This past weekend, my wife and I attended a jazz concert in Pontiac, billed as a fundraiser for Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, our candidate for Michigan’s next U.S. Senate seat, to fill the seat of retiring U.S. Sen. Gary Peters. It was a great event, standing room only, and the music was fantastic. We saw the event posted on Facebook and decided we couldn't miss it.

But that post drew some interesting reactions. Predictably, some wanted to tear down Abdul. But more than once, I noticed a comment expressing the questionable sentiment that good music shouldn't be polluted or sullied by being associated with anything political.

In other words, can’t those musicians just shut up and perform for our entertainment? Why do they insist on being involved with what’s happening in their community? Don’t they know we only go to concerts to forget about the world's problems?

Kinda reminds me of when right-wing nutjob Laura Ingram told basketball superstar LeBron James to just “shut up and dribble” and stop making political statements. Just be the good trained monkey we pay you to be. Needless to say, Ingram was ignored.

But here’s the thing, just for those who may not be aware. Music isn’t just for the party people. Music has teeth. To quote a song from one of my favorite rap groups, Public Enemy, music has a long history of being used to Fight The Power. Check the lyrics:

As the rhythm designed to bounce
What counts is that the rhymes
Designed to fill your mind
Now that you’ve realized the pride’s arrived
We got to pump the stuff to make us tough

From the heart
It’s a start, a work of art
To revolutionize make a change nothing’s strange
People, people we are the same
No we’re not the same
‘Cause we don’t know the game
What we need is awareness, we can’t get careless
You say what is this?
My beloved lets get down to business
Mental self defensive fitness
Don’t rush the show
You gotta go for what you know
Make everybody see, in order to fight the powers that be
Lemme hear you say

Fight the power
Fight the power
Fight the power
Fight the power
Fight the power
Fight the power
Fight the power
We’ve got to fight the powers that be

Indeed, the history of protest music can be traced back at least as far as slavery, when music was not only a means of survival and a way to emotionally endure horrific conditions, but also to send messages in code about planned escapes and other news in ways that the plantation owners and overseers couldn’t understand or decipher.

Here are some other examples of how music can be such a critical ingredient of protest and protest movements (Source: The Library of Congress):

Abolitionism: An Early American Example

The relationship between political protest and music predates the 1960s by more than a century. American abolitionists used music as part of the campaign against slavery. The Library of Congress identifies numerous anti-slavery hymnals and songbooks published between 1834 and 1856. Abolitionists understood that songs could communicate moral arguments against slavery and encourage people to take action.

One notable example was The Anti-Slavery Harp, which William Wells Brown compiled in 1848. Such publications demonstrate that music was part of the abolitionist movement’s communications infrastructure.

The Civil War

Music played an important role in creating political and military identity during the Civil War. Soldiers and civilians used songs at political rallies, in camps, and elsewhere to reinforce belonging and purpose.

Union-associated songs included “John Brown’s Body,” “Tramp, Tramp, Tramp,” and “Marching Through Georgia.” Confederate supporters used songs such as “Dixie.” The contrasting musical traditions demonstrate how music could help define what people believed they were fighting for.

Women’s Suffrage

The women’s suffrage movement also recognized music as a useful tool for organizing and communication. Suffragists adapted familiar tunes, hymns, and popular songs by giving them new political lyrics. Using melodies that audiences already knew made the new political messages easy to learn and sing.

This established a recurring pattern in protest music: movements often take something familiar and give it a new political meaning.

Labor Movements

The relationship between music and labor organizing is especially strong. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, workers and union organizers used songs to recruit members, maintain morale on picket lines, communicate grievances, encourage solidarity, and attract public sympathy.

Examples include:

· “Solidarity Forever”

· “Which Side Are You On?”

· “Bread and Roses”

· “I Am a Union Woman”

Music provided labor movements with a common emotional language that complemented speeches, pamphlets, and organizing activities.

African American Spirituals, Gospel, Blues, and Civil Rights

One of the most important American examples is the cultural continuum connecting African American spirituals, gospel, blues, freedom songs, soul, funk, and hip-hop. These traditions are not politically identical, but they share long histories of expressing suffering, resilience, identity, and resistance.

The Civil Rights Movement inherited a musical language that was already deeply embedded in Black American culture. Music therefore became a practical tool for organizing rather than simply a soundtrack to political activity.

The Civil Rights Movement

The relationship between protest and music reached an extraordinary level during the 1950s and 1960s. People sang songs at mass meetings, churches, demonstrations, marches, and in jails. They helped activists stay courageous and united while confronting harassment, intimidation, and violence.

“We Shall Overcome”

“We Shall Overcome” became one of the most recognizable musical symbols of the American Civil Rights Movement. Its origins trace back to African American spiritual and gospel traditions, including Charles Tindley’s “I’ll Overcome Someday.” The song was used repeatedly in the movement because its simple structure allowed large groups to sing together.

The important point is that freedom songs were not merely songs about civil rights. Activists actually used them while conducting civil-rights work. Music became part of the movement’s organizational infrastructure.

The March on Washington

At the 1963 March on Washington, music was integrated directly into the political event. Performers included Mahalia Jackson, Marian Anderson, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Peter, Paul, and Mary, and Harry Belafonte. Approximately 250,000 people participated.

Music was not simply entertainment between political speeches. It helped create the demonstration's emotional and cultural environment.

Vietnam and the 1960s

The Vietnam era broadened the connection between music and political activism. Artists including Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, Phil Ochs, Nina Simone, and Marvin Gaye addressed war, racism, poverty, inequality, and political conflict.

Important examples include:

· Bob Dylan — “Blowin’ in the Wind”

· Bob Dylan — “Masters of War”

· Pete Seeger — “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?”

· Phil Ochs — “I Ain’t Marching Anymore”

· Marvin Gaye — “What’s Going On”

“What’s Going On” and the Expansion of Protest Music

Marvin Gaye’s 1971 album “What’s Going On” illustrates an important evolution. Rather than functioning primarily as a march song, it used soul music to address war, poverty, racism, environmental concerns, and social conflict.

This shows that protest music didn't have to sound like a traditional protest march. Political expression could be embedded in soul, funk, jazz, rock, and mainstream popular music.

Jazz and Protest

Jazz has also had a substantial relationship with social and political resistance. Examples include Billie Holiday’s “Strange Fruit,” Max Roach’s “Freedom Now Suite,” Charles Mingus’s “Fables of Faubus,” and Nina Simone’s “Mississippi Goddam.”

Jazz could challenge political and social structures not only through lyrics but also through performance, artistic choices, and the music industry's organization. Producer and concert promoter Norman Granz, for example, used his Jazz at the Philharmonic concerts to challenge segregation and racial discrimination.

Reggae and International Protest

Reggae developed in Jamaica amid significant social and political tensions. Artists such as Bob Marley, Peter Tosh, Burning Spear, and Jimmy Cliff addressed colonialism, poverty, political violence, racism, and social inequality.

Bob Marley’s “Get Up, Stand Up” became an internationally recognized protest song. Reggae demonstrates how a musical style itself can become associated with resistance.

South Africa and Apartheid

Music played an important role in opposition to apartheid. Artists including Miriam Makeba, Hugh Masekela, Abdullah Ibrahim, and Johnny Clegg helped bring South African racial and political issues to international audiences.

Music and dance accompanied liberation movements and served as vehicles for cultural identity, resistance and international communication.

Latin America and Nueva Canción

The Nueva Canción movement became especially important in Latin America during the 1960s and 1970s. Drawing on folk traditions, artists addressed poverty, workers’ rights, indigenous rights, colonialism, political repression, and social justice.

The movement became particularly prominent in countries including Chile and Argentina and showed how traditional musical forms could adapt to contemporary political struggles.

Music is the heartbeat of revolution.

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 subscribing for free or paid access.

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

The day the media put Trump on mute

A funny thing happened today when Trump participated in a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the White House on Monday; nobody could hear what he was saying except the hard hats surrounding him because there was no press pool.

The media should have put Trump on mute a long time ago, but this was still a wonderful thing to watch. Trump running his mouth, seemingly oblivious to the fact that nobody could hear him. Or cared.

But what made this comical scenario even better was knowing the story behind the silence; all the major news networks have essentially banded together to boycott Trump and his White House in protest of his toy dictator attempt to select which news organizations would be acceptable in his presence based on which ones were willing to bow down. None of them were.

There have been some unnerving actions taken by the major networks ever since Trump took office for his second term that made it fair to consider whether legitimate media could survive under the threat of fascism Trump was doing his best to impose on all of us. Most recently, CBS came under intense scrutiny when it became clear how much pressure was being exerted on the popular, long-running news program 60 Minutes, trying to force its reporters to become more compliant with the Trump effect. Widely-respected 60 Minutes news anchor Scott Pelley was fired in June for refusing to bend over, and referred to what was happening at his former place of work as a “massacre.” The New York Times did the interview as a podcast.

Three months later, it appears Scott Pelley may not be the only one who has had enough. Hopefully the major print media outlets will find a way to follow suit, because the only way the media can save itself is by standing together. Subservience is not salvation.

From Politico:

“The nation’s major television networks are declining to participate in White House pool duties moving forward in response to the Trump administration’s decision to bar CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO from the White House, Fox News Washington Bureau Chief and current TV pool chair Bryan Boughton wrote in an email to TV pool subscribers.

‘This is to advise that, effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President,” Boughton wrote in the email, obtained by POLITICO. “This follows the White House’s position preventing CNN from fulfilling its assigned pool duties. There will be no replacement pool put in place.’

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

The Democratic Party is supposed to be the “big tent” party, but the centrist and corporate establishment Democrats refuse to treat the progressive Democrats and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) as equal members of the party.

A reminder that the establishment Democrats lost the 2016 and 2024 elections, both with women at the top of the ticket, to Donald Trump because they did not support those candidates enough to give Democratic voters enough reasons to vote for those candidates.

Democrats did win the 2020 election and, in the first two years of Joe Biden’s administration, passed some very important legislation, even with a 50-50 split in the Senate and a very slim majority in the House.

Conservative Senators Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) left the Senate during Biden’s term, and John Fetterman (PA) has often voted with Republicans, making it harder to pass bills.

Most importantly, the Democrats did not add justices to the U.S. Supreme Court when they had a chance, leaving us with an ultra-conservative Court that primarily does the bidding of Donald Trump.

As soon as Trump won the election both times, he and the Republicans repealed or significantly changed Biden’s legislative wins from his first two years. Now Trump and the Republicans are in charge of the entire government, including majorities in both houses of Congress and a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, and are quickly destroying our hard-won rights, our health and safety, the environment, and the very foundations of our democracy.

Both FDR and LBJ had large congressional majorities when they passed their major laws and policies, and we need to elect large majorities in the 2026 midterms to make the changes we need.

We need a unified Democratic Party, and we do not have that now, with less than seven weeks until November 3, 2026.

The Democratic Party is not supporting Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Michigan, who said he is not a socialist but is promoting very popular policies, such as Money Out of Politics, Money in Your Pocket, and Medicare for All. He won over the corporate Democrat Haley Stevens. Dr. El-Sayed has also said that, as a medical doctor and epidemiologist, he looks forward to calling HHS Secretary RFK Jr. out over his anti-science and anti-vaccine stances that are making Americans sick and actually killing people with the increase in measles cases.

The Democratic Party also isn’t supporting Florida State Representative Angie Nixon, a Democratic Socialist and the Democratic candidate for Senate, who beat the corporate Democrat, Alexander Vindman. Representative Nixon’s proposed policies include Medicare for All, affordable housing, free child care and paid family and sick leave, getting money out of politics, a universal jobs program, and standing with workers.

Both El-Sayed and Nixon say that their programs will be paid for by taxing the billionaires, ending Citizens United, and spending money here in America instead of on wars and violence overseas.

Meanwhile, corporate establishment Democrats are not promoting those popular proposed policies and instead are still supporting the genocide in Gaza and depending on financial support from the corporations, including AIPAC and health company lobbyists, that are against those policies.

According to historian Dr. Heather Cox Richardson, ever since the late 19th century, corporate insiders have called anything and everything that actually helps people “socialism.” Some Democrats recently voted in Congress to be against “socialism” and never use that term.

The primary feature of socialism is that society, workers, or the state—rather than private owners—owns or controls the means of production, such as factories, land, and resources. That is exactly what today’s corporate elites do not want.

And of course, the entire country has seen the phenomenal success of NYC Mayor Zorhan Mamdani, who says he is a socialist and ran for office as a Democratic Socialist. He is not only the mayor of the largest city in America, but he is the most popular mayor in the country.

The corporate Democrats do not need to become actual socialists; they just need to realize that many of the popular policies that lean socialist are the policies that most people want. They need to listen to their voters, not the corporations paying them to pass their priorities.

Establishment Democrats also should not endorse Republican candidates over progressive Democrats.

We need to have a large majority after the midterms, and we need fighters in Congress, not weak and pathetic people who won’t do what We, the People, want and need them to do.

What are your thoughts on the current Democratic Party?

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

The Tenth Amendment is the last of the Bill of Rights that was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1791. It defines the principle of “federalism,” meaning the national and state governments share power.

The 10th Amendment, with only 28 words, says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Throughout American history, conservatives and red states have always rushed to declare “States’ Rights” unless they want the federal government to take away the policies, rights, and privileges of the groups they don’t like.

The 10th Amendment is intended to limit the power of the Federal government.

As Donald Trump, the #ConvictedFelon and #AdjudicatedRapist, now occupying the People’s House, is trying to not only consolidate all powers to the Federal government, and particularly to himself and the Executive Branch, the 10th Amendment becomes especially important.

The Tenth Amendment emerged from an era of intense debate among the Founding Fathers about the scope of federal authority. The Articles of Confederation had fostered a government too weak to function effectively, leading to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. However, as the new Constitution proposed a stronger central government, fears of tyranny resurfaced among the states. The Bill of Rights, particularly the Tenth Amendment, was crafted to alleviate these anxieties by ensuring state sovereignty and protecting individual liberties.

Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson represented the spectrum of this debate. Hamilton advocated for a robust federal system, while Jefferson championed states' rights. The Tenth Amendment was a compromise, a reassuring promise to the states that their local powers and autonomy would remain intact.

The Tenth Amendment's language serves as a complex boundary marker. By stating that powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people, it implicitly affirms that the federal government has only limited, enumerated powers.

Today, the Tenth Amendment sits at the center of several heated political and legal debates. From healthcare reforms to marijuana legalization and gun control, states often assert their rights to legislate independently of federal mandates. The amendment thus serves as a basis for legal challenges against perceived federal overreach.

By attempting to slow federal overreach, different laws across states also complicate things for individuals who may have rights in one state but are denied those same rights in another.

For instance, the Affordable Care Act faced scrutiny under the Tenth Amendment. While the Supreme Court upheld the law's constitutionality, dissenting opinions raised concerns about encroaching federal power. Similarly, as more states legalize marijuana, they do so in defiance of federal statutes, invoking states' rights as protected by the Tenth Amendment.

The issue of marriage equality, particularly regarding state versus federal authority to regulate marriage, relates directly to the Tenth Amendment because it emphasizes federalism and states' rights. This principle comes into play when evaluating who has the authority to legislate marriage laws.

Historically, states have predominantly regulated marriage, with each state setting its own laws on marriage licenses, age of consent, and more, because the Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government the power to legislate marriage.

However, the federal government has, at times, intervened in marriage regulation, especially when issues of equality and civil rights were at stake. Notable examples include the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and landmark Supreme Court cases such as United States v. Windsor (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). The latter case resulted in the legalization of same-sex marriage across the United States, based on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, effectively reducing the states' ability to regulate marriage exclusively.

Just as the Supreme Court reversed the Roe v Wade decision that gave a federal guarantee of abortion access, the right wing is now trying to get the Supreme Court to reverse the Obergefell v. Hodges case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

The Tenth Amendment exemplifies the ongoing balancing act between unity and diversity within the United States.

Critics argue that this decentralization can exacerbate inequalities, as state policies on education, healthcare, and civil rights can differ dramatically. Proponents, however, see it as a necessary safeguard against an overreaching federal state and a reflection of the diverse perspectives and needs of the American populace.

The Tenth Amendment, in preserving the rights of states and the autonomy of citizens, continues to shape the nation's legal and political landscape, reminding us that in America, POWER BEGINS WITH THE PEOPLE and flourishes through the states they inhabit.

Have you ever considered how the 10th 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 August 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

Of Lake America and Unicorns

Question: What do unicorns and Lake America have in common?

Answer: Neither of them exists.

When I came up with the idea for what (I think) is just such a clever opening line, I considered maybe this was the time for me to sign off on what would be the shortest op-ed of my career, and possibly of all time. Because, seriously, what else needs to be said? Last Thursday, August 27, Trump signed one of his executive orders proclaiming that, from now on, Lake Ontario should be called Lake America because he said so.

Well…no. And middle finger to you, sir.

However, as it relates to the U.S. government, unfortunately, Trump does have the power, through the Department of the Interior, to direct the Geographic Names Information System to update federal maps and databases. This means his executive order applies to all U.S. federal maps and documents. But internationally? The rest of the world calls bullshit, because that’s what it is.

And as far as that goes, even though Google does have a long-standing policy that says its maps should reflect names matching official government sources (extremely difficult to consider Trump an official government source, but whatever), there is no legal requirement.

But rather than risk the orange wrath of The Unhinged One, and even though the law would be on their side if they had chosen not to bend the knee, Google, in true yassuh boss fashion, immediately made the decision to fall in line. No questions asked. They made their best Nike impression:

Just do it.

I have read some news sources indicate that Trump’s tantrum lake renaming fit is related to a trade dispute we are apparently having with Canada, but I would beg to differ. Although throwing tariffs back and forth at one another is certainly not good for trade relations between the U.S. and a nation that once upon a time was actually our best friend in the world, Trump’s ongoing efforts to bend the confines of reality to fit within his comfort zone have nothing at all to do with trade. This is purely about Trump’s inability to exist in a world where there are consequences for incompetence. Trump figures renaming a large body of water like Lake Ontario – same as he tried with the Gulf of Mexico when he officially renamed it the Gulf of America on Jan. 20, 2025 – will strike fear into the hearts of (who, exactly?) while forcing clueless Americans to love him because (why, exactly?)

Welcome to America, Sept. 3, 2026, where reality is optional.

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

Graphic is AI-generated. Article is human-written.

For the entire history of the United States, white people have been in the majority. Now, however, the white majority is rapidly shrinking. The fastest-growing demographic is Latino, and many Latinos are immigrants from Mexico, Central America, and other parts of Latin America. There are also immigrants from Africa and Asia, but fewer.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the share of whites in the U.S. population has declined since 1950, falling to 76 percent in 1990, 69 percent in 2000, 64 percent in 2010, and 61 percent in 2016—the lowest percentage ever recorded at that time.

Census Bureau projections show that the United States will be majority-minority by around 2044. In 2020 in the U.S., there were fewer white than nonwhite children.

The nonwhite (minority) population is growing much more rapidly than the white population. Between 2010 and 2016, minorities accounted for 92 percent of the U.S. population growth, with Latinos (often incorrectly referred to as Hispanics) making up just under half of the nation’s overall growth.

The number of white people is declining, and the number of nonwhites is increasing, primarily because of basic demography—births, deaths, and immigration.

• Whites have fewer births compared to nonwhites.

• Sixty-two percent of Latinas 15 years of age or older are in the childbearing ages, but only 42 percent of white women are in this age group.

• Whites accounted for 78 percent of all U.S. deaths occurring in 2015, and there were more white deaths than white births in 17 states in 2014.

• Of the more than 43 million foreign-born persons living in the U.S. in 2015, 82 percent originated in Latin America and Asia. Only 11 percent were born in Europe.

Because of these demographic differences and changes, the United States is undergoing major changes in its racial structure. The aging white population, alongside a more youthful minority population, especially in the case of Latinos, may result in the U.S. becoming a majority-minority country in about 2044.

This demographic shift in the United States has resulted in many whites proclaiming that they are losing “their” country. Many whites, including some white elected representatives, have insisted that America should be a “whites-only” country, and applaud the dangerous and deadly efforts of ICE against immigrants of color.

Donald Trump has capitalized on this sentiment and has further encouraged his supporters to express their racism and hatred toward people of color through his own racist words and actions.

White supremacist influencers and elected officials continually try to denigrate the terms “woke” and “DEI.” Today, the term “woke” is used as a political insult by conservatives to criticize progressive policies. This meaning comes from African American English, where it served for decades as a vital warning to stay vigilant about Black safety and civil rights. “DEI” stands for “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” and to be anti-DEI means you do not want diversity, equity, or inclusion in today’s American society.

White supremacy is a powerful system that still creates and perpetuates racial inequality in the United States. Following the end of slavery in 1865, the Jim Crow system was established to separate blacks from whites and to keep blacks at the bottom of society. After the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s, whites used the court system to dismantle the socioeconomic and political gains of minorities and established massive incarceration that still disproportionately ensnares Blacks and Latinos in prisons.

As whites are becoming a numerical minority, they are doing everything they can to maintain their dominant position socioeconomically and politically. The massive economic resources and political power that whites have amassed will not erode as their numbers wane. As Black people and other people of color have increased their numbers, the white political machinery is already working to minimize the political power of nonwhites via such political ploys as gerrymandering (drawing political districts in ways that disadvantage people of color) and voter identification laws that thwart the political representation of groups of color.

And now, under the guise of “law and order,” the Trump administration, through ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and CBP (Customs and Border Protection), is tracking, attacking, detaining, and deporting millions of immigrants, documented or not, and killing people, including American citizens, in their attempt to “make America White Again.” This is a reminder that being in the United States without documentation is a civil offense, similar to a traffic ticket.

ICE has been given a goal of detaining two million people per DAY, and has arrested mostly brown people, detained them without due process, and either put them into concentration camps or deported them to countries they have never been to. More than 94% of those detained, including babies and children, have no criminal record.

Our Choice: White supremacy, ICE, and the CBP must be ABOLISHED, not “reformed.” We MUST fight all voter suppression efforts for the 2026 Midterms by Trump, MAGA, and Republicans, and then vote in numbers too high to refute, and then make sure that the new Congress is installed in January 2027. It’s time for a CHANGE.

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.

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