Who would you invite to dinner, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X? Light Skin vs. Dark Skin an internal issue of race.

TBR 
Editor-in-Chief Leighton Bradford 
An esteemed relationship with a Black woman is the most coveted aspect of our race. There are men locked up right now flexing for a presumed Cleopatra. Displaced ambition is manipulated and leads to social degradation. Meaning; brothers will steal, deal, and kill to obtain a "rep" (reputation for Mandingo prowess), and the affection of said Nubian Queen aka Black woman.  Misogyny within the rap world is often young men voicing anger and frustration, with not being able to provide the traditional means for their woman. It is the responsibility of an identified race to police an industry, community, block, and race! If you purchase the music or attend the show calm yourself.  Ever since our anthropological ancestors or "Lucy" aka Australopithecus afarensis, females within a species seek out a male which will ensure her offspring safety, and promote the best genetic signature for the future. That's the first concept within this piece, you with me?

There is a letter or brochure from an English slave holder by the name of willie lynch which taught the finer points of divide and conquer, check this out:

. While Rome used cords of wood as crosses for standing human bodies along its highways in great numbers, you are here using the tree and the rope on occasions. I caught the whiff of a dead slave hanging from a tree, a couple miles back. You are not only losing valuable stock by hangings, you are having uprisings, slaves are running away, your crops are sometimes left in the fields too long for maximum profit, you suffer occasional fires, your animals are killed. Gentlemen, you know what your problems are; I do not need to elaborate. I am not here to enumerate your problems, I am here to introduce you to a method of solving them. In my bag here, I HAVE A FULL PROOF METHOD FOR CONTROLLING YOUR BLACK SLAVES. I guarantee every one of you that, if installed correctly, IT WILL CONTROL THE SLAVES FOR AT LEAST 300 HUNDREDS YEARS. My method is simple. Any member of your family or your overseer can use it. I HAVE OUTLINED A NUMBER OF DIFFERENCES AMONG THE SLAVES; AND I TAKE THESE DIFFERENCES AND MAKE THEM BIGGER. I USE FEAR, DISTRUST AND ENVY FOR CONTROL PURPOSES. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies and it will work throughout the South. Take this simple little list of differences and think about them. On top of my list is “AGE,” but it’s there only because it starts with an “a.” The second is “COLOR” or shade. There is INTELLIGENCE, SIZE, SEX, SIZES OF PLANTATIONS, STATUS on plantations, ATTITUDEof owners, whether the slaves live in the valley, on a hill, East, West, North, South, have fine hair, course hair, or is tall or short. Now that you have a list of differences, I shall give you an outline of action, but before that, I shall assure you that DISTRUST IS STRONGER THAN TRUST AND ENVY STRONGER THAN ADULATION, RESPECT OR ADMIRATION. The Black slaves after receiving this indoctrination shall carry on and will become self-refueling and self-generating for HUNDREDS of years, maybe THOUSANDS. Don’t forget, you must pitch the OLD black male vs. the YOUNG black male, and the YOUNG black male against the OLD black male. You must use the DARK skin slaves vs. the LIGHT skin slaves, and the LIGHT skin slaves vs. the DARK skin slaves. You must use the FEMALE vs. the MALE, and the MALE vs. the FEMALE. You must also have white servants and overseers [who] distrust all Blacks. But it is NECESSARY THAT YOUR SLAVES TRUST AND DEPEND ON US. THEY MUST LOVE, RESPECT AND TRUST ONLY US. Gentlemen, these kits are your keys to control. Use them. Have your wives and children use them, never miss an opportunity.IF USED INTENSELY FOR ONE YEAR, THE SLAVES THEMSELVES WILL REMAIN PERPETUALLY DISTRUSTFUL. Thank you gentlemen.” This speech was delivered by Willie Lynch on the bank of the James River in the colony of Virginia in 1712.  Lynch was a British slave owner in the West Indies. He was invited to the colony of Virginia in 1712 to teach his methods to slave owners there. The term “lynching” is derived from his last name". 

The second concept is the most recent Light Skin vs. Dark Skin phenomenon. I was recently listening to a local radio station in Memphis, TN with the call sign 97.1FM, and the DJ's (Sometimes funny man Prescott) whatever the hell that really is; went on about a light skin brother day. If a Black woman prefers either a light skin or dark skin brother that's on her! Cats that perpetuate the myth, because they can't attract a female otherwise; moreover, their genetic makeup precludes normal procreation, really role up their sleeves on this one. Every African -American has a relative that runs the gambit in regards to color and hue. It becomes a sad joke for confused folk, perpetuating this tail, spun by one of the most diabolical minds, this side of Adolph Hitler. It seems a few individuals buy into this scheme, at the expense of reason and understanding. Angela Davis as opposed to Harriet Tubman; Malcolm X as oppose to Dr. King; Rosa Parks as oppose to Fannie Lou Hamer; President Barack Obama as oppose to Johnny Cochran. In a nut shell, we are all human beings that deserve equality and freedom, and a world devoid of self hate

The last concept is sons and daughters of Harriet Beecher Stowe. I am quite certain you recognize the aforementioned entity. Basically they will be out in public whispering to someone "Man that light skin nigga ain't shit"!

European Commission US subsidies to Boeing are illegal, says WTO

TBR international Press Release[Please review, tbr associated piece, What the WTO held...]CIVIL AVIATION Brussels, 31 March 2011

EU wins key WTO case proving Boeing received billions in subsidies from United States

EU wins key WTO case proving Boeing received billions in subsidies from United States The European Commission welcomes the WTO Panel report published today which found that billions of dollars in US Federal and State subsidies granted to Boeing are illegal under WTO rules. This landmark ruling has clearly confirmed the EU’s position on all of its main claims, Notably that between 1989 and 2006 the US Federal and State governments granted WTO-incompatible subsidies to Boeing amounting to at least US$ 5.3 billion. Planned future subsidies are estimated to be worth between US$ 3 to 4 billion.

"This WTO Panel report clearly shows that Boeing has received huge subsidies in the past and continues to receive significant subsidies today. The US began this dispute in 2004 and now finds itself with a crystal clear ruling that exposes its long-running multi-billion dollar subsidisation of Boeing through Federal and State programmes as illegal.", said EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht. "These subsidies have resulted in substantial harm to EU interests, causing Airbus to lose sales, depress its aircraft prices and unfairly lose market share to Boeing. The detrimental costs to EU industry from this lengthy and onerous subsidisation run into billions of euro. We therefore welcome the WTO Panel's report and call on the US Government to take the appropriate steps that may assist to achieve a mutually agreed solution to this dispute.", Commissioner De Gucht added.

The report is supported by clear and solid findings from the Panel covering each of the main sources of subsidisation provided by the US, including: (i) R&D programmes funds granted by NASA and the US Department of Defense (DoD) to Boeing amounting to US$1.3 - 2 billion; (ii) NASA and DoD "general support" to the tune of US$ 1.5 billion; (iii) Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) export subsidies – US$ 2.2 billion; and (iv) Washington State tax breaks to a value of up to US$ 4 billion for the period 2006-24.

All of these subsidies are in violation of WTO Rules since they constitute actionable subsidies which cause adverse effects to the interests of the EU and Airbus. The panel also confirmed that the federal FSC/ETI tax breaks for Boeing amount to prohibited subsidies, which according to WTO rules must be withdrawn by the US without delay.

These massive subsidies from multiple US Government sources have enabled Boeing to develop new aircraft, and in particular the 787 "Dreamliner", at much lower cost than would otherwise have been the case.

In contrast to the Panel in the Airbus case, this Panel quantified the amount of WTO-incompatible subsidies granted to Boeing. Support to Boeing has been and continues to be in the form of non-repayable grants or free access to government facilities, as opposed to that in the Airbus case where the most important instrument, Repayable Launch Investment (RLI), was considered to be WTO-compatible in principle, with the subsidy element being, for certain cases, solely the difference in conditions provided in comparison to other repayable commercial financing.

Background to the WTO Aircraft Cases

Since October 2004, the EU and US have been contesting at the WTO their Governments' respective support to their aerospace industries. Both WTO challenges relate to alleged illegal WTO support to respectively Airbus and Boeing over a 20 to 30 year period.

Prior to these WTO challenges, US and EU government support to their aircraft producers had been regulated by the so-called "Bilateral EU-US Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft". This agreement, concluded in 1992, allowed each party to provide a certain level of support to their respective aircraft industry. In the case of the EU, the agreement permitted granting of so-called "Repayable Launch Investment" to Airbus i.e. loans repaid with interest under terms specified in the Agreement. In the case of the US, it allowed a certain level of government financed R&D support to the US aerospace producer, Boeing. In order to monitor compliance with the terms of the bilateral agreement, annual meetings and regular exchanges of information took place.

On the 6 October 2004, the United States quite unexpectedly and unilaterally announced its withdrawal from the 1992 Agreement and immediately filed a challenge at the WTO of all EU support ever granted to Airbus, even though the US had previously agreed to this support.
In turn, the EU was left with little option than to respond itself immediately with a parallel WTO challenge of US government support to US aerospace industry (i.e. Boeing) by Federal, State and local authorities, including benefits to Boeing under the so-called US Foreign Sales Corporation Scheme, which the US government had continued to provide to Boeing, despite these subsidies having repeatedly been found to violate WTO rules.

These two parallel WTO challenges, the "Airbus case" (DS 316: the US challenge of EU support for Airbus) and the "Boeing case" (DS 353: the EU challenge of US support to Boeing), despite having been initiated on the same day (6 October 2004), have followed different timetables due to a number of delays at the WTO. In the "Airbus case", the WTO panel made its report public on 30 June 2010 whereas in the "Boeing case", the panel only issued its final public report on 31 March 2011.

As a result of the delays of the DS 353 panel, there is now close to a year's gap between the two WTO proceedings, a fact which the EU has continuously expressed its dissatisfaction with. On 23 July 2010 the EU appealed the panel's findings in DS316 and these proceedings are expected to be completed in the first half of 2011.

For further information

• Factsheet on the "Boeing case" DS 353