an excuse for poor boundaries and manipulation.

In a way, while looking at the Time magazine cover, we are all Grumet’s son and may know something of his possible plight: finding her a compelling and dramatic presence, seduced by her combination of sex appeal and motherhood—unable, in fact, to detach from her.

Talk about a prescription for psychological disaster.

This is self-centeredness at its worst, sold as good parenting.

And this is an act of media violence against a child, committed by adult journalists who also commandeered his will (as did his mother), for sensation and profit.

Rarely do we get such evidence of how wrong parenting can go, how poorly journalists can behave and how slow we can be to recognize ugliness when it is disguised as something beautiful.


Breastfeeding Mom on Time magazine cover speaks out on ‘Today’ show

The young mom who sparked a media storm breastfeeding her 3-year-old son on the cover of Time magazine is opening up about the controversial photo.

Jamie Lynne Grumet, 26, appeared on NBC's "Today" show on Friday to discuss the cover, which shows her casually nursing her toddler Aram, who stares straight into the camera while he stands on a wooden chair.

"I do understand why Time chose this picture, because it did create such a media craze ... to get the dialogue talking," Grumet said.

The ensuing controversy focused on attachment parenting - the topic of Time's cover story - particularly extended breastfeeding.

Grumet explains that she was breastfed until she was 6-years-old and cites it as the reason she and her mother have a close bond.

Dr. Bill Sears, who developed the attachment parenting theory, also appeared on "Today" with Grumet. While both are advocates of the controversial parenting technique - which also includes co-sleeping, or letting children sleep in their parent's beds - Grumet admits it's not for everyone.

"You need to do what's best for your own baby and your family," she says.

Commenters on the Daily News' original article about the Time cover were alarmed by the Grumet's photograph, one reader even calling it "child porn."

Other commenters agreed, voicing concern that Grumet's son would endure psychological problems later on in life.

"Nice job lady," one reader wrote. "You've at best given this kid a lifetime of needing major therapy and at worst created a serial killer."

And not all of the criticism is coming from people against attachment parenting, Grumet notes.

"I understand some of the breast-feeding advocates are actually upset about this," she said on "Today."

Mommyish.com blogger Shawna Cohen, who says she practices some attachment parenting principles, wrote that she was disappointed in the Time cover.

"It angers me because it portrays AP moms as being totally extreme," she wrote in a blog post. "And in most cases, that couldn't be further from the truth."

Even celebrities chimed in - including new mom Alyssa Milano.

"Time, no! You missed the mark!" the actress wrote on Twitter. "You're supposed to be making it easier for breastfeeding moms. Your cover is exploitative and extreme."

Grumet explains that the cover didn't adequately demonstrate the nurturing side of attachment parenting.

"This isn't how we breastfeed at home," she says. "It's more of a cradling, nurturing situation."

Grumet, who has one other 5-year-old son, says she hopes to stop breastfeeding Aram, who turns 4 next month, sometime in the next year.



Sources: Morning Joe Show, MSNBC, NBC, NY Daily News, TIME Magazine, Today Show, Youtube

No "Jesus" at Obama's Inauguration Prayer? Lawsuit Filed!

Following the outcry by Gay Activists over President-Elect Obama's decision to invite Pastor Rick Warren author of the best-selling book "Purpose Driven Life" to perform the Inauguration Prayer, a lawsuit has now been filed to keep the word "Jesus" from being mentioned during the event.

Apparently use of the name of "Jesus" could cause more ire as some people don't want a religious type of prayer invoked during the Inauguration Ceremony.

The suit was filed by Dan Barker, leader of the Atheist group "Freedom from Religion" claiming that the use of the word "Jesus" or any type of Religion would be a violation of his Constitutional Rights.

In fact Barker has enjoined with Michael Newdow who previously fought to have the phrase "Under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, in a Federal lawsuit seeking "to stop prayer and religious rituals at all governmental functions, especially at the Inauguration," Barker told FOX News Radio.

Warren when asked his opinion on such measures being taken to possibly disrupt the Prayer his spokesperson released this statement to the Associated Press, "I'm a Christian Pastor so I will pray the only kind of Prayer I know how to pray."

In addition he added, "Prayers are not to be sermons, speeches, position statements nor political posturing. They are humble, personal appeals to God."

Similar controversy occurred regarding the prayer at President George W. Bush's 2001 Inauguration ceremony, when the Rev. Franklin Graham and Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell were both criticized for mentioning the name of Jesus Christ. A lawsuit was also filed.

The Rev. Joseph Lowery, a Methodist Civil Rights leader invited by Obama to give the Benediction states, "Pastor Warren should be allowed to remain true to his Faith".

It appears as by filing this lawsuit both Barker and Newdow are trying to force everyone else in America to believe as they do, which is in itself a violation of OUR RIGHTS.

Dudes if mentioning the name of Jesus bothers you that much then I have a simple solution to resolve this entire issue: JUST DON'T ATTEND THE CEREMONY and don't watch it on T.V.!

Man, I wonder what some people use for brains.

Sources: ABC News, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Fox News