Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

(DNA Reveals The Gullah Geechee People Were Never Who We Thought — It Changes Black History Forever - YouTube

"Yes, unambiguously so. Clarence Thomas was born in Pin Point, Georgia, and his family were descendants of enslaved people who spoke the creole language Gullah as a first language.

Pin Point was settled in 1896 by former slaves from Ossabaw, Green, and Skidaway Islands — a self-sustaining community that created their own school and church and ran coastal industries including shrimping, crabbing, and oyster harvesting. Pin Point was home to many from the Gullah-Geechee community, including Thomas.

Thomas himself has spoken about this identity. In his own words: "When I was 16, I was sitting as the only black kid in my class, and I had grown up speaking a kind of a dialect. It's called Geechee. Some people call it Gullah now, and people praise it now. But they used to make fun of us back then... I would correct myself midsentence. I was trying to speak standard English."

The Gullah-Geechee trace their roots to the rice-growing regions of West Africa — brought as captives from Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia to the Atlantic coast, where they worked the indigo, rice, and cotton fields.

There's an interesting cultural and political footnote here: Marquetta Goodwine, known as Queen Quet among the Gullah-Geechee people, has expressed disappointment that Thomas hasn't used his platform to champion his native culture more openly, feeling he remains somewhat ashamed of it.

It's a remarkable and often overlooked biographical fact — the longest-serving current Supreme Court Justice grew up in one of the most culturally distinct and historically isolated African-descended communities in the United States, one that preserved West African language and traditions across centuries largely because of their geographic isolation along the Sea Islands and coastal lowcountry." --- Claude

DNA Reveals The Gullah Geechee People Were Never Who We Thought — It Changes Black History Forever - YouTube

What DNA Revealed About Angela Davis's TRUE Ancestry Contradicts Everything She Stood For - YouTube

 

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

Trump extends Iran ceasefire as talks to end war stall - YouTube

 

Joy Reid: The RAW Truth About My MSNBC Firing & YouTube Success

 

Clarence Thomas Is Projecting

 

Lawrence: Only Trump thinks threatening war crimes and committing war crimes 'will be my honor'

 

The Trump Administration Is Coming After Birth Control Access in a Terrifying New Way

 

The Trump Administration Is Coming After Birth Control Access in a Terrifying New Way

“The Trump administration is undermining Title X, a program that provides family planning and reproductive healthcare, by shifting its focus away from contraception. The new guidelines emphasize fertility-awareness-based methods, which are less effective than modern contraception, and prioritize counseling on issues like erectile dysfunction and infertility. This shift, driven by anti-abortion, MAHA, and pronatalist influences, threatens to reverse decades of progress in reducing unintended pregnancies and improving women’s health and well-being.

A close-up of the belly of a pregnant woman wearing a pink dress.
Marlen Mueller / Connected Archives

By Jill Filipovic

Ms. Filipovic is a journalist, a lawyer and an author.

Some 60 years ago, American legislators set out to tackle a problem that was driving employment and education rates down, driving health care and welfare costs up and making American family life significantly less stable: Many American women, and particularly poor women and teenagers, were having more children than they wanted or could afford. Close to half of births were to women who had not intended to get pregnant.

Decreasing the unintended pregnancy rate was a bipartisan wish. In 1969, President Richard Nixon recognized that “unwanted or untimely childbearing is one of several forces which are driving many families into poverty.” A year later, Congress passed Title X: the first federal program entirely dedicated to family planning and reproductive health care.

It would go on to become one of the most successful federal programs of the last century, with one study finding it prevented some 20 million unintended pregnancies in just 20 of its 50 years by providing women with free and low-cost birth control. It has significantly reduced child poverty. In 1957, nearly one in 10 teenage girls gave birth. Today, the rate is closer to one in 100. For every dollar spent on family planning funds, the government saves $7 in Medicaid costs.

But President Trump seems intent on killing Title X. This month, the Department of Health and Human Services quietly issued new funding guidelines that have effectively subverted the program’s entire purpose. Instead of getting highly effective contraception methods to the country’s poorest women so that they may decide if and when to have children, Title X under Mr. Trump seems aimed at getting more women pregnant, whether they want to be or not. And it appears to cater to three influential parts of the Trump coalition: The anti-abortion movement; the MAHA, or Make America Healthy Again, movement; and pronatalists who want to see birthrates rise at nearly any cost.

More than half of patients at Title X clinics use modern contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancy. But the word “contraception” comes up just once in the Title X funding document, and only in a section on “reducing overmedicalization in health care.” Instead, in a change pulled directly from Project 2025, H.H.S. tells Title X clinics to emphasize “fertility-awareness-based methods,” a broad category that includes things like tracking your periods or your body temperature to estimate which days you might be fertile. These methods can be helpful for getting pregnant, but are generally far less so for preventing pregnancy. Fertility awareness methods have typical-use failure rates between 12 and 24 percent in the first year, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The intrauterine device, by contrast, has a failure rate of less than 1 percent.

The health department seems to want to shift taxpayer dollars away from reliable contraception and toward counseling men on erectile dysfunction, testosterone levels and sperm motility, each of which merits three mentions in the new guidance, while IUDs and birth control pills earn none. The document is a mishmash of Make America Healthy Again talking points on lifestyle changes, conservative bromides on marriage before babies and pronatalist nods to fertility.

Some of the guidance sounds sensible on its face. H.H.S. cribs from MAHA when it says it will focus on chronic disease in order to promote “healthy pregnancies and family formation.” But contraception use is a significant part of how women ensure they have healthy pregnancies and form the families they desire, and it’s also a common treatment for chronic diseases, includingendometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome. Yet it doesn’t come up in the section spelling out the department’s top Title X spending priorities. What does? Addressing “exposure to harmful chemical and environmental toxins,” low sperm count, and pornography use.

The new Title X guidance also includes many mentions of infertility. It’s true that men and women desire more support in having wanted pregnancies, but H.H.S.’s prescription, which includes “sleep” and counseling on “marriage prior to childbearing,” is unsatisfying. On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump declared himself the “father” of in vitro fertilization, yet I.V.F. is absent from his administration’s family planning funding goals.

The good news is that, at least for now, Title X funds are still required to go to clinics that provide or refer out for a range of modern contraceptive options. The bad news is that this is only because of a Biden-era rule that the administration has already signaled it might try to rescind. The threat to the program is all the more concerning because, according to the most recent data available, it still hasn’t fully recovered from draconian regulations put in place during Mr. Trump’s first term, which led to an exodus of clinics and cut the number of patients served by half.

An H.H.S. employee told Politico that the new guidance was catering to the anti-abortion wing of the G.O.P. There’s a terrible irony here — by reducing unintended pregnancy, Title X has prevented more than nine million abortions — but it’s not surprising: Most of the major “pro-life” groups in the United States either oppose contraception or stay mum on the topic. The old anti-abortion movement strategy was to attack contraception as immoral, though few Americans share that view. The new tactic is more MAHA-coded, and with a pronatalist twist: Sow fear that modern contraceptives are unnatural, and push holistic alternatives instead; generate alarm about declining birthrates and blame the dip on working women (in reality, it largely comes from fewer teen pregnancies).

Women who are able to plan their pregnancies wind up in better physical and psychological health, birth healthier infants, make more money, are less likely to get divorced, are less likely to rely on public assistance and invest more in their children, who, in turn, do better educationally and behaviorally. Modern contraception is nothing short of a medical miracle — one that has saved the lives of millions of women and babies worldwide.

Not satisfied with the end of legal abortion in America, the anti-abortion movement seems poised to end the era of affordable contraception. The result isn’t just the end of Title X as we knew it. It’s the demise of a long-held bipartisan consensus that a woman’s ability to shape her own future, even if she was poor, was worth something — and certainly worth the government’s investment.“

Trump and Iran Face Off in Iran War Negotiations

 

Trump and Iran Face Off in Iran War Negotiations

President Trump and Iran are engaged in negotiations over a nuclear deal, highlighting their contrasting negotiation styles. Trump, favoring immediate results and coercive diplomacy, faces Iran’s preference for a long-term approach and resilience. The negotiations are further complicated by past agreements being overturned and recent military confrontations, with both sides demonstrating their willingness to escalate tensions if their demands are not met.

Kenny Holston/The New York Times

‘Immediate Results’ vs. ‘The Long Game’: The U.S. and Iran Face Off

As the United States and Iran make a second attempt at a deal, their negotiating styles are on a collision course.

By David E. Sanger

David E. Sanger has covered five American presidents for The New York Times, and reported from Switzerland and Austria in 2014 and 2015 during the negotiations for the last nuclear accord struck with Iran.

President Trump views himself as the master of coercive diplomacy, forcing his opponents to capitulate quickly to American demands or face the threat of attack.

But in dealing with Iran over the past six weeks, Mr. Trump has discovered that he is up against a nation that prides itself on resilience and delay. And never has that been more obvious than in recent days, when Mr. Trump has tried jawboning the Iranians by contending that they already surrendered — they “agreed to everything” he insisted on Friday, including turning over their “nuclear dust” — only to discover that patter doesn’t work with Iranian officials, who took to social media to declare he had made it all up.

So over the next few days, assuming that Vice President JD Vance leaves for Islamabad on Tuesday for a second shot at agreeing to a “framework” for a deal, the two approaches are about to come into direct collision. If the stakes were not sky-high — the prospect of renewed combat in the Middle East, global energy shortages and the very real possibility that the surviving Iranian leaders emerge convinced they need a nuclear weapon more than ever — it would be a classic case study in negotiation styles.

“Trump is impulsive and temperamental; Iran’s leadership is stubborn and tenacious,” said Robert Malley, who negotiated with the Iranians in the lead-up to the 2015 nuclear deal and again in a failed effort by the Biden administration.

“Trump demands immediate results; Iran’s leadership plays the long game,” Mr. Malley continued. “Trump insists on a flashy, headline-grabbing outcome; Iran’s leadership sweats every detail. Trump believes brute force can compel obedience; Iran’s leadership is prepared to endure enormous pain rather than concede on core interests.”

There is a reason the last big negotiation, completed 11 years ago, took the better part of two years, moving from secret talks with a then-new Iranian president with a pragmatic bent to a full-scale negotiation involving scores of meetings.

The final agreement ran more than 160 pages long, including five technical annexes that defined the limits on Iran’s nuclear activities, the pacing of sanctions relief and, most importantly, Iran’s obligations to comply with inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Every page, and most provisions, triggered an argument; just when old issues were resolved, and some kind of agreement seemed in place, the Iranian negotiators would arrive with new demands.

The Iranians have their own complaints about the Americans. The accord that was ultimately reached — not signed, because it was not a formal treaty — in 2015 was overturned by Mr. Trump in 2018. Ever since, the Iranians have made the point that it is pointless to negotiate with one president if the next one is going to scrap the resulting agreement.

More recently, Iranian officials have noted that twice in a row, in June 2025 and again this February, Mr. Trump has ordered attacks on Iran in the midst of diplomatic negotiations. The Iranians cast this as perfidy, evidence that Mr. Trump is not a reliable interlocutor.

And the distrust turned into gunfire over the weekend, near the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian boats opened fire on two freighters that they said were breaking out of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’s strict control of who can, and cannot, sail through the Strait. On Sunday, the U.S. Navy shot out the engine room of a huge Iranian-flagged container ship, which the Navy has now seized. Mr. Trump noted that the ship had been sanctioned by the Treasury in 2020, at the end of his first term, for a “prior history of illegal activity.”

“We have full custody of the ship, and are seeing what’s on board!” Mr. Trump wrote on social media.

One way to interpret these moves is that they are efforts to shape the negotiating sessions, just as generals try to shape the battlefield. The Iranians are demonstrating that no matter what happens or what they give up, they will be able to control commerce across the strait and charge millions of dollars for passage. The Trump administration is demonstrating that it is willing to reopen hostilities if negotiations fail.

Mr. Trump reinforced that point on Sunday, writing that a good deal is on the table.

“I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY.”

It was the latest example of how Mr. Trump has veered from complimenting Iran’s new leaders, who replaced those killed in the strikes that began Feb. 28, as “more reasonable” than their predecessors, to warning them of more violence ahead if he doesn’t get his way.

But while that is a new element in the talks, the cultural divide in how to negotiate is not.

That divide was evident 11 years ago, in the gilded halls of the 160-year-old Beau-Rivage Palace Hotel in Lausanne, Switzerland, where Secretary of State John Kerry and his counterparts from five other countries struggled to close a preliminary agreement with Iran. It was, perhaps, the closest analogue to what is unfolding now in Islamabad.

Every day the American delegation would speak about how many centrifuges had to be disassembled and how much uranium needed to be shipped out of country. Yet when Iranian officials — including Abbas Araghchi, now the Iranian foreign minister — stepped out of the elegant, chandeliered rooms to brief reporters, most of the questions about those details were waved away. The Iranians talked about preserving respect for their rights and Iran’s sovereignty.

“I remember we finally got the parameters agreed upon at the hotel,” Wendy Sherman, the chief U.S. negotiator at the time, said on Monday. “And then a few days later the supreme leader came out and said, ‘Actually, some very different terms were required.’”

Ms. Sherman, who went on to become deputy secretary of state in the Biden administration, would go into these negotiations with a large posse. She often had the C.I.A.’s top Iran expert in the room, or nearby. So was the energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, an expert in nuclear weapons design. Proposals floated by the Iranians would be sent back to the U.S. national laboratories, where weapons are designed and tested, for expert analysis of whether the agreements being discussed would keep Iran at least a year away from a bomb.

But Mr. Trump’s negotiating team travels light, with no entourage of experts and few briefings. Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, the president’s son-in-law and the special envoy, learned their negotiating skills in New York real estate and say a deal is a deal. They say they have immersed themselves in the details of the Iran program, and know it well.

Moreover, even if the issues they are facing are very much the same ones that the Obama-era negotiators faced, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff see little value in spending hours poring over the diplomatic history, especially given what Mr. Trump had to say about the resulting agreement.

But Mr. Trump is clearly sensitive about the coming comparisons. “The DEAL that we are making with Iran will be FAR BETTER than the JCPOA,” he said, using the acronym for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the formal name for the 2015 accord. “It was a guaranteed Road to a Nuclear Weapon, which will not, and cannot, happen with the deal we’re working on.”

And with that, Mr. Trump set up the test that his own negotiation, if successful, may be measured by.

David E. Sanger covers the Trump administration and a range of national security issues. He has been a Times journalist for more than four decades and has written four books on foreign policy and national security challenges.“