Dr. Samori Swygert: What Would Happen If US Political Candidates Submitted to Live Polygraph Tests?

by Dr. Samori Swygert

originally published: http://yourblackworld.net/2015/05/26/what-would-happen-if-us-political-candidates-submitted-to-live-polygraph-tests/

Presidential candidates and congressmen should submit to a public polygraph test, i.e. a lie detector test. You may think I’m being facetious or sarcastic, but I’m not cracking one smile. It may seem unrealistic, but slow down and ask yourself, “Why not?”  What do ballot-casting citizens have to lose by candidates taking a public polygraph?

It’s easy for the government to implement and subject citizens to various voting requirements and restrictions when convenient. Historically speaking there was the poll-tax, literacy exams, and more. Currently, we’ve witnessed the ushering and implementing of other voting nuances such as Voter I.D. laws, computer voting ballots, changes to early and weekend voting. As citizens, we’ve also seen the recent thumbs up approval of “Soft Money” campaign contributions.

When we can have various changes and voting stipulations imposed on the voting demographic, I think that we should add some higher requirements and election criteria for our Presidents, and congressmen.

The bar must be raised to a new level. This must go beyond political resumes, track records, Town Hall debates, state to state stomping, patting dogs, shaking hands, strategically planned photo-ops, purchased endorsements, backdoor deals, fundraiser dinners, and kissing babies.

WHY DO I SAY THAT WE NEED PUBLIC POLYGRAPH TESTS OF POLITICAL CANDIDATES?

First, the people can only hope, believe, and have faith that candidates will do what they promise once in office.

Do you remember Bill Clinton’s infamous, “I did not have seχual relations with that woman” statement? Do you remember Arnold Schwarzenegger’s love child with his house keeper? Do you remember George Bush, Cheney, and Colin Powell and their Weapons of Mass Destruction propaganda? What about New York’s Anthony Weiner lying about being hacked after pictures of his genitαlia were exposed? How do you feel about “read my lips, no new taxes,” being sung by George Bush Sr? Are you comfortably satisfied about the answers to Benghazi? Was it that hard of question for Jeb Bush to understand about the war in Iraq?

These are just a few examples of blatant lies, white lies, half-truths, and deceit.

AS CITIZENS…

As citizens it’s imperative that we hold elected officials to a higher standard of scrutiny and integrity. Our presidents and other elected officials are situated in positions of power that have tremendous and profound effects on our lives, family, and future of our nation. Yes, there is a fiduciary responsibility and obligation that “elected officials” should subscribe to.

Moral character, integrity, veracity, forthrightness, and consistency are unspoken expectations. However, in the “Politics as usual” mind-state, candidates are audio-pimping the masses. Audio-pimping, saying any and everything the electorate wants to hear. Candidates and their teams will cleverly craft the wording of speeches so that their candidate is sonically palatable and pleasing. When candidates are sworn into office, they don’t hold up their end of the bargain in many instances. Their actions don’t match the promises they’ve made to the voters.

More often than not, congressional leaders are strangled by the “python-like” grip of corporate lobbyists. Our elected officials practice “political adultery.” Their loyalty and commitment lies in bed with corporations and not the marriage between their electorate.

Human lives are special, delicate, and fragile. We can’t have politicians beating “the war drum” for ulterior motives and private interests of gain. These are our children, fathers, mothers, and cousins being sent to war.

I’m also aware that polygraph tests are not conclusive. They can vary depending on different factors. However, I feel the people should have as much evidence as possible that all decisions and promises are genuine and sincere. A person that has nothing to hide should welcome a public polygraph test.

It’s even more appealing to me because the NSA, other government agencies, corporations, and credit bureaus collect mountains of data on the average American citizen and create a profile on them. These profiles can prevent you from getting a job, housing, cars, place you on “no fly lists,” etc.

We’ve now allowed society to create this “all knowing” profile of the average American citizen that just wants to be left alone and live a normal life. Thus, the public is owed the deep scrutiny of candidates that will be propelled into positions of power that participate in the life altering decisions of “We the people.”

Didn’t George Washington say, “I cannot tell a lie”? Hmmmm lol… Can we have a Town Hall polygraph session with candidates where the public can tweet and pose their questions in real time?

Check out the Youtube links below and think about a polygraph test for the 2016 presidential candidates and other elected officials.

What are your thoughts???? Hit me on Twitter @docswagg06

You can also check out my audio book and music single on Amazon and Itunes:

http://www.amazon.com/Speak-Mandatory-Conversations-Black-America/dp/B00KQPJIQG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1432597336&sr=8-2&keywords=samori+swygert

https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/samori-swygert/id883372162

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs (Bill Clinton sexual relations speech)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6WuTSTyS8 (Colin Powell and WMD speech)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LylBfNPUtNI (Anthony Weiner, watch timestamp 3:16)

https://youtu.be/RZtaZTEO3jA (George Bush Sr: No New Taxes)

Gov. Bob McDonnell: Separation of purse and state

By: Dr. Samori Swygert

We are familiar with the phrase, “a separation of church and state”. This phrase is intended to differentiate and demarcate religious ideology from governmental affairs.

However, we still manage to blend and incorporate religion into the political and judicial arena. This is evidenced by the swearing in of the president on a bible, court oaths on a bible for testimonies, the printing of “In God We Trust” on American currency, and the quote of “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” during the Pledge of Allegiance.

So although “a separation of church and state” is espoused, we still manage to operate with a kind of hybrid influence of church within governmental affairs.

Well what about the “separation of purse and state”? Recently, Virginia Republican Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife Maureen were found guilty of several charges of political corruption. It’s reported that the prominent political family were the willful recipients of hundreds of thousands of dollars, luxury items, trips, shopping sprees and showered with other posh pleasantries from a wealthy vitamin supplement company owner (Johnnie R Williams, Sr).

The jury found him guilty on 11 of the 14 counts against him. It’s reported that he plans to appeal the convictions, and that he may not receive the fullest extent of his punishment, but he faces well over a decade in prison for his guilty verdicts.

My thoughts

I think this is nothing new or novel. I feel this culture of corruption is rampant and more pervasive than America admits. The problem is the secrecy, power, and influence that prevents more politicians from facing charges. I’ve written several articles about the overreaching of corporate influence into politics. Many people are aware that there are lobbying groups, and that politicians must raise funds for campaigns.

However, where is the fine line drawn, who tracks the integrity of corporate-political activities, and who blows the whistle? A fiduciary obligation is inextricably linked between the American Citizen and elected officials to conduct political affairs with honesty and integrity. Once we permit corporations, wealthy elite, and personal obligations to mitigate legislative policy, we’ve effectively compromised our system of democracy that we champion globally.

There is no place for this kind of misconduct in politics. This happens on a frequent basis, but who can pinpoint it?

Lastly, I think this is an important lesson to a lot of our young black students in college and early stages of their careers that wish to pursue a career in politics. Do not compromise your integrity for the allure of cash, luxury, and prestige. Your dignity and legacy should never be for sale. There is a litany of politicians that have succumbed to greed and lust for luxury. This has affected both African American and White politicians. Work hard, keep your nose clean, and represent your electorate with the best of your abilities. You will succeed, you will go down in the annals of history, and leave a legacy to be marveled.

Governor McDonnell will be sentenced in January 2015, his family has been crippled, and his reputation has been permanently tarnished.  This is the perfect cautionary tale of, the separation of purse and state.

hit me on twitter@docswagg06

Will Hillary Clinton push for reparations if she runs for presidency?

By: Dr. Samori Swygert

When current President Barack Obama was elected as the President of the United States, America arrived at a new political plateau in the terms of cultural diversity. Many people were filled with joy, pride, and had a self-imposed paradigm shift on racial equality. Yes, the first African American President was elected, and an all African American first family moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.

Initially, President Obama was greeted with much fanfare from the African American community. The President had “swag”, he exuded confidence, he spoke with eloquence and sophistication, and he wooed many in white communities.

However, time progressed and many of the blacks that voted for President Obama grew disenchanted because they didn’t see the change they “expected”. Political and economic times turned turbulent, and many blacks were hit hard in the recession. Many looked to the President for a sign of relief, a flotation device, a financial life jacket, only to see other factions of society being rescued and attended to. Fast forward, President Obama’s approval ratings have taken hit after hit and many blacks have been asking, “who did I really elect?”.

Now it’s no secret, President Obama has been stone-walled in several attempts by a majority republican congress. They fight him tooth and nail on every single issue. I’m sure he couldn’t choose the soap or toilet tissue he wanted if they had a say in the matter. Nevertheless, many blacks express buyer’s remorse for our Commander in Chief. This feeling is primarily spawned by President Obama’s conspicuous attention to the Latino and LGBT community.

Many African Americans feel slanted by a less motivated effort of the president to address our concerns. President Obama has also asserted that he wouldn’t address issues pursuant to reparations for African Americans. That’s okay because although I disagree with his position, I will always respect another person’s opinion.

Moving onto Hillary Clinton

Many women have an affection for Hillary Clinton because she was the First Lady of Bill Clinton. She is also a “symbol” of political diversity. She staked her claim and showed that she has a bite and bark when she ran as a presidential candidate. She also demonstrated her ability to face the fire in the Benghazi fiasco. Hillary portrays a bold political spirit that many women can and want to identify with. Some women are attached to her via sympathetic strings from former President Clinton’s sexual infidelities.

Hillary Clinton is skillfully posturing herself to be a formidable presidential candidate again. I won’t applaud or critique Hillary until she announces a formal bid later on, and clearly explains the goals and mission of her political platform. I also want clearly outlined plans and positions on where she stands on issues germane to the African American community.

Why am I saying this? I’m saying this because I do see how the African American community fell in political love with President Obama based on symbolism and “silent expectations”. Well in this era, the future belongs to fast learners. This time the African American community should be in the faces of the potential presidential candidates asking them specific questions on Affirmative Action in relations specific to blacks.

I also want to know will Hillary Clinton support reparations for African Americans who’s descendants were forced into slavery to build the economic power base that America has morphed into. Centuries of free labor by blacks is the financial DNA of America’s success, and the rejection and denial of it is a crime.

Will Hillary Clinton help pursue the procurement of reparations for the descendants of the victims of slavery? If her answer is no, I would like to know why, and why she deserves our vote in the upcoming election. If she is able to champion the causes of the Latino community, LGBT community, and silently pander to Wall Street, then hear our specific demands in equity and fairness.  We want specific answers, not broad generalized rhetoric that blankets everybody like human rights and civil rights.  Where do you specifically stand on reparations for blacks?  Will you help procure these funds and policies?

Sidebar, we as African Americans need to be prepared with a specific itinerary, and itemized agenda if this is what we want.

This question goes to all democratic candidates because a pattern exists where African Americans tend to vote democratic. This evolved in part because many policies and legislation that Republican candidates advocate for lack congruency with the concerns of the African American electorate.

However, I pose this question because a subconscious affinity and affection is extended to the Clintons’ by “some” of the black community, and we need to move beyond symbolism and get this next election right! If other voting demographics can garner the attention and action by the President, then we demand that our expectations be met also. Hillary can’t bring Bill to the next NAACP meeting to play the saxophone and think they have our vote in their pocket. That’s it, that’s all.

Wisconsin Republicans tout an illogical secession from America

by Dr. Samori Swygert

I was listening to the Joe Madison show on Tuesday, April 15, when Joe addressed the topic of state secession.  The state of Wisconsin has some Republican citizens considering seceding from the United States of America due to their dissatisfaction with the operations of the current administration.

I think everybody has the right to their opinion, and I respect that. I always believe we can be congenial and cordial in our discourse, even if we disagree. However, I want to expound on that topic of secession and the potential implications.  I wonder if these “pro-secessionists” have thoroughly calculated what this entails.

Let’s look at secessions logically

• When natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Katrina, uncontrolled wildfires, and more occur, you can’t declare a state of emergency and demand federal aid to help.
• What happens to all of the nuclear sites dispersed throughout America in silos, and other undisclosed locations?  Will these states then own these nuclear capabilities?
• Will the state have enough revenue to continue Medicare and Medicaid for their residents, being that these programs are federally funded?
• College age students would be ineligible for FAFSA loans from the federal government to attend college, if need be.
• Several military families would have to relocate because military bases would be relocated, and soldiers in Wisconsin would face criminal charges if they choose to stay in Wisconsin.
• The state would have to devise a whole new currency, banking system, and commerce system because the FIDC insures bank deposits.
• They would have to construct their own airports with their own flight technology because the FAA has command over the airports, boundaries, and aerial flight all across America.  Moreover, any plane that flew out of Wisconsin would be considered a foreign plane in U.S. airspace, and considered trespassing into foreign territory.
• Wisconsin would have to create and provide a new system of communication for all of its residents because the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) regulates interstate and international communication via radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.  Secession would essentially kill all communication with family members in different states.  Moreover, this would kill much of the businesses that rely on internet availability.
• The Postal Service would cease and desist from the delivery of mail because that is under the U.S. government.  This would further cripple business and halt communication outside of Wisconsin.  Furthermore, they would commit commerce and travel suicide because they would essentially imprison themselves within the state due to the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration).   This government agency “provides stewardship over the construction, maintenance and preservation of the Nation’s highway, bridges and tunnels.  FHWA also conducts research and provides technical assistance to state and local agencies in an effort to improve safety, mobility, and livability, and to encourage innovation,” according to the FHWA website.
• How would the state guarantee the needed medication for all of its residents?  FDA regulates drug approval for starters.  Secondly, how will they obtain medication from drug manufacturers outside the state of Wisconsin?  Many drug factories are overseas and dispersed throughout America, and Wisconsin’s isolation would nullify delivery to their hospitals, pharmacies, and clinics.
• Many families would also be displaced because several properties and hospitals are acquired by loans by the FHA (Federal Housing Administration).  The federal government would have to repossess the property that individuals reside in/on because many people/entities would not have the real estate they currently own if it wasn’t for FHA loans.
• Furthermore, Wisconsin residents would technically be considered “immigrants.” They would have to go through the rigorous tasks of attaining visas and strict immigration enforcement that many Republicans promote.  So a high school senior with a 4.0 and top 5 percent SAT score who is eligible for matriculation at Harvard University, would have to wait on the same immigration line for lawful citizenship and a vias to enroll in Harvard.  Do these same republicans want to apply that strict border enforcement and immigration policy on their own children when it comes to getting a college education?

These are some of the concerns that I would love for this faction of the Republican Party in Wisconsin to address.  Moreover, Wisconsin isn’t the only state that has mentioned secession.  Portions of the Republican Party also promote secession.

What are your thoughts on this, and why now? How would you feel if you were a Wisconsin resident and this political body took it among themselves to speak for the entire state considering all of the above?

Source 

D.C. ex-offenders sway political elections by the thousands

By: Dr. Samori Swygert

In Washington, D.C., ex-offenders are gradually changing the political landscape of the city.  April 1^st will be the day of reckoning for the D.C. Mayoral election. The current Mayor, Vincent Gray, isn’t dismissing any potential vote.  Ex-offenders represent a significant burgeoning political demographic that politicians are forced to consider in elections.  The amount of eligible re-entry voters are approaching a critical mass that can sway local elections that teeter on delicate political margins.

According to an article published by the Washington Post, 1 in 10 D.C. residents are ex-offenders.  A 2008 city survey reported that approximately “60,000 citizens have a criminal record”. A spokesperson from the Office of Returning Citizens Affairs gives a higher projection of 75,000 to account for the time lapse since the initial survey.  Courtney Stewart is the director of The Reentry Network for Returning Citizens, and he reported that his nonprofit group registered up to 4,000 ex-offenders prior to the 2010 mayoral election.  Prior to the 2008 election of President Barack Obama, an estimated 10,000 ex-offenders were registered to vote.  Furthermore, 8,000 ex-offenders return to D.C. annually from federal and local prison.

Election ballots are even being delivered to correctional facilities for eligible offenders.  The correctional system is specific in its terminology and characterization of offenders.  There are felons, parolees, probationers, and a myriad of individuals under correctional supervision for various reasons.  Despite the criminal record, Mayor Gray has made an all-out attempt to tap into this power base.  He’s promised to utilize $100 million dollars of reserved funding to help ex-offenders obtain affordable housing.  According to the article, D.C. has hired 534 ex-cons as bus drivers, camp directors, and bus attendants.  400 ex-offenders have gained employment with construction firms.  The city has financed the training of 112 ex-offenders to obtain commercial driver’s license training.  All of this has occurred under Mayor Gray’s watch.

Mayor Gray promises even more assistance if re-elected.  He has reported that he wants to provide the necessary assistance with jobs and housing to reduce the chances of recidivism.

I think that this is an important political issue.   Close to 2 dozen states have become more lenient and less stringent with the restoration of voting rights for ex-offenders.  When people commit crime and serve the time, they should be allowed the right to participate in the voting process and have a say in the laws that affect them.  We must also think about the number cases nationwide where innocent people have been exonerated by DNA, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and plain mistaken identity.  Should these individuals be denied the right to vote because the criminal justice system failed them?  Furthermore, it would be hypocritical to deny this right when we profess to be a forgiving and accepting country.  This demographic may prove to be the political wildcard that upsets the plans of many highly conservative think-tanks.

What are your thoughts?

Source

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/in-dc-mayors-race-embattled-gray-may-have-a-secret-weapon-in-growing-ex-prisoner-vote/2014/03/22/9a5834e4-aac3-11e3-adbc-888c8010c799_story.html

The ignored gun control conversation: Part 2

(Click here to read Part 1 of this discussion)

by: Dr. Samori Swygert

We are not addressing the real issue when it comes to gun control legislation.  We are failing to conduct a thorough root-cause analysis of American violence.  Why are so many people growing frustrated, and choosing to lash out in acts of MASS VIOLENCE on innocent citizens?  That is the proper and appropriate question.

Many believe that disarming citizens is the answer, but this is far from the truth.  There’s a myriad of methods that sick sinister individuals may exact their vengeance on innocent American citizens.  Let’s examine this quickly: 1) A man got frustrated in California and plowed his car through a crowd of people at a Venice Beach festivity — he mowed down scores of party goers and killed some of them.  2) We’re familiar with Ted Kaczynski who was sending off mail explosives.  3) We saw Timothy McVeigh conduct the Oklahoma City Bombing.  4) What about the Olympic Park and Boston Marathon bombings?  5) We had the one sicko that was mailing poison to state officials.  6) There was a knife attack at a daycare.  7) A Georgetown University student was recently caught for making the deadly chemical Ricin in his dorm. 8) Do you remember the Sarin gas attack in the Chinese subway station? [Note: I haven’t even mentioned arson, and food poisonings.]

So with that said, are they going to ban cars, gasoline, knives, envelopes, etc.?

Furthermore, how are we going to defend ourselves against a home invasion with a seven shot gun clip?  The legislators that make these laws act like they have successfully fended off each and every home invasion personally with seven bullets.  When home invasions occur, it typically involves multiple intruders that are sufficiently armed.  Seven shots won’t cut it, and this is why cops don’t carry a seven shot gun clip.  I mean you don’t need a bazooka but let’s be sensible.

Let’s keep it real

What is the game plan to account for guns that are already in circulation, unregistered, and buried in the woods, compounds, Neo-Nazi camps, and secret arsenals?  Have you seen the arsenal of these DOOMSDAY PREPPERS, gun enthusiasts, and militias?  Will the government conduct door to door household reconnaissance with search and seizure intentions?  I can understand that regulation is a step toward reduction of gun violence, but what about law-abiding citizens that legally purchase their firearms, use them responsibly, and store them safely?  Should the average law abiding gun owner have to forfeit their fire arms and constitutional right to defend themselves?

We really need in depth discussions on coping skills, conflict resolution, effective communication, respect, love and let’s not forget the biggie, POVERTY AND UNEMPLOYMENT.  Individuals are less prone to rob, steal, and kill someone for their belongings when they have the purchasing power and ability to purchase their own; and when they don’t have the ever-present mental stress of poverty, deprivation, and a “survive or die” mind state.

We are not addressing the violent movies, video games, and TV shows that give many people a step by step instruction manual and demonstration on how to plan attacks and shooting to kill.

However, legislators are willing to take away our rights to adequately defend ourselves, but say nothing to the TV and Hollywood moguls that pervert the idea of gun ownership.  They introduce some of the most violent content into the psyche of our youth.

Talking loud and ain’t saying nothing

Moreover, if legislators are not going to be physically present at my house at 3am during a home invasion to provide immediate, real time security and demonstrate their seven shot marksmanship, I don’t want them limiting the options to defend myself and my family.  However, I doubt Diane Feinstein, Al Sharpton, Michael Bloomberg, and other anti-gun legislators will provide personal backup and patrol on your front porch and backdoor when it all goes down.

There also needs to be gun control on these cops having firing squads on citizens like Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, and handcuffed men shooting themselves in the back of squad cars.

What say you???

Read Part 1 of this discussion here