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"
