Leave it to the Cleaver: Congressional Black Caucus overt double standard

Maybe it’s just my imagination or has our fine nation become that hypersensitive that we have started looking for hidden messages because those actual messages in plain English don’t exist? Seems rather self-serving, doesn’t it? It also seems self promotion through divisions, such as race, are circling the drain as pundits scramble through sentences of ideological opponents for “subliminal racist” messages.   

That’s the latest word from the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Emanuel Cleaver (D) of Missouri. Mr Cleaver is the super sleuth who decoded two recent Presidentialcandidates sentences that appear to be dog whistle words to the Republican red-neck base that President Obama is in fact (gasp) a black (50%) man. 

Yes, it appears that the racist voters who are on the fence of reelecting a black man need to be reminded that in fact Mr Obama is well… black, you know… in case they forgot.

I am going to go out on a limb and predict racist’s who vote based on color or would have their vote’s at least weighted in such nonsense would not need a reminding; but I’m also not equipped with the: Racist Code Detector Version 7.5 who can spot such subliminal messages.

See, to a typical person, phrases like Gingrich’s “food stamp president” and Mitt Romney’s comments on “the very poor” would think: Poor. However, if equipped with: Racist Code Detector Version 7.5 you would in fact see the real meaning: “damn the black-man and do no reelect him because he is only helping blacks”!

So, if racists will vote against whom they despise anyway without a subliminal message; why the need for the racist code detector version 7.5? The answer is simple. It’s nothing more then a power grab. First, this is the Webster definition of a Caucus:

  

: a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy; also : a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause

That seems to be a simple premise, is closed meeting of persons united to promote an agreed upon cause. Forty years ago the Congressional Black Caucus was founded “to positively influence the course of events pertinent to African Americans and others of similar experience and situation.” So, its a closed meeting of like minded people who want to help black people. Now, this is where it gets interesting…

In a piece done in 2007, Politico’s Josephine Hearn told the story about Stephen I. Cohen, a Liberal Democrat who was rejected for membership to the caucus because he was white. Despite the fact that 60% of his constituents were black not to mention the majority of his staff was African American including his chief of staff. Seems rather confusing considering that a caucus is “a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause” and being its black, meaning race – Mr Cohen fits, his policies (Liberal Democrat) and his constituents fit that mission.

It was William Clay Jr (D) from Missouri who had the courage (or audacity) to lay it out in black and white (pardon the pun) for why Mr Cohen was not allowed directly from a state from his office:

Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.

Now we have the answer. Its not about “the needs and concerns of the black population” because if it was you wouldn’t reject a man applying to your “club” who wants to do exactly what your statement above says – help blacks (you know the people who elected him). This seems like the complete opposite of representation. And let me remind you again, its not about representation, its about power – this is just one of many clear examples.

In that same article was also the story of how Al Green (D) from Texas (now a member of the Black Caucus) got elected despite running against an incumbent Chris Bell, D-Texas who was also a Democrat but white. Hearn stated that:

Although House tradition discourages members of the same party from working against each other, about a dozen black lawmakers contributed to Bell's opponent, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, the eventual victor. Even Bell's Houston neighbor, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Black Caucus member), D-Texas, campaigned against him. 

That is another example of those in the Black Caucus of favoring skin color over policy. It would be “subliminal” if it was a Republican but to be doing this to those in your own party? This is another example of how the two party system is nothing but a sham, a fraud used to promote division across many lines and race being one of them and one of the easiest to promote at that.  

Last but not least, we have the Chairman – Mr Cleaver, the guy with the Racist Code Detector Version 7.5. I will let his quotes on the subliminal messages paint the picture:

“In the last few days, both Gov. Romney and Speaker Gingrich have been guilty of saying things that are not helpful to a society begging for racial inclusion. Whether they are intentional or not, I’m not 100 percent certain; I do know that it doesn't matter in many cases. It’s just unfortunate and it tends to divide.”

Cleaver went on to chide Congress for being “nasty” rather than “inclusive.”

Is there anything left to say? Do I have to point out the hypocrisy of the Congressional Black Caucus or do these quotes of double talk do the job? If not, let these words sink in by J.C. Watts (who is black) was elected to Congress from Oklahoma in 1994 on his views of the Congressional Black Caucus:

They said that I had sold out and (called me) Uncle Tom. But I have my thoughts. And I think they're race-hustling poverty pimps"

Lesser of two evils come November? I cant see it.

 

Is there a difference between Romney and Obama? I have been critical of both Mr Romney and President Obama for various reasons but both being so different in terms of background, surly they cant be that similar, right? When the subject comes up of differentiating between the two I find myself scratching my head. The same head scratching can be said for those folks who ask me my support for either two, and when I reveal my support of Ron Paul regardless if he’s third party or not, it’s often met with the same rebuttal: “it’s a waste of a vote, its better to pick the lesser of two evils”. However, I just can’t seem to grasp the difference between the two men as far as policy is concerned.  

  

Sure, Romney has the business experience, that is unquestionable a difference and he has balanced the budget as Governor in Massachusetts. Both of those are very big props for Romney in my book… but other than that, I looked and I can’t find a difference between the eventual nominee for the Republicans (Mittens) and the incumbent, President Obama (at least not in the pivotal positions).

- Obama has maintained the foreign policy of an empire, just as Romney would do (although Romney said he would actually increase spending on defense) not to mention he chastised the President for pulling out of Iraq. No savings there.    

- Obama has continued to support even more of an assault on our personal liberty’s extending the Patriot Act and signing NDAA, wouldn’t you know it - Romney supports both. Liberty trampled on again.

- Obama passed Universal Healthcare as did Romney. Romney even is proud of his healthcare bill, (‘I’m very proud of my health-care plan and think it should be a model for other states to adopt’) or at least he was before he was against it again.

What do we have left? Taxes. Yes, taxes, death and Mittens oh boy! This is the same guy who didn’t release his taxes because he didn’t wantto show he paid at or under the 15 percentile reserved for Capital gains (between 13.9-15%) on over 40 Million dollars of income. That would show he is using loopholes (although legal) just like many of our corporations do.

Romney said recently that Obama passed 19 tax increases under his terms as POTUS. Most people on the right would believe that to be true, he is said to be the most polarizing president in our history isn’t he? Although the validity to those tax hikes in question has been shaky and even a few of the 19 suspected raises have been actually proved false, Mitt continues his assault. For the record, the Obama tax increases were minimal in nominal terms considering (the large deficit) and directed at very specific small targets; not wide wielding swaths of people and demographics as Romney would have you believe.

The truth of the matter is Obama has cut taxes too. He did so in his 700+ Billion dollar stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) he then cut taxes in the ‘December 2010 tax deal’ that extended the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts were worth $654 Billion and if you factor in the 250+ Billion from the ARRA cuts in his 2009 Stimulus act, we are talking 900 Billion in Tax cuts through his administration. I think its safe to say he has cut more taxes than he has increased taxes by a large sum.

Look at the revenue or receipts our government is pulling in. If we were seeing tax increases, wouldn’t we also being seeing soaring revenue? We aren’t. We are in a massive economic quagmire and tax cuts will not get us out of it. And if we continue to cut taxes and keep the budget as is or increase it, we will only cause even more damage down the road. And that seems like the message from Newt, Obama or Mitt.  

While I agree with the Republican field running for the oval office about the over-regulation that we are seeing under this administration; it’s not what ails us either. What we have is a political atmosphere where nobody wants to make the touch decision and cut major aspects off our budget or raise taxes to pay for the bills we have. Obama or Romney will never do it; they lack the thick skin and willingness to lead by example despite the consequences. responsible debt is one thing, what these kooks are proposing is simply not feasible long term. 

Romney has no plan to cut government just spend an equal amount or more and lower taxes for the richest Americans. Obama seems to have no plan at all and while he lowered taxes he increased regulation and didn't do anything to make cuts. Gingrich? He thinks we can save 500 Billion annually on modernization, he’s also the same guy who said Fannie and Freddie hired him as a historian... not a lobbyist. He won’t be the nominee but it further drives home the point. The 900 lb gorilla in the room remains Keynesian economics. Until we face the reality of the magnitude that beast has in terms of influence and destruction we will be here every four years with the same logical outcome: vote for a Paul (Ron or Rand).

Death, Mittens' and Taxes... What doesnt fit?

You have to admire Mittens'. He’s the Charlie Brown of this election and more so than any other election to my recollection. Here is a guy teetering on the edge (of what feels like has been years) of being anointed the Republican nominee; and all he does is have the football pulled out from underneath him at almost every turn. The problem is it’s not Lucy doing it. Lucy (the Establishment) has been there the whole time. Mitt himself is the one who is doing the tripping.  

Everyone from the media - to the Democrats - to the Establishment moderate Republican base all wants Mitt Romney. He looks the part; he would be the opposite of President Obama in background and job experience. Romney could be a brand name; in the Bush and Clinton mold. His father was a Governor and he has kids involved in politics; he's the Manchurian Candidate. So why can’t he close the deal?

“I don’t know how many years I’ll release,” said Romney over-top of a booing crowd. Romney pauses then puts on his best presidential smile. “I’ll release multiple years, I don’t know how many years.” 

Look no further than the issue surrounding his taxes for a perfect example of why. Romney has always been known for doing or saying whatever pleases whomever he is standing in front of. Or whomever his handlers inform him of who is in needing of some spooning. That’s why his insistence to not reveal his taxes is incredibly uncharacteristic of Mr Romney. It’s got him booed in the debates. Its gotten him beat up on the trail. And it justified or not, cemented people’s views of him being an elite-out of touch-aristocrat.

Mittens’ own father, former Michigan Governor George Romney, released 12 years of taxes during his 1967 presidential bid. Mittens’ is on record in the Boston Globe, in 1994 calling out Ted Kennedy for not releasing his taxes: “It’s time the biggest-taxing senator in Washington shows the people of Massachusetts how much he pays in taxes.” And Romney won’t release his taxes?

This is a guy who everyone knows to be a flip flopper. He has changed his positions unlike anyone since the day of YouTubes inception. Why, considering the heat… considering his past demands for his opponents to release them… considering his own father felt it a need to be transparent. Romney has always preferred political expedience above everything else including character; why not simply release them?

I see it either or both two ways:

1. His tax rate. Romney is said to worth anywhere between 90-250 million. Gingrich for example showed income of 3.1 Million in 2010 and paid 31% of it to taxes. If Romney is using the 15% Capital gains tax; it would mean he is paying half the tax rate of say a Newt Gingrich who is worth considerably less. That wouldn’t fly in this economy nor would it do much to divorce him from the picture of him being an elitist taking advantage of loopholes (regardless if they are legal).

2. Romney wants to just get to Super -Tuesday and then coast. Thus wrapping up the nomination and then promptly releasing his returns in April long after the dust is settled. Romney knows he isn’t a conservative, thus getting out of this vetting process will (in his eyes) be his biggest hurdle because he knows the Republicans will choose him over President Obama. Its then, when Romney’s true strengths will take over. His blend of moderate ideals coupled with his keen business acumen can go head to head with Obama in where the election will be won and lost. In that 15-20 percentile of independent voters.

Just one problem with his strategy, he has hit his ceiling. We now know he didn't win Iowa, only won New Hampshire because he lives there and now he looks like he will lose South Carolina. We could be witnesses to a meltdown of epic proportions. One that has been years in the making.

Ron Paul surging in South Carolina

Kevin Kervick, Manchester Independent Examiner

You may not read about it in the manistream press or see it on television but Ron Paul is surging in South Carolina.

According to the statistical average at the New York Times poll crunching blog 538, compiled by analyst Nate Silver, Congressman Paul is running third in South Carolina. Of all the candidates, Congressman Paul has the greatest forward momentum. Paul is rallying in all of the South Carolina polls released after the New Hampshire Primary, in which Paul finished a strong second place. In one poll, from the American Research Group, Congressman Paul has gained eleven points since their last poll was taken on January 5th. In the PPP poll, Paul gained six points and former Senator Santorum dropped five points in one week. In the Rasmussen poll, Congressman Paul is up five points and Santorum is down eight points since last week.

Another factor that is contributing to the optimism of Ron Paul's supporters is his surprising over-performance relative to the polls taken right before the New Hampshire Primary. Congressman Paul had an average poll rating of 17.5 percent in New Hampshire on the morning of the Primary. He finished with almost 23 percent of the vote, a five percentage point discrepancy. Each of the other candidates finished close to his final polling average in New Hampshire. This suggests that some pollsters may be under-polling demographic groups that are coming out strong for Congressman Paul.

The weekend talk shows are focusing on the conflict between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, and Senator Santorum's endorsement from a group of Evangelical Christian leaders. As usual, mainstream writers and political commentators are ignoring a big story - Ron Paul is running a terrific campaign and is seeing his support grow significantly in South Carolina.

"GOP leaders want Ron Paul to lose" by JOHN KASS , Chicago Tribune

With the Iowa caucuses just a few days away, the Republican establishment is busy with some frightening new themes, like:

What happens in Iowa stays in Iowa.

Or: Who cares what happens in Iowa anyway?

My favorite comes direct from the unyielding mind of Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican who insists that American voters don't care which candidate wins the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3.

"People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third," said Branstad. "If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and other states."

Losing Iowa helps in New Hampshire? So it's not winning that counts, it's losing? What the?

Is he high?

Republican bigwig minds can't be besotted by Hopium. That's a liberal Democratic leaf for Democratic pipes depressed that Chicago's City Hall has run the country into the ground.

No, Republicans must be smoking something else, something just as potent: Dopium, a leaf so powerful that it allowed many Republicans to call themselves "conservatives" while embracing a series of big-government programs and federal bailouts from the Bush administration, not to mention two wars.

Gov. Branstad isn't alone. The entire Republican establishment is babbling similar nonsense about the importance of being earnest -- and a loser in Iowa.

Meanwhile, the Republican-media high priests are now in full-throated roar. From the secular pulpits they predict unending torment and Obamanation for anyone foolish enough to embrace the current heretical teachings.

And the name of this heretic? Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and libertarian who is leading most polls in Iowa with a message of cutting government, including the defense budget, and staying out of wars.

The problem isn't that he's saying it. Paul has been consistent for years. The problem for the GOP establishment is that the American people are now listening.

And this threatens the coalition that can put Karl Rove and Wall Street and the religious right at the same table to slice the pie of power.

The fact that voters, particularly younger voters, are edging toward Paul has sent the GOP into a panic.

"His supporters are younger and more likely to [use] a cellphone, so he's probably going to perform better than his polling suggests," Iowa State associate professor Dave Peterson told cbsnews.com. "His supporters are also dedicated and will likely turn out on caucus night and not change their minds."

Republicans sure changed their minds about Mitt Romney, a moderate who yearns to be conservative during party primaries. Republicans pegged him for what he is, a corporate stiff, every hair in place, who'll run left the second he secures the nomination.

Tim Pawlenty? Just another can of Spam. Rick Perry stuck both boots in his mouth and kept them there. It's a wonder he has any lips left.

Michele Bachmann had her troubles with American history, and Rick Santorum seems ready to punch anyone who won't let him attack Iran tomorrow morning.

And Herman Cain? With so many "girlfriend" stories buzzing around him, he was tagged on the Internet with an M.C. Hammer-type parody theme song: "Cain Touched This."

Now it's Newt Gingrich's turn to drop his blossoms. What was it exactly?

That $1.6 million chunk that his consulting firm took from federal mortgage giant Freddie Mac as it was getting a massive federal bailout? Or that pledge of marital fidelity he signed the other day, suggesting that his oath to his third wife wasn't nearly enough?

Since August, the media has desperately avoided mentioning Paul. I'm not endorsing him here. But you'd have to be blind not to see Republican bosses in panic. Because if Paul wins Iowa, his ideas might catch fire.

Once there was no more amusing sight for me than watching Democratic mouthpieces appearing on TV, claiming then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Rezko -- backed by all those guys from Chicago's City Hall -- would bring hope and change as he transcended the broken politics of America's past.

The journalistic high priests, their brains swollen by several bowls of Hopium, chattered and repeated the slogans of City Hall's favorite mouthpiece, David Axelrod.

So Americans never quite realized that the man they were electing president had been an earnest but inexperienced back-bencher in the Illinois Legislature who spent his entire career taking orders from machine bosses while trying to get ahead.

Hopium was bad enough. But what worries me are all those clouds of Dopium wafting across Iowa.

Fair and Balanced???? Really?

Its pretty safe to say most of us realize that most all media is slanted one way or another if not for any other reason then marketing segmentation. This is very obvious on cable news with CNN, Fox and MSNBC. Just take a look at MSNBC’s slogan: “Lean Forward”. Does it get more obvious then that?

Fox News tilts to the right and although they say they are “fair and balanced” I had a hunch it wasn’t the case just based off memory from tuning in time to time. What I found was pretty telling. I went to Foxnews.com and did a simple search with this criterion:

Fox News-Story-Past month-Politics

Mentions are pretty obvious and a lead story is when the subject name is in the headline. Now before we see the results, remember... what has went on in the Republican primaries the last month. Cain dropped out, Gingrich fell on his face and Paul has risen to the top of the Iowa Caucus polling. With all that said here are the results:

Romney 82 mentions with 24 lead stories

Gingrich 77 mentions with 23 lead stories

And lastly, Ron Paul… 33 mentions with 1 lead story and it laughably ran today (24 days into the month) entitled:

Newsletters, Statements Cause Campaign Trail Problems for Ron Paul

How is the candidate leading in Iowa the most conservative man running and one who has the most diverse crowds in the field have only one lead story and coincidentally enough it’s a negative one? Isn’t it interesting Romney and Gingrich are almost even? Does the Republican establishment not want Paul to gain traction. Without question they do not. Does Fox news? Obviously they will not cover him, even if he was leading the polls in Iowa... so no, its obvious they have no vested interest in him let alone him gaining traction. So what is the relationship between Fox and the Republican Establishment?

Republicans Money(ball) problem

Its often said that Ron Paul has no chance to capture the nomination, and its said so much by so many people in all types of media that there is no need to rehash it. We get it. He is too old, too kooky, to outside of the mainstream and his delivery and appearance isn’t presidential enough.

Every time I hear Ron Paul doesn’t have the appearance to become elected President much less elected the Republican nomination I always think of the quote from the book Moneyball. Right before the amateur draft the GM and his scouts are in a room debating players. Oakland A’s GM Billy Bean is squabbling back and forth with a typical player with an older scout, who finally just says the player doesn’t have the body to be a ballplayer.

Frustrated Beane tells his scouts: “ we're not selling jeans here”.

The book Moneyball is a lot like the current GOP. It’s a good ‘ol boy network of establishment brand names vetted by the press and by the power structure that’s calls itself the RNC. It’s the party of Grover Norquist and Karl Rove. It’s the party that panders to big business and social conservatives or basically anyone that will guarantee groups of people who will be pulling Republican levers down come election days. And lest not be confused, it’s not limited to Republicans. The Democrat’s establishment is just as guilty if not more. You see, the Republican establishment only has one network pandering to it.

Appearance is everything. Content is only credible if it is sellable. With that said, you can get people like Romney or Rick Perry to be in the spotlight. Rick Perry, much like Newt Gingrich is a career politician and both are without question RINO’s. Even Perry at one point was an elected Democrat before he “seen the light”, conveniently after he voted for a 5.7 Billion dollar tax increase in the Texas State legislature. But that doesn’t matter. They are egotistical maniacs who will do whatever a focus group tells them to do that make them look favorable in way or another. Perry might not be so much like this, but he has Jesus on his side, so that works too... that’s sellable.

What about Mitt Romney? If there is anyone that is more fallible to waffling, it’s the Mitt. Nobody has been for more after he was against it. Hes a wet dream for the RNC and Fox and whoever else likes a happy meal - Manchurian candidate. He is good looking, articulate, from Big business and has lots of well connected friends. Mitt has always and will continue to be the golden boy of the establishment Republicans and you cant fault them for that. He’s the ideal company man, the good - trusty servant. But he doesn’t serve your interests, he serves their interests.

That’s where this gets interesting. The book Moneyball was based around new versus old ideas. Modern technology versus the naked eye. That’s exactly what is happening in the Republican Party as we speak. We are seeing the old players; the Limbaughs and the Romneys and Bushes and John MCains of the country vehemently oppose the most conservative man not only in congress but in any federal branch of government for that matter. Because it petrifies them, they might not understand it, why they discount him but its simple. Their brand will be toast. They will not be as viable.

Ron Paul wants to put an end to crony capitalism and corporate welfare. He wants to shrink big government. Everything he wants to do is for freedom. That is republicanism at its core. With a limited government why raise taxes or fight endless wars? If you have a limited government how can you attempt to control and govern morality? You can’t. So if government has less control then that means someone has more and they don’t want that. Give the power back to the electorate; after all the work to strip them of that power? Dig in Mr Paul because if these tired, token and cyclical racists’ newsletters from the early 90’s are any indication; you’re going to get the kitchen sink.