We’re now just days away from Election Day 2024, and my decision is no longer a complex one. In my first blog article, I explored whether Trump’s policies as a businessman could sway my vote. His stance on taxes, regulations, and business incentives seemed like a smart choice for someone like me. But after digging deeper into his actions, rhetoric, and leadership style, it’s clear that this decision goes far beyond economics.

I’ve seen Trump’s rise, and while I knew about some of his more controversial moves, I didn’t pay as much attention as I should have. Now, with the stakes higher than ever, I’ve gone back to scrutinize his time in office and what he’s done. What I’ve found has been troubling, to say the least.

Trump’s Fascist Playbook

At first glance, Trump’s authoritarian tactics may seem like typical strong leadership—an emphasis on loyalty, a disregard for the media, and a constant push to win at any cost. But after revisiting his actions during and after January 6th, I realized this wasn’t just about strength—it was a dangerous erosion of democracy. When Trump stoked the flames of conspiracy and actively encouraged the Capitol insurrection, it wasn’t a one-off. It was a play straight out of the fascist playbook: undermine institutions, discredit elections, and incite chaos to stay in power.

Beyond that, his actions throughout his presidency reveal patterns common in fascist regimes: the dismissal of democratic norms, the consolidation of power, and the use of fear and misinformation to maintain control. The warning signs were there all along, but I didn’t see them for what they were. And now, as I review what happened, especially on January 6th, it’s clear—I cannot support someone who threatens the very foundation of our democracy.

Trump’s Divisive Rhetoric and Racist Policies

As a Black man, Trump’s policies on race hit hard. His rhetoric around immigrants, his dismissive attitude toward the Black Lives Matter movement, and his reluctance to denounce white supremacists have fueled racial divides. But beyond the soundbites, his policies actively harmed Black and minority communities. The rollback of civil rights protections and his failure to address systemic racism weren’t just political blunders—they were dangerous, leaving our communities more vulnerable than ever.

It’s not just about Black Americans either. Trump’s nationalist rhetoric and policies have alienated immigrants, Muslims, and other minority groups. His refusal to embrace equality for all Americans is a deep problem, one that I cannot stand behind. The racism we’ve seen during his administration isn’t just a concern for minorities—it’s an American problem. A president who fans the flames of division and hatred cannot represent the values of this country.

Exploring Other Options

With Trump off the table, it’s time to seriously evaluate Kamala Harris and other candidates. But let me be clear: Harris isn’t my only choice. I’m considering Cornel West, Jill Stein, and other third-party candidates because settling for a binary option when there’s so much at stake isn’t in my DNA. Harris, as the first Black and female Vice President, does symbolize progress, but I’m not casting my vote based on symbolism alone. Her policies, and the policies of others like Cornel West, will determine where my vote goes.

Evaluating Harris’s track record, especially as California’s Attorney General, will be key. I’m going to scrutinize her policies to see if they align with my vision for the future. For now, I remain undecided—but one thing is clear: Trump’s divisive and dangerous leadership makes him an unfit option.

Wrap-Up

There are many more reasons—far too many to cover in this one blog article—but these are the ones that resonate most with me. As we approach Election Day, I’ll continue to evaluate Harris and third-party candidates, but one thing is certain: I cannot vote for Donald Trump. His fascist tendencies, divisive rhetoric, and disregard for democracy have shown me that he’s a threat not just to me as a Black man but to all Americans.

We’re days away from making a decision that will shape the future of this country. I want to hear from you—are you struggling with this decision too? Let’s talk. Email me, comment, or reach out on Facebook. This election is bigger than all of us, and we need to make sure we’re making the right choice for the future.

Let’s Be Real About Fascism 

Alright, let’s cut the jargon and get to the point. Fascism is one of those words people love to throw around, especially when they want to make someone look bad. But do we even know what it really means? It’s not just a synonym for “someone I don’t like.” Fascism is way more than that. It’s about control, unity (in the worst way), and a whole lot of fear. So let’s break it down in a way that actually makes sense, shall we?

What Exactly Is Fascism?  

Fascism is basically “conform or else.” You, as an individual, don’t matter as much as the group—the nation, the race, whatever the fascists have in mind. Your unique ideas? Irrelevant. Your freedoms? Only if they align with what the group wants. Anything that doesn’t fit the narrative is a threat, and fascism doesn’t like threats.

Key Traits of Fascism

• One Big Boss: Fascism loves a good strongman. We’re talking about dictators—one person calling all the shots while everyone else just falls in line. Look at Benito Mussolini in Italy or Adolf Hitler in Germany. Mussolini made himself the symbol of Italy’s supposed return to greatness, and Hitler declared himself the embodiment of Germany’s national spirit. No democracy, no debate, just one leader who must be followed without question.

• Obsessive Nationalism: We’re not just talking about waving a flag at a parade. In fascism, nationalism becomes toxic. It’s about saying, “We’re the best, everyone else is the enemy.” Racism and xenophobia often tag along for the ride. Nazi Germany is a prime example—Hitler’s fascist regime pushed the idea that Aryans were superior, and anyone who didn’t fit that mold was a problem. The Italian Fascist Party similarly glorified the Italian race and excluded anyone who wasn’t seen as a “true Italian.”

• Violence Is the Answer: In a fascist system, violence isn’t a bug—it’s a feature. It’s used to control the population, silence critics, and keep everyone scared enough to comply. Mussolini’s Blackshirts were known for using intimidation and outright violence to silence political opponents. In Germany, Hitler’s SA (Stormtroopers) did the same. You step out of line, you face the consequences. Simple as that.

• No Freedom of Thought: Got an opinion that doesn’t align with the government? Too bad. The media is controlled, and dissent is crushed. Nazi Germany controlled every form of media, from newspapers to radio, pumping out propaganda while banning anything that didn’t fit their ideology. In Italy, Mussolini had full control over the press, making sure only his vision was broadcast. Freedom of speech, creativity, or individuality are luxuries you won’t find here. The group comes first, and that’s that.

• Economic Strings Attached: Businesses exist, but they’re not free to do whatever they want. The state controls the economy heavily, and if your business doesn’t serve the national interest, you’re either out of luck or out of business. Fascist Italy allowed businesses to operate, but under strict state oversight. In Nazi Germany, businesses had to align with Hitler’s war machine—think of companies like Krupp, which thrived because they produced for the state. It’s not quite socialism, but it’s definitely not a free market.

Where It All Started 

The term “fascism” came from Benito Mussolini back in 1915. Mussolini wanted a movement that could bring Italy back to some imagined former glory, and he made sure to add plenty of authoritarian spice to the mix. He even used a symbol—the fasces, a bundle of sticks bound together. The message was clear: alone, you break; together, you’re unbreakable (but only if you conform, of course).

Is Fascism Just Authoritarianism?  

Not quite. Authoritarianism is all about strict obedience, but fascism takes it further. Fascism mixes that authoritarian control with a massive dose of nationalism and demands that everyone conform to a rigid group identity. It’s about crushing anything that doesn’t fit the ideal vision of the group. Every fascist regime is authoritarian, but not every authoritarian regime fits the full picture of fascism.

Why This Matters Today 

The word “fascism” gets thrown around a lot—sometimes it feels like anyone with a strong opinion gets labeled a fascist. But understanding fascism is important. It’s not just about power—it’s about forcing a certain kind of unity, about controlling people through fear, violence, and propaganda. Recognizing the actual traits of fascism helps us see when it’s genuinely creeping into our society, verses when people are just flinging labels around. Consider modern-day North Korea. It’s not a perfect match to historical fascism, but the use of nationalism, propaganda, and a single powerful leader controlling every aspect of life fits much of the mold. Learning these traits helps us spot the warning signs when leaders or movements start taking steps in that direction.

Wrap-Up

Fascism isn’t just a buzzword, and it’s not just about being authoritarian or nationalist. It’s a toxic cocktail of conformity, control, violence, and fear. It demands that individual freedoms are sacrificed for the so-called greater good of the group, but really, it’s about maintaining power through whatever means necessary. Understanding this helps us spot the warning signs before it’s too late—and makes sure we keep the idea of true freedom in our sights.

I was born Black, and I’ll die Black. I grew up Black, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Raised by Black parents, went to Black churches, and attended Black schools. I lived in a Black community. Simply put, the Black community and culture are in my blood, part of who I am. Now, I’ll be fair—those spaces weren’t exclusively Black. Some of my schools weren’t 100% Black, but most were predominantly so, especially my high school. Why didn’t I lead with that? Had to grab your attention.

The point is, I’m a Black man raised in Black culture. So, what does this have to do with anything? Glad you asked. I come from a long line of Black Democrats. In my family, we’ve always voted Democrat, and I can’t think of a single person who identifies as Republican. Now, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist in the family; I’m just not aware of any. And as you know, as of 2020, around 83% of Black Americans identified as Democrats or leaned toward the Democratic Party, according to the Pew Research Center. It’s a longstanding trend—Black voters are tied to the Democratic Party, with only about 10% leaning Republican.

But as I got older, I started thinking. I was raised Christian too. And here’s where it gets interesting—Republicans seem to align more with some of the Christian values I was taught growing up. Take abortion, for example. The Republican Party typically supports pro-life policies, a stance that resonates with many Christian voters, especially evangelicals. There are other values too, but we’ll save those for another day.

Now, let’s pause for a second. I started out as a Democrat, because of family tradition, but I ended up an independent. That’s a whole topic by itself, but let’s keep moving.

So, what does this have to do with Donald Trump? Well, putting race aside for a minute, the question is: As an American, should I vote for Donald Trump this time around? I sure didn’t help get him in office the first time. Why? I prejudged him. I thought he was racist, and truthfully, I didn’t even know enough about him to back that up. What’s strange is, before he got into politics, I never saw him as a racist. In fact, I remember when rappers—who tend to be Black—used him in their lyrics like he was someone to aspire to. Back then, Donald Trump was just a wealthy man you could look up to. But politician Donald Trump? He came off as racist to me.

Then Trump ran again in 2020, and he lost. Even with that loss, he’s still in the conversation—people either love him or hate him. But for me, the 2020 election hit differently. By that time, I had started my business, but it was still new, just getting off the ground. I wasn’t thinking too much about taxes, regulations, or the things business owners care about when they vote. I was still focused on tradition and what I thought I knew.

But now, things have changed. My business is not just new; it’s successful. And I’ve always been told that if you own a business, you might want to lean more Republican.

But I didn’t want to just jump on the bandwagon because I’m a business owner now. So, I started digging deeper into who Donald Trump really is and what he’s done. What follows is my attempt to break down what I’ve learned.

Donald Trump Loves to Win—And I Can Relate

The first thing that I learned about Donald Trump is that he likes to win. And let’s be real: who doesn’t? I can get behind that. I like to win too, and if you’re in business, winning is the whole game. From what I’ve learned, Donald Trump has spent his entire life obsessed with winning. Whether it’s building skyscrapers, getting his name in lights, or running for president, the man has one goal—winning. And hey, that’s a checkmark in my box for him. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to come out on top. After all, I didn’t build a successful business just to be second place. So yeah, I see eye-to-eye with him on that one. Winning is good.

But here’s where it gets interesting, especially from a business perspective. Trump’s not just about winning—he’s about making big investments to secure those wins. Whether it was Manhattan real estate, his hotels, or even his presidential run, Trump goes all-in. He sees opportunities, makes bold moves, and takes risks. That’s something I respect, because in business, the same rules apply. You don’t win by sitting on the sidelines; you win by investing strategically and being willing to put something on the line.

Think about it: Trump has had successes and failures, but through it all, he’s maintained his brand by playing the long game. Even when he faced setbacks—like when his casinos went bankrupt—he didn’t fold. He regrouped, rebranded, and kept pushing. That’s a winner’s mentality, and anyone who’s ever made serious moves in business knows that persistence and resilience are key to success. If you want to win, you have to be willing to make the kind of investments that position you for long-term gains, not just short-term wins. And Trump? He understands that.

So for me, as someone who built a successful business, I can appreciate that mentality. Winning in business, like winning in politics, requires grit, risk-taking, and a refusal to back down. Trump may be controversial, but when it comes to the mentality of winning, I can relate to that approach. It’s about playing big and staying in the game.

Donald Trump’s Discrimination Lawsuit: A Red Flag?

The second thing I learned about Donald Trump was less encouraging. In the 1970s, Trump and his father were hit with a massive lawsuit for housing discrimination. Uh-oh, right? This kind of backs up my original prejudice: could Trump be racist? Here’s what happened—back in 1973, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Donald Trump, his father Fred, and their company, Trump Management Inc., for discriminating against Black and Hispanic tenants. The government had sent undercover applicants to Trump properties, and what they found wasn’t good. Black people were often told there were no apartments available, while white applicants were shown open units right after.

This lawsuit wasn’t just some minor legal hiccup either—it was one of the biggest fair housing cases at the time, and the evidence was hard to ignore. It came out that property managers working for Trump would mark rental applications with a “C” for “colored” to signal not to rent to Black people. There were even testimonies from employees who said they were directly told not to rent to Black families. One doorman admitted he had to tell Black applicants that the rent was twice as high as it really was. Pretty damning stuff.

Now, instead of settling quietly, Trump did what he always does—he fought back. He didn’t admit any guilt, and even countersued the government for $100 million, claiming they were defaming him. The countersuit was thrown out, but Trump and his team dragged the case on for two years before eventually reaching a settlement. The kicker? Trump never had to admit any wrongdoing. Sure, he had to agree to better policies, but his main goal—like in many of his battles—was to walk away without admitting fault.

So, naturally, this is where my concerns about Trump being racist started feeling justified. The facts from the lawsuit painted a clear picture of discriminatory practices, and Trump’s response wasn’t to own up or make things right—it was to deny, deflect, and fight it out. This moment in his career made me wonder if my initial prejudice had some merit. Was Trump more than just a shrewd businessman? Was there something deeper, something uglier, behind the way he handled his affairs?

Donald Trump’s Surprising Actions That Benefited Black Americans

The third thing I learned about Donald Trump is that, despite my earlier assumptions, he did take actions that benefited Black Americans. This was a curveball for me, especially after the discrimination lawsuits. But looking at his presidency, there were tangible moves he made that had a positive impact on Black communities.

One of the biggest accomplishments was the First Step Act, a criminal justice reform bill he signed in 2018. This law directly addressed issues that disproportionately affected Black Americans. It reduced mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent offenders and gave inmates more opportunities to shorten their sentences by participating in rehabilitation programs. Considering how much the Black community has been impacted by harsh sentencing laws, this was a significant step toward change. Trump took credit for this, and whether you agree with his motivations or not, the results were real.

Another surprising fact was his support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Trump signed a bill that permanently allocated $250 million annually to HBCUs, which provide critical educational opportunities for Black students. Now, many presidents before him made promises, but Trump actually followed through with significant funding. Again, this was one of those things that went under the radar for many, but it was a real action that made a difference.

Then, there’s the Opportunity Zones initiative, part of his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. These zones offered tax incentives to encourage investment in low-income communities, many of which are predominantly Black. The idea was to spur economic development and job creation in areas that had long been neglected. While the program had its critics, it did direct significant investment into underserved communities.

And let’s not forget the record-low Black unemployment rate during his presidency, which hit 5.4% in August 2019, the lowest it had been in history at that point. Now, you could argue that this trend started before Trump took office, but the fact remains that it happened under his watch. For Black Americans struggling to find jobs, this was a clear, positive result.

I have to admit, this was all unexpected. It didn’t line up with the image I had of Trump going into this. He’s a complicated figure, but these actions show that he did make efforts that, on paper, benefited the Black community. The reality is, things are rarely black and white (no pun intended). Trump’s policies may not have been perfect, but they certainly weren’t all negative, and I had to recognize that.

Wrapping It Up

So, what have I learned? Donald Trump is undeniably a complicated man, and he’s made decisions that pull me in opposite directions. On one hand, as a business owner, I can see why his policies might be compelling. Trump’s focus on winning and making bold moves in business resonates with me. For the first time in my life—I’m a middle-aged Black man who’s always voted Democrat—I’m actually considering voting Republican. That alone feels like a huge shift for me.

But here’s the struggle. Trump has said and done things that I just cannot agree with. His words, his actions—some of them are downright harmful and go against the very values I hold dear. From the housing discrimination lawsuits to his divisive rhetoric, there’s no denying that Trump has done some pretty damning things. Things that are really messed up, to be honest. And this is where the internal conflict comes in for me.

Obviously, there’s much more to Donald Trump than just these three things I’ve learned. It would take a novel to truly capture everything about him because he is indeed a complicated person. But for now, these three points are what stand out the most to me, and they’re forcing me to rethink things in this election.

The election is coming up fast, and I’ve got to make up my mind soon. I haven’t decided yet, but after learning more about Trump, I can say that as a business owner, his approach makes me stop and think. Is it enough to sway my vote? I’m not sure yet, but the clock is ticking, and time is running out.

How about you? Have you struggled with this same decision? If so, I’d love to hear your thoughts. You can email me, leave a comment below, or even drop a comment on Facebook. I need to hear from you. Let me know that I’m not in this alone.

Update (October 22, 2024, 6:20 AM)

During my investigation, I uncovered that the discretionary funds allocation for BRACE is listed on the consent agenda for the upcoming City Council meeting on October 24, 2024. Items placed on the consent agenda are generally routine and expected to pass without debate unless a council member requests further discussion.

This process provides important context for BRACE’s early public acknowledgment of Councilwoman Jennifer Brahier’s sponsorship. It appears that BRACE’s acknowledgment was based on the expectation that the allocation would be approved as part of the consent agenda, which is standard procedure.

Based on the facts gathered, there is no indication that Councilwoman Brahier acted improperly. The timing of the acknowledgment appears to be a reasonable procedural oversight, not an intentional breach of City Council policies.

I will continue to monitor the outcome of the Council meeting on October 24 and provide further updates as necessary.

Update (October 22, 2024, 8:31 PM)

In addition to my conversations with Dr. Nick Jackson from BRACE and Councilwoman Brahier, I have sent a second follow-up email to Mr. Adam Cobb, the City Attorney, seeking clarification on how BRACE’s early acknowledgment aligns with the City Council’s Discretionary Fund Policy. I have yet to receive a response but will continue to follow up and update the story as necessary.

Update (October 21, 2024, 6:10 PM)

I spoke with Councilwoman Brahier to clarify BRACE’s public acknowledgment of her sponsorship before the City Council’s vote on discretionary funds. During our conversation, she expressed uncertainty about whether the Facebook post referred to a past event or a more recent sponsorship.

For accuracy, I have requested that she provide an official statement or quote in writing. I will update the story once I receive her response.

Update (October 21, 2024, 1:30 PM)

Dr. Nick Jackson, CEO of BRACE, confirmed that BRACE prematurely acknowledged Councilwoman Brahier’s sponsorship before the City Council had voted to approve the discretionary funds. Dr. Jackson clarified that the funds have not yet been received and apologized for the early acknowledgment, noting that this will be addressed in future practices to avoid similar confusion.

Original story follows

Councilwoman Jennifer Brahier’s name is being publicly thrown around as a sponsor for an upcoming BRACE event, but here’s the thing: those funds haven’t even been approved yet. Yep, you read that right. The discretionary funds that BRACE is thanking her for are still sitting on today’s City Council agenda, waiting for a vote.

Let’s lay out the facts. BRACE, the local emergency preparedness organization, publicly thanked Brahier for sponsoring their Rev-Up Rally, an event aimed at raising disaster preparedness awareness. But according to the City Council’s own rules (Section 3.28 of their Policies), those funds don’t just get handed out without approval. In fact, discretionary funds are supposed to promote the City of Pensacola, not individual council members, and they must go through a council vote before they can be used.

So, how is Jennifer getting a public shout-out before the council has even had a chance to vote on it? It’s on the agenda for today’s meeting, but BRACE has already posted their thank-you (see screenshot below). Something doesn’t quite add up.

This isn’t about slinging accusations. The facts are simple: the funds haven’t been approved, and BRACE has jumped the gun by thanking a sitting councilwoman during this election season. The timing of this acknowledgment raises a real question: is this just bad timing, or does it raise ethical concerns about how discretionary funds are being handled?

I’ve reached out to Brahier, BRACE, and the City Attorney for their take on this. As of now, no responses, but the question hangs—are we looking at a simple oversight, or something more concerning?

Here’s hoping we get some clarity soon. The public deserves to know if their taxpayer dollars are being used properly and if public funds are being leveraged for personal gain.

Stay tuned. This story isn’t over.

Pensacola’s District 5 City Council race is heating up. With Councilwoman Toni “Teniadé” Broughton fighting to keep her seat, newcomer Jenori Burroughs has stepped into the ring. But this isn’t just a routine election—it’s a choice between experience and fresh perspectives. So, District 5 voters, who do you want representing you on the City Council?

Why Jenori Burroughs Stepped Up

For Jenori Burroughs, the decision to run wasn’t about chasing politics. It was about walking her neighborhood—literally—and seeing the issues firsthand.

“There were so many,” Burroughs says, “It started off with the bushes in the median. They weren’t being maintained like they should be. I walk every morning and evening, and I kept noticing the same problems—drainage issues, sidewalks needing repair, areas without sidewalks altogether.”

Burroughs didn’t just observe. She got involved, joining the Eastside Neighborhood Improvement Association and attending City Council meetings. It wasn’t long before she realized the best way to fix these issues was to step up and lead.

Facing an Incumbent Who Relies on Relationships

Councilwoman Broughton has made it clear that her strength lies in her relationships with fellow council members. It’s what she believes gives her an edge. Burroughs doesn’t disagree, but she has her own plan.

“Relationship building is crucial in any role. I’ve been attending city council meetings, neighborhood association meetings—not just for my area, but all over District 5,” Burroughs says. “I believe collaboration is key, and I’m ready to bring a fresh voice to the council while supporting my neighbors.”

And Burroughs is no stranger to teamwork. Her experience in healthcare IT means she’s constantly working with new teams, new people, and learning to adapt quickly. She sees those skills translating into effective governance.

The Money Factor: Is Fundraising a Measure of Support?

While Broughton has leaned on her established relationships, Burroughs has been doing the groundwork—and it’s paid off, literally. She’s raised significantly more money than the incumbent, which, to her, signals something bigger.

“For me, raising funds consistently shows that people believe in me. People know my name now, and they see that I’m serious about making a difference in District 5,” Burroughs explains.

But Burroughs isn’t just about the money. She’s about earning trust and proving herself, one conversation at a time.

Attainable Housing, Not Just Affordable Housing

Burroughs doesn’t like the term “affordable housing.” For her, it’s about more than affordability—it’s about attainability.

“Housing has to be attainable before it can be affordable,” Burroughs says, pointing to the reality of Pensacola’s housing market. “If you’re making $35,000 a year, which is the median income in Eastside, how can you afford a new home being built for $200,000?”

Burroughs wants the council to push for tax breaks and incentives to encourage developers to build homes that people can actually attain. And she’s clear that homelessness and housing insecurity must be part of the conversation.

“We can’t talk about housing without considering our unhoused neighbors. Everyone deserves the dignity of stable housing,” Burroughs emphasizes.

Healthcare Experience Bringing Value to Local Government

With a background in healthcare IT, some might wonder how Burroughs’ expertise translates to city government. Her response is simple: the skills are universal.

“I manage teams, drive projects to successful outcomes, and mentor others. These are skills that directly apply to city initiatives,” Burroughs says confidently. “I’m committed to promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion, both in healthcare and in my community work. And I’ll bring that same commitment to District 5.”

From organizing health fairs to advocating for better mental health services for the homeless, Burroughs sees opportunities for the council to integrate healthcare initiatives into broader city planning.

Engaging the Community: Her Plan to Stay Connected

Burroughs knows that communication is key. She’s not interested in top-down decision-making—she’s interested in hearing from the people.

“I’ve thought about holding town halls, but I believe showing up in the community is what matters most,” Burroughs says. “I want to walk the neighborhoods, attend meetings, and make sure I’m accessible. Transparency is non-negotiable.”

She’s also aware of the challenges in reaching everyone, particularly seniors. While social media and surveys may work for some, Burroughs wants to find better ways to ensure all voices are heard.

Why Burroughs? Her Final Word

When asked what sets her apart from Councilwoman Broughton, Burroughs takes a deep breath before answering.

“I offer a fresh perspective and a commitment to true community engagement,” Burroughs says. “I’m focused on innovative solutions and transparency. District 5 needs someone who listens and acts. Together, we can build a brighter future.”

For Burroughs, it’s not about maintaining the status quo. It’s about pushing for more—and doing it with the people’s input every step of the way.

The Decision is Yours, District 5

As the election draws closer, the choice for District 5 voters becomes clear: stick with the established leadership or choose someone with fresh ideas, a commitment to transparency, and a vision for attainable housing, community safety, and a stronger future.

The question remains: who do you want representing District 5?

In a case that could change the conversation on civil rights in America, Pensacola resident Jonathan Garrett Green is suing some of the most powerful figures in the country—President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, and Pensacola Mayor D.C. Reeves (Darcy Reeves). This lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, delves deep into issues of systemic racism, historical injustices, and ongoing government accountability.

A Legacy of Injustice

Green’s lawsuit isn’t just about personal grievances; it’s a fight against the systemic racism that has persisted across generations. His connection to this battle is personal—his third great-grandfather, Aesop Goodson, was one of the first Black state legislators during the Reconstruction era. Green argues that the racial discrimination that led to his ancestor’s removal from office in the 1870s continues to impact his life today.

According to Green, the U.S. government, along with state and local officials, has not only failed to correct these historical wrongs but has perpetuated them through continued discriminatory practices. He draws a line from the injustices his ancestor faced to the challenges he and others like him are experiencing now.

The Legal Battle

Green’s case is grounded in several federal statutes that allow individuals to sue government officials for civil rights violations. He isn’t just targeting past wrongs; he’s challenging ongoing failures at all levels of government. His lawsuit accuses the defendants of violating the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments—rights that should be protected, but which Green argues have been trampled by systemic failures.

One of the most compelling aspects of Green’s lawsuit is his claim that the government’s failure to enforce crucial Supreme Court decisions like Brown v. Board of Education has allowed segregation and discrimination to continue unchecked. He believes this inaction has fostered a climate of fear and oppression, deterring people from seeking justice.

Overcoming Legal Hurdles

Sovereign immunity—the principle that government officials are often protected from lawsuits—could be a major obstacle in this case. However, Green’s lawsuit aims to challenge this protection by demonstrating how the defendants’ actions have caused direct harm and violated both domestic laws and international human rights norms.

Green’s complaint also differentiates itself from past cases, such as the In re African-American Slave Descendants Litigation, by establishing a clear connection between the actions of the defendants and the specific injuries he has suffered.

Seeking Justice

Green isn’t just seeking a declaration that his rights have been violated—he’s demanding systemic change. He wants the court to order the government to stop these alleged violations and to compensate him for the emotional and financial damages he has endured.

This lawsuit is more than a personal battle; it’s a call for a broader reckoning with the past and a push for reforms that could protect the rights of marginalized communities going forward.

Why This Matters

If Green’s case proceeds, it could have a significant impact on civil rights law and government accountability in the U.S. By holding high-level officials to account, this lawsuit could set a new precedent in how the legal system addresses historical injustices and ongoing civil rights violations.

As this case unfolds, it’s likely to draw attention from civil rights advocates, legal experts, and the general public. The outcome could influence not just the legal landscape, but also the ongoing dialogue about race, equality, and justice in America.

Conclusion

Jonathan Garrett Green’s lawsuit is a bold stand for recognition, accountability, and justice. It reminds us that the struggles of the past are still very much alive today, shaping the lives of individuals and communities across the country. As this case develops, it will test the U.S. legal system’s capacity to address systemic injustices and bring about meaningful change.

Stay tuned for updates as we continue to follow this potentially landmark case.

Link to the full lawsuit document

TALLAHASSEE, FL—April 13, 2024

By Brandon Williams

In the land of sunshine and alligator, Governor Ron DeSantis is remixing old-school power plays with a new flair, putting a spin on “keeping the peace” that might make even the most laid-back Floridaian sit up and take notice. It’s showtime in the Sunshine State, where DeSantis has just unleashed a duo of controversial bills that could have come straight out of a political stratgists’s handbook. First up, we’ve got a 25-foot “keep out” zone around first responders–think of it as personal space with legal teeth, designed to keep pesky bystanders (and their smartphones) at arm’s length. Then there’s the second act, a move to muzzle citizen oversight boards, effectively putting them under the thumb of local police chiefs and sheriffs who get to call the shots and pick the players. 

Why all the drama? DeSantis claims it’s all about respecting and protecting those who serve and wear the badge, amidst what he sees as a wave of anti-cop sentiment stirred up by the media. But critics are calling foul, warning that these movers smack of something out of a dystopian playbook, where watchdogs get leashed and transparency takes the backseat to control. This latest legislative maneuver is setting up the stage for a heated debate: Can we really trust the government to police itself? HIstory might offer a clue, with tales the Watergate scandal, where sneaky break-ins and cover-ups went all the way to the top, or the Iran-Contra affair’s secret arms deals that skirted around Congress, not to mention the NSA’s digital peeping Toms spying on your every tweet and text. Each story in its own right, reminding us that sometimes, the ones in charge might just be the foxes guarding the henhouse. 

Dive into the throwback saga of Watergate, the granddaddy of all political scandals that turned “Nixon” into a synonym for “no-no.” Picture it: 1972, a crew of not-so-smooth criminals busted while wiring up the Democratic National Committee’s digs to get the dirt on Nixon’s rivals. But the real show started when it turned out that Tricky Dick was in on the game, leading a cover-up that involved enough secret tapes, shady characters, and midnight calls to fuel a dozen conspiracy theories. The plot thickened as Nixon tried using every trick in the presidential playbook to keep his secrets buried, including throwing hush money and executive power around like confetti at a parade. This blockbuster scandal didn’t just end with a president waving goodbye; it rebooted the entire American conversation about political integrity and the dangers of unchecked power—turning investigative journalists into rock stars and setting the stage for every political “gate” to come.

If Watergate was the scandal that rewrote the rules, the Iran-Contra affair turned them into a high-stakes spy thriller, revealing just how far some in the White House would go to sidestep Congress and fuel covert wars.

Continuing the narrative of government high jinks, the Iran-Contra affair thrust the Reagan administration into the spotlight with a plot twist that would rival any Cold War spy novel. In the mid-1980s, secret deals and covert ops were the order of the day as U.S. officials clandestinely sold arms to Iran—despite an arms embargo—and used the profits to illegally fund Nicaraguan rebels, known as Contras, battling a socialist government. This covert maneuver was designed to sidestep Congress, which had explicitly forbidden such aid through the Boland Amendment. As the scandal unraveled, it exposed a labyrinth of deception at the highest levels, involving shredded documents, erased tapes, and denials that crumbled under public scrutiny. The Iran-Contra affair not only spotlighted the lengths to which government officials would go to avoid oversight but also ignited a fierce debate over the balance of power between the White House and Congress, challenging Americans to reconsider the boundaries of lawful government action. 

While the Iran-Contra affair showed the extremes of covert governmental actions abroad, the NSA Surveillance scandal revealed that even American citizens weren’t safe from their government’s prying eyes, sparking a new era of concern over privacy and governmental reach into our personal lives.

The NSA Surveillance scandal, revealed in 2013 by whistleblower Edward Snowden, pulled back the curtain on a digital era of espionage that seemed ripped right out of a dystopian sci-fi. Snowden exposed how the National Security Agency had been secretly collecting massive amounts of personal data from citizens around the globe, including phone calls, emails, and texts of Americans—often without warrants or public knowledge. This high-tech snooping was justified by the government as a necessary step for national security, especially post-9/11, but it raised the alarm about the erosion of the Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches. The fallout was explosive, igniting a global debate over the trade-off between security and privacy and leading to calls for sweeping reforms. This scandal underscored the chilling reality that in the digital age, Big Brother might not only be watching but also reading every word you type, fundamentally challenging the trust citizens place in their governing institutions.

From the shadowy dealings of Watergate to the Iran-Contra intrigue and the digital overreach of the NSA, history is littered with episodes that challenge the notion of governmental self-policing. Each scandal, unfolding like a season of a political drama, has shown that without vigilant oversight, the powers granted to our leaders can easily be misused, turning the principles of democracy on their head. As we reflect on Governor Ron DeSantis’s recent legislative maneuvers in Florida, we must ask ourselves: “Can We Trust the Government to Police Itself?” The evidence suggests caution. Rather than passively watching these developments as mere spectators, it’s crucial for us as citizens to engage actively in the political process. Do some research, delve into the facts, and then, you be the judge. Can we really trust the government to regulate itself without our vigilant oversight? This is your call to action—because informed judgment is the cornerstone of democracy, and it begins with you.

By: Brandon Williams, The Emerald Voice

Date: April 11, 2024

In a groundbreaking move, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared war on pollutants that could be flowing from your tap. As reported by CBS News, on April 10, 2024, the EPA rolled out its inaugural nationwide regulations targeting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), notoriously dubbed ‘forever chemicals’ due to their persistence in the environment.

For decades, PFAS have infiltrated our lives, lurking in everything from your non-stick pans to the water you drink. Recognized for their resistance to heat and repellant nature against oil and water, these chemicals are nearly indestructible in nature and have been linked to a slew of health hazards.

The new mandate requires public water utilities to monitor and curb the presence of six specific PFAS compounds, a proactive step expected to shield over 100 million Americans from the adverse effects of these contaminants. According to the EPA, this measure could prevent thousands of deaths and a range of diseases, reinforcing the federal commitment to public health.

EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan emphasized the urgency of the situation, highlighting the widespread contamination and its long-overdue address. “Drinking water contaminated with PFAS has plagued communities across this country for too long,” Regan stated in a press release.

Despite the positive strides, this policy scratches only the surface of a much larger issue. With over 15,000 known PFAS variants, critics like Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Sciences, argue that the new regulations are too narrow. “We need to begin addressing PFAS as a whole class of chemicals,” Birnbaum told CBS News, questioning the necessity of these chemicals in modern products.

The financial implications for public water systems are significant, with projected costs of approximately $1.5 billion needed to meet the new standards. This includes testing and upgrading facilities to effectively remove PFAS from drinking water—a task with a three-year deadline for testing and an additional two years for full compliance.

The controversy doesn’t end with water utilities; the chemical industry has shown considerable resistance to these regulations, fearing the financial repercussions of a strict crackdown. Moreover, while the regulations target water utilities for cleanup, they fall short of holding manufacturers accountable for their role in the widespread PFAS contamination.

Despite these challenges, the path forward includes practical steps for individuals concerned about PFAS exposure. Residents are advised to inquire with their water providers about testing protocols or seek independent testing through state-certified labs to ensure their water is safe from these enduring chemicals.

The fight against ‘forever chemicals’ marks a critical advancement in environmental and public health policy, but as this new regulation shows, it’s just the beginning of a long battle for a cleaner, safer environment.

Original Published: April 10, 2024
Update [04/16/2024]: Official documents from the clerk of courts related to the filing discussed in this article have been added. These documents provide verified details pertinent to the case. View the court filing [link to PDF] for more information.

Pensacola, FL – Jonathan Garrett Green, J.D., has initiated an Emergency Petition for Judicial Relief against the mayor of Pensacola, the city council, and the Community Redevelopment Agency. The petition asserts violations under U.S.C. 42 § 1983, a statute enabling individuals to claim deprivation of constitutional and federally secured rights.

The filing alleges that Pensacola’s local officials violated the First and Fifteenth Amendments, as enforced by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. According to the petition, the mayor has publicly stated that certain residents lack “Privileges and Immunities” because they do not live within walking distance of the public property designated for a referendum ballot—a process established by the city charter to enable citizens to address grievances through petition and vote.

Moreover, Green claims he was subjected to retaliation following his whistleblower actions. He alleges that he faced adverse consequences after voicing concerns at a city council meeting about the transformation of community centers into event centers. Green, who holds a J.D. but is not a practicing attorney, represents himself in this legal challenge, highlighting the significance of safeguarding constitutional and human rights.

Infographic by Brandon Williams | Source: @Studio850News | Data from John Singley