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!

On May 15, 2025, this happened:

“ATLANTA (AP) — A pregnant woman in Georgia was declared brain-dead after a medical emergency and has been kept on life support for three months by doctors to allow enough time for the baby to be born and comply with Georgia’s strict anti-abortion law, family members say.

“Adriana Smith, a 30-year-old mother and nurse, was declared brain-dead — meaning she is legally dead — in February, her mother, April Newkirk, told Atlanta TV station WXIA.”

By December, the story had only gotten worse:

“The baby boy born prematurely to a Georgia woman who had been declared brain dead after a medical emergency remains in the hospital nearly six months after his birth, his grandmother says.

“Adriana Smith, a 31-year-old mother and nurse, was declared legally dead in February, but she was put on life support for months to let her fetus grow enough to develop.

“Chance April Newkirk was born in June and weighed 1 pound and 13 ounces.

“Smith’s family says that the hospital told them that they were required to put the Atlanta mother on life support under Georgia’s anti-abortion law.”

Meanwhile, in March of last year, this happened. From the Equal Justice Initiative:

“On March 20, in response to a 911 call in Tipton, Georgia, emergency medical services found a 24-year-old woman unconscious and bleeding in her apartment. They determined she had suffered a miscarriage and transported her to a hospital for treatment.

“The next day, after a witness said the woman had placed the fetal remains in a bag and placed the bag in a dumpster, Tipton police announced she had been arrested, taken into custody by the local sheriff, and charged with concealing the death of another person and abandonment of a dead body.

“After the coroner determined she had suffered a “natural miscarriage,” prosecutors dismissed the charges two weeks later, explaining in a press release that the charges did not apply because the 19-week fetus had not been born alive.

“Georgia lawmakers are among those citing the case as a example of an alarming trend—a growing number of women facing criminal prosecutions related to pregnancy loss.

“Every woman of reproductive age in Georgia who miscarries beyond the six-week marker of Georgia’s law can now be criminalized for a miscarriage,” Georgia state Sen. Sally Harrell argued during a hearing last week.”

There are many more examples of the legally sanctioned abuse women continue to endure under the guise of protecting the life of an unborn child. But this has nothing to do with protecting children; it has everything to do with victimizing women for no other reason except that they are women and therefore are expected to tolerate it. And, I am willing to bet, like most men in this country, I had no idea this was happening. I am a journalist of more than 40 years, college-educated and prep schooled, well-informed (I thought), but I had no idea that a woman could be criminally prosecuted for a miscarriage in several backward states in the year 2026 until my wife of 27 years brought this to my attention. I’m assuming she hadn’t mentioned it to me before because most women live with this kind of knowledge all day, every day, so it’s not a news flash to them. It’s just another day in the life of women in America.

And in America, perhaps you (men) didn’t know that there are currently six states where a woman can face legal action and possibly be thrown in jail for the ‘crime’ of a miscarriage: Georgia, Oklahoma, Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, and South Carolina. Until 2022, California was on that list, but it woke up and realized something horribly wrong was going on under its watch.

As far as “fetal personhood” is concerned, it is important to realize that the Talmud does not recognize a fetus as a “person” until the mother is in active labor and the baby takes its first independent breath. Fetuses cannot breathe or live outside the womb without medical assistance until at least 24 weeks (6 months).

But here’s the thing about when women have a miscarriage: 1 in 5 pregnancies result in miscarriage. That is because the body rejects the pregnancy on its own, usually because the body knows something is wrong. It’s biology, not criminology.

And yet women, often disproportionately Black and low-income women (because of course that’s the case), have faced charges such as “abuse of a corpse,” “concealing a death,” “felony child neglect,” and sometimes homicide.

Research shows a rising trend of such investigations, with many prosecutors using feticide or “fetal personhood” laws to treat pregnancy loss as a criminal act. In Oklahoma, multiple women have been prosecuted for manslaughter or child neglect following miscarriages where they tested positive for drug use.

It would be convenient to blame this warped behavior and the twisted mentality that leads to this behavior on Trump and Trumpism. And certainly, the sickness he has unleashed upon America throughout both of his terms in office has played a part in the amplification and attempted normalization of these acts of violence. But the truth is, this sort of anti-woman activity, which is even exhibited and supported by some women, was around long before Trump. It is the sort of moral infection that can lead to the election of a Donald Trump and others like him.

One day, Trump will be gone. But this issue has the potential to survive as a cancerous threat for much longer.

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

“The Golden Rule” by Norman Rockwell, 1961

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!

The mass deportation of primarily brown and other non-white documented or undocumented immigrants was a major campaign focus for Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign.

Since Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, have been relentless in rounding up, detaining without due process, and deporting anyone they believe is an “illegal alien,” including Native Americans, military veterans, and American citizens. ICE in particular has been breaking into people’s homes without a judicial warrant, pulling people from their cars, jobs, airport waiting lines, and immigration hearings, leaving the immigrants’ children, families, pets, homes, jobs, businesses, and communities devastated.

Not all of the people ICE has targeted were working in low-wage jobs in agriculture, construction, food service, or warehousing. Some of the people DHS and ICE have detained (and in some cases, deported) are scientists, college professors, teachers, nurses, doctors, college students, and even high school students, some only days or weeks away from graduation.

ICE has also had to release several people it illegally detained when they found out after the fact that those people were either in the U.S. legally, or were even American citizens.

In February 2026, a 56-year-old Rohingya refugee, Nurul Amin Shah Alam, was found dead in Buffalo, New York, after U.S. Border Patrol agents released him on a cold night. A medical examiner ruled his death a homicide caused by dehydration and exposure, sparking outrage. Agents had left the nearly-blind man outside a closed coffee shop after determining he was not deportable.

ICE is also directly responsible for the shooting deaths of three American citizens in the past few months: Kevin Porter, Jr. in Los Angeles, and Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

Several people held by ICE in the detention centers (located often hundreds of miles from their homes) have died while in custody, primarily due to the withholding of necessary medical attention. Several other people have been deported (again, without due process) to countries where they’ve never lived (or lived in decades before they were detained), and to deplorable prisons in those countries, which are paid by the U.S. government to accept those people.

Trump and his administration promised that they would arrest and deport only the “worst of the worst.” Yes, entering this country illegally is a CIVIL offense that could be punishable by deportation (AFTER due process and a trial and conviction), but almost 74% of those snatched up by ICE have no CRIMINAL records, and have been living productive lives, working hard, raising families, paying state and federal taxes, and contributing to their local economies. Many already have their green cards, allowing them to legally work in the United States.

These fervent anti-immigrant/white supremacy policies are not new in the United States, even though most white people in this country, including Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Kash Patel, and Marco Rubio, are only 1 - 3 generations away from their immigrant parents or grandparents themselves.

These proponents of the “Great Replacement Theory,” which posits that non-white people are “replacing” white American citizens, fail to recognize that not all immigrants are brown, low-class, and barely educated people who can’t properly speak English.

Based on 2024–2025 data, approximately 46% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. These companies, often called “New American” firms, generate trillions in revenue and employ over 15 million people.

Additionally, hundreds of thousands of immigrants (documented or not) are running small businesses of all kinds, from bodegas, cleaners, and taco trucks to IT companies, food service, construction firms, and various service organizations.

The undocumented immigrants whom Trump, Miller, et al., claim are “taking American jobs” contribute significantly to public funds, paying an estimated $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes. This total includes personal income and FICO taxes, property taxes, and sales and excise taxes, from most of which they cannot benefit.

Still, keeping America as a majority white population is the ultimate goal, and the people implementing these current policies are reacting to the “browning” of America and realize that they soon will be in the minority.

The U.S. Constitution went into effect in 1789. Just one year later, the United States Congress implemented its first law to limit non-white immigrants, the Naturalization Act of 1790. This was the first law to define eligibility for citizenship by naturalization and establish standards and procedures by which immigrants became US citizens. In this law, Congress limited this important right to “free white persons,” meaning only white men. Women and all non-white people were excluded. Naturalization candidates only had to live in the United States for two years, and any white children born to them after this law was passed were immediately and automatically granted United States citizenship.

In 1846, Dred Scott, an enslaved African taken by his owner to the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin, sued to gain his freedom. In 1857, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that since Dred Scott was an enslaved person and the descendant of enslaved people, he was not a citizen and had no standing to sue. The SCOTUS further declared that African Americans had “no rights which the white man was bound to respect,” and also concluded that banning slavery in territories violated the Fifth Amendment rights of slaveholders, effectively legalizing slavery throughout the U.S. territories. The “Dred Scott Case,” as it came to be called, was one of the defining events that led to the Civil War.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to ALL persons born or naturalized in the U.S. (including former slaves), guaranteed “equal protection of the laws,” and provided “due process of law” against state violations. It also nullified the “3/5ths” law that counted slaves as only 3/5 of a person for census purposes. The “Citizenship Clause” of the 14th Amendment, also known as “birthright citizenship, is what Donald Trump is trying to revoke because most current immigrants are non-white, yet their children are immediately granted United States citizenship, hastening the time that the white majority of American citizens will soon be in the minority.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery, and the 14th Amendment granted former slaves and EVERYONE born in the United States U.S. citizenship.

Ratified in 1870, the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”. Although the provisions of this amendment were vigorously opposed by many Southern states, it remained in effect until the passage of the Voting Rights Act VRA) in 1965. Republicans have worked to limit or eliminate most or all of the VRA since it became law, and even more so in the last few decades.

Signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first significant federal law restricting voluntary immigration to the U.S., banning Chinese laborers for 10 years and prohibiting them from becoming citizens. Chinese residents already in the U.S. were barred from naturalization and from becoming U.S. citizens. The Chinese Exclusion Act was later extended and made permanent, then repealed in 1943.

However, in the late 1890s, a U.S. citizen born of Chinese parents in San Francisco was blocked from re-entering the U.S. after traveling to China. He sued, and his case reached the Supreme Court. In the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that a child born in the U.S. to foreign citizens automatically becomes a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. The decision established that birthright citizenship applies regardless of the parents’ nationality, provided they are not foreign diplomats or invaders.

This case was referenced in the recent SCOTUS hearings about birthright citizenship, much to the disdain of Donald Trump and his Solicitor General.

In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, the 1930s Mexican Repatriation was a mass deportation of approximately 300,000 to 2 million people of Mexican descent from the U.S. to Mexico, with nearly 60% of those deported being U.S. citizens. The Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were “accused” of taking jobs from ”real (that is, white) Americans.”

In early 1942, after the December 7, 1941, Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, authorizing the relocation of over 100,000 people of Japanese descent, the majority of whom were American citizens, into hastily built internment camps throughout the western and midwestern United States.

The order stayed in place until President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9742 on June 25, 1946. EO 9742 ordered the liquidation of the War Relocation Authority and allowed Japanese-Americans to return to their homes, businesses, and properties, most of which had been destroyed.

In October 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched a mobile device app called CBP One to provide travelers, with or without entry documents, with access to certain CBP functions prior to their arrival in the United States. Starting in May 2023, CBP One became the primary method by which asylum seekers could enter the United States at ports of entry through the end of the Biden administration.

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a temporary, renewable immigration status granted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to foreign nationals already in the U.S. whose home countries are deemed unsafe due to ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary, temporary conditions. Recipients, primarily from Venezuela, Haiti, and Sudan, have been granted TPS and have had temporary relief from deportation and authorization to work legally in the U.S.

The Trump administration has repeatedly refused to extend TPS and given TPS recipients 30 days to leave the United States.

However, Judge Allison Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, who was appointed in 2014 by President Barack Obama, recently ruled that the Trump Administration unlawfully stripped legal status from nearly 900,000 immigrants, and ordered that TPS status be restored.

At least two people who had at one time been granted parole, Mohammad Nazeer Paktyawal and Emmanuel Damas, later died in ICE custody.

• They followed the process.

• They entered the system the way they were told to.

• And still, they ended up detained.

• And they still died.

Our Choice:

• Continue to fight against the Trump administration’s attempt to replace DEI with “WEI” (White, Entitled, and Incompetent).

• Continue to fight against the mass deportation goals of primarily non-white people that are cruel and inhumane.

• Continue to help ensure that the 2026 midterm elections are free and fair, and be ready to fight Trump and the Republicans, who will not only cheat to win those elections but will also refuse to accept any results that do not favor them.

• Continue to fight for the rights of ALL American citizens, including the beneficiaries of the 14th Amendment birthright citizenship clause, documented and undocumented immigrants, and LGBT persons.

Paid subscribers are encouraged to comment on today’s Choice post.

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

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!

The SAVE Act, referred to by some tragically misguided individuals as the SAVE America Act, has nothing to do with saving America – or Americans – in any way, shape, or form. An appropriately named SAVE Act would help save us all from Donald Trump.

Instead, the SAVE Act is all about saving Trump and the Republicans from an almost certain humiliating defeat in the 2026 elections. Already, there is clear evidence of deeply Republican districts that voted for Trump’s re-election in 2024 by double digits now turning blue. Hell, in Georgia, a Black Democrat named Shawn Harris is in a runoff election against a Republican to fill the House seat vacated by Marjorie Taylor Greene. This is after he came out ahead in the earlier special election, but just not enough to win the seat outright.

I’ll say it again: A Black Democrat is now in a position to fill the Congressional House seat vacated by the once rabidly and mindlessly pro-Trump Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. A rabid, mindless pro-Trump Republican who represented a deep red district in Georgia (for crying out loud), who was first elected in 2020, then again in 2022, then again in 2024, could now be replaced by a Black Democrat. Even if he loses, the fact that this man forced a runoff in the Congressional district that Greene won three times in a row…?

But Shawn Harris isn’t the only one. This Trump-No-More phenomenon is happening across the country in heavily Republican congressional districts that formerly voted for Trump and now don’t want to be associated with the man. A growing number of ex-MAGA are now willing to do what was once considered unthinkable and impossible to atone for the sins of their past voting history.

The only way for Republicans to turn back the blue wave that’s coming is for Republicans to do what they do best, and that’s to cheat like their lives depend on it – which, politically speaking, they do.

Which brings us back to the SAVE Act. Because the SAVE Act is all about cheating by any and all means necessary.

Formally, the SAVE Act seeks to do the following (Bipartisan Policy Center, Congress.gov, just for starters) :

Key Provisions

• Proof of Citizenship for Registration: Prohibits states from registering individuals for federal elections unless they provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (DPOC).

  • Acceptable Documents: Includes a U.S. passport, birth certificate, or certain forms of government-issued photo ID that explicitly indicate citizenship.

  • In-Person Requirement: Requires this documentation to be presented in person to an election official, which critics argue effectively ends the convenience of mail-in and online registration.

• National Photo ID Requirement: Mandates that all voters present a valid photo ID to cast a ballot in person or submit a copy of their ID when voting by mail.

• Voter Roll Purges: Requires states to establish programs to identify and remove noncitizens from existing voter rolls using federal databases, such as USCIS’s SAVE system.

• Penalties & Legal Action: Establishes criminal penalties for election officials who register ineligible individuals and creates a “private right of action,” allowing individuals to sue officials for alleged non-compliance.

So essentially, the SAVE Act is a voter suppression bill. Or to quote the Campaign Legal Center:

“In addition to requiring burdensome documentation to register to vote, the SAVE America Act would implement an extreme documentation requirement at polling places and for mail voters that is more onerous than almost every single state voter ID law currently in effect.

“Moreover, under the SAVE America Act, every single state would be forced to submit its voter registration list to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for comparison to the agency’s error-ridden database. This is a plain attempt to bully states into sharing voters’ sensitive personal information with the federal government that federal officials might be unable to otherwise access.

“Alarmingly, the SAVE America Act includes no restrictions on what the federal government can do with the sensitive data once DHS receives it and no safeguards against using the data to force voter purges or unduly question election results.”

And now consider this: most married women take their husband’s last name, so their birth certificate doesn’t match, if they even have one. 50% of Americans don’t have passports, and it takes time and money to get either a passport or a copy of their birth certificate—essentially a “poll tax,” which was ruled unconstitutional in 1966 by the Supreme Court.

Trump tries to say mail-in voting, which started during the Civil War, is full of fraud, even as he himself uses it. The military and Americans Abroad have been voting by mail for decades. He wants vote counting to stop at the closing of the polls local time, and not allow counting of any ballots after that, even though many jurisdictions don’t even start counting until then, and have a “grace period” to receive and count ballots that come in for about five days after the polls close. Some states have been doing all-mail-in voting for decades. He also wants to eliminate early voting, which has been in place for years. He wants states to give the Department of Homeland Security their voting records and wants voters purged monthly. He doesn’t realize that what he’s proposing negatively affects a lot of his base.

The SAVE Act passed the House last month, but faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where Republican Senate Leader John Thune says he has nowhere near the 60 votes necessary to pass the bill, and he has no intention of breaking the filibuster for 51 votes instead - and he doesn’t have 51 votes either.

This bill does not need to be saved. It needs to be flushed.

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

Issue #1,006 The Choice, Friday, March 20, 2026

Donald Trump, through one of his many executive orders, actually made DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) illegal. DEI initiatives worked to eliminate systemic barriers of race, gender, and ability, to create inclusive, productive environments for marginalized communities, including women and veterans.

Instead of DEI, we now have WEI: White, Entitled, and Incompetent.

The WEI people in the Trump administration claim that only “meritocracy” should matter for hiring or programs. That is ironic, since the entire Trump Cabinet is totally unqualified for their positions. According to Trump, the only “qualification” he needs to appoint, nominate, or support someone is loyalty to him.

Almost none of the members of Trump’s administration have the needed qualifications or experience for their positions, and it shows. Like Trump, they show almost no understanding of American history or how to implement actual policy besides what Trump wants.

For example, the current Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, served part-time in the National Guard. He tried to change his organization’s name to the “Department of War,” although only Congress has the authority to do so. Hegseth, who had to promise not to be drunk while on the job, was preceded by retired General Lloyd Austin, who not only saw combat many times but also commanded units at all levels throughout his 39-year military career. Austin is also an alumnus of the United States Military Academy at West Point. Hegseth was fired from two of his previous jobs and was a Fox News host before being nominated by Trump.

Not only is Hegseth totally unqualified, but he thinks that war is a video game, and is gleeful about the killing of people in boats that could never reach the United States, and the illegal Iranian war started by Trump. He said that the military in Iran should implement the policy of “no quarter.” In the context of rules of engagement, “no quarter” means refusing to take prisoners, essentially commanding that all enemy combatants be killed, including those who are wounded or attempt to surrender. This practice is a strict violation of customary international law and is classified as a war crime under the 1899 Hague Convention. So he and Trump are deliberately committing war crimes and laughing about it.

Then, of course, there is Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is a slap in the face to his namesake and assassinated father. He is not a doctor, has no medical training, and no relevant government experience. He is also anti-vaccines, and tried to eliminate the recommended vaccination schedule for newborns and young babies. Vaccinations are the reason why we have not had the high rates of polio, rubella, and measles as before. Except now, because RFK Jr. has recommended that parents not get their children vaccinated against measles, the number of cases has risen rapidly. Measles can be deadly, and some people have died due to measles infections.

I could continue detailing the mediocracy and incompetence of members of the Trump Administration, but I think you get the point.

So, what is our Choice?

• Work to implement DEI in whatever ways we can while not going against the present laws and policies put in place by Trump

• Learn about the mediocracy of the members of the Trump Administration and help to ensure that the next Democratic president follows the lead of Obama and Biden when making appointments and nominations.

• Call your Senators and demand that they vote against the SAVE Act.

  ---

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.

• ---

Upgrade to a paid subscription

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. 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 AP, because I can’t say it any better than they already have.

“The White House’s social media feed has issued a series of pumped-up videos that mix real Iran war explosions with movie action heroes, gaming footage, and bone-crunching football tackles, leading critics like a top cleric of the U.S. Catholic Church to condemn a trivialization of deadly real-life conflict.

“Clips from “Braveheart,” “Superman,” “Top Gun,” “Breaking Bad,” and “Iron Man.” All appear cut between declassified imagery of what is presumably the Iran war. Even the cartoon likeness of SpongeBob SquarePants is spliced in, asking, “You wanna see me do it again?” in between images of buildings, planes, and vehicles blown up by American bombs. The caption on one bomb-heavy post: “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue” — the title of a post-9/11 Toby Keith song about war that is subtitled “The Angry American.”

This story was reported a few days ago, on March 9. As an opinion writer, I usually like to add my flair to telling my stories and sharing my opinions because, well, that’s what I do. The best way for opinion writers to get readers to read their opinions is to write them in the most interesting and eye-catching way possible. But sometimes just the plain statement of facts is all that’s needed. The President of the United States has engaged our country in a war for no discernible reason except distraction – and apparently because being at war can be cool and fun. Just like video games.

The fact that China and Russia are supporting Iran (Russia signed a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty with Iran in January of last year, and China signed a 25-year cooperation agreement with Iran in 2021) would normally raise the question, “Are we creeping toward World War III?” Because, you know, if we’re fighting Iran together with Israel, but Russia and China are supporting Iran with these mutually beneficial long-term economic agreements, then we’re kinda fighting them too. Granted, the agreements don’t stipulate any obligation for either China or Russia to respond to any military aggression taken against whoever threatens Iran. And picking a fight with the U.S. could be risky.

Then again, with Trump in charge, would it really be that risky? As compared to once upon a time when maniac toddlers weren’t in charge of the White House and the Defense Department? When some of the most qualified military personnel have been relieved of duty for either not being the right color or not being stupid enough to please Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth?

But Russia is Trump’s good friend! And China is…well…China. So it’s all just in fun. It’s all good.

It’s all a game. It’s all a game. It’s all a game.

Until Game Over.

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

Issue #998 The Choice, Saturday, February 28, 2026

I am old enough to remember the Korean War (barely) and the Vietnam War, which was the first war to be televised on the evening news.

Of course, I also remember the unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although he used lies and made up emergencies after 9/11, at least George W. Bush got Congressional approval for those wars, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution.

Donald J. Trump, who, along with people in his administration, has continuously ignored the Constitution, in the early hours of February 28, 2026, started an unnecessary war with Iran, partnering with his fellow international war crimes buddy, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Trump lied about why he started this war and did not seek Congressional approval for this action.

In 2012, Trump claimed that President Barack Obama would soon start a war with Iran because he was weak and needed something to “cover up” his terrible administration policies.

Actually, it was Barack Obama who secured an agreement with Iran to contain its nuclear capabilities, and Donald Trump who subsequently destroyed that agreement.

As we all know, Donald Trump is doing everything he can to distract from the Epstein files and to illegally stay in office for the rest of his life.

This war with Iran is his latest distraction, and it is a real phenomenon called " Wag the Dog, which describes the act of manufacturing a distraction — typically a foreign crisis or military conflict — to divert public attention from a domestic scandal.

The phrase owes much of its modern cultural resonance to the 1997 film Wag the Dog, directed by Barry Levinson and starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro. In the movie, a Washington spin doctor teams up with a Hollywood producer to fabricate an entirely fictional war with Albania — complete with fake footage, an invented war hero, and a carefully crafted media narrative — all to shield a sitting U.S. president from a sex scandal erupting just days before an election.

The timing of Trump’s “wag the dog” initiative is not lost on anyone, especially since there is now credible evidence that he raped a 13-year-old girl, the knowledge of which has come out just as the country is preparing for the 2026 midterm elections.

Now, in an era of 24-hour news cycles, social media, and algorithmically amplified outrage, the tools for shaping public perception have grown exponentially more powerful. Trump and his billionaires and political operatives don’t need a Hollywood producer to wag the dog — they have created an entire ecosystem of media incentives doing much of the work for them.

The term itself has roots older than the film, derived from the idiom about a dog being “wagged” by its own tail — the smaller, less important part controlling the whole. Applied to politics, it suggests that the spectacle, the noise, the manufactured crisis is the tail wagging the dog of genuine democratic discourse.

Now, the best question to ask when Trump creates a new crisis that dominates the headlines isn’t what happened, but what aren’t we supposed to be looking at?

The next equally important questions to ask are:

1. Will the Republican-led Congress step up and do its job on war powers lying only with it?

2. Is Trump going to send his son Barron to the front lines?

3. What are “We the People” going to do?

   ---

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.

• ---

Upgrade to a paid subscription

When your president is a pedophile

Personally, I don’t know what it will take to convince enough Republicans in Congress to realize that maybe having a pedophile for president is not a good thing. Or if enough repulsive criminal evidence even exists to tip the scales enough to where maybe, just maybe, they might consider not waiting until (hopefully) a Democratic Congress takes the reins in a year before taking any sort of enforceable action.

Because I still contend that by then it may be too late. At best, the amount of damage this president could do in another year could be so severe that this country will not be adequately repaired during most of our lifetimes. I say ‘adequately’ because I suspect we will never fully recover from this.

Having said that, I still think it’s important to keep track of the truly egregious behaviors exhibited by this president, although the staggering volume of Trump’s egregious behaviors seems to make whatever may have been considered egregious yesterday reappraised as perhaps not quite so egregious tomorrow.

But the rape of children is the kind of shockingly and horrifyingly egregious behavior that is hard to surpass. That is to say, you have to work really hard to find crimes considered much worse than raping a child who has been groomed to be a sex toy for the perverted fantasies of twisted, rich adult males. Now consider that the Epstein files appear to have provided evidence that Trump himself is one of those twisted types. It’s the kind of accusation that will make just about anyone freeze in their tracks. From NPR:

“According to the newly released files, the FBI internally circulated Epstein-related allegations that mention Trump in late July and early August 2025. The list, collected from the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center, included numerous salacious allegations. Agents marked most of the accusations as unverifiable or not credible.

“But one lead was sent to the FBI’s Washington office with the purpose of setting up an interview with the accuser. The lead was included in an internal PowerPoint slide deck detailing “prominent names“ in the Epstein and Maxwell investigations last fall.

“The woman who directly named Trump in her abuse allegation claimed that around 1983, when she was around 13 years old, Epstein introduced her to Trump, “who subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis which she subsequently bit. In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out. (ITALICS MINE)”

“Out of more than 3 million pages of files released by the Justice Department in recent months, this specific allegation against Trump appears only in copies of the FBI list of claims and the DOJ slideshow.

“But a review of FBI case file logs and discovery documents turned over to Maxwell and her attorneys in the criminal case against her point to one place the claim could have come from — and how serious investigators took it.”

“The FBI interviewed this Trump and Epstein accuser four times. That is according to an FBI “Serial Report” and a list of Non-Testifying Witness Material in the Maxwell case that were also released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.”

NOTE: To hear an excellent discussion of this recent revelation, MS Now Commentator Lawrence O’Donnell’s episode from the evening of Wednesday, February 25, is one of the best I’ve heard from O’Donnell in quite some time.

Sometimes O’Donnell gets too carried away with his enjoyment of mocking the president every two or three minutes. I can’t stand Trump either, but calling him the stupidest president in history every single show makes me start to tune out. And yet, when Lawrence is at his best, nobody can match him. And this show was him at his best.

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

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, who, like his late father, Manuel “Matty” Maroun, who purchased the bridge in 1979, never met a dollar bill they didn’t try to make their own. As you might imagine, ownership of that Ambassador Bridge streams a considerable amount of dollar bills into the Maroun bank account. Day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. It’s nice when you can own a bridge. Even nicer when that bridge handles 25% of all trade between the U.S. and Canada.

Matty Maroun does not privately own the Gordie Howe Bridge. The Gordie Howe International Bridge is jointly and equally owned by the Government of Canada and the State of Michigan. While the Canadian government fully financed the construction costs—estimated at approximately $4.5 billion to $4.8 billion —the 2012 Crossing Agreement stipulates that ownership of the public infrastructure is split 50/50. Former Republican Gov. Rick Snyder said this in a Detroit News opinion piece a few days ago:

“Canada and the state of Michigan are 50/50 owners of the new bridge,” Snyder wrote. “Canada was wonderful and financed the entire bridge. They will get repaid with interest from the tolls. Michigan and the United States got their half-ownership with no investment.”

Snyder also stressed that parts of the bridge construction were exempt from “Buy America” requirements for its steel because half of the project was outside the U.S., which means that U.S. law should not apply to them.

Matthew Maroun is also a Trump supporter. And I mean a really big Trump supporter. According to reporting by the Detroit Metro Times, “Moroun has donated more than $605,000 to President Trump’s campaign and Trump Victory, a joint fundraising committee supporting Trump and the Republican Party. These contributions span several years (since at least 2019).”

So just pause for a moment or two before reading any further and see if you can imagine why Trump suddenly feels compelled to shut down this bridge. Clue: it has nothing to do with his rants and raves about all that Canada has not done for us, all the U.S has done for Canada, etc. Not a damned thing.

From Crain’s Detroit Business:

“The Moroun family has seemingly tried everything over the years to block the new U.S.-Canada bridge, from a raft of lawsuits and lobbying campaigns to bankrolling a ballot proposal and wielding its real estate as a barrier.

“Add to that list a conversation the Ambassador Bridge owner reportedly had with a Cabinet secretary on Monday, followed by a post by President Donald Trump threatening to not allow the Gordie Howe International Bridge to open. Many have interpreted that as a last-ditch effort to delay the nearly complete bridge.”

When you can afford to pay Trump more than $600,000, Trump will happily blow up bridges for you – or at least do his best. He’s like a foul-smelling coin-operated genie; pay the toll, get your wish.

Can the country fully recover from another year of this perverted version of business-as-usual? For three more years?

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

Our subscriber goals for January, 2026 are 100 new free subscribers and 25 new paid subscribers. Click the link to help us reach our goals!

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

Issue #988 The Choice, Friday, February 6, 2026

As we all understand now, this present administration is likely the most racist and overall incompetent one in American history. Their motto may be “Make America Great Again,” but their policies are “Make America White Again.”

Of course, the current occupant of the White House is racist and comes from a racist family, including his father, who was in the KKK. Just this week, he posted an AI video showing Barack and Michelle Obama as apes.

But Stephen Miller, the current deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security, is just as racist, or even more so.

Earlier this week, Miller espoused the “Mudsill Theory,” which originated in the United States to justify slavery and set up a permanent social hierarchy with white people at the top.

The Mudsill Theory is a pro-slavery ideology that emerged in the United States during the antebellum period. The term derives from a “mudsill”—the lowest threshold or foundation that supports a building—and was used as a metaphor to justify slavery and social hierarchy.

The theory was first formally articulated by James Henry Hammond, a Democratic U.S. Senator from South Carolina and wealthy plantation owner, in a famous speech delivered to the Senate on March 4, 1858. This speech, often called the “Cotton is King” speech, became one of the most influential pro-slavery arguments of the era.

Hammond’s mudsill theory rested on three main arguments:

1. Necessity of a Lower Class: Every society requires a class of people to perform menial labor and “the drudgery of life.” This class needs only “a low order of intellect and but little skill” and must possess “vigor, docility, fidelity.”

2. Racial Justification: Hammond argued that the South was fortunate to have found a race—African Americans—naturally suited for this role. He claimed they were “inferior” and “eminently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility” to serve as slaves, and that slavery actually elevated them from their natural condition.

3. Comparison to Northern Labor: Hammond provocatively argued that Northern wage laborers were essentially slaves too, but worse off than Southern slaves. He claimed Northern workers were “hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily compensated,” while Southern slaves were “hired for life and well compensated.”

Rather than just defending slavery as a “necessary evil,” Southern defenders began arguing it was a positive good—essential to civilization and social progress.

The theory was deeply controversial and inflammatory, particularly in the North. Northern workers and mechanics found the term “mudsill” insulting, and the theory became a focal point of sectional conflict in the years leading up to the Civil War. Abolitionists and figures like Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass directly opposed this ideology, recognizing it as a fundamental justification for the institution of slavery.

Our Choice: We must realize that the MAGA Republicans, despite being in the minority in the U.S. population, are currently in control of all three branches of government. Their goals are to completely destroy America as we have known it (especially the U.S. government), ignore the Constitution and the laws and policies they don’t like, and enact white supremacy, anti-immigration, anti-education, and anti-science as the foundations for the country.

We must fight the administration with all of the power and efforts we can, including reminding our elected officials that they work for our benefit, not the president’s.

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 January 2026 subscriber goals are 100 new free subscribers and 50 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.

• ---

Upgrade to a paid subscription

Issue #985 The Choice, Friday, January 30, 2026

Far too often, I hear Black people ignorantly claiming that “they gave us” the “shortest month of the year for Black History Month. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In 1926, my great-grand uncle, Dr. Carter Godwin Woodson, started Negro History Week to encourage the study of African American history. He was a historian, author, and educator, and was one of the first scholars to study African American history in depth. Born in 1875 to formerly enslaved parents, Woodson understood the importance of preserving and promoting Black history. He earned a Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1912, becoming only the second African American to do so after W.E.B. Du Bois.

In 1915, Dr. Woodson co-founded the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History (ASNLH), now known as the Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASALH). The organization aimed to research and share the untold stories of African Americans, countering the widespread neglect and misrepresentation of Black history in mainstream narratives.

In 1926, Woodson and the ASNLH launched Negro History Week to encourage the study of African American history. They chose the second week of February to coincide with the birthdays of two figures who played significant roles in Black history: Abraham Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and Frederick Douglass, a former slave who became an abolitionist and orator. The timing was intentional, as it linked the celebration to the broader struggle for freedom and equality.

Negro History Week gained traction in schools, churches, and communities across the country. Educators and activists used the week to highlight the achievements of African Americans and challenge the pervasive stereotypes that marginalized Black people. Over time, the celebration inspired more interest in African American history and culture.

By the 1960s, during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, the push for a broader recognition of Black history intensified. Activists and educators called for an expansion of Negro History Week into a month-long celebration.

In 1976, during the United States Bicentennial, President Gerald Ford officially recognized Black History Month. He urged Americans to “seize the opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of Black Americans in every area of endeavor throughout our history.” The ASNLH, under Woodson’s legacy, played a pivotal role in advocating for this recognition.

Since then, Black History Month has been observed annually in February, with a specific theme chosen each year by the ASALH. These themes highlight different aspects of African American history, from civil rights and education to arts and culture.

Today, Black History Month is celebrated across the United States and in other months in other countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom. It serves as a time to reflect on the struggles and triumphs of people of the African Diaspora.

Black History Month is celebrated in February because Dr. Woodson started Negro History Week in the 2nd week of February.

No one “gave us” anything.

In 2017, Donald Trump tried to change the name of Black History Month to “African American History Month,” but the initiative failed because he lacked the authority to rename the month.

While Black History Month has achieved widespread recognition, it also sparks ongoing discussions about the need to integrate African American history into the broader narrative of American history. Advocates argue that Black history should not be confined to a single month but should be acknowledged and taught year-round; however, again, Black History Month is celebrated for one month in February for a reason.

You hopefully celebrate yourself all year, but you observe your birthday on one day a year because that is the day you were born.

Black History Month is not just a celebration; it is a call to action. It encourages us to learn, reflect, and honor the contributions of African Americans who have shaped the world we live in. As we commemorate this month, we carry forward Dr. Woodson’s mission to ensure that Black history is never forgotten.

The Choice: We must ensure that the history and accomplishments of Black Americans and others in the African Diaspora are never erased. What will you learn and teach this Black History Month?

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 January 2026 subscriber goals are 100 new free subscribers and 50 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.

• ---

Upgrade to a paid subscription

In my post of two weeks ago entitled Can ICE be melted?, I thought it was important to remind folks in the midst of all this madness surrounding what this lawless, dangerous agency is up to in Minnesota and elsewhere that 75 Democrats last June voted in favor of a resolution praising ICE. Since that time, another innocent and defenseless Minnesotan has been murdered by ICE in broad daylight in front of a crowd where their actions were dutifully recorded by fellow Minnesotan protesters, providing irrefutable evidence of what happened. After Renee Good was murdered on January 7, shot in the face by an ICE agent as she was driving away, New Jersey Sen. Corey Booker’s idea of condemnation was to call for tougher regulations on ICE. Don’t abolish them, just tighten the leash a bit. According to Newsweek:

“Booker, who represents New Jersey, posted a video to X January 15, in which he said, “we must do more” to regulate ICE agent activity, following the death of Renee Good in Minneapolis.”

Last Saturday, Alex Pretti, another Minnesota citizen who was protesting against the murderous injustice of ICE, was murdered by ICE. That’s two murders in a little over two weeks committed by agents employed by a government agency.

So far, I haven’t seen anything indicating that Sen. Booker has re-examined his relatively passive response to the government-sanctioned murder of an American citizen. However, there does appear to be some reconsidering going on among other elected Democrats in Congress, specifically among some Democratic Senators who, up until Saturday’s murder, were still in support of the legislation providing funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE. Two murders in the street are apparently one too many for them, and they are now beginning to understand the need for outrage – and maybe not to provide funding to an agency that murders American citizens.

But despite the persistent hesitancy among too many of our elected leaders to do what is necessary at a time when doing what is necessary can save lives, not to mention our country, it is the unelected people of Minnesota who are holding the line for all of us in the streets of their city, refusing to bow down or give in. Because they know, just like Trump knows, that if Minneapolis folds, then the dam breaks and the unthinkable gets much closer to the front door.

Thankfully, President Joe Biden understands this. From Heather Cox Richardson’s Letters from an American:

“The people of Minnesota have stood strong—helping community members in unimaginable circumstances, speaking out against injustice when they see it, and holding our government accountable to the people. Minnesotans have reminded us all what it is to be American, and they have suffered enough at the hands of this Administration. Violence and terror have no place in the United States of America, especially when it’s our own government targeting American citizens.

“No single person can destroy what America stands for and believes in, not even a President, if we—all of America—stand up and speak out.”

Amen.

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

Our subscriber goals for January, 2026 are 100 new free subscribers and 25 new paid subscribers. Click the link to help us reach our goals!

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

Our subscribers are encouraged to discuss this post in our W.A.S. Chat Community.

Join Pamela Hilliard Owens’s subscriber chat.

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

Issue #978 The Choice, Friday, January 16, 2026

Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and Kristi Noem have declared a war on immigrants in this country, but only certain immigrants. Trump is the son and grandson of immigrants, and two of his three wives (all of whom he cheated on) are immigrants. Stephen Miller is the grandson of immigrants.

In 2024, one of Trump’s campaign promises was to institute “mass deportations,” and many of his supporters agreed. He promised that only immigrants who commit crimes would be targeted. Now, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) have actual daily quotas to meet, using the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) to round up anyone they think is an “illegal alien.”

Undocumented immigrants are not criminals, as DHS claims, because being undocumented in the United States is a misdemeanor, which is a civil offense, similar to a traffic ticket. Unlike Donald Trump, more than 90% of undocumented immigrants are not felons.

Not only were many of the Founding Fathers immigrants (including Alexander Hamilton), but everyone in this country, except for members of the indigenous nations, is descended from immigrants. Their ancestors came to this country by fate (choice) or by force (slavery).

The history of immigration in the United States is a story of opportunity, struggle, and transformation. From its founding, the U.S. has been shaped by waves of immigrants seeking freedom, prosperity, and a better life.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, European settlers arrived in the Americas, primarily from England, Spain, and France. Many sought religious freedom or economic opportunities, while others were forcibly brought as enslaved people from Africa. This early immigration laid the foundation for the colonies that would later become the United States.

The 19th century saw a surge in immigration, driven by industrialization and the promise of land and jobs. Millions of Irish immigrants fled the Great Famine in the 1840s, while Germans sought refuge from political upheaval. The California Gold Rush and the construction of the transcontinental railroad attracted Chinese immigrants, who played a crucial role in building the nation’s infrastructure despite facing severe discrimination.

The late 19th and early 20th centuries marked the peak of immigration through Ellis Island, where millions of Europeans, including Italians, Jews, and Eastern Europeans, arrived. These immigrants often settled in urban areas, worked in factories, started businesses, and contributed to the rapid growth of American cities. However, this period also saw rising nativism, leading to restrictive policies like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1924, which imposed quotas based on national origin.

The mid-20th century brought significant changes to U.S. immigration policy. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished nationality-based quotas, opening the door to immigrants from Asia, Latin America, and Africa. This shift diversified the immigrant population and reflected the country’s growing commitment to equality, which wasn’t the reality.

Recently, immigration has continued to shape the U.S. economy and culture. Latin American and Asian immigrants have become the largest groups, contributing to industries like agriculture, technology, and healthcare. However, debates over immigration policy have intensified, with issues like border security, undocumented immigrants, and refugee resettlement sparking national debates.

Today, the Trump Adminstration has made immigrants “the problem.” Immigrants are accused of everything from taking people’s jobs to raising home prices by buying up homes to abusing welfare and other government programs (undocumented immigrants do not qualify for welfare, Social Security, or healthcare programs) to committing the majority of crimes. None of this is true; immigrants are just being used as scapegoats. The DHS, including ICE and the CBP, is breaking laws and going against the Constitution (especially the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments) through their mass deportation activities that include targeting women and American citizens.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is legal to target people based on their perceived race or national origin.

Our Choice: The current actions of the Trump Administration against immigrants are not only illegal, but are also hurting all of us, including green card holders and American citizens. Trump continues to target Blue states and Blue cities. He hasn’t targeted Detroit yet because we had a white mayor for 12 years. But now that we have a Black mayor again, and a woman at that, it’s just a matter of time before he comes after us in this state and city. The immigrants are not the problem. The Trump Administration is the problem.

We must demand that our Congressional representatives do their jobs and rein in the lawless Department of Homeland Security and Kristi Noem. Now.

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 January 2026 subscriber goals are 100 new free subscribers and 50 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.

• ---

Upgrade to a paid subscription

I have heard a few pundits speculate on the somewhat hopeful possibility that ICE agent Jonathan Ross’ murder of Renee Good in Minneapolis in broad daylight in front of a crowd of incredulous and outraged spectators just might be the one event that finally turns the tide against Trump and his MAGA army of darkness. After all, video footage clearly shows the agent shot Good in the face for no justifiable reason whatsoever. And yet Trump’s Department of Justice has predictably made the decision that there is nothing to see here and therefore nothing to investigate, and a recent poll found that 61 percent of Republicans believe that Good essentially deserved what she got and that Ross was not in the wrong.

That’s bad enough, though not necessarily shocking, given where most of those Republicans likely get their news. But what is also a cause for concern is the reaction of Democrats in Congress to the proposal of defunding ICE; while some acknowledge this may be the best way to shut down the out-of-control agency wreaking havoc in non-white communities across the country, others seem to be hesitant about the consequences of shutting down an entire agency as punishment for the rogue acts of a few bad apples.

On the surface, that may make sense. And it’s understandable to wonder whether such an approach has any chance of succeeding in a Congress still controlled by Republicans. But radical times call for radical measures, not moderation. Whatever ICE was before Trump, that’s not what they are now. Right now, they are a clear and present danger to the lives of American citizens and immigrants, and if that’s not a reason to shut down their operations, then I’m not sure what is.

We also need to keep in mind that a mind-boggling 75 Democrats voted in favor of ICE raids in June of last year when they were storming Los Angeles. With friends like this, who needs enemies? From Axios on June 11, 2025:

“SEVENTY-FIVE HOUSE DEMOCRATS voted on Monday in support of a resolution that praised President Donald Trump’s deportation regime.

The vote came as Trump deployed more than 1,700 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles to crush protests against increased U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and mass arrests.”

If our elected leaders are still this divided about what to do about a threat to our own lives and our neighbors' lives…?

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

Our subscriber goals for January, 2026 are 100 new free subscribers and 25 new paid subscribers. Click the link to help us reach our goals!

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

Our subscribers are encouraged to discuss this post in our W.A.S. Chat Community.

Join Pamela Hilliard Owens’s subscriber chat.

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

Issue #971 The Choice, Friday, January 9, 2026

When individuals take public office, they are often required to make a formal declaration of commitment to their duties. This declaration can take the form of either swearing an oath or affirming one’s commitment. While the two processes may seem similar, they differ in ways rooted in personal beliefs, legal traditions, and historical context.

Zohran Kwame Mamdani, an immigrant and practicing Muslim, was inaugurated into the mayorship of New York City twice on January 1, 2026: first at a private ceremony just past midnight, and then again at a public ceremony later that day.

He was sworn into office by placing his left hand on two copies of the Holy Qur’an and raising his right hand as he spoke. Many people were outraged that Mr. Mamdani did not use a Christian Bible, even going so far as to claim that he is “illegitimately” in office because he did not use a bible.

Nothing could be further from the truth; swearing and affirming upon taking office are two distinct choices that yield the same outcome.

What Does It Mean to Swear an Oath?

Swearing an oath is a formal promise made in the presence of a higher power, often invoking a deity as a witness. This practice has deep historical and religious roots, dating back to ancient civilizations, in which oaths were regarded as binding contracts under divine oversight. In modern contexts, swearing an oath typically involves placing a hand on a sacred text, such as the Bible, Torah, or Quran, and explicitly referencing God or a higher power.

What Does It Mean to Affirm?

Affirming, on the other hand, is a secular alternative to swearing an oath. It is a formal declaration of commitment that does not involve any religious references or invocations of a higher power. Instead, the individual affirms their promise based on personal integrity and accountability, often because they may wish to separate religion from their public duties. Affirming carries the same legal and ethical weight as swearing an oath, but it is grounded in secular principles.

Legal and Historical Context

The option to swear or affirm is rooted in the principle of religious freedom, as enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which permits individuals to choose between swearing an oath and affirming when taking office. This flexibility reflects the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.

The practice of offering both options has historical significance. In the 17th and 18th centuries, religious minorities, such as Quakers and Moravians, objected to swearing oaths on religious grounds. They believed that invoking God in an oath was contrary to their faith. To accommodate these beliefs, legal systems began to recognize affirmations as a valid alternative.

Modern Practices

Today, the choice between swearing and affirming is a personal one, often influenced by individual beliefs and values. Public officials, judges, and even jurors are typically given the option to choose the wording that aligns with their convictions. For example, when taking the presidential oath of office in the United States, the individual may choose to include or omit the phrase “so help me God.”

Why the Distinction Matters

The distinction between swearing and affirming is more than just a matter of semantics. It reflects broader societal values, such as respect for religious diversity, individual autonomy, and the separation of religion and government. By allowing individuals to choose how they declare their commitment, democratic systems uphold the principles of equality and freedom.

Conclusion

Whether one swears an oath or affirms, the act symbolizes a shared commitment to uphold the responsibilities of the office and to serve the public with integrity. This balance between tradition and inclusivity is a testament to the strength of democratic principles.

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 December 2025 subscriber goals are 100 new free subscribers and 50 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.

• ---

Upgrade to a paid subscription

Issue #971 The Choice, Friday, December 19, 2025

Every Friday until the end of 2025, we will publish a post about each of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

This is my final “We Are Speaking” post of the year. I appreciate your support, and we’ll be back on January 5, 2026!

The 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses the compensation of members of Congress. Ratified on May 7, 1992, it states: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have been made.”

The 27th Amendment prevents Congress from immediately increasing its own salaries. Any law that changes congressional pay cannot take effect until after the next election of House representatives. This means members of Congress who vote to raise their own salaries cannot benefit from the increase during their current term.

The 27th Amendment has a unique history. It was originally proposed in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights, but was not ratified at that time. In the 1980s, a college student named Gregory Watson launched a grassroots campaign to revive it. His efforts succeeded, and the amendment was finally ratified in 1992, making it the most recently adopted amendment to the Constitution.

The amendment reflects a fundamental principle of democratic governance: elected officials should not be able to enrich themselves at public expense immediately.

Our Choice: By requiring an election cycle to pass before a pay increase takes effect, the amendment ensures that voters have the opportunity to hold their representatives accountable for voting themselves a raise.

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 December 2025 subscriber goals are 100 new free subscribers and 50 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

As I tried to decide what to write about in my last post until 2026, I was determined not to end on a down note. Because, despite it all, and I assume you know what it is, there have been so many positive and hopeful signs of resistance. A refusal to let the madness of MAGA be the way the story ends. A determination that the last word will be up to us, not them.

In that spirit, in the spirit of the holidays, and because I am also determined to keep this short, I want to emphasize the power of joy. This came to me as I thought about how Trump’s crew is trying to erase any evidence of any accomplishments not accomplished by white males. They are doing their best to erase the truth.

They can’t erase the power of joy.

This may seem like a small or silly thing to some, but I assure you it is not. It was joy that encouraged the civil rights workers to sing as they fought and endured. And it was joy that fueled the No Kings Day protests, and the massive Black Lives Matter protests in response to the murder of George Floyd before that.

Not happiness. But joy.

Joy in the knowledge that they were doing what was right and what was necessary. Joy in the confidence that they would prevail. Joy in the comfort of so many other thousands of bodies supporting the cause around the country and in some cases around the entire world. Joy in the knowledge and deeply held belief that the enemy would not -and will not – be allowed to win.

Because this is our world, they are merely trespassers. And like all trespassers, they will be removed from the scene of their crimes.

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

Our subscriber goals for December 2025 are 100 new free subscribers and 25 new paid subscribers. Click the link to help us reach our goals!

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

Our subscribers are encouraged to discuss this post in our W.A.S. Chat Community.

Join Pamela Hilliard Owens’s subscriber chat.

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

Issue #969 The Choice, Friday, December 12, 2025

Every Friday until the end of 2025, we will publish a post about each of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

The Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution stands as a pivotal moment in American democratic history. Ratified on July 1, 1971, the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution lowered the minimum voting age from 21 to 18. The amendment’s passage represented a significant victory for youth activism and reflected changing attitudes about citizenship, representation, and the rights of young Americans.

The 26th Amendment concisely states:

“The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

This statement established a nationally standardized minimum voting age for all state and federal elections.

The push to lower the voting age gained significant momentum during the Vietnam War era. A compelling argument emerged from young Americans: if they were old enough to be drafted and fight for their country, they should be old enough to vote on the policies that sent them to war. This “Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote” slogan became a rallying cry for youth activists throughout the 1960s and early 1970s.

Congress passed the 26th Amendment on March 23, 1971, with strong bipartisan support.

In the 1970 case Oregon v. Mitchell, a divided Supreme Court held that Congress had authority to regulate the minimum voting age in federal elections but not in state and local elections. This decision created an inconsistency in voting-age requirements across elections, thereby accelerating the push for a constitutional amendment to establish a uniform national standard.

The ratification process moved with remarkable speed. The amendment was ratified on July 1, 1971—just over three months after Congress passed it. This made the 26th Amendment one of the fastest-ratified amendments in American history.

The 26th Amendment immediately expanded the electorate by millions of voters. Approximately 11 million young Americans aged 18 to 20 became eligible to vote for the first time.

Constitutional Principle

The amendment reinforced a fundamental principle of democratic governance: that representation should be tied to those affected by laws and policies. By granting voting rights to 18-year-olds, the nation acknowledged that young adults had a legitimate stake in political decisions.

The successful passage of the 26th Amendment stands as a testament to the power of youth activism and grassroots political engagement. It demonstrated that young Americans could effectively advocate for their rights and influence the constitutional amendment process.

However, voter turnout among young people remains a concern for election officials and political scientists, despite the legal right to vote at 18 being firmly established.

Our choice is to ensure that young people and younger voters can not only have their voices heard but will be encouraged to fully participate in the political process, including running for office. We need to support them, not write them off by backing only much older, less progressive candidates and party members.

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 October 2025 subscriber goals are 150 new free subscribers and 75 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

Issue #966 The Choice, Friday, December 5, 2025

Every Friday until the end of 2025, we will publish a post about each of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

Ratified on February 10, 1967, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses critical questions about presidential succession and disability. This amendment handles transitions of power and ensures continuity of government during times of crisis.

Before the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Constitution contained a significant ambiguity regarding presidential succession. The original Constitution stated that if the president died, resigned, or was removed from office, the vice president would assume the presidency. However, it did not clearly address what would happen if the vice president died or resigned, leaving the office vacant. Additionally, the Constitution provided no mechanism for dealing with a president who became disabled or incapacitated but did not formally resign.

Throughout American history, nine presidents died in office—four by assassination and five from natural causes. Each time a president died, the nation was left without a vice president for the remainder of that term. Additionally, there were instances where presidents were seriously ill or incapacitated, yet no clear procedure existed for transferring power temporarily or permanently.

This is particularly relevant today, as the current president is clearly in medical and cognitive decline and shows no desire to leave office, yet believes he can and should run for an unconstitutional third term in 2028.

The most immediate catalyst for the amendment came with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson assumed the presidency, but the office of vice president remained vacant for the remainder of Johnson’s term. The nation was left in a precarious position: if something had happened to President Johnson, there was no clear successor. This vulnerability exposed the constitutional weakness that had existed for nearly two centuries.

The amendment was first introduced in Congress on September 28, 1964. The goal was to create a clear, workable system that would address both the succession problem and the disability issue.

By July 6, 1965, Congress had approved the amendment and sent it to the states for ratification. The ratification process moved relatively quickly. By February 10, 1967, the required three-fourths of the states had ratified the amendment, making it official.

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment consists of four sections, each addressing different aspects of presidential succession and disability:

Section 1: Vice Presidential Succession

The first section codified what had become traditional practice: “In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.”

This section formalized the precedent set by John Tyler’s assumption of the presidency after William Henry Harrison’s death in 1841. Having this practice explicitly stated in the Constitution removed any ambiguity about whether the vice president merely assumed the powers and duties of the office or actually became president.

Section 2: Filling a Vice Presidential Vacancy

Section 2 addressed the problem of a vacant vice presidency: “Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.”

For the first time in American history, it provided a mechanism for filling a vice presidential vacancy during a presidential term. Previously, if a vice president died or resigned, the office remained empty until the next election. Section 2 changed this by allowing the president to nominate a replacement, subject to congressional approval.

Section 3: Voluntary Presidential Disability

Section 3 addresses situations where a president voluntarily declares himself unable to perform his duties: “Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.”

This section allows a president to temporarily transfer power to the vice president. The president can later resume power by sending another written declaration. This provision was designed to handle situations such as a president undergoing surgery or other medical procedures requiring temporary incapacity.

Section 4: Involuntary Presidential Disability

Section 4 is the most controversial and complex provision: “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

This section allows the vice president and a majority of the cabinet (or another body designated by Congress) to declare the president unable to serve, even without the president’s consent. However, the president can challenge this declaration by sending a written statement to Congress asserting that he is able to resume his duties. Congress then has 21 days to decide the matter. If two-thirds of both houses vote that the president is unable to serve, the vice president remains acting president. Otherwise, the president resumes power.

Today, many people are calling for the 25th Amendment to be invoked against Donald Trump. However, Section 4 is deliberately difficult to invoke, requiring both the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to agree that the president is incapacitated.

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment has been invoked several times since its ratification:

The Agnew-Ford Succession (1973)

The first application of the amendment came in 1973 when Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned amid charges of bribery and corruption. President Richard Nixon invoked Section 2 to nominate House Republican minority leader Gerald R. Ford as the new vice president. Ford was confirmed by Congress and assumed the office. This was the first time in American history that a vice president was appointed rather than elected.

Less than a year later, when President Nixon resigned in August 1974 due to the Watergate scandal, Ford became president under Section 1. Ford then used Section 2 again to nominate Nelson Rockefeller as vice president. For the first time in American history, both the president and vice president had been appointed rather than elected.

Presidential Disability Declarations

Section 3 has been invoked on several occasions when presidents underwent medical procedures. President Ronald Reagan used it in 1985 when undergoing cancer surgery. President George W. Bush invoked it twice in 2002 and 2007 when undergoing colonoscopies. These temporary transfers of power, though brief, demonstrated that the amendment’s disability provisions could work smoothly in practice.

Section 4 Considerations

Section 4 has never been formally invoked, though it has been discussed during various presidential crises. During the Trump administration, some cabinet members reportedly considered invoking Section 4 during periods of concern about the president’s fitness for office. However, the high bar for invoking this section—requiring both the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to agree—has prevented its use.

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment transformed the presidency from an office where succession and disability were matters of uncertainty and precedent into one governed by clear constitutional rules. This clarity is essential for maintaining the stability and continuity of government.

By establishing clear procedures for presidential succession and disability, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment provides stability and continuity during transitions and crises.

The second Trump Administration is worse than the first, and certainly qualifies as a Constitutional crisis!

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 October 2025 subscriber goals are 150 new free subscribers and 75 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

What could be worse for Trump than the Epstein files? I dunno. Maybe using the United States military to murder innocent people in a foreign country under false pretenses?

Yeah. I think maybe killing innocent people qualifies as worse than being a pedophile. But who wants to balance those scales, especially when the one orchestrating the killing is the pedophile? To be clear, Trump has not yet been convicted in a court of law of either alleged crime, and yet the evidence keeps stacking up.

In the case of the Epstein files, which haven’t even been made public yet, we already know that Jeffrey Epstein was a billionaire pedophile who procured young girls to be his personal sex toys. We also know Epstein says he and Trump were best friends for years, and there is more than enough visual evidence suggesting they were billionaire buddy boys who hung out together quite a bit. It has also been reported that the two buds had a falling out when Trump discovered Epstein was recruiting young girls from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago playground, which apparently was a violation of some sort of billionaire buddy boy code of reprehensible conduct.

As for the murder of innocent civilians, I’ll let Heather Cox Richardson describe the scenario from her December 2, Letters from an American Substack post:

“The news of last Friday, November 28, that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a Joint Special Operations commander overseeing an attack on a small vessel carrying 11 people on September 2 to “kill everybody” is shaping up to be a fight over control of the United States government.

“A missile strike shattered the boat and set it afire, but two men survived. A second strike fulfilled Hegseth’s order. According to Alex Horton and Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post, the commander, Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, said “the survivors were still legitimate targets because they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo.” In a report, the Joint Special Operations Command said the second strike was not to kill survivors, but to remove a navigation hazard.

“There had already been significant pushback in the first place over the strikes, which legal experts say are unlawful. But the so-called double tap is illegal and a war crime even under the Trump administration’s flimsy justification for the strikes.

“Lawmakers of both parties have pushed back on what Senator Angus King (I-ME) yesterday called “a stone cold war crime.” The Republican chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), have vowed to launch investigations of the incident, as well as of the larger operation.”

According to the Associated Press, the actual number of military strikes – and resulting deaths – is actually quite a bit higher.

“The Trump administration says the military has killed at least 83 people in 21 known strikes in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean since early September. Trump has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and asserted the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.

Don’t look away. Facing it is the only way we defeat it.

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

Our subscriber goals for December 2025 are 100 new free subscribers and 25 new paid subscribers. Click the link to help us reach our goals!

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

Our subscribers are encouraged to discuss this post in our W.A.S. Chat Community.

Join Pamela Hilliard Owens’s subscriber chat.

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 Friday until the end of 2025, we will publish a post about each of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

The 24th Amendment was ratified on January 23, 1964. Its primary purpose was to abolish the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting in federal elections. This transformative piece of legislation addressed the disenfranchisement of African Americans, other people of color, and poor white people who were disproportionately affected by the poll tax.

Southern states of the former Confederate States of America adopted poll taxes in both state laws and state constitutions throughout the late-19th and early-20th centuries.

It wasn’t until the early 1800s that white men without property could legally vote. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the poll tax used by states was constitutional in the 1937 case Breedlove v. Suttles.

Women were not allowed to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, and women of color were still discriminated against with laws and policies like the poll tax.

Native Americans, who had inhabited this region for millennia, finally received U.S. citizenship on June 2, 1924, when President Calvin Coolidge signed the Indian Citizenship Act (also known as the Snyder Act). This act granted citizenship to all non-citizen Indians born within the United States.

When the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964, five states still retained a poll tax: Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.

Prior to the 24th Amendment, the poll tax was one of several Jim Crow-era policies designed to suppress the vote among African Americans and poor citizens. By imposing a financial burden on those wishing to exercise their right to vote, these laws effectively excluded a significant portion of the population from participating in the democratic process.

The 24th Amendment’s proposal was passed by Congress on August 27, 1962, and ratified by the required number of states in January 1964.

The passage of the 24th Amendment was a catalyst for subsequent legislative advances, most notably the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which sought to eliminate other discriminatory practices that impeded voting rights.

The Justice Department once described the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted. President Lyndon B. Johnson, when he signed the bill on Aug. 6, 1965, called it “one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom.”

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections that poll taxes for any level of elections were unconstitutional. It stated that poll taxes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Efforts to weaken the Voting Rights Act (VRA) have primarily been through Supreme Court decisions and state-level legislative changes, most notably the Shelby County v. Holder ruling that eliminated the preclearance requirement.

This has enabled states to pass laws restricting voting access, and the Justice Department and civil rights groups are now fighting these restrictions through litigation and lobbying for new legislation, such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Today, as MAGA Republicans and many Southern states are still trying to restrict the voting rights of Democrats and non-white citizens, a reminder that undocumented immigrants and non-citizen documented immigrants cannot vote because they are not citizens.

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 October 2025 subscriber goals are 150 new free subscribers and 75 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