Every Tuesday until the end of 2026, we will publish a post about each of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

The 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 9th Amendment, primarily written by James Madison, was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791 to acknowledge that the people hold additional rights beyond those specifically mentioned.

The 9th Amendment is also interpreted to mean that certain rights in the Constitution should not be construed to mean that the Constitution does not protect unenumerated rights.

The 9th Amendment reminds us that the people inherently hold other fundamental rights, integral to the nation's ethos of liberty and justice.

Through the centuries, the 9th Amendment has remained on the periphery of constitutional interpretation, and courts have often been reluctant to ground decisions solely in this amendment because of its open-ended nature.

However, one notable Supreme Court case is Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), where the Court recognized a right to privacy. Although not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the decision underscored that such a right was implied by the broader principles of liberty enshrined in the document, including the 9th Amendment.

This right to privacy has been used in many ways over the years, including with issues such as digital privacy, reproductive rights, and emerging technologies.

The 9th Amendment encourages citizens and lawmakers to consider what rights are inherent and essential, even if they are not explicitly enumerated.

The 9th Amendment continues to safeguard the principle that individual rights are expansive and not confined to those formally articulated within the Constitution.

Have you ever considered how the 9th Amendment applies to you?

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the little heart “Like” button at the top of this post!

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Buy Pam a cup of Colombian Coffee!

Engage with us and our posts on Substack Notes, where we publish new content almost daily.

Our July 2025 subscriber goals are 400 new free subscribers and 80 new paid subscribers! You can help us reach our goal!

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Share We Are Speaking

Follow Pam on Bluesky, the best “X” alternative.

Follow Keith on Bluesky, the best “X alternative.

Independent Authors and Creative Professionals: Check out my valuable books and courses on Branding and Marketing just for you via Pam Speaks 2 You.

Upgrade to a paid subscription

Two days ago, on Tuesday, August 18, a guy named Jake Lang came to Dearborn to lead a comically mislabeled “Christian Crusader March” that attracted hundreds of similarly misguided followers who felt it was their obligation to follow Lang and confront a population full of Muslims to call them ugly names because Jake Lang knew this was something that would make the news. He also knew that this Christian (???) march of his would serve as a distraction – albeit temporary – from the ongoing and steadily worsening trials and tribulations of his true Lord and Savior Donald Trump, who is practically drowning in self-perpetuated crises threatening to derail his grip on power going into 2027.

It should be noted that Lang’s protests are part of a long and sordid history of anti-Muslim protests led by some Christian extremists who have targeted the city over the past 20 years, as its Muslim population has exploded to the point where it is now the first and largest Muslim-majority municipality inside the United States at more than 54%. It should also be noted that Lang was charged with attacking police officers in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill, but was later pardoned by President Donald Trump.

Lang ultimately got to say whatever worthless remarks he delivered to the Dearborn City Council Tuesday evening as the purposefully created disturbance continued outside, eventually leading to at least seven arrests, according to the Detroit Free Press. Understandably, a number of Dearborn residents and business owners were nervous about the threat of potential violence. Some businesses were shut down for the entire day.

But just as interesting as Lang’s diversionary march itself is who was assisting him with that march, namely Detroit’s own Trump-loving Rev. Lorenzo Sewell, a Black pastor who has become one of Trump’s Black darlings for his support in rallying Black voters – including a host of misguided Black pastors – to support his con game of an administration.

Rev. Sewell has become one of the most visible Black conservative pastors in Detroit and one of Trump’s most prominent African-American religious supporters. His rise is particularly interesting because he has combined Detroit church leadership, conservative Christian politics, Trump’s outreach to Black voters, and national Republican politics altogether into a twisted recipe of a message that he delivers as a defense for why he continues to support Trump (and others should as well) despite, well, every damned thing.

But apparently, Sewell’s defense of Trump now extends beyond his (other) Lord and Savior Trump to include the likes of Lang, whose activities during the January 6 riot alone blatantly contradict any claim he ever had to be a representative of Christianity. I ain’t nobody’s religious scholar, but I do know how to read, and it’s not hard to make that distinction if you can read. Yet for whatever reason, none of this matters to Sewell, who seems to believe it’s more important to shelter the oppressor than those the oppressor seeks to oppress.

I’d love to say this won’t get worse, but it’s plain to see that it will. Because distractions, ugliness, and sheer brutality are all they have on the Republican side of the fence. Combine those traits with sheer desperation, and you can only imagine what they have in store between now and November 3.

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the little heart “Like” button at the top of this post!

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Buy Pam a cup of Colombian Coffee!

Engage with us and our posts on Substack Notes, where we publish new content almost daily.

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Share We Are Speaking

Follow Pam on Bluesky, the best “X” alternative.

Follow Keith on Bluesky, the best “X alternative.

Independent Authors and Creative Professionals: Check out my valuable books and courses on Branding and Marketing just for you via the Pam Speaks 2 You app.

Upgrade to a paid subscription

Every Tuesday until the end of 2026, we will publish a post about each of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

The 8th Amendment, ratified in 1791, is part of the Bill of Rights and addresses the government's power to impose penalties on individuals convicted of crimes, serving as a safeguard against the abuse of governmental power by ensuring penalties remain fair and proportionate.

The 8th Amendment states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Most often mentioned in the context of the death penalty, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, but also mentions “excessive fines” and bail. The “excessive fines” clause surfaces (among other places) in cases of civil and criminal forfeiture, for example, when property is seized during a drug raid.

This amendment leaves the term “excessive” open to interpretation.

1. Interpreting "Cruel and Unusual Punishments": What constitutes "cruel and unusual punishments”? Do modern-day practices, such as solitary confinement and capital punishment, align with contemporary human rights standards?

2. Excessive Bail and Fines: Recently, debates have centered around cash bail systems that disproportionately impact marginalized communities, leading to a cycle of poverty and incarceration.

3. Evolving Standards of Decency: This doctrine suggests that the interpretation of the 8th Amendment must adapt to society's changing moral and ethical views, focusing on how to balance tradition with progress.

The 8th Amendment emphasizes that the punishment should fit the crime. However, the protections guaranteed by this amendment are continuously open to interpretation.

It is our Choice to help ensure a proper balance between the crime and the punishment.

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the little heart “Like” button at the top of this post!

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Buy Pam a cup of Colombian Coffee!

Engage with us and our posts on Substack Notes, where we publish new content almost daily.

---

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Share We Are Speaking

Follow Pam on Bluesky, the best “X” alternative.

Follow Keith on Bluesky, the best “X alternative.

Independent Authors and Creative Professionals: Check out my valuable books and courses on Branding and Marketing just for you via Pam Speaks 2 You.

Upgrade to a paid subscription

Every Tuesday until the end of 2026, we will publish a post about each of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

The 7th Amendment, ratified as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. Based on the common law tradition, it is designed to balance the power of the judiciary and safeguard against potential governmental overreach, and ensure that citizens, not just judges, have a say in the adjudication of civil disputes, thereby fostering a more democratic legal process.

The common law tradition originated in England and relies on case law and judicial decisions to develop and interpret legal principles. Unlike legal systems that are based primarily on written statutes or codes, Judges in common law systems play a significant role in shaping the law by interpreting past decisions and applying them to new situations. This tradition aims to ensure consistency and fairness in legal proceedings by following established precedents, while also allowing for flexibility and adaptation over time. The common law tradition influences the interpretation of amendments like the 7th Amendment, which emphasizes the importance of a jury trial in civil cases.

Essentially, the 7th Amendment represents the idea that average citizens should participate directly in the judicial process. A jury of peers brings diverse perspectives, fostering empathy and fairness that a single judge might overlook. Moreover, jury deliberations contribute to the development of common law by setting precedents grounded in societal values.

Recently, the right to a jury trial in civil cases has faced numerous challenges. The complexity and cost of litigation can deter individuals from pursuing jury trials. Also, the prevalence of arbitration clauses in contracts often circumvents jury trials altogether, funneling disputes into private arbitration settings.

The 7th Amendment is designed to focus on fairness and public involvement in the civil legal system for everyone, and it gives litigants a choice for their civil trial between a judge and a jury.

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the little heart “Like” button at the top of this post!

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Buy Pam a cup of Colombian Coffee!

Engage with us and our posts on Substack Notes, where we publish new content almost daily.

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Share We Are Speaking

Follow Pam on Bluesky, the best “X” alternative.

Follow Keith on Bluesky, the best “X alternative.

Independent Authors and Creative Professionals: Check out my valuable books and courses on Branding and Marketing just for you via the Pam Speaks 2 You app.

Upgrade to a paid subscription

El-Sayed victory signals sea change for the Democratic Party

Don’t let Abdul El-Sayed’s narrow margin of victory over Haley Stevens fool you, just in case some Democrat out there holding a grudge wants to try and claim that this was not a mandate.

Sure, according to the numbers, Abdul El-Sayed’s final margin of victory, not announced until August 5 around 10 am, was only about 25,000 votes. That translates to a reportedly narrow victory of barely 1%, at 48.5% to 47.5%. That’s according to the New York Times and CNN, as reported in The Detroit Free Press.

HOWEVER.

This was the most expensive primary in history, which attracted 500,000 more primary voters statewide than ever before. Expensive overwhelmingly because supporters of El-Sayed’s opponent, Haley Stevens, spent more than $60 million in a desperate attempt to defeat him. A huge chunk of that cash came from AIPAC. El-Sayed not only took no money from AIPAC, he didn’t take any money from any other PACs or corporate sponsors. His was truly a people-powered campaign, which scared the hell out of a mainstream Democratic establishment that has relied heavily on corporate and PAC donations since forever. As the saying goes, money is the mother’s milk of politics. Nobody ever thought that could ever change – until now.

Scratch that. The money will stay in the game, but what could change is where that money comes from. If enough Democratic candidates, into the future, are willing to buck the system and follow the lead of El-Sayed and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, then that could dramatically revise the political calculus of how campaigns are run forever. But most importantly, such a movement has the potential to sweep out the puppets and open the door to a new generation of politicians who actually represent the communities they are supposed to serve without fear because they will no longer be beholden.

I know. It sounds impossible, almost like I’ve been listening to Pollyanna whispering in my ear.

But what if Pollyanna is right?

Abdul El-Sayed just defeated the Democratic establishment, AIPAC, and $60 million of corporate cash, all focused on making sure Haley Stevens came out victorious no matter what.

She didn’t.

What if Pollyanna is right?

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the little heart “Like” button at the top of this post!

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Buy Pam a cup of Colombian Coffee!

Engage with us and our posts on Substack Notes, where we publish new content almost daily.

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Share We Are Speaking

Follow Pam on Bluesky, the best “X” alternative.

Follow Keith on Bluesky, the best “X alternative.

Independent Authors and Creative Professionals: Check out my valuable books and courses on Branding and Marketing just for you via the Pam Speaks 2 You app.

Upgrade to a paid subscription

Every Tuesday until the end of 2026, we will publish a post about each of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

Ratified on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, the 6th Amendment provides several critical protections for individuals accused of crimes. It reads:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

These protections include the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to an impartial jury, the right to be informed of the accusations, the right to confront witnesses, the right to obtain witnesses, and the right to legal representation.

In 1966, after a Supreme Court case involving an arrested person (Ernesto Miranda) who spoke about his guilt without an attorney present, the “Miranda Warning” was universally accepted by law enforcement nationwide. Arresting officers must apprise someone of their “Miranda Rights” if they intend to interrogate the person at any time, and the person must clearly indicate that they “understand their rights” before saying anything. The Miranda Rights, which can be waived by the accused, are based on both the 5th and 6th Amendments.

Although the exact wording may change a little, it basically states:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.

The 6th Amendment details several distinct rights for people accused of crimes:

1. Speedy Trial: This right ensures that defendants are not subjected to unduly long incarcerations while awaiting trial. Speedy trials are crucial for preserving the integrity of evidence and protecting the accused from unnecessary pre-trial detention.

2. Public Trial: Public trials serve as a check on the judicial system, allowing the community to witness the proceedings, which in turn promotes transparency and accountability.

3. Impartial Jury: The right to an impartial jury ensures that defendants are evaluated by an unbiased group of their peers, which is fundamental to upholding the integrity of the justice system.

4. Notice of Accusation: This clause affords the accused the right to be fully informed of the charges against them, enabling the preparation of a proper defense.

5. Confrontation Clause: The accused has the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses testifying against them, a vital aspect that helps to challenge and test the credibility of the evidence.

6. Compulsory Process: This allows defendants to obtain witnesses in their favor through the issuance of court-ordered subpoenas, ensuring that all relevant testimony is available during the trial.

7. Right to Counsel: Perhaps one of the most critical components, this ensures that defendants have the right to be represented by an attorney, which is essential for a fair trial. This clause was further reinforced by the landmark Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), which held that counsel must be provided for defendants who cannot afford an attorney.

The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, along with the 8th and 14th Amendments, which I will discuss later in this series, help ensure that people are treated fairly during interrogation and trial if they are suspected or arrested for a crime.

And, a reminder, being undocumented in the United States is a CIVIL offense, similar to a traffic ticket. Undocumented people are NOT “criminals” unless and until they are CONVICTED of an actual crime.

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the little heart “Like” button at the top of this post!

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Buy Pam a cup of Colombian Coffee!

Engage with us and our posts on Substack Notes, where we publish new content almost daily.

Our July 2025 subscriber goals are 400 new free subscribers and 80 new paid subscribers! You can help us reach our goal!

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Share We Are Speaking

Follow Pam on Bluesky, the best “X” alternative.

Follow Keith on Bluesky, the best “X alternative.

Independent Authors and Creative Professionals: Check out my valuable books and courses on Branding and Marketing just for you via the Pam Speaks 2 You app.

Support us for no more than $10/month!

Upgrade to a paid subscription

The Democratic Party calls itself a “big tent” party. That means the party should include conservative, centrist, and left-leaning Democrats, as well as Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members, who also identify as and caucus with Democrats.

However, now many establishment Democrats are actually lambasting and denigrating left-leaning members and DSA members, often calling them “communists,” just like Trump and MAGA are calling all Democrats. What is this: the 1950s? New York City Mayor Zohran Mamadani and other DSA and left-leaning candidates around the country have been winning elections over establishment Dems, and that is what is worrying those establishment Dems, most of whom accept millions in funding from AIPAC and corporations.

A reminder that the establishment Dems helped us to lose the presidency, the House, and the Senate in 2024, want to maintain that status quo (and the millions in funding they receive from AIPAC and corporations), and now they are insisting that we support them over other Dems who have new ideas for governing and working for the people?

This is also why approval of the Democratic Party is at its lowest in decades, with many Democrats leaving the party to become independents.

“Progressive” Dems are called “progressive” for a reason: they support working with and for the people to progress towards the future, while “establishment” Dems desire to maintain the status quo and not change things, including accepting their corporate funding.

As Democrats, the people we should be fighting are the Republicans, not each other.

Those of you who have been following me here on “We Are Speaking” know that I publish articles primarily about Black people and organizations who fought the status quo and worked to progress towards the future to make their marks in Black history.

In the August 4 Michigan Senate Democratic primary, a progressive candidate is running against an establishment candidate.

I am sure you can guess which candidate I am supporting and why.

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the little heart “Like” button at the top of this post!

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Buy Pam a cup of Colombian Coffee!

Engage with us and our posts on Substack Notes, where we publish new content almost daily.

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Share We Are Speaking

Follow Pam on Bluesky, the best “X” alternative.

Follow Keith on Bluesky, the best “X alternative.

Independent Authors and Creative Professionals: Check out the creative business networking opportunities and my valuable books and courses on Branding and Marketing just for you via the Pam Speaks 2 You app!

Upgrade to a paid subscription

Every Tuesday until the end of 2026, we will publish a post about each of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

I plead the 5th!

If there is one thing most people know about the 5th Amendment, it is that individuals can prevent incriminating themselves in court by “pleading the 5th” and exercising their right to remain silent. This protection is not an admission of guilt but a safeguard against coerced confessions and forced testimony.

Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the Fifth Amendment was designed to safeguard citizens against potential government abuses. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves, meaning they are not required to answer questions or provide evidence that could be used against them in a criminal case. It also ensures due process of law, meaning the government must follow fair procedures before depriving someone of life, liberty, or property, and protects against double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same crime).

The 5th Amendment text reads:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The 5th Amendment offers five critical protections:

1. Grand Jury Clause: Before being tried for serious offenses, individuals have the right to a grand jury review, ensuring that there is sufficient evidence to proceed.

2. Double Jeopardy Clause: This prevents individuals from being tried twice for the same offense, providing protection against repeated prosecutions.

3. Self-Incrimination Clause: Perhaps the most famous aspect of the amendment, this clause protects individuals from being forced to testify against themselves, which is where the phrase "pleading the Fifth" originates.

4. Due Process Clause: This guarantees that individuals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, ensuring fair treatment under the law. This is the section of this amendment that is being totally ignored with the ICE raids.

5. Takings Clause: It mandates that if the government takes private property for public use, it must provide just compensation to the property owner.

As the Trump administration continues to pull suspected undocumented immigrants off the street and out of their homes and workplaces and label them “criminals” based only on their appearance or last name, the due process guarantees of the 4th and 5th Amendments are being ignored. Trump actually said, “Who has time for all of those trials?”

The rights listed in the Constitution are not just for U.S. citizens. All persons on American soil are covered by the Constitution.

Our Choice

The 5th Amendment guarantees that persons cannot be deprived of their core rights without due process of law.

It is essential for us to remember the 5th Amendment protections and help ensure that all individuals in America are safeguarded against government abuse.

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the little heart “Like” button at the top of this post!

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Buy Pam a cup of Colombian Coffee!

Engage with us and our posts on Substack Notes, where we publish new content almost daily.

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Share We Are Speaking

Follow Pam on Bluesky, the best “X” alternative.

Follow Keith on Bluesky, the best “X alternative.

Independent Authors and Creative Professionals: Check out the creative business networking opportunities and my valuable books and courses on Branding and Marketing just for you via the Pam Speaks 2 You app!

Upgrade to a paid subscription

Beauty like this don’t lie

If melanin were a person, he/she would probably be the most powerful and influential person on Earth. Certainly in the United States. Because melanin is the deciding factor in skin color, and skin color – throughout history – has had the power to dictate who was the ruler and who got ruled, who was considered beautiful and who was not, who was enslaved and who did the enslaving.

Black skin has rarely been promoted as a positive. Hell, black anything is rarely a positive. Black sheep of the family. White hat vs. Black hat. It’s bad luck if a black cat crosses your path. On and on.

Where It Rains in Color is an excellent science fiction novel written by Denise Crittendon, a good friend and fellow Afrofuturist. A central theme of Crittendon’s novel, which has received considerable acclaim, is that Black skin is precious. And the darker the skin, the more precious it becomes. The most beautiful women – who are the darkest skinned- are known as the Rare Indigo. Crittendon’s premise is a refusal to accept what most of us have been taught – covertly as well as overtly- that the color black is the mark of the beast. Instead, it is a mark of the blessed.

You may already be familiar with the MAGA histrionics surrounding the extraordinary – and extraordinarily popular and profitable - movie The Odyssey, which my wife and I saw last weekend. Predictably, MAGA is enraged that the ridiculously gorgeous Lupita Nyong’o was cast as Helen of Troy. Why? Because according to Greek mythology, Helen of Troy was the most beautiful woman in the world. And not only is Lupita of Troy a Black woman, she is a very, very dark-skinned Black woman. And she is fine as hell, as we brothers might like to say. Suffice to say it’s not a reach to consider Lupita in the running as one of the most beautiful women evuh.

Which is totally unacceptable to Elon Musk, incontrovertibly whiter-than-white white supremacist supreme who became the world’s first trillionaire last month in June.

“Chris Nolan desecrated the Odyssey so that he would be eligible for an Academy Award,” Musk was quoted as saying.

Nolan produced, wrote, and directed The Odyssey, which has received just as many rave reviews as it has mocking criticisms of Elon’s racist temper tantrums about a fictional character in a fictional movie where Lupita’s actual appearance time in the three-hour-long epic amounts to somewhere between 10-15 minutes, according to AI Google, which matches up with what would have been my estimate.

But then check out what historian extraordinaire Kahlil Greene points out:

“Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey opened July 17 with Lupita Nyong’o, a Black actor, cast as Helen of Troy. Conservatives in the US and far-right accounts in Greece called it an erasure of Greek heritage.

“Here is what those same voices stayed quiet about.

“In the early 1800s, Britain’s ambassador to the Ottoman Empire pried marble sculptures off the actual Parthenon in Athens and shipped them to London. They have sat in the British Museum since 1816.”

One of these is a movie. The other is the real thing, still gone. Guess which one got called erasure.”

Game. Set. Match.

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the little heart “Like” button at the top of this post!

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Buy Pam a cup of Colombian Coffee!

Engage with us and our posts on Substack Notes, where we publish new content almost daily.

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Share We Are Speaking

Follow Pam on Bluesky, the best “X” alternative.

Follow Keith on Bluesky, the best “X alternative.

Independent Authors and Creative Professionals: Check out my valuable books and courses on Branding and Marketing just for you via the Pam Speaks 2 You app.

Upgrade to a paid subscription

Every Tuesday until the end of 2026, we will publish a post about each of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution. This post was originally published in July 2025.

Ironically, when the #ConvictedFelon Donald Trump was running for his second term, he promised his supporters that he would find and deport any immigrant who was also a convicted felon. Now, however, he and ICE are finding, arresting, and/or deporting any legal or undocumented immigrant they can find, over 80% of whom have no criminal offenses. Entering this country illegally is a misdemeanor, similar to a traffic ticket, rather than a felony or a serious criminal offense.

They are intentionally ignoring the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to all persons in the United States, not just citizens. ICE is also using “administrative warrants” instead of the “judicial warrants” required by the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment is intended to ensure that every individual has the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, thereby safeguarding citizens from unwarranted governmental intrusions.

The Fourth Amendment emerged because, under British rule, the use of “writs of assistance” allowed agents of the Crown to search colonists’ homes and businesses without specific warrants, fostering resentment and a demand for change.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment strikes a balance between an individual’s right to privacy and the state's duty to maintain order and security. It establishes the legal standards of "probable cause" and the necessity of judicial oversight through warrants, thereby ensuring that searches and seizures are not conducted on mere suspicion or whim.

The requirement that warrants be judicially sanctioned and specific ensures that any intrusion by the government is justified, limited in scope, and subject to review. This protects citizens from surveillance and intrusion absent a compelling and legitimate justification, thus safeguarding personal liberties.

ICE is just showing up where brown and Black immigrants may be, including just on the street and at their immigration hearings, and putting them in vans and taking them away. ICE almost never has a judicial warrant or “probable cause” besides what ICE decides is the reason for taking these people. They are also seizing and deporting people who have been here for decades, often since they were children.

Recent court cases have addressed issues such as the legality of police accessing phone data without a warrant and the monitoring of internet activity. The Fourth Amendment is supposed to ensure that the right to privacy and against unreasonable search and seizure remains protected.

It is important for us to understand the Constitution and each of its amendments so that we can protect ourselves against wrongful and possibly illegal government actions, such as those being perpetrated by Trump and ICE.

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the little heart “Like” button at the top of this post!

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Buy Pam a cup of Colombian Coffee!

Engage with us and our posts on Substack Notes, where we publish new content almost daily.

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Share We Are Speaking

Follow Pam on Bluesky, the best “X” alternative.

Follow Keith on Bluesky, the best “X alternative.

Independent Authors and Creative Professionals: Check out my valuable books and courses on Branding and Marketing just for you via the Pam Speaks 2 You app.

Upgrade to a paid subscription

Why the Democrats Should Embrace the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA): Know the Systems

The Establishment/Corporate members of the Democratic Party are having an identity crisis of their own making. They claim to be a ”big tent” party, but are showing fear, ignorance, and vitriol against the Democratic Socialists of America, who are also Democrats. They hear/see the word “Socialists” and are freaking out by thinking that the DSA is the same as actual Marxist socialists. Establishment Dems such as Schumer and NY AG Tish James are claiming that the DSA will “destroy” the Democratic Party, instead of realizing that the DSA is with the Democrats, not against them. Their constituents in NYC, the largest city in the State of New York and in the country, are solidly behind Mayor Mamdani, who has already fulfilled the majority of his campaign promises in only six months.

The two most well-known DSA members in Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. AOC, always caucus with the Democrats.

In NYC in 2025, the Democrats preferred to support Andrew Cuomo, with all his legal and sexual assault baggage, rather than DSA member Zohran Mandami, who went from 1% in the polls in November 2024 to decisively winning the mayoral race in November 2025.

Neither Senator Chuck Schumer nor Rep. Hakeem Jeffries supported Mamdani’s candidacy, although Jeffries reluctantly gave his support in the last few days of Mamdani’s campaign, when it was clear Mamdani was going to win.

All over the country, from NYC to Washington, D.C. to Colorado to Oregon, DSA candidates are winning over establishment Dems, and they are winning for one main reason: people want change from the “old guard,” who, in 2024, caused us to lose the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

Here in Michigan, the AIPAC-supported Senate candidate, Rep. Haley Stephens, is being supported by establishment Dems such as Senator Gary Peters, whose seat is now open, and Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina! With huge support from AIPAC, they are doing everything in their power to smear and defeat the progressive Democrat, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, who is supported by Bernie and AOC, although he doesn’t identify as a member of the DSA.

Now, Trump and the Republicans are saying that Mamdani, Bernie, AOC, and all left-wing Democrats are “communists,” and Speaker Mike Johnson is spreading fear that lots of “mini-Mamdanis” will be popping up all over the country. Johnson is also demanding billions more of defense funding to “fight the rise of communism” in America. We haven’t had to fight “communism” in decades.

What the Republicans are counting on, and what the Democrats refuse to understand, is that there are big differences between capitalism, communism, fascism, Marxist socialism, and Democratic Socialism.

Those words are thrown around as if we all agree on what they mean: capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism, and democratic socialism. They get hurled in arguments, slapped onto policies we don’t like, and used to scare people away from ideas before they’ve even heard them out. And too often, we let the words do the thinking for us.

That’s a problem. Because you can’t make a real choice — about a candidate, a policy, a ballot measure, or just an argument at the family cookout — if you don’t actually know what you’re choosing between.

Capitalism is an economic system built on private ownership. Businesses, land, and resources belong to individuals and companies, not the government. Prices and wages move with supply and demand, and profit is the engine. It rewards competition and innovation — but it doesn’t guarantee the rewards land evenly, and history shows us who often gets left out of that equation.

Communism calls for property and production to be collectively owned or state-owned, with goods distributed according to need rather than by market forces. The goal, in theory, is a classless society. In practice, every nation that has called itself communist — the Soviet Union, Mao-era China — has paired that economic vision with centralized government control and a single ruling party.

Fascism is not primarily an economic system at all — it’s a political one, and an authoritarian one. Centralized dictatorial power, extreme nationalism, the crushing of dissent, and often a fusion of state and corporate interests under one leader’s control. It asks people to subordinate their individual rights to a manufactured idea of national unity. This is exactly what Trump and the MAGA Republicans are forcing upon us right now, and what all Democrats should be fighting against instead of fighting each other.

Marxist Socialism is an economic and political philosophy where the means of production and key resources are owned or regulated by the community or the state, aimed at narrowing inequality. It often demands full state control of industry.

Democratic Socialism seeks to hold two things at once: democratic institutions — free elections, civil liberties, multiple parties — alongside socialist economic policies, such as strong social safety nets, public investment, and worker protections. Think of the Nordic model. It is not one-party rule, and it is not without a market economy; it’s an attempt at balance between the two.

Here’s why this matters for us specifically. Our community has lived through the sharp edges of unregulated capitalism — redlining, wage theft, exclusion from wealth-building tools that others took for granted.

We have also watched authoritarian impulses, fascist and otherwise, target Black communities first when they come looking for someone to blame. We don’t have the luxury of treating these words as abstract. They’ve shaped our neighborhoods, our schools, our access to capital, and our safety.

Our Choice: That history is exactly why we can’t afford to let political vocabulary become a weapon of confusion instead of a tool of understanding. When someone calls a school lunch program “communism” or a tax cut “freedom,” ask them to define their terms. When a candidate promises to protect “the free market” or “the people,” ask what system they’re actually describing, and who it has historically served.

Don’t let some Democrats demonize other Democrats, and Democratic Socialists are Democrats in most of their values and practices. Don’t let the Democrats fool you into believing that they are your only choice.

Choice requires clarity. You cannot vote your values, argue your position, or organize your community around a word you haven’t unpacked. Know the systems. Know who is for America and who wants us to kowtow to another country. Then decide, with open eyes, which pieces of which systems actually serve justice, equity, and the people you love, not some distraction meant to divide.

Our goal is to make “We Are Speaking” a best-selling publication by September 30, 2026, increasing our reach and influence! To achieve our goal, we will need 15 new paid subscribers every week, or 5 paid subscribers per day for the three days a week we publish. If you value our publication, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for $5/month or $50/year. We appreciate your financial support!

Become a Paid Subscriber!

If you are an independent author or creative professional, this is your chance to join the Pam Speaks 2 You Creative Business Community, and there’s an app for that!

The Pam Speaks 2 You Apple/iOS app is live!

The Pam Speaks 2 You Google/Android app is live!

You can also access the Pam Speaks 2 You app on the web!

Share We Are Speaking

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid!

---

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Follow Pam on Bluesky.

Follow Keith on Bluesky.

We appreciate your support!

Engage with us and our posts in Substack Notes.

Share this post:

Share

Share this publication:

Share We Are Speaking

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Join us in Notes!

Share We Are Speaking

Upgrade your Subscription to Paid!

Did you know you can listen to each “We Are Speaking” post and engage directly with us on the Substack App? Download the app!

Get more from Pamela Hilliard Owens in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Please check out Keith’s other Substack:

Subscribe to Keith's AfroFantasy Detroit

Every week until the end of 2026, we will publish a post about each of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

The 3rd Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791, states: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This amendment addresses a grievance about British troops being forcibly housed in colonists' homes, a problem that was both immediate and tangible in the 18th century.

In the current political climate where the Adminstration is attempting to set up a white supremacist and fascist state in America, the literal circumstances of the 3rd Amendment are unlikely to affect the average American household. Yet, the amendment’s primary premise—a safeguard against government intrusion into citizens' private lives—addresses the broader issues at play.

As technology evolves, so does the potential for a compromise of privacy. Specifically due to “DOGE” and “Project 2025,” discussions around data security, surveillance, and the role of government in regulating and accessing personal information have become increasingly urgent. While the 3rd Amendment specifically protects against the physical quartering of soldiers, it also champions the sanctity of personal space and autonomy.

The 3rd Amendment's implicit endorsement of personal sanctuary remains relevant in debates over data encryption, facial recognition technologies, and the extent of governmental access to digital communications.

Moreover, the amendment's principles resonate beyond privacy. They touch on broader themes of consent and choice—a citizen's right to determine what happens within their own domain. This notion extends to various aspects of 21st-century life, from the sanctity of one’s home to decisions about data sharing with corporations and governments.

Today, the 3rd Amendment, though seemingly antiquated, underscores the need for vigilance in preserving our liberties, both tangible and intangible. It calls upon us to consider the implications of illegally expanded governmental powers and our role as protectors of our own freedom.

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the little heart “Like” button at the top of this post!

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Buy Pam a cup of Colombian Coffee!

Engage with us and our posts on Substack Notes, where we publish new content almost daily.

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Share We Are Speaking

Follow Pam on Bluesky, the best “X” alternative.

Follow Keith on Bluesky, the best “X alternative.

Independent Authors and Creative Professionals: Check out my valuable books and courses on Branding and Marketing just for you via Pam Speaks 2 You.

Upgrade to a paid subscription

For the last twenty-seven weeks of 2026, I will publish a Choice post on each of the twenty-seven Amendments to the United States Constitution, which is the only law of this land.

The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, and states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This amendment is among the most litigated: Does it guarantee an individual's right to possess firearms, or is it solely a collective right tied to maintaining a militia?

To understand the Second Amendment, it's crucial to consider the historical context in which it was written. The Founding Fathers were wary of centralized power, having experienced the overreach of British rule. As a safeguard against tyranny, they included the Second Amendment to empower citizens to form militias, effectively serving as a check on governmental power.

However, in 18th-century America, guns consisted primarily of one-shot muskets, not the automatic rifles and powerful handguns we have today.

Additionally, the wording of the 2nd Amendment refers to a “well-regulated militia,” later understood to be the National Guard, which is supposedly under the control of each State.

The original meaning of the 2nd Amendment was not intended for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to carry firearms without regulations.

The Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. This decision underscored an individual-rights perspective, yet acknowledged that this right is not unlimited and can be subject to regulation.

Another critical case, McDonald v. Chicago (2010), incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment, ensuring that the right to bear arms is protected from infringement by state and federal governments.

Proponents of gun rights emphasize the fundamental freedom to possess firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities. They argue that responsible ownership and education can prevent accidents and misuse.

On the other hand, advocates for gun control highlight the devastating impact of gun violence in America. They call for stricter regulations to reduce gun-related crimes and enhance community safety, such as mandatory background checks, bans on assault weapons, and limits on high-capacity magazines.

In the 1960s, the Black Panther Party was armed with AK-type rifles as they patrolled the streets and protected civil rights activists.

The U.S. government then decided that “ some people” didn’t have the right to defend themselves with those types of weapons.

In 2004, President Bill Clinton signed into law the “Federal Assault Weapons Ban,” which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines.

The ban was in effect for ten years, and when it lapsed in 2014, the rise in the sale, use, and murder incidents rose exponentially, with many saying that military-type weapons do not belong in civilian hands.

Today, the #1 killer of children is guns, including handguns.

The challenge lies in striking a balance between individual rights and public safety. For some, the Second Amendment is a core component of American identity and liberty. For others, the risks associated with widespread access to firearms necessitate comprehensive regulation.

Today, the 2nd Amendment remains one of the most misunderstood and litigated in U.S. History.

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the little heart “Like” button at the top of this post!

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Buy Pam a cup of Colombian Coffee!

Engage with us and our posts on Substack Notes, where we publish new content almost daily.

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Share We Are Speaking

Follow Pam on Bluesky, the best “X” alternative.

Follow Keith on Bluesky, the best “X alternative.

Independent Authors and Creative Professionals: Check out my valuable books and courses on Branding and Marketing just for you via Pam Speaks 2 You.

Upgrade to a paid subscription

“What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” was a speech delivered by Frederick Douglass on July 5, 1852, at a meeting organized by the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society at Corinthian Hall in Rochester, New York.

Here is James Earl Jones reciting the iconic speech in his own iconic voice.

Our goal is to make “We Are Speaking” a best-selling publication by September 30, 2026, increasing our reach and influence! To achieve our goal, we will need 15 new paid subscribers every week, or 5 paid subscribers per day for the three days a week we publish. If you value our publication, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for $5/month or $50/year. We appreciate your financial support!

Become a Paid Subscriber!

Our goal is to make “We Are Speaking” a best-selling publication by September 30, 2026, increasing our reach and influence! To achieve our goal, we will need 15 new paid subscribers every week, or 5 paid subscribers per day for the three days a week we publish. If you value our publication, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for $5/month or $50/year. We appreciate your financial support!

Become a paid subscriber!

Share We Are Speaking

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid!

---

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Follow Pam on Bluesky.

Follow Keith on Bluesky.

We appreciate your support!

Engage with us and our posts in Substack Notes.

Share this post:

Share

Share this publication:

Share We Are Speaking

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Join us in Notes!

Share We Are Speaking

Upgrade your Subscription to Paid!

Did you know you can listen to each “We Are Speaking” post and engage directly with us on the Substack App? Download the app!

Get more from Pamela Hilliard Owens in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Please check out Keith’s other Substack:

Subscribe to Keith's AfroFantasy Detroit

There are 27 weeks from June 30 through December 29, 2026. There are 27 Amendments to the Constitution, which are the law of this land.

Every week, I am re-publishing my posts on each amendment, one by one.

The current administration and its MAGA followers believe that the Constitution doesn’t matter.

I am here to remind them for the next 27 weeks that the Constitution DOES matter and that they WILL follow these laws, sooner or later.

Issue #84 Government July 14, 2022 (about 4 minutes reading time)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is part of the Bill of Rights, which includes the first ten amendments passed in 1791 during the first term of President George Washington, following the official ratification of the Constitution in 1787.

The antifederalists, who were led by then-governor of Virginia Patrick Henry, opposed the ratification of the Constitution because they felt that it gave too much power to the federal government and lacked protection for people’s individual rights (meaning the rights of landowning white men only, of course).

Pro-constitution politicians, called Federalists, proposed a concession to the antifederalists, which led to the development of the Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791. These first ten amendments were written primarily by James Madison, who would later become the fourth president of the United States.

The First Amendment protects five freedoms: speech, religion, the press, assembly, and petitioning the government. This amendment is one of the most misunderstood of all of the eventual twenty-seven amendments.

Thank you for reading and/or listening to this post. If you like this post, please “Like” this post by clicking the “Like” button at the bottom of this post. We would greatly appreciate reading your comment(s). Also, please scroll down to the end for more information about supporting our publication.

Listen to this post:

1. Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech means that Americans can express themselves without worrying about government interference or retribution. “Freedom of speech” does not apply to private companies, nor does it mean that anyone can say anything without repercussions from other private citizens or corporations. 

Some of the first things authoritarian-type governments and/or politicians do are to either attempt to silence the voices of those with whom they do not agree, and/or claim that their “1st Amendment Rights” are being taken away if their opinions are not popular.

2. Freedom of the Press

An independent and constitutionally protected free press reports the facts, and journalists are usually the first people targeted by authoritarian governments and/or politicians. Just like in the general population, engaging in libel (spreading falsehoods or defamation in writing) and/or slander (verbally spreading falsehoods or defamation) is unethical and, in many instances, illegal.

But otherwise, protecting the rights of print and digital media to report the facts freely is one of the most essential rights in a democracy that answers to the people, not to a person who wishes to be a dictator.

3. Freedom of Religion

Americans are guaranteed freedom of religion, meaning they have the right to practice their religion as they wish or practice no religion at all, as well as freedom from religion, because the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a “state” religion and favoring one religion over another. This is the basis of the established “separation of church and state.”

All through American history, and especially very recently, many fundamentalist Christians have been trying to turn the United States into a theocracy, which is exactly the opposite of what the Founders wanted, having just fought a war to free themselves from a religion-based monarchy. 

4. Freedom of Assembly

People in the United States are guaranteed the right to gather in public protest through marches, rallies, and other forms of assembly without fear of government retribution. Both Black Lives Matter marches and Ku Klux Klan rallies are protected by the First Amendment, but acts of sedition and insurrection are not. The operative word in this right is peaceably. 

Authorities may intervene when protests turn violent, threaten public safety, or result in riots or property damage. However, people are allowed to peacefully protest in what are considered public forums: parks, public squares, and sidewalks—even the sidewalks in front of the homes of Supreme Court justices.

5. Freedom to Petition

The right to petition the government for change without fear of retribution is used more than most people realize. Every time you sign a petition for changes in social or legal policy, you are exercising your First Amendment right. Other ways that you exercise your First Amendment right to petition the government may include:

• Filing a lawsuit.

• Testifying at a public meeting or before a government agency at any level, including before Congress.

• Submitting a written complaint to a government agency.

• Contacting a government official.

• Circulating a ballot initiative or referendum for others to sign.

And most importantly, by voting, you are in essence petitioning the government for a change by voting to elect or re-elect a government official, support a cause on the ballot, or accept or deny a policy proposal.

The right and power to vote is the most powerful expression of your First Amendment right to petition the government without fear of retribution.

Let Us Know What You Think!

Leave a comment

Help Us to Grow “We Are Speaking!”

Share We Are Speaking

Read and listen to “We Are Speaking” on the iOS app!

Read We Are Speaking in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Please support us: subscribe for free or upgrade your current subscription to a paid level.

Subscribe now

Our goal is to make “We Are Speaking” a best-selling publication by September 30, 2026, increasing our reach and influence! To achieve our goal, we will need 15 new paid subscribers every week, or 5 paid subscribers per day for the three days a week we publish. If you value our publication, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for $5/month or $50/year. We appreciate your financial support!

Become a Paid Subscriber!

If you haven’t already, make sure to download this valuable ebook:

Reclaiming The Narrative Why Learning Black History Changes Everything Generic Copy

231KB ∙ EPUB file

Download

Download

When we were kids in high school, a popular false bravado phrase was “Don’t start no shit, won’t be none.” Which meant, essentially, that as long as you leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone. But if, for some highly inadvisable reason, you decide we should fight, then fists will fly.

It’s easy to write off this teenage male chest thumping as little more than simply that. But it’s actually pretty good advice to follow long after those teen years are fading into the rear-view mirror. No need to start a problem just to be starting a problem, especially when there was no evidence that a problem was about to take shape.

Trump apparently takes a somewhat different view, which seems to be that wherever there is peace and goodwill, it is his solemn duty to replace said peace and goodwill with as much havoc as can possibly be wreaked.

It’s safe to say Iran isn’t a great place, which is to say not a place where most of us would prefer to live. Still, at this time last year, we weren’t at war with Iran because…well…why? Now we are at war (and then not at war, then back at war, then not, then maybe, then back at war) with Iran because…well…why?

Because Trump.

A couple of months ago, the Reflecting Pool in Washington, D.C. was reflecting just fine. Same as it ever was since the pool first opened over a century ago in 1923. But then, several months ago, Trump decided to re-paint the pool. Said it would cost around $2 million. Wound up costing over $14 million. And within days of completion, green algae started sprouting in the pool, then the paint started peeling off, then people started getting arrested for daring to take a closer look at just how badly Trump had screwed up, and then ducks started dying in the pool. Because…well…why?

Yep.

Normally, it might be difficult to make any connection between a century-old pool of water and a war going on halfway around the world. But both are clear examples of how this entire country – and much of the world – has become an unwilling captive to Trump’s deranged whims and moods. He can’t negotiate an acceptable end to the war he started for absolutely no reason because he is incapable of doing so. This is the sort of negotiation that would require qualified adults to be in the room, and there are none. Meanwhile, soldiers are dying.

As for the ruined reflecting pool, it is only ruined because Trump deemed it so. But now that it is not as he prophesied, he has deemed his ruined fantasy to be someone else’s fault. A fictional someone to be named later. Maybe. But the pool itself is likely ruined at least until he leaves office, because returning the pool to normal would be to concede that Trump screwed up. And he will never allow that.

This level of madness won’t disappear just by wishing it away.

Become a paid subscriber!

Share We Are Speaking

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid!

---

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Follow Pam on Bluesky.

Follow Keith on Bluesky.

We appreciate your support!

Engage with us and our posts in Substack Notes.

Share this post:

Share

Share this publication:

Share We Are Speaking

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Join us in Notes!

Share We Are Speaking

Upgrade your Subscription to Paid!

Did you know you can listen to each “We Are Speaking” post and engage with us directly in the Substack App? Download the app!

Get more from Pamela Hilliard Owens in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Please check out Keith’s other Substack:

Subscribe to Keith's AfroFantasy Detroit

Our goal is to make “We Are Speaking” a best-selling publication by December 31, 2026, increasing our reach and influence! To achieve our goal, we will need 15 new paid subscribers every week, or 5 paid subscribers per day for the three days a week we publish. If you value our publication, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for $5/month or $50/year. We appreciate your financial support!

Become a Paid Subscriber!

If you haven’t already, make sure to download this valuable ebook:

Reclaiming The Narrative Why Learning Black History Changes Everything Generic Copy

231KB ∙ EPUB file

Download

Download

On Thursday, June 11, 2026, the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority announced that the Friday, June 12, 2026, dedication ceremony and opening of the Gordie Howe Bridge between Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario has been postponed.

No new date has been set.

Here is the headline from yesterday’s Crain’s Detroit Business, published Wednesday, June 10:

More talk — but also more uncertainty — on Gordie Howe Bridge opening plans

For those not familiar with this project, the Gordie Howe Bridge is a $4.6 billion infrastructure project connecting the United States and Canada via a massive bridge linking Michigan to Ontario that was all set to go until, well, Trump. Here’s what I wrote about the dilemma back in February:

You may have heard that Trump is suddenly determined to block the opening of a bridge that has now been completed between the US and Canada. The Gordie Howe Bridge, as it is named, has long been anticipated because, once it opens, it will greatly reduce the staggering amount of traffic currently shouldered by the Ambassador Bridge, located a few miles further up the Detroit River. Currently, the Ambassador Bridge is the busiest international border crossing in North America by trade volume. It serves as a critical economic link, handling over 25% of all merchandise trade between the U.S. and Canada, with goods valued at approximately $323 million crossing daily.

That bridge, the Ambassador Bridge, is privately owned by local billionaire Matthew Maroun and his family

Full stop. The Maroun family, who own the current Ambassador Bridge, are huge Trump supporters who have opposed this bridge since it was barely an idea. And that’s because a fully functional Gordie Howe Bridge means fewer billions in the bank for the Maroun family by diverting traffic from the Ambassador Bridge, which is not acceptable to the Marouns. And, since the Marouns donated millions to Trump, a fully functional Gordie Howe Bridge is therefore not acceptable to him either.

So now we have a bridge opening ceremony (maybe) for a bridge that will/might welcome traffic as soon as next Monday, June 15.

Maybe, possibly, hopefully. We’ll see. Here’s a really optimistic prediction from Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford, reported from Crain’s:

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who was in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, suggested the bridge’s launch remains uncertain.

“Let’s see if it opens or not,” he said. “Hopefully it will, if they say it’s going to open. I’m just hearing two stories. But that’s all right. It’s all good.”

Yeah. It’s all good. Sure it is.

Meanwhile, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s office hasn’t been returning calls or answering the phone from reporters trying to get a solid answer. And yet the Governor is expected to be present at the festivities (???) on Friday.

Is the bridge a better deal – by a large margin – for both Canadians and Americans? Of course it is. And the Canadians even paid for the whole thing, agreeing to recoup their money through toll collection. Because, you know, Canadians trusted us to do the right thing and hold up our end like we always have based on how the Canadian/American alliance used to work once upon a time.

That alliance has run aground on the rocky shores of Right Now.

Will the Canadians ever forgive us for Trump?

Maybe. Hopefully Possibly.

Become a paid subscriber!

Share We Are Speaking

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid!

---

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Follow Pam on Bluesky.

Follow Keith on Bluesky.

We appreciate your support!

Engage with us and our posts in Substack Notes.

Share this post:

Share

Share this publication:

Share We Are Speaking

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Join us in Notes!

Share We Are Speaking

Upgrade your Subscription to Paid!

Did you know you can listen to each “We Are Speaking” post and engage with us directly in the Substack App? Download the app!

Get more from Pamela Hilliard Owens in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Please check out Keith’s other Substack:

Subscribe to Keith's AfroFantasy Detroit

Our goal is to make “We Are Speaking” a best-selling publication by December 31, 2026, increasing our reach and influence! To achieve our goal, we will need 15 new paid subscribers every week, or 5 paid subscribers per day for the three days a week we publish. If you value our publication, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for $5/month or $50/year. We appreciate your financial support!

Become a Paid Subscriber!

If you haven’t already, make sure to download this valuable ebook:

Reclaiming The Narrative Why Learning Black History Changes Everything Generic Copy

231KB ∙ EPUB file

Download

Download

As former President Joe Biden once whispered to President Barack Obama when he was serving as Obama’s Vice President, “This is a big fucking deal.”

If Michigan’s current Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is successful in her bid to become Michigan’s next Governor, which now appears increasingly likely given her wide lead in the polls and former Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan’s decision to exit the race, Michigan will become one of the very few states that will have elected two women governors back-to-back. This is not an insignificant distinction, especially considering that current Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who is extremely popular and is finishing out her second term, serves alongside two other top elected women officials, Benson and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.

I couldn’t help but be curious, so I had to look up the history behind all this. I’m well aware of the understandable controversy surrounding AI, but I do have to admit that ChatGPT is pretty amazing when it comes to research. I still won’t let it touch anything I write, not even to edit it, but it has become invaluable as a research tool.

Anyway, you have that disclaimer now. So here is what my friendly AI research assistant turned up.

Arizona currently holds the record for the most consecutive female governors, with three in a row, and its current Governor, Katie Hobbs, is female.

The only other state besides Arizona that has had back-to-back female governors is New Mexico:

· Susana Martinez (Republican, 2011–2019)

· Michelle Lujan Grisham (Democrat, 2019–present)

But Arizona was the first state to do it, with Jane Dee Hull followed by Janet Napolitano, and then Jan Brewer, giving Arizona three consecutive female governors. Until 2019, Arizona was the only state with consecutive female governors, when New Mexico joined the list after Lujan Grisham succeeded Martinez.

So if Benson steps in behind Whitmer, then she steps into some very significant history, taking Michigan along with her.

But that’s not all. Remember, I said Whitmer serves with an elected female Attorney General and Secretary of State. So, naturally, I had to once again ask my assistant how many other states had seen their way clear to elect three women to serve in top positions at the same time. The answer?

Besides Michigan, Oregon has also had all three offices held by women simultaneously.

In early 2023, Oregon simultaneously had:

• Governor: Tina Kotek

• Secretary of State: Shemia Fagan

• Attorney General: Ellen Rosenblum

Tina Kotek became governor in January 2023, while Shemia Fagan was already serving as secretary of state and Ellen Rosenblum was serving as attorney general.

Michigan later joined that short list with:

• Gretchen Whitmer

• Jocelyn Benson

• Dana Nessel

As far as historical records show, Oregon and Michigan are the only states known to have had women serving simultaneously in all three of those offices.

Not bad. Not bad at all.

Personally, I think making this kind of history in a time like this is something to be proud of. But equally notable is the fact that the gender of Michigan’s top elected officials is something that rarely even gets mentioned anymore around here. Because we’re used to powerful women taking charge. Because that’s the way it should be.

Become a paid subscriber!

Share We Are Speaking

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid!

---

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Follow Pam on Bluesky.

Follow Keith on Bluesky.

We appreciate your support!

Engage with us and our posts in Substack Notes.

Share this post:

Share

Share this publication:

Share We Are Speaking

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Join us in Notes!

Share We Are Speaking

Upgrade your Subscription to Paid!

Did you know you can listen to each “We Are Speaking” post and engage with us directly in the Substack App? Download the app!

Get more from Pamela Hilliard Owens in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Please check out Keith’s other Substack:

Subscribe to Keith's AfroFantasy Detroit

Our goal is to make “We Are Speaking” a best-selling publication by July 1, 2026, increasing our reach and influence! To achieve our goal, we will need 15 new paid subscribers every week, or 5 paid subscribers per day for the three days a week we publish. If you value our publication, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for $5/month or $50/year. We appreciate your financial support!

Become a Paid Subscriber!

If you haven’t already, make sure to download this valuable ebook:

Reclaiming The Narrative Why Learning Black History Changes Everything Generic Copy

231KB ∙ EPUB file

Download

Download

It’s true that Donald Trump is committing so many crimes and atrocities so fast that it becomes hard to keep up. There’s the war in Iran, the Epstein files, the wholesale destruction of the government, and the ruining of America’s reputation worldwide. So it’s a lot.

Nevertheless, as Rachel Maddow so thankfully pointed out in this week’s episode, one atrocity that doesn’t seem to be attracting quite so much coverage – or outrage – is Trump’s out-in-the-open attack on Black people. He’s not even trying to hide it, and I suspect that’s because he doesn’t think anybody other than Black people will really care. But as Maddow points out, Trump’s attack on Black Americans is an attack on Americans.

Keep in mind that Donald Trump’s history of racism against Black people goes back a long way, way before he was first elected President. During his first campaign for the presidency, which he won in 2016, Hillary Clinton, his opponent, brought the issue up during one of their debates. This was back when many of us still thought that being provably charged with racism and discrimination could actually be considered problematic for a presidential candidate. From NPR on September 29, 2016:

“During the presidential debate on Monday night, Hillary Clinton raised a 1973 federal lawsuit brought against Donald Trump and his company for alleged racial discrimination at Trump housing developments in New York.

“The Justice Department sued Donald Trump, his father, Fred, and Trump Management in order to obtain a settlement in which Trump and his father would promise not to discriminate. The case eventually was settled two years later after Trump tried to countersue the Justice Department for $100 million for making false statements. Those allegations were dismissed by the court.

“Donald started his career, back in 1973, being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination — because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans, and he made sure that the people who worked for him understood that was the policy,” Clinton said on Monday night.”

Several months after Clinton made her accusation, Trump was elected President of the United States.

About 15 years after Trump was sued by the Justice Department, Trump was calling for the execution of five Black and Latino young men who were wrongfully charged with a rape they never committed. Trump never apologized for the full-page ads he placed in major newspapers calling for the execution of those young men, even after they had been exonerated. From The Guardian, Feb. 17, 2016:

“Yusef Salaam was 15 years old when Donald Trump demanded his execution for a crime he did not commit.

“Nearly three decades before the rambunctious billionaire began his run for president – before he called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States, for the expulsion of all undocumented migrants, before he branded Mexicans as “rapists” and was accused of mocking disabled people – Trump called for the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York following a horrific rape case in which five teenagers were wrongly convicted.”

Now the Voting Rights Act has been completely gutted, effectively knee-capping Black voting power in many Southern states, such as Louisiana, where the Governor actually stopped an ongoing election after the Supreme Court handed down that decision, so that districts could immediately be redrawn to eliminate any Black majority districts in a state that is almost 1/3 Black.

But this is just the most recent.

· Broad rollback of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs
Trump signed multiple executive orders targeting DEI initiatives in federal agencies, schools, contractors, and corporations. Civil rights groups and minority organizations argued these moves undermined efforts to address historic racial inequities and disproportionately harmed Black Americans and other minorities.

· Removal of DEI-related military and historical content
During the administration’s anti-DEI initiatives, Pentagon websites reportedly removed or altered pages about groups such as the Tuskegee Airmen, Navajo Code Talkers, and women veterans. Critics described this as erasing minority contributions to American history.

· Federal pressure against race-conscious policies
Trump’s administration pressured universities, contractors, and organizations to dismantle race-conscious hiring, admissions, and grant programs. Critics said this ignored ongoing racial disparities and disproportionately benefited white applicants and businesses. Supporters argued these policies restored “colorblind” standards.

This is not only a threat to Black Americans. This mentality is a threat to all Americans.

Become a paid subscriber!

Share We Are Speaking

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid!

---

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Follow Pam on Bluesky.

Follow Keith on Bluesky.

We appreciate your support!

Engage with us and our posts in Substack Notes.

Share this post:

Share

Share this publication:

Share We Are Speaking

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Join us in Notes!

Share We Are Speaking

Upgrade your Subscription to Paid!

Did you know you can listen to each “We Are Speaking” post and engage with us directly in the Substack App? Download the app!

Get more from Pamela Hilliard Owens in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Please check out Keith’s other Substack:

Subscribe to Keith's AfroFantasy Detroit

Our goal is to make “We Are Speaking” a best-selling publication by July 1, 2026, increasing our reach and influence! To achieve our goal, we will need 15 new paid subscribers every week, or 5 paid subscribers per day for the three days a week we publish. If you value our publication, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for $5/month or $50/year. We appreciate your financial support!

Become a Paid Subscriber!

From the earliest days of this country, white Christian males were always prioritized for voting rights. At first, the government limited voting to white men who owned property. It took a few decades for voting to be allowed for all white men in the early 19th century. Women (white women, that is), of course, did not achieve full suffrage until 1920.

Roger B. Taney, the fifth Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, was the brother-in-law of Francis Scott Key (1779–1843), who wrote the lyrics to the national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner”. Taney led a 7-2 SCOTUS decision in the 1857 Dred Scott V Sandford case that declared enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. The opinion also stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a Federal territory. This decision is thought to be one of the reasons for the Civil War.

After the Civil War, there were three “Reconstruction Amendments” that purported to grant citizenship rights to the previously enslaved men as well as to everyone born on U.S. soil.

Specifically, the Fifteenth Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, prohibited the U.S. government and states from denying a citizen the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”. As the third “Reconstruction Amendment,” it was intended to guarantee suffrage for Black men, though its enforcement was undermined for decades by state-level restrictions such as poll taxes and literacy tests.

Again, women, indigenous men, and Asians, particularly the Chinese, were not included in this amendment, as they were not considered to be full American citizens.

In 1896, the Plessy v. Ferguson SCOTUS decision ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as “separate but equal.” The final separate but equal laws were not struck down until the 1950s.

Meanwhile, from the late 19th century on, many Southern states passed laws that restricted voting by Black men, including a “grandfather clause” that stated that a man could vote if his grandfather was able to vote. Of course, the grandfathers of the previously enslaved could not vote. There were also literacy tests, poll taxes, and tricks like requiring a person to correctly count the number of jelly beans in a jar.

Also in 1870, the Department of Justice (DOJ) was formed, specifically to counter the attacks on Black people by the Ku Klux Klan. While our government has had an attorney general since the beginning, the Department of Justice started almost one hundred years later. Now, the DOJ under Donald Trump is working hard to restrict the rights of individuals and organizations that Trump doesn’t like.

For almost a century, many Black people and a lot of white allies were attacked, beaten, lynched, or otherwise killed just for trying to register to vote. By 1940, only 3% of Black people in the South were registered to vote.

In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The unanimous ruling declared that racial segregation in public schools violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, effectively overturning the “separate but equal” doctrine.

On December 1, 1955, the Montgomery (AL) bus boycott began after Rosa Parks, a secretary for the Montgomery NAACP chapter, deliberately refused to give up her seat for a white rider. This action marked the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law.

In March of 1965, hundreds of people participated in the Selma to Montgomery March across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. (The Edmund Pettus Bridge was named after Edmund Winston Pettus, a Confederate brigadier general, U.S. Senator, and a leading member of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama. Dedicated in 1940, the bridge was named to honor his legacy as a white supremacist leader who worked to maintain white power and restrict African-American rights.)

In 1965, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act (VRA) into law.

The number of Black politicians winning posts exploded

Since then, the VRA has been re-approved and re-authorized by a bipartisan Congress and by Republican presidents every few years.

Until 2010. That year is when a series of voting restriction laws and policies started being passed by mostly by southern states, attempting to once again limit the voting rights of Black people and other non-whites.

On June 25, 2013, in Shelby v. Holder, the Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that Section 4(b) was unconstitutional because the coverage formula was based on data more than 40 years old. This ruling also made Section 5 of the VRA almost moot. Eric Holder was the Attorney General of the United States at that time.

Claims have been made that the ruling has made it easier for state officials to engage in voter suppression. Research shows that preclearance led to increases in minority congressional representation and minority voter turnout. Five years after the ruling, nearly 1,000 U.S. polling places had closed, many of them in predominantly African-American counties. There were also cuts to early voting, purges of voter rolls, and imposition of strict voter ID laws. Today, the Republicans are still trying to implement these restrictions.

In the summer of 2016, during the presidential campaign season, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton warned us about the Supreme Court and the damage that electing Donald Trump would do if he had the chance to nominate SCOTUS justices, and that is exactly what has happened.

On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais that a Louisiana congressional map featuring two majority-Black districts was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, limiting the scope of the Voting Rights Act. The conservative majority held that race cannot be the primary factor in redistricting, potentially overturning efforts to create additional minority-represented districts.

One hundred and fifty-six years after the 15th Amendment was ratified, this decision nullifies Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

So now what do we do? Former President Barack Obama and many others have said that we cannot waste time feeling despondent.

With all of the mid-decade gerrymandering efforts and other voter intimidation and restriction actions being attempted, we must work even harder to ensure that the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election are free and fair.

It is already May, and the summer primaries are coming up soon. We must vote in the primaries and in the November general elections like we’ve never voted before.

And then, we must work to ensure that the results in November are not ruled invalid by the Republicans, and that the new Congress is seated without incident on January 3, 2027.

With Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2027, we can pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which is aimed at restoring and strengthening the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and reinstating a “preclearance” mechanism for states with recent voting rights violations, requiring them to get federal approval from the DOJ or a DC federal court before changing voting laws.

Donald Trump would most likely veto the bill, so Congress would have to override the veto.

What can and will you do to help ensure that our voting rights are protected?

Our goal is to make “We Are Speaking” a best-selling publication by July 1, 2026, increasing our reach and influence! To achieve our goal, we will need 15 new paid subscribers every week, or 5 paid subscribers per day for the three days a week we publish. If you value our publication, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for $5/month or $50/year. We appreciate your financial support!

Become a paid subscriber!

Share We Are Speaking

Subscribe now

Upgrade to Paid!

---

Buttons:

Heart: Like Bubble: Comment Arrow Up: Share Arrows Circle: Restack

If you like us, REALLY like us, please click the “Like” button at the top of this post!

Your “Likes” mean a LOT to us! We appreciate your support!

Follow Pam on Bluesky.

Follow Keith on Bluesky.

We appreciate your support!

Engage with us and our posts in Substack Notes.

Share this post:

Share

Share this publication:

Share We Are Speaking

We Are Speaking is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Join us in Notes!

Share We Are Speaking

Upgrade your Subscription to Paid!

Did you know you can listen to each “We Are Speaking” post and engage directly with us on the Substack App? Download the app!

Get more from Pamela Hilliard Owens in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Please check out Keith’s other Substack:

Subscribe to Keith's AfroFantasy Detroit